AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Salk Signature Sound => Topic started by: earsfirst on 8 May 2009, 03:53 am
-
I recently purchased some used HT3's (thanks BRM!) and a Manley Shrimp preamp. I'm sure this combo has the potential to make me very happy, if I can find the right amp.
Following are the amps I've tried so far and my nutshell conclusions. No offense intended by blunt judgments, please assume "IMHO" prefix as needed:
- Hafler DH-200. Purchased in 1982 and still ticking. Performed well with B&W DM7mkII for decades, provides some measure of detail and bass extension, but insufficient clarity for HT3s and underpowered at 100 wpc.
- Bel Canto Ref. 1000. Ample power, lots of bass slam, decent midrange, but devoid of high end detail. Is this typical of class D?
- Bryston 4B SST2. Solid build, muscular, well-controlled bass, good detail in mids & highs, but sounds a bit dry, sometimes edgy or aggressive.
- AVA Ultra Double 550. (Thanks for the loan Marty!). Nearly ideal. Mids and highs are nicely resolved and very musical. I only wish it had a bit more bass impact.
-----
Anyone know of an amp that combines the mid/upper response of the AVA UD550 with the low end of the 4B? With 250 wpc or more? For $5000 or less? Or is this just my version of The Amp that we're all looking for?
-
Maybe the AVA Insight 440, Double 440, or Double 440H. I think that the Insight amp might have a bit more in the bottom end, especially when paired with the Insight+ DAC. (If I am wrong, I will hear about it very soon. :o )
Oh, for $5000.00, you could purchase two AVA Insight Double 440 or Insight 440H amps and an Insight Phase Inverter Bridge to drive the amps in mono, which will give you 1000 watts per channel of tight, defined, fast, deep and powerful bottom end with glorious mid-range and soaring and transparent top end. I never heard anyone claim that the bottom end in the Insight amps was lacking, and, with the HT3's bass extension, you will have enough power to demolish your house without ever leaving your listening chair.
-
Hi
My speakers aren't even here yet (HT2-TL) but I have been researching the amp issue for some time. There is a guy on Audigon that has the HT3's and is overwhelmed with a monblock amp designed and built by Paul Weitzel at TRL - today they are called the Samson monoblocks - here is the link. Get in touch with him. He was more then happy to help me out.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ramps&1221697287&read&keyw&zztube=research=labs
And here is the link to the site of TRL products as well.
http://www.tuberesearchlabs.com/index.htm
I own their CD modified player and love it - good luck !!
Joel
-
...And here is the link to the site of TRL products as well.
http://www.tuberesearchlabs.com/index.htm ...
I can't believe they sell $140k amps and have such a lame website. One small photo of each product and zero information with it. :scratch:
-
Listen to their products - and trust your ears. Then the lame site won't matter as much.
-
Listen to their products - and trust your ears. Then the lame site won't matter as much.
I trust my ears just fine thanks. However, if a manufacturer can't provide sufficient info to help a potential buyer determine whether a component is a potential "fit" for their system, then they are unlikely to even make the buyer's short list for audition. If they are not broadly known or locally available for audition the lack of ANY information at all is likely to hurt their sales and looks quite amateurish.
I thought it must have been a brand new (incomplete) website, but they have Copyright 2003-2007 at the bottom of their pages, so ...
I agree completely that specs do not determine the "sound" or performance of a component but SOME info is necessary to help determine compatibility in a buyer's system.
-
I am not sure what your budget is, but if it is up to $5K you might want to look at the Modwright KWA150. I have heard and read nothing but great things about it, and it sounds like it might be a match made in heaven for the HT3. I know that Funkmonkey uses a Parasound that he really enjoys with his HT3s. Hmm, maybe a Butler or Moscode would also be a possibility.
