OK folks, these two companies are well-known for making high-quality,
audiophile-level amplifiers, without an extremely high price. The
reason I came up with this question was a fairly silly one: I noticed
that Telarc Records (based in Cleveland) has used both amps for
monitoring its recordings at various times, and I wondered how
different they really were. What do you think?

Thanks,

Adam


--

"Better" relevant to what? These days amps are a commodity product so the
question is in what application with what current demands etc. is the
relevant point. If these two amps within their designs don't cause
problems then both are equal, which also is the case for any number of
amps these days.


--

In article , "Adam"
wrote:

OK folks, these two companies are well-known for making high-quality,
audiophile-level amplifiers, without an extremely high price. The
reason I came up with this question was a fairly silly one: I noticed
that Telarc Records (based in Cleveland) has used both amps for
monitoring its recordings at various times, and I wondered how
different they really were. What do you think?

Thanks,

Adam


Recording studio monitoring is about transparency.

The answer to your question is yes.

--
-Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*


--

wrote:
"Better" relevant to what? These days amps are a commodity product so the
question is in what application with what current demands etc. is the
relevant point. If these two amps within their designs don't cause
problems then both are equal, which also is the case for any number of
amps these days.


--

OK, I can be more specific. Natural, lifelike sound reproduction, from
very low to very high amplitudes, would seem to be a central pursuit of
audiophiles. Obviously, this is something of a naive statement,
because it is clear that many self-titled audiophiles exhibit more love
for technology than for music. The comparison between amps would be
taking place in a listening room at home, not in a commercial recording
studio, or other venue. I would also stipulate that the amps would be
driving fairly high-efficiency speakers (not like classic Thiels, for
example).

If you want to comment on laboratory measurements, that's fine.
However, I get the feeling that most well-built solid-state amps of 200
W/channel or more, built within the last 30 years or so, have
vanishingly low distortion levels, and rarely are pushed into clipping
at comfortable listening levels.

So, I suppose it comes back to what your ears tell you, and I would be
very interested in knowing if any of you had ever enjoyed the
opportunity to compare the two amp brands, either at the same time or
not.

Thanks for your comments,

Adam


--

Adam wrote:
wrote:
"Better" relevant to what? These days amps are a commodity product so the
question is in what application with what current demands etc. is the
relevant point. If these two amps within their designs don't cause
problems then both are equal, which also is the case for any number of
amps these days.


--

OK, I can be more specific. Natural, lifelike sound reproduction, from
very low to very high amplitudes, would seem to be a central pursuit of
audiophiles. Obviously, this is something of a naive statement,
because it is clear that many self-titled audiophiles exhibit more love
for technology than for music. The comparison between amps would be
taking place in a listening room at home, not in a commercial recording
studio, or other venue. I would also stipulate that the amps would be
driving fairly high-efficiency speakers (not like classic Thiels, for
example).

If you want to comment on laboratory measurements, that's fine.
However, I get the feeling that most well-built solid-state amps of 200
W/channel or more, built within the last 30 years or so, have
vanishingly low distortion levels, and rarely are pushed into clipping
at comfortable listening levels.

Also, flat to within a few tenths of a dB below 20kHz. Given all that,
I wouldn't expect such amps to sound different at all.

So, I suppose it comes back to what your ears tell you, and I would be
very interested in knowing if any of you had ever enjoyed the
opportunity to compare the two amp brands, either at the same time or
not.

Why in the world would anyone compare *brands*? I've never heard a
brand. Don't know what one sounds like.

bob


--

"Adam" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"Better" relevant to what? These days amps are a commodity product so
the
question is in what application with what current demands etc. is the
relevant point. If these two amps within their designs don't cause
problems then both are equal, which also is the case for any number of
amps these days.


--

OK, I can be more specific. Natural, lifelike sound reproduction, from
very low to very high amplitudes, would seem to be a central pursuit of
audiophiles. Obviously, this is something of a naive statement,
because it is clear that many self-titled audiophiles exhibit more love
for technology than for music. The comparison between amps would be
taking place in a listening room at home, not in a commercial recording
studio, or other venue. I would also stipulate that the amps would be
driving fairly high-efficiency speakers (not like classic Thiels, for
example).

If you want to comment on laboratory measurements, that's fine.
However, I get the feeling that most well-built solid-state amps of 200
W/channel or more, built within the last 30 years or so, have
vanishingly low distortion levels, and rarely are pushed into clipping
at comfortable listening levels.

So, I suppose it comes back to what your ears tell you, and I would be
very interested in knowing if any of you had ever enjoyed the
opportunity to compare the two amp brands, either at the same time or
not.

Older Bryston amps had a bit of the hard transistor "edge" to them. The
newer ones don't, and have a generic transistor amp sound, eg. not as three
dimensional as tube amps, and transparency dependent on design and parts
quality. As you yourself realize, Bryston's main reputation has been for
"value", e.g. for providing much the same sound as others at a somewhat
lower price. If you want that today, you should consider Outlaw even more
so.

Older Threshold Stasis amps, I always felt, were somehow "unmusical" and I
would never have them in my system having auditioned them. To me, they
seemed "flat" in soundstaging and undynamic in sound. I haven't heard the
new Thresholds, which may be a very different beast.

All listening sighted and not offered as "proof" of anything other than my
somewhat experienced opinion.



--

Cyrus wrote:

Recording studio monitoring is about transparency.

The answer to your question is yes.

--
-Cyrus


The original poster's question(s) was/we Bryston vs. Threshold:
Which Amps are Better? And: What do you think?

How does "yes" in any way answer them?

Jeff


--

wrote:
Cyrus wrote:

Recording studio monitoring is about transparency.

The answer to your question is yes.

--
-Cyrus


The original poster's question(s) was/we Bryston vs. Threshold:
Which Amps are Better? And: What do you think?

How does "yes" in any way answer them?

Reading for context, it would appear he meant that both amps
transparent enough that to ask which is 'better' sounding,
is pointless.


___
-S
Still not bloggin'.


--

wrote in message
...
Cyrus wrote:

Recording studio monitoring is about transparency.

The answer to your question is yes.

--
-Cyrus


The original poster's question(s) was/we Bryston vs. Threshold:
Which Amps are Better? And: What do you think?

How does "yes" in any way answer them?

"Yes".
A question for one of the "moderators"?.


[ Moderator's note: I thought it was clear. See Steve Sullivan's post.
-- deb ]


--

"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Cyrus wrote:

Recording studio monitoring is about transparency.

The answer to your question is yes.

--
-Cyrus


The original poster's question(s) was/we Bryston vs. Threshold:
Which Amps are Better? And: What do you think?

How does "yes" in any way answer them?

"Yes".
A question for one of the "moderators"?.


[ Moderator's note: I thought it was clear. See Steve Sullivan's post.
-- deb ]


FWIW, I didn't think it was clear at all....thought in fact that it was a
smart-ass reply.



--

"[ Moderator's note: I thought it was clear. See Steve Sullivan's post.

-- deb ] "
--------------------------
Apparently my myriad intellectual deficiencies precluded my recognition
of the obvious. I still find the response to have been quite cryptic.
My bad...

Jeff


--

With multiple listening alone tests done in recent years the results point
to bnot being able to distinguish amps opperating within their operating
limits one from another. Those sonic values you mention below have not
been able to divide amps in those tests because those said to having them
before the tests could not be heard as different from those said not to
have them. If no difference is heard then those previously reported
differences occur somewhere after the signal reaches the brain and is
related to prior knowledge/opinion attached to a particular brand, which
modifies the subjective experience. So "what your ears tell you" in those
tests seems a good place to start in amp choices, giving much more
latitude to features etc. then subjective reports in the press or among
friends.

OK, I can be more specific. Natural, lifelike sound reproduction, from
very low to very high amplitudes, would seem to be a central pursuit of
audiophiles. Obviously, this is something of a naive statement, because
it is clear that many self-titled audiophiles exhibit more love for
technology than for music. The comparison between amps would be taking
place in a listening room at home, not in a commercial recording studio,
or other venue. I would also stipulate that the amps would be driving
fairly high-efficiency speakers (not like classic Thiels, for example).

If you want to comment on laboratory measurements, that's fine. However, I
get the feeling that most well-built solid-state amps of 200 W/channel or
more, built within the last 30 years or so, have vanishingly low
distortion levels, and rarely are pushed into clipping at comfortable
listening levels.

So, I suppose it comes back to what your ears tell you, and I would be
very interested in knowing if any of you had ever enjoyed the opportunity
to compare the two amp brands, either at the same time or not.



--

Thanks for all of your responses, especially Harry Lavo's.

Best regards,

Adam


--

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Cyrus wrote:

Recording studio monitoring is about transparency.

The answer to your question is yes.

--
-Cyrus


The original poster's question(s) was/we Bryston vs. Threshold:
Which Amps are Better? And: What do you think?

How does "yes" in any way answer them?

"Yes".
A question for one of the "moderators"?.


[ Moderator's note: I thought it was clear. See Steve Sullivan's post.
-- deb ]


FWIW, I didn't think it was clear at all....thought in fact that it was a
smart-ass reply.



Maybe my newsreader is better-resolving than yours.


___
-S
Still not bloggin'.


--

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Cyrus wrote:

Recording studio monitoring is about transparency.

The answer to your question is yes.

--
-Cyrus


The original poster's question(s) was/we Bryston vs. Threshold:
Which Amps are Better? And: What do you think?

How does "yes" in any way answer them?

"Yes".
A question for one of the "moderators"?.


[ Moderator's note: I thought it was clear. See Steve Sullivan's post.
-- deb ]


FWIW, I didn't think it was clear at all....thought in fact that it was a
smart-ass reply.



Maybe my newsreader is better-resolving than yours.

Where's your smiley, Steven? :-)



--

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

wrote:
Cyrus wrote:

Recording studio monitoring is about transparency.

The answer to your question is yes.

--
-Cyrus


The original poster's question(s) was/we Bryston vs. Threshold:
Which Amps are Better? And: What do you think?

How does "yes" in any way answer them?

Reading for context, it would appear he meant that both amps
transparent enough that to ask which is 'better' sounding,
is pointless.


___
-S
Still not bloggin'.


Thank you for understanding.

--
-Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*


--

Adam wrote:
OK folks, these two companies are well-known for making high-quality,
audiophile-level amplifiers, without an extremely high price. The
reason I came up with this question was a fairly silly one: I noticed
that Telarc Records (based in Cleveland) has used both amps for
monitoring its recordings at various times, and I wondered how
different they really were. What do you think?

Thanks,

Adam


--

I doubt seriously that you would hear much difference. Try them out in
your home with your speakers and gear.


--

Adam wrote:

Thanks for all of your responses, especially Harry Lavo's.

Best regards,

Adam



I'd consider other brands myself.

For example the Hafler Transnova products have some merits.
The Parasound line, especially the larger 2000mkI & MkII designed by
John Curl are availble inexpensively on the used market...

etc...

The newer Nelson Pass offerings are rather different than the older
Threshold stuff.

Personally, I have never enjoyed listening to any Bryston products.
But they do have a very good warranty.

_-_-bear


--

"BEAR" wrote in message
...

Personally, I have never enjoyed listening to any Bryston products.
But they do have a very good warranty.

I don't hear anything listening to my Brystons (unless I place my head
within 2 feet of them). I have 3, they run quietly and so so far I've never
had any need for their warrantly





_-_-bear


--



--