Circumstances are forcing me to keep my beloved FM Acoustics & Bryston
amps in the studio(yeah, I know, sucks to be me, right?) so now I still
need to find a new power amp for the home stereo.

I'm looking at the Adcom GFA-5802, the Rotel RB-1080, the B&K Reference
200.2 Series 2, and maybe another Bryston 4B-SST.

And I'm wondering if perhaps I should just throw a dart to pick one.
Are there really any valid reasons for choosing one of these models
over the other? (So far, Bryston's 20 year warranty seems the most
compelling arguement.)

Roscoe East wrote:
Circumstances are forcing me to keep my beloved FM Acoustics & Bryston
amps in the studio(yeah, I know, sucks to be me, right?) so now I still
need to find a new power amp for the home stereo.

I'm looking at the Adcom GFA-5802, the Rotel RB-1080, the B&K Reference
200.2 Series 2, and maybe another Bryston 4B-SST.


I had an Adcom GFA-5802 and it sounded wonderful. I'd have kept it, but
my system has gone from pure 2-channel to a full blown home theater
setup. So I replaced the Adcom with an Outlaw 755 5-channel amp to
drive the center and surrounds in addition to the mains. Given lots
more space and an extra $5k, I would have just gotten 2 more GFA-5802
amps. Nelson Pass designed that amp and it shows.

Cheers,

On 17 Aug 2005 23:26:14 GMT, "Roscoe East"
wrote:

Circumstances are forcing me to keep my beloved FM Acoustics & Bryston
amps in the studio(yeah, I know, sucks to be me, right?) so now I still
need to find a new power amp for the home stereo.

I'm looking at the Adcom GFA-5802, the Rotel RB-1080, the B&K Reference
200.2 Series 2, and maybe another Bryston 4B-SST.

And I'm wondering if perhaps I should just throw a dart to pick one.
Are there really any valid reasons for choosing one of these models
over the other? (So far, Bryston's 20 year warranty seems the most
compelling arguement.)

It's almost certain that they'll all sound the same, so I'd go with
the Bryston for reliability and bragging rights, or the Rotel for
economy. The Adcom is somewhere in between, being a Nelson Pass
design.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Ritz" wrote in message
...
Roscoe East wrote:
Circumstances are forcing me to keep my beloved FM Acoustics & Bryston
amps in the studio(yeah, I know, sucks to be me, right?) so now I still
need to find a new power amp for the home stereo.

I'm looking at the Adcom GFA-5802, the Rotel RB-1080, the B&K Reference
200.2 Series 2, and maybe another Bryston 4B-SST.


I had an Adcom GFA-5802 and it sounded wonderful. I'd have kept it, but
my system has gone from pure 2-channel to a full blown home theater
setup. So I replaced the Adcom with an Outlaw 755 5-channel amp to
drive the center and surrounds in addition to the mains. Given lots
more space and an extra $5k, I would have just gotten 2 more GFA-5802
amps. Nelson Pass designed that amp and it shows.

Cheers,

Out of curiousity, how does the Outlaw sound to you, versus the 5802. Same,
different, better, worse? And if so, how? (p.s. this is not a trick
question and I am not asking for a dbt..just wanting your opinion.)

Harry Lavo wrote:


Out of curiousity, how does the Outlaw sound to you, versus the 5802. Same,
different, better, worse? And if so, how? (p.s. this is not a trick
question and I am not asking for a dbt..just wanting your opinion.)


It lacks the same grunt as far as deep bass goes and it had a bit more
headroom for those who like to shatter their eardrums. On the whole,
I'd say the Outlaw has 99% of the sound of the Adcom in terms of
open-ness, soundstage, and raw output. It's just as at home with
chamber music as it is with Nirvana or Janis Ian. I'm quite happy with
it. It drives my 4ohm Maggies without a hint of difficulty.

Cheers,

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 23:26:14 GMT, "Roscoe East"
wrote:

Circumstances are forcing me to keep my beloved FM Acoustics & Bryston
amps in the studio(yeah, I know, sucks to be me, right?) so now I still
need to find a new power amp for the home stereo.

I'm looking at the Adcom GFA-5802, the Rotel RB-1080, the B&K Reference
200.2 Series 2, and maybe another Bryston 4B-SST.

And I'm wondering if perhaps I should just throw a dart to pick one.
Are there really any valid reasons for choosing one of these models
over the other? (So far, Bryston's 20 year warranty seems the most
compelling arguement.)

It's almost certain that they'll all sound the same, so I'd go with
the Bryston for reliability and bragging rights, or the Rotel for
economy. The Adcom is somewhere in between, being a Nelson Pass
design.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I agree with Stewart here. But not forgetting the 20 year guarantee!

"Roscoe East" wrote in message
...
Circumstances are forcing me to keep my beloved FM Acoustics & Bryston
amps in the studio(yeah, I know, sucks to be me, right?) so now I still
need to find a new power amp for the home stereo.

I'm looking at the Adcom GFA-5802, the Rotel RB-1080, the B&K Reference
200.2 Series 2, and maybe another Bryston 4B-SST.

And I'm wondering if perhaps I should just throw a dart to pick one.
Are there really any valid reasons for choosing one of these models
over the other? (So far, Bryston's 20 year warranty seems the most
compelling arguement.)

The on/off "switch" on my Bryston 4B-SST sucks; it responds with its own
mind.

Ritz wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:



Out of curiousity, how does the Outlaw sound to you, versus the 5802.
Same,
different, better, worse? And if so, how? (p.s. this is not a trick
question and I am not asking for a dbt..just wanting your opinion.)


It lacks the same grunt as far as deep bass goes and it had a bit more
headroom for those who like to shatter their eardrums. On the whole,
I'd say the Outlaw has 99% of the sound of the Adcom in terms of
open-ness, soundstage, and raw output. It's just as at home with
chamber music as it is with Nirvana or Janis Ian. I'm quite happy with
it. It drives my 4ohm Maggies without a hint of difficulty.


Ugh...hate to follow-up my own post, but I don't think I was clear at
all in my previous note. That's what I get for posting in the wee hours
of the night...

The Adcom GFA-5802 is an outstanding amp. I had zero complaints with
it. When I "upgraded" my system to multi-channel home theater use, I
didn't have the space (the 5802 is rather large and VERY heavy) for two
more of them, nor did I feel like spending $4.5k for an extra 4 channels
to drive the center and rear surrounds. The Outlaw 755 is comparable to
the Adcom amp in terms of sound, though I think the Adcom had a bit more
"low end grunt" for DEEP DEEP bass or LFE duty. However, the Outlaw is
no slouch either. My torture test for bass is Paula Cole's Tiger from
her "This Fire" CD. That track will have a lot of amps screaming for
mercy if you've got inefficient or low impedence speakers. In terms of
having that "open" or "airy" sound and having a well defined soundstage,
I'd say the amps are very similar in sound which is amazing given the
huge price differential and the fact that you're getting 5 channels with
the Outlaw vs 2 channels with the Adcom. $2200 for the Adcom. $1149
for the Outlaw.

One major difference I note is that the Adcom amp throws off a LOT of
heat...especially at elevated output levels. You can literally burn
yourself on the heatsinks. The Outlaw never gets more than a bit warm
to the touch.

If space wasn't an issue, I'd probably just have gotten more Adcoms.
They make great music and keep ya warm in the winter. That said, if
someone put me in a dark room and asked me to tell them which amp was
playing in a "blind" test, I doubt I'd be able to tell them apart.
They're both VERY good.

Cheers,

"Ritz" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:


Out of curiousity, how does the Outlaw sound to you, versus the 5802.
Same,
different, better, worse? And if so, how? (p.s. this is not a trick
question and I am not asking for a dbt..just wanting your opinion.)


It lacks the same grunt as far as deep bass goes and it had a bit more
headroom for those who like to shatter their eardrums. On the whole,
I'd say the Outlaw has 99% of the sound of the Adcom in terms of
open-ness, soundstage, and raw output. It's just as at home with
chamber music as it is with Nirvana or Janis Ian. I'm quite happy with
it. It drives my 4ohm Maggies without a hint of difficulty.

Cheers,

Thanks, good to know. I asked because my brother-in-law is considering
Outlaw based on my experience.

I bought the Outlaw 200 monoblocks.... three of them. These are 200-300wpc
monoblocks. They replaced a VTL ST-85 and Audionics CC-2 for the front
channels...the remaining CC-2 drives the rears. The 200's do have
"grunt"...they've brought out deep bass in the Thiels (2 2's and 3.5's) that
I knew was there but just wouldn't deliver. In general they sound
wonderful...but they are neutral almost to the point of sounding slightly
dull. But they are extremely transparent, which gradually dawns as you hear
every nuance of change with upstream components....preamps, cd players, etc.
Outlaw's 30 day trial made it easy to send them back...but after two weeks
of listening and switching back and forth to the amps old and new, I
couldn't go back. The changes are subtle...but the system now has a lack of
strain and speaker control it never had before and I find myself playing
orchestral music somewhat louder than before.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 17 Aug 2005 23:26:14 GMT, "Roscoe East"
wrote:


Circumstances are forcing me to keep my beloved FM Acoustics & Bryston
amps in the studio(yeah, I know, sucks to be me, right?) so now I still
need to find a new power amp for the home stereo.

I'm looking at the Adcom GFA-5802, the Rotel RB-1080, the B&K Reference
200.2 Series 2, and maybe another Bryston 4B-SST.

And I'm wondering if perhaps I should just throw a dart to pick one.
Are there really any valid reasons for choosing one of these models
over the other? (So far, Bryston's 20 year warranty seems the most
compelling arguement.)


It's almost certain that they'll all sound the same, so I'd go with
the Bryston for reliability and bragging rights, or the Rotel for
economy. The Adcom is somewhere in between, being a Nelson Pass
design.


Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard,
mechanical and rather unpleasant. I'll stipulate that I have not heard
their very latest offerings - if they changed their topology, then there
might be some difference.

It is interesting to note that the Brystons share the same topology as
did the Krell KSA 50 & 100 series amps... which btw, also left me with a
similar impression.

Of course, if you perceive no differences in these amps, then the one
with the better warranty is best - a la "Consumer Reports" here in the
States...

_-_-bear

Harry Lavo wrote:

snip


I bought the Outlaw 200 monoblocks.... three of them. These are 200-300wpc
monoblocks. They replaced a VTL ST-85 and Audionics CC-2 for the front
channels...the remaining CC-2 drives the rears. The 200's do have
"grunt"...they've brought out deep bass in the Thiels (2 2's and 3.5's) that
I knew was there but just wouldn't deliver. In general they sound
wonderful...but they are neutral almost to the point of sounding slightly
dull. But they are extremely transparent, which gradually dawns as you hear
every nuance of change with upstream components....preamps, cd players, etc.
Outlaw's 30 day trial made it easy to send them back...but after two weeks
of listening and switching back and forth to the amps old and new, I
couldn't go back. The changes are subtle...but the system now has a lack of
strain and speaker control it never had before and I find myself playing
orchestral music somewhat louder than before.


Before the Adcom 5802, I had a pair of VTL compact 100 mono blocks.
Those were absolutely luscious in terms of sound, but they had the
somewhat typical problem in tube amps with controlling the woofers for
deep bass. I'm a real bass hound so even though I loved the sound of
the amps, I wasn't digging the muddy bass. Another "feature" of the
VTLs is that they'd occasionally blow a bias resistor and one of the
EL34 tubes would go nuclear. It only happened to me once (happened to
the previous owner a few times) and literally shot a blue flame a couple
of feet straight up from the stricken tube. So I replaced the bias
resistor thinking the amp was probably toast (huge scorch mark on the
PCB) and it just plain worked and sounded just as good as before. I'd
never heard of using a bias resistor as a fuse, but that seems to work
for the VTL folks. 8-) At that point, I replaced all the bias
resistors (I think they were 11ohm/5W/10% parts with 11ohm/10W/1% and
never had the problem again. After the flame out, my wife made me get
rid of them since we just had a baby and she was worried about the amps
being an attractive nuissance for a toddler. I always thought someday
I'd go back to tubes and get a pair of VTL Wotans or something like
that, but the Adcom convinced me that you CAN get very very natural
sound out of a properly desgned solid state amp.

For you guitar players out there, the VTLs are awesome because your
"worn out" EL34 tubes make fantastic replacements for Marshall guitar
stacks. 8-)

Cheers,

On 21 Aug 2005 15:34:42 GMT, BEAR wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 17 Aug 2005 23:26:14 GMT, "Roscoe East"
wrote:


Circumstances are forcing me to keep my beloved FM Acoustics & Bryston
amps in the studio(yeah, I know, sucks to be me, right?) so now I still
need to find a new power amp for the home stereo.

I'm looking at the Adcom GFA-5802, the Rotel RB-1080, the B&K Reference
200.2 Series 2, and maybe another Bryston 4B-SST.

And I'm wondering if perhaps I should just throw a dart to pick one.
Are there really any valid reasons for choosing one of these models
over the other? (So far, Bryston's 20 year warranty seems the most
compelling arguement.)


It's almost certain that they'll all sound the same, so I'd go with
the Bryston for reliability and bragging rights, or the Rotel for
economy. The Adcom is somewhere in between, being a Nelson Pass
design.


Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard,
mechanical and rather unpleasant. I'll stipulate that I have not heard
their very latest offerings - if they changed their topology, then there
might be some difference.

It is interesting to note that the Brystons share the same topology as
did the Krell KSA 50 & 100 series amps... which btw, also left me with a
similar impression.

Personally, I 've never heard a Bryston or Krell that didn't sound
just like any other well-designed amp. Of course, if you're using your
eyes as well as your ears, you may have a quite different impression.

Of course, if you perceive no differences in these amps, then the one
with the better warranty is best - a la "Consumer Reports" here in the
States...

Indeed so.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard,"

The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating
the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps
mentioned in this thread.

I disagree. Brystons do have a slight perceived harshness, that I
don't find in (classic topology) tube amps that measure as well as the
Brystons, or in some other solid state amps.

However, it could easily be that the Brystons are the _correct_
performing ones and the others are modifying the signal in a way we
like to listen to better than the "truthful" one-but which is not
obvious from any test easy to do with a AP Portable One and dummy
loads, which are what I own. So I cannot say the others are "better"
in terms of fidelity. They are more pleasant to listen to, however, in
my opinion.

Could we modify the signal inexpensively at line level and use a
"better" amplifier, or should we instead learn to like the "truthful"
signal better than the "altered" one? Those are questions outside this
purview.

Ritz wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

snip


I bought the Outlaw 200 monoblocks.... three of them. These are 200-300wpc
monoblocks. They replaced a VTL ST-85 and Audionics CC-2 for the front
channels...the remaining CC-2 drives the rears. The 200's do have
"grunt"...they've brought out deep bass in the Thiels (2 2's and 3.5's) that
I knew was there but just wouldn't deliver. In general they sound
wonderful...but they are neutral almost to the point of sounding slightly
dull. But they are extremely transparent, which gradually dawns as you hear
every nuance of change with upstream components....preamps, cd players, etc.
Outlaw's 30 day trial made it easy to send them back...but after two weeks
of listening and switching back and forth to the amps old and new, I
couldn't go back. The changes are subtle...but the system now has a lack of
strain and speaker control it never had before and I find myself playing
orchestral music somewhat louder than before.


Before the Adcom 5802, I had a pair of VTL compact 100 mono blocks.
Those were absolutely luscious in terms of sound, but they had the
somewhat typical problem in tube amps with controlling the woofers for
deep bass. I'm a real bass hound so even though I loved the sound of
the amps, I wasn't digging the muddy bass. Another "feature" of the
VTLs is that they'd occasionally blow a bias resistor and one of the
EL34 tubes would go nuclear. It only happened to me once (happened to
the previous owner a few times) and literally shot a blue flame a couple
of feet straight up from the stricken tube. So I replaced the bias
resistor thinking the amp was probably toast (huge scorch mark on the
PCB) and it just plain worked and sounded just as good as before. I'd
never heard of using a bias resistor as a fuse, but that seems to work
for the VTL folks. 8-) At that point, I replaced all the bias
resistors (I think they were 11ohm/5W/10% parts with 11ohm/10W/1% and
never had the problem again. After the flame out, my wife made me get
rid of them since we just had a baby and she was worried about the amps
being an attractive nuissance for a toddler. I always thought someday
I'd go back to tubes and get a pair of VTL Wotans or something like
that, but the Adcom convinced me that you CAN get very very natural
sound out of a properly desgned solid state amp.

By "bias resistors" you are, I take it, referring to the bias
_measuring_ resistor from cathode to ground. 11 ohms would be an odd
value-one or ten ohms, precisely, is better because it allows you to
determine quiescent standing current, which is what (hopefully!)
changes when you change the bias _voltage_, according to the voltage
drop from ground. (In even decimal fractions, that is-any value works
if you know what it is. My guess is that 11 ohms is the nearest
statutory value to 10.0 in that tolerance, and they bought a big pile
and selected them.)

Yes they are designed to be fuses as well-they are to fail to save
much more expensive parts. And the flames and smoke are good because
you are thereby notified. However, they should NOT be PCB-mounted, so
that they don't char the board. That's Gene Kornblum design! I thought
better of VTL... Maybe that's why homebrew VTL clones with Sowter or
Lars Lundahl OPTs are often thought to sonically best the real thing
these days.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 21 Aug 2005 15:34:42 GMT, BEAR wrote:


It is interesting to note that the Brystons share the same topology as
did the Krell KSA 50 & 100 series amps... which btw, also left me with a
similar impression.


Personally, I 've never heard a Bryston or Krell that didn't sound
just like any other well-designed amp. Of course, if you're using your
eyes as well as your ears, you may have a quite different impression.

Lord Pinkerton, your views on this matter are well documented here and
in other forums.

But, one might find it curious that you chose to use Krell amplifiers,
rather than selling them, pocketing the difference, in favor of some
less expensive and "equally well-designed" amplifier.

Or, are you going to tell us that the reason you have Krells is their
ability to drive very low Z loads? In which case, all "well-designed"
amplifiers are NOT the same depending upon the load?

Just curious.



Of course, if you perceive no differences in these amps, then the one
with the better warranty is best - a la "Consumer Reports" here in the
States...


Indeed so.

So which warranty is better, Krell or Bryston?

_-_-bear

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Before the Adcom 5802, I had a pair of VTL compact 100 mono blocks.
Those were absolutely luscious in terms of sound, but they had the
somewhat typical problem in tube amps with controlling the woofers for
deep bass. I'm a real bass hound so even though I loved the sound of
the amps, I wasn't digging the muddy bass. Another "feature" of the
VTLs is that they'd occasionally blow a bias resistor and one of the
EL34 tubes would go nuclear. It only happened to me once (happened to
the previous owner a few times) and literally shot a blue flame a couple
of feet straight up from the stricken tube. So I replaced the bias
resistor thinking the amp was probably toast (huge scorch mark on the
PCB) and it just plain worked and sounded just as good as before. I'd
never heard of using a bias resistor as a fuse, but that seems to work
for the VTL folks. 8-) At that point, I replaced all the bias
resistors (I think they were 11ohm/5W/10% parts with 11ohm/10W/1% and
never had the problem again. After the flame out, my wife made me get
rid of them since we just had a baby and she was worried about the amps
being an attractive nuissance for a toddler. I always thought someday
I'd go back to tubes and get a pair of VTL Wotans or something like
that, but the Adcom convinced me that you CAN get very very natural
sound out of a properly desgned solid state amp.


By "bias resistors" you are, I take it, referring to the bias
_measuring_ resistor from cathode to ground. 11 ohms would be an odd
value-one or ten ohms, precisely, is better because it allows you to
determine quiescent standing current, which is what (hopefully!)
changes when you change the bias _voltage_, according to the voltage
drop from ground. (In even decimal fractions, that is-any value works
if you know what it is. My guess is that 11 ohms is the nearest
statutory value to 10.0 in that tolerance, and they bought a big pile
and selected them.)



Yeesh. I'm not equipped for this semantics question. My 4 semesters of
physics and circuits courses were many years and many bottles of wine
ago. 8-) But yes, cathode to ground rings a bell.


Yes they are designed to be fuses as well-they are to fail to save
much more expensive parts. And the flames and smoke are good because
you are thereby notified. However, they should NOT be PCB-mounted, so
that they don't char the board. That's Gene Kornblum design! I thought
better of VTL... Maybe that's why homebrew VTL clones with Sowter or
Lars Lundahl OPTs are often thought to sonically best the real thing
these days.


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I thought the VTLs were
excellent amps EXCEPT for the looseness in controlling the woofers under
heavy bass situations. That said, I'd say they were probably one of the
best TUBE amps in that regard. That's just a weakness of tube amps in
general...or so I've been lead to believe. Now that I've had a chance
to live with some well engineered solid state amps, I don't really miss
the constant tweaking involved with owning tube gear. Yes, I like the
sound, but having to deal with testing/matching/replacing tubes
periodically just didn't seem worth the effort to me. The prospect of
continuing to own audio gear with consumable (and expensive!!! Just
check the prices of NOS 6CA7's these days!) parts just didn't strike me
as a game I wanted to keep playing.

I'm expecting delivery of my first digital amp soon. I'm looking
forward to hearing it since they are substantially more efficient than
solid state amps. I'll be sure to report here after I've done a lot of
listening.

Cheers,

Bret Ludwig wrote:
... (classic topology) tube amps that measure as well as the
Brystons, or in some other solid state amps.

Excuse me?

Even the best measuring tube amps ever made (i.e. the later McIntosh's and
the Kron-Hite's) don't measure like a modern solid state amp.

"In which case, all "well-designed" amplifiers are NOT the same depending
upon the load?"

The stipulation has always been that two amps driven within their linear
design goals will sound no different. Low z loads can exceed that of some
amps and be the source of differences that rise above thresholds of
audibility.

wrote:
"Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard,"

The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating
the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps
mentioned in this thread.


Set up the test, provide room, board, and transpo costs...
Be certain that the test conditions can be measured and documented
(beyond the usual lack thereof) and the *gear agreed upon*, and that the
source material can be chosen and agreed upon by me (and you) and we're
ready to go.

Eg. a SONY CD player will not be an acceptable source...

Of course, that standing prize had best be held by a real escrow
service, and documented, as well as there being an agreed upon objective
observer(s) present.

Ok? :- )

I'll bring some friends possibly, and they can do the same "trick" that
I will, or else we can all fail miserably. Of course, if we have to hear
the difference between a Bryston and a Krell, that's tougher if the
Krell is a KSA series and the Bryston is a Bryston, since they are
really the same amp, with a slightly different implementation... or
didn't you know that? So that's picking between two amps that I feel are
less than "optimal" but very similar in many respects. Probably still
not that hard to do though...

;_)

_-_-bear

PS. last time I asked about the $$, no one managed to do much more than
shuffle their feet, look down, change the subject, etc... gonna be
different this time? That was a few years ago.

I would venture to guess you have speakers better suited to solid
state amps. I also think using NOS tubes in any new design amp-unless
you are using some tube which has no commercial use and is cheaply
available in quantity-is insane. Current production tubes work
beautifully in circuits designed for them.

Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Roscoe East" wrote in message
...
Circumstances are forcing me to keep my beloved FM Acoustics & Bryston
amps in the studio(yeah, I know, sucks to be me, right?) so now I still
need to find a new power amp for the home stereo.

I'm looking at the Adcom GFA-5802, the Rotel RB-1080, the B&K Reference
200.2 Series 2, and maybe another Bryston 4B-SST.

And I'm wondering if perhaps I should just throw a dart to pick one.
Are there really any valid reasons for choosing one of these models
over the other? (So far, Bryston's 20 year warranty seems the most
compelling arguement.)

The on/off "switch" on my Bryston 4B-SST sucks; it responds with its own
mind.
That was the reason I bought the Meridian G57.
Funny how small insignificant features can make you buy one product
over another isn't it?.

BEAR wrote:

So which warranty is better, Krell or Bryston?

Has anybody got a better warranty than Bryston? I bought my Bryston
amps 5 years before they announced the 20 year warranty, and was told by
the dealer that the warranty would apply to my amps as it was just a
formal declaration of what had always been policy in the company.
They're still going strong, but I'm out of warranty now . Their stuff
is bulletproof, near as I can tell. And Canadian, too - I'm always
happy to support the home-grown outfits.

Neil

wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
... (classic topology) tube amps that measure as well as the
Brystons, or in some other solid state amps.

Excuse me?

Even the best measuring tube amps ever made (i.e. the later McIntosh's and
the Kron-Hite's) don't measure like a modern solid state amp.

Many popular high end solid state amps don't measure all that well,
and I've seen .04,.035 from sufficiently tweaked MC275s-if you unhook
the heater supply and run it off a bench DC supply. They say Julie Labs
was doing .004,.003 in the sixties-I've never seen one personally-and
there aren't many solid state amps that get near there. Intermod is a
different story, but still, the point is, we are not after numbers
here, per se.

On 22 Aug 2005 23:44:49 GMT, wrote:

"Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard,"

The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating
the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps
mentioned in this thread.

We've danced this dance before, but the music always stops before
Randy gets on the floor. Randy will make lots of noise, but he will
eventually duck the challenge on some pretext - even though he sells
'audiophile' cables, never mind amplifiers. Check out his 'BEAR Labs'
website to get a better idea of what this guy is *really* about....

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 22 Aug 2005 23:50:42 GMT, BEAR wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 21 Aug 2005 15:34:42 GMT, BEAR wrote:

It is interesting to note that the Brystons share the same topology as
did the Krell KSA 50 & 100 series amps... which btw, also left me with a
similar impression.

Personally, I 've never heard a Bryston or Krell that didn't sound
just like any other well-designed amp. Of course, if you're using your
eyes as well as your ears, you may have a quite different impression.

Lord Pinkerton, your views on this matter are well documented here and
in other forums.

But, one might find it curious that you chose to use Krell amplifiers,
rather than selling them, pocketing the difference, in favor of some
less expensive and "equally well-designed" amplifier.

One would not find it all curious if one had heard the explanation a
dozen times, as youi have.

Or, are you going to tell us that the reason you have Krells is their
ability to drive very low Z loads? In which case, all "well-designed"
amplifiers are NOT the same depending upon the load?

As you well know, that is precisely the reason. And it is of course
*obvious* that some amplifiers do not perform well into very low
loads. That is of course why the standard precondition of ABX testing
is that the amps are used below clipping.

Just curious.

No Randy, you're not curious at all, as we've been around these curves
many times before. I notice that you're still selling those 'Silver
Lightning' cables, and still claiming that they sound different from
standard Radio Shack fare - but you will not prove that you can
actually hear the difference yourself.

Of course, if you perceive no differences in these amps, then the one
with the better warranty is best - a la "Consumer Reports" here in the
States...

Indeed so.

So which warranty is better, Krell or Bryston?

I believe that Bryston still has the best warranty, so if the Bryston
of your choice has the power to drive your preferred speakers to your
preferred listening level, it seems like a good bet to me. Or would
you rather someone bought a BEAR Labs Symphony amp, Randy? :-)

What's the warranty like on those Krell wannabee monsters?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 23 Aug 2005 02:47:17 GMT, wrote:

"In which case, all "well-designed" amplifiers are NOT the same depending
upon the load?"

The stipulation has always been that two amps driven within their linear
design goals will sound no different. Low z loads can exceed that of some
amps and be the source of differences that rise above thresholds of
audibility.

Quite so, which fells them at the first fence for ABX comparison.
OTOH, the subjectivist crew will *never* argue that power is an issue.
Randy of course does have a commercial axe to grind here, as his BEAR
Labs 'Symphony' amplifiers are gross overkill for most speakers, and
are an hommage to the early Krells.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 22 Aug 2005 23:50:42 GMT, BEAR wrote:


Stewart's gratuitous put-downs eliminated

Of course, if you perceive no differences in these amps, then the one
with the better warranty is best - a la "Consumer Reports" here in the
States...

Indeed so.

So which warranty is better, Krell or Bryston?

I believe that Bryston still has the best warranty, so if the Bryston
of your choice has the power to drive your preferred speakers to your
preferred listening level, it seems like a good bet to me. Or would
you rather someone bought a BEAR Labs Symphony amp, Randy? :-)

What's the warranty like on those Krell wannabee monsters?

I believe Randy's point is: if you are to justify the Krells because they
drive your Apogees' low impedance load, then the Bryston's will do the same
for less money and with a longer warranty....so long as you believe them
sonically equal. So much for your stated ratinale for owning the Krells.
One is left to believe you perceive the Krells as sonically superior,
despite all your huffing and puffing over amplifiers sounding the same.

FWIW, I've heard Randy's amp driving his full range electrostatics and
subwoofer system...and I've never heard a system more transparent and
effortless. I have heard Krells that are similarly transparent, but never
Brystons.

Bret Ludwig wrote:
wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
... (classic topology) tube amps that measure as well as the
Brystons, or in some other solid state amps.

Excuse me?

Even the best measuring tube amps ever made (i.e. the later McIntosh's and
the Kron-Hite's) don't measure like a modern solid state amp.

Many popular high end solid state amps don't measure all that well,

That's because those use questionable design practices like low or no loop
feedback.

There is no way a tube amp can have as low an output impedance as a solid
state amp unless the solid state amp is puposely (or incompentently) designed
not to have a low output impedance, and differences in output impedance are
the most common reason for acoustically audible differences between
amplifiers.


and I've seen .04,.035 from sufficiently tweaked MC275s-if you unhook
the heater supply and run it off a bench DC supply.

Apples and oranges. Tweak all those other amps and then compare.


They say Julie Labs
was doing .004,.003 in the sixties-I've never seen one personally-and
there aren't many solid state amps that get near there.

That was then. This is now. MANY solid state amps can do those numbers.
But so what? IME, THD numbers are most useful from a production or repair
standpoint to detect amps that have problems from normally functioning units.
THD has to get surprisingly high to be acoustically audible.


Intermod is a different story, but still, the point is, we are not after
numbers here, per se.

You brought up measurements and wrote some misleading things about them,
that's all.

" The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for
demonstrating
the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps
mentioned in this thread.


Set up the test, provide room, board, and transpo costs..."

On reading this again I see my mistake, the amp amount is $10000 by an
audio industry individual, the above for the wire prize from this
newsgroup. Does anyone recall his name? Tom in past, he hasn't posted
here recently, has gone to the claimant's location to do his non-prize
testing, maybe he would be intrested to be involved here. One fails to
see why the person with the prize should have to underwrite the entire
enterprise, considering the claimant is putting up nothing except bragging
rights. But that is not up to me. If you really want to go for it I will
find who the individual is and see if contact can be made with him and the
two of you can hash out the details. Unlike the wire test, he has had
claimants for the amp prize and still has the check in his pocket.

Bret Ludwig wrote:


By "bias resistors" you are, I take it, referring to the bias
_measuring_ resistor from cathode to ground. 11 ohms would be an odd
value-one or ten ohms, precisely, is better because it allows you to
determine quiescent standing current, which is what (hopefully!)
changes when you change the bias _voltage_, according to the voltage
drop from ground. (In even decimal fractions, that is-any value works
if you know what it is. My guess is that 11 ohms is the nearest
statutory value to 10.0 in that tolerance, and they bought a big pile
and selected them.)

Long ago, Dynaco selected the value of its cathode-to-ground resistor
(common to both tubes of a push-pull pair) so that at the specified
quiescent current, the voltage drop would be precisely 1.5 volts. They
then had 1% precision resistors made up to their specifications, which
usually meant some strange values (11.2„¦ on the Dynaco Mk III). This
was so that with any cheap multimeter, that current could be precisely
set, by first using the meter to measure the unloaded 1.5 volts of a
fresh carbon-zinc/manganese "D" cell, then measuring the voltage on that
resistor and setting the bias to exactly duplicate that from the "D"
cell. The resulting circuit was dubbed "Biaset" and the result can be
seen on the chassis-mounted octal socket on every Dynaco tube amplifier,
beginning about 50 years ago. One pin in that socket was connected to
the high side of that cathode resistor, for ease in measuring the voltage.

BEAR wrote:
wrote:
"Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard,"

The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating
the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps
mentioned in this thread.


Set up the test, provide room, board, and transpo costs...

What, you want people to pay for all your expenses so that you can take
the test and have a chance to pick up $5K? No wonder you have been ignored.

If you are certain, just pay those expenses yourself. What's there to
lose, since you are sure to win the challenge? Right?

OTOH, your unwillingness to pay those expenses speaks volumes about your
confidence...

Be certain that the test conditions can be measured and documented
(beyond the usual lack thereof) and the *gear agreed upon*, and that the
source material can be chosen and agreed upon by me (and you) and we're
ready to go.

Do a search on Richard Clark's amp challenge. He is offering $10K. You
can bring any source material you want. Why are you not taking it?

On 23 Aug 2005 23:39:15 GMT, BEAR wrote:

wrote:
"Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard,"

The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating
the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps
mentioned in this thread.


Set up the test, provide room, board, and transpo costs...

Excuse me? You want to be *paid* to try to collect a large wad of
cash? I guess this is just another of your usual excuses.

Be certain that the test conditions can be measured and documented
(beyond the usual lack thereof) and the *gear agreed upon*, and that the
source material can be chosen and agreed upon by me (and you) and we're
ready to go.

Eg. a SONY CD player will not be an acceptable source...

Of course, that standing prize had best be held by a real escrow
service, and documented, as well as there being an agreed upon objective
observer(s) present.

Ok? :- )

I'll bring some friends possibly, and they can do the same "trick" that
I will, or else we can all fail miserably. Of course, if we have to hear
the difference between a Bryston and a Krell, that's tougher if the
Krell is a KSA series and the Bryston is a Bryston, since they are
really the same amp, with a slightly different implementation... or
didn't you know that? So that's picking between two amps that I feel are
less than "optimal" but very similar in many respects. Probably still
not that hard to do though...

;_)

_-_-bear

PS. last time I asked about the $$, no one managed to do much more than
shuffle their feet, look down, change the subject, etc... gonna be
different this time? That was a few years ago.

That statement is of course completely at odds with the truth of the
matter, especially regarding the identity of the person doing the
shuffling etc..........................

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:
... (classic topology) tube amps that measure as well as the
Brystons, or in some other solid state amps.

Excuse me?

Even the best measuring tube amps ever made (i.e. the later McIntosh's and
the Kron-Hite's) don't measure like a modern solid state amp.

Many popular high end solid state amps don't measure all that well,

That's because those use questionable design practices like low or no loop
feedback.


Many designers, listeners, and DIY hobbyists believe that no, or low
loop feedback is a design benefit. I tend to agree. I concede it has
never been scientifically proven absolutely wrong.


There is no way a tube amp can have as low an output impedance as a solid
state amp unless the solid state amp is puposely (or incompentently) designed
not to have a low output impedance, and differences in output impedance are
the most common reason for acoustically audible differences between
amplifiers.


and I've seen .04,.035 from sufficiently tweaked MC275s-if you unhook
the heater supply and run it off a bench DC supply.

Apples and oranges. Tweak all those other amps and then compare.


They say Julie Labs
was doing .004,.003 in the sixties-I've never seen one personally-and
there aren't many solid state amps that get near there.

That was then. This is now. MANY solid state amps can do those numbers.
But so what? IME, THD numbers are most useful from a production or repair
standpoint to detect amps that have problems from normally functioning units.
THD has to get surprisingly high to be acoustically audible.


Intermod is a different story, but still, the point is, we are not after
numbers here, per se.

You brought up measurements and wrote some misleading things about them,
that's all.

I fail to see what I said was misleading. I have been careful to state
things in a non-confrontational way, however.

wrote:

You brought up measurements and wrote some misleading things about them,
that's all.

Are you the same guy who designed the PAS-4 pre-amp for the briefly
resurrected Dynaco about 10 years ago?

Cheers,

Gene Poon wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:


By "bias resistors" you are, I take it, referring to the bias
_measuring_ resistor from cathode to ground. 11 ohms would be an odd
value-one or ten ohms, precisely, is better because it allows you to
determine quiescent standing current, which is what (hopefully!)
changes when you change the bias _voltage_, according to the voltage
drop from ground. (In even decimal fractions, that is-any value works
if you know what it is. My guess is that 11 ohms is the nearest
statutory value to 10.0 in that tolerance, and they bought a big pile
and selected them.)

Long ago, Dynaco selected the value of its cathode-to-ground resistor
(common to both tubes of a push-pull pair) so that at the specified
quiescent current, the voltage drop would be precisely 1.5 volts. They
then had 1% precision resistors made up to their specifications, which
usually meant some strange values (11.2=E2=84=A6 on the Dynaco Mk III). =
This
was so that with any cheap multimeter, that current could be precisely
set, by first using the meter to measure the unloaded 1.5 volts of a
fresh carbon-zinc/manganese "D" cell, then measuring the voltage on that
resistor and setting the bias to exactly duplicate that from the "D"
cell. The resulting circuit was dubbed "Biaset" and the result can be
seen on the chassis-mounted octal socket on every Dynaco tube amplifier,
beginning about 50 years ago. One pin in that socket was connected to
the high side of that cathode resistor, for ease in measuring the voltage.

Yes they did. And any smart serious listener today will dike 'em out
and replace with two identical 1 or 10 ohm resistors, such that a value
that is evenly divisible by 10 will enable adjustment to an obvious
figure with the ubiquitous modern DMM. Oh yeah, you need separate pots
(and test points) for each tube.

Of course there are a lot of other things needing fixing on Dynacos,
but that's an easy one. Biggest problem (besides the general poor 7199
circuit) is that the power transformer on ST70s is seriously
underspecified. Dynaco's fix was to bias the output tubs farther into
Class A so they would have less power sag-and making the poor xfmr run
yet hotter.

The _unfixable_ Dynaco problem is the severe DC asymmetry of the
primary-the center tap is exactly correct in terms of turns ratio, but
the length of the copper path is much longer on one side than the
other. Yet there are merchants proudly selling exact reproduction
Dynaco transformers to the gullible for good money, on the basis they
found wind sheets for them, and to copy better transformers would
demand actual effort on their part.

("Other than that, Mr. DiMaggio, I surmise 1962 was an okay year?")

On 25 Aug 2005 00:02:33 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 22 Aug 2005 23:50:42 GMT, BEAR wrote:


Stewart's gratuitous put-downs eliminated

Of course, if you perceive no differences in these amps, then the one
with the better warranty is best - a la "Consumer Reports" here in the
States...

Indeed so.

So which warranty is better, Krell or Bryston?

I believe that Bryston still has the best warranty, so if the Bryston
of your choice has the power to drive your preferred speakers to your
preferred listening level, it seems like a good bet to me. Or would
you rather someone bought a BEAR Labs Symphony amp, Randy? :-)

What's the warranty like on those Krell wannabee monsters?

I believe Randy's point is: if you are to justify the Krells because they
drive your Apogees' low impedance load, then the Bryston's will do the same
for less money and with a longer warranty....so long as you believe them
sonically equal.

The Krell is rated for *continuous* operation at full output into a 1
ohm load, the Bryston is not.

So much for your stated ratinale for owning the Krells.
One is left to believe you perceive the Krells as sonically superior,
despite all your huffing and puffing over amplifiers sounding the same.

In that case, one hasn't been paying attention. The Krell is a neutral
sounding amp which I have confidence will not change its (lack of)
character into any available loudspeaker. As such, it's a useful
reference, but it sounds exactly the same as my Audiolab 8000P into
the Apogees. As a Krell, it also deflects the peanut gallery from the
usual subjectivist cry that If I think all good amps sound the same,
that's only because I've never heard a 'high-end' amplifier.

FWIW, I've heard Randy's amp driving his full range electrostatics and
subwoofer system...and I've never heard a system more transparent and
effortless.

Quite possibly - but that would be down to the speakers, not the amp.

I have heard Krells that are similarly transparent, but never Brystons.

How would you know, since you decry blind comparisons?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"BEAR" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"Personally, I have never heard a Bryston that didn't sound hard,"

The perfect candidate to take the $5000 standing prize for demonstrating
the ability to hear a difference, any difference, in the type of amps
mentioned in this thread.


Set up the test, provide room, board, and transpo costs...

IOW pay to take a chance to win some money? LOL.

Be certain that the test conditions can be measured and documented (beyond
the usual lack thereof) and the *gear agreed upon*, and that the source
material can be chosen and agreed upon by me (and you) and we're ready to
go.


I doubt that would make any difference, but then you aren't really going to
do it are you?

Eg. a SONY CD player will not be an acceptable source...


Why? Do you need a CD player that is imperfect?

Of course, that standing prize had best be held by a real escrow

I think that's Stewart's walking around money.


service, and documented, as well as there being an agreed upon objective
observer(s) present.

Ok? :- )

I'll bring some friends possibly, and they can do the same "trick" that I
will, or else we can all fail miserably.

Hold that second thought.

Of course, if we have to hear
the difference between a Bryston and a Krell, that's tougher if the Krell
is a KSA series and the Bryston is a Bryston, since they are really the
same amp, with a slightly different implementation... or didn't you know
that? So that's picking between two amps that I feel are less than
"optimal" but very similar in many respects. Probably still not that hard
to do though...


So why hasn't anyone done so yet?

;_)

_-_-bear

PS. last time I asked about the $$, no one managed to do much more than
shuffle their feet, look down, change the subject, etc... gonna be
different this time? That was a few years ago.

I predict you will shuffle again. :-)

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 25 Aug 2005 00:02:33 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 22 Aug 2005 23:50:42 GMT, BEAR wrote:


Stewart's gratuitous put-downs eliminated

Of course, if you perceive no differences in these amps, then the one
with the better warranty is best - a la "Consumer Reports" here in the
States...

Indeed so.

So which warranty is better, Krell or Bryston?

I believe that Bryston still has the best warranty, so if the Bryston
of your choice has the power to drive your preferred speakers to your
preferred listening level, it seems like a good bet to me. Or would
you rather someone bought a BEAR Labs Symphony amp, Randy? :-)

What's the warranty like on those Krell wannabee monsters?

I believe Randy's point is: if you are to justify the Krells because they
drive your Apogees' low impedance load, then the Bryston's will do the
same
for less money and with a longer warranty....so long as you believe them
sonically equal.

The Krell is rated for *continuous* operation at full output into a 1
ohm load, the Bryston is not.


So how much *continuous* listening do you do at full rated output?


So much for your stated ratinale for owning the Krells.
One is left to believe you perceive the Krells as sonically superior,
despite all your huffing and puffing over amplifiers sounding the same.

In that case, one hasn't been paying attention. The Krell is a neutral
sounding amp which I have confidence will not change its (lack of)
character into any available loudspeaker. As such, it's a useful
reference, but it sounds exactly the same as my Audiolab 8000P into
the Apogees. As a Krell, it also deflects the peanut gallery from the
usual subjectivist cry that If I think all good amps sound the same,
that's only because I've never heard a 'high-end' amplifier.


In other words, it sounds better to you than most other amps, when used in
the real world. Isn't that how most of us buy and use amps? Did you need a
blind test?


FWIW, I've heard Randy's amp driving his full range electrostatics and
subwoofer system...and I've never heard a system more transparent and
effortless.

Quite possibly - but that would be down to the speakers, not the amp.


Since when can the speakers be divorced from the amp driving them?


I have heard Krells that are similarly transparent, but never Brystons.

How would you know, since you decry blind comparisons?


What don't you understand about "never heard" and "transparency"? You don't
know the difference between a slightly dirty window and an absolutely clear
one? You'd have to have them side by side?

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...


What don't you understand about "never heard" and "transparency"? You
don't
know the difference between a slightly dirty window and an absolutely
clear
one? You'd have to have them side by side?


When the sun comes out full glare on both windows, I can't tell them apart.
Under other situations, I can. Carry that over to your audio analogy.