RE: Class D. Someone around these parts switched out a Pass X250 for a pair of Wyred4Sound monoblocks and quite enjoyed them. Never commented on veiled highs. So, that might be something to look at. I am personally on a big DIY kick right now, so AKSA and Aussie Amplifiers both get recommendations from me. :D
-Michael
-
Hi Michael,
May I suggest the McCormack DNA-500. I have been using it to drive a pair of HT2s in a very large room (33x34) to great effect. It replaced a Conrad Johnson Premier 140 and is a better match with the Salk speakers. I have just in the last week traded the HT2s in on a pair of the Archos which are scheduled to arrive Monday. I expect the DNA-500 to be slight over-kill for the 94db Archos so I have it for sale on the trading post and audiogon. I find it a marvelous sounding amp and wouldn't know where to fault it although I haven't compared it to mega-buck amps like the BAT 600 series or the monster Pass Labs or Bryston 14B which is a similar bridged design. I have owned a few Bryston amps including the 4BSST though not the new squared iteration and I think the McCormack is definitely an upgrade.
Steve
-
Earsfirst, here are my opinions on amps used with my HT3's:
Musical Fidelity KW500 (modified)
Ample power, good well controlled bass extension, a little rolled off in the high end with a very musical sound on the warmer side of neutral - overall a very good pairing.
Modwright KW150
Bass extension and control to die for, great macro and micro dynamics with great high end detail. This amp still need more burn in time (3 weeks to date) and it has smoothed off considerably in this time. If you're looking for a combination of incredible bass depth and control, articulate mid-range and a strong high end - this amp is a serious contender worth an audition.
Bryston 4BSST
ChuckS, another AC member, has HT3's with a Bryston 4BSST and found it musically uninvolved with the Bryston preamp - switching to a Dodd preamp I believe he's now very satisfied. I mention this as my reference point to interpret my comments on the MF and Modwright, as a former 4BSST owner I agree with your findings but also found the legendary bass to be on the light side.
I still have both the MF and MW to compare directly, If you have any specific questions feel free to PM me.
-
Since the best amp I used on the HT3's is out of your price range (BAT VK-600SE), a couple of choices that I liked on the HT3's are:
Moscode 401HR
McCormack DNA-500
CI Audio D-200's
Based on OP's comments, I think the Moscode 401-HR would potentially give him what he is looking for. I compared a different AVA amp (Ultra 550) to the Moscode and preferred the Moscode.
The Moscode's bass isn't SOTA, but it has nice texture and body to it.
Another possible choice is a pair of used Clayton S-40's. Don't let the lowish number of watts fool you, a pair of these amps run in a vertical bi-amp will have no problem with the HT3's. A used pair should run you $4k or less. You could also start with a single S-40 and see if that is enough.
George
-
I have a McCormack 225 that I used with my HT1's. I borrowed the Moscode 401-HR for a month and found it much better than my McCormack with digital media through my Tact 2.2x. However, when I listened to vinyl through my tube Minimax Phonostage, I found that I prefered the McCormack! I wouldn't get the 225 with HT3's though, but the McCormack 500 might just be the ticket with your Manley preamp.
Bob
PS Have you considered biamping?
-
I have a McCormack 225 that I used with my HT1's. I borrowed the Moscode 401-HR for a month and found it much better than my McCormack with digital media through my Tact 2.2x. However, when I listened to vinyl through my tube Minimax Phonostage, I found that I prefered the McCormack! I wouldn't get the 225 with HT3's though, but the McCormack 500 might just be the ticket with your Manley preamp.
Bob
PS Have you considered biamping?
Hey Bob,
I have a McCormack 225 now and HT3's on order. My room is not too big (20 x 13 x 9) although it opens into the dining room and kitchen. Do you think the 225 won't have enough power? I'll obviously try it once the HT3's arrive. But if it doesn't provide enough power, I guess I'll be looking at some of the recommendations above.
Thanks,
Doug
-
I have a McCormack 225 that I used with my HT1's. I borrowed the Moscode 401-HR for a month and found it much better than my McCormack with digital media through my Tact 2.2x. However, when I listened to vinyl through my tube Minimax Phonostage, I found that I prefered the McCormack! I wouldn't get the 225 with HT3's though, but the McCormack 500 might just be the ticket with your Manley preamp.
Bob
PS Have you considered biamping?
Hey Bob,
I have a McCormack 225 and HT3's on order. My room is not too big (20 x 13 x 9) although it opens into the dining room and kitchen. Do you think the 225 won't have enough power? I'll obviously try it once the HT3's arrive. But if it doesn't provide enough power, I guess I'll be looking at some of the recommendations above.
Thanks,
Doug
Doug,
The DNA-500 uses a different topology and is a different amp than the 225 - it is not simply a 225 with more power.
George
-
I have a McCormack 225 now and HT3's on order. My room is not too big (20 x 13 x 9) although it opens into the dining room and kitchen. Do you think the 225 won't have enough power? I'll obviously try it once the HT3's arrive. But if it doesn't provide enough power, I guess I'll be looking at some of the recommendations above.
I think the McCormack 225 will be fine with the HT3's. The main issue is that it won't be able to make them sing at the top of the lungs as well as the 500 will. For all normal uses, I think you will be fine. Earsfirst had the budget to get the 500 used. I hate to break it to you, but for more than twice the price, you can get a better amp! LOL
Bob
-
Thanks George and Bob. I guess I had thought of the DNA-500 as a 225 with more power. I also thought I had read somewhere that the 500 was slightly more neutral than the 225. Not sure if that is true. If I do wind up upgrading amps, my current list in approximate price order is:
- used Moscode 401HR
- used McCormack 500 (a recent listing of an SMc modified 500 was tempting)
- new Modwright KWA-150 (I've been following Philistine's review with great interest)
- used BAT VK-600SE (probably more than I want to spend)
--Doug
-
I recently purchased some used HT3's (thanks BRM!) and a Manley Shrimp preamp. I'm sure this combo has the potential to make me very happy, if I can find the right amp.
- AVA Ultra Double 550. (Thanks for the loan Marty!). Nearly ideal. Mids and highs are nicely resolved and very musical. I only wish it had a bit more bass impact.
It's extremely rare, IME, to find someone who says that AVA amps lack bass impact. Since I've heard a number of AVA amps and have also heard the HT3s, I'd have to say the problem lies somewhere else.
Maybe it's your preamp that lacks bass impact?
-
What is all this talk about matching an amp to Salk speakers? How can a good amp not be a match to a good speaker? How can you tell-hear if an amp is not matching?
I' m asking because i know this is not about the low impedance driving capability of an amplifier. Or is it?
-
Bass impact can also be, er, impacted by the source component.
-
Though, of course, he was speaking in comparative terms as to the other amps he tried, so probably a moot point.
-
What is all this talk about matching an amp to Salk speakers? How can a good amp not be a match to a good speaker? How can you tell-hear if an amp is not matching?
I' m asking because i know this is not about the low impedance driving capability of an amplifier. Or is it?
Low impedance is important, especially with bass. Amps sound very different. Speakers with high degrees of distortion can mask the distortions on some amps. The Salk HT3's have near the lowest distortion available so that makes it more important to get a good amp. Most speakers have a very reactive load and how the amp handles the varying load is very important. Low impedance can help here too! How amps overload can also be important when playing at louder levels.
Bob
-
I recently purchased some used HT3's (thanks BRM!) and a Manley Shrimp preamp. I'm sure this combo has the potential to make me very happy, if I can find the right amp.
- AVA Ultra Double 550. (Thanks for the loan Marty!). Nearly ideal. Mids and highs are nicely resolved and very musical. I only wish it had a bit more bass impact.
It's extremely rare, IME, to find someone who says that AVA amps lack bass impact. Since I've heard a number of AVA amps and have also heard the HT3s, I'd have to say the problem lies somewhere else.
Maybe it's your preamp that lacks bass impact?
Count me as extremely rare.
The context of my comment is in comparison with the other amps I listed (which all but one were more expensive than the AVA amp).
George
-
See if you can find a used Spectron Musician III SE mk2. on Audiogon.That amp mates wonderful with the Salks especially with a tube pre-amp, which you have. It really controls those woofers with an iron fist. The sound is fast, detailed,transparent, smooth with a deep,wide, soundstage. The highs are open,delicate,with nice decay.
It won't give you added warm or bloom, but will be true to the source, IMHO.
Joe
-
Oh, for $5000.00, you could purchase two AVA Insight Double 440 or Insight 440H amps and an Insight Phase Inverter Bridge to drive the amps in mono, which will give you 1000 watts per channel of tight, defined, fast, deep and powerful bottom end with glorious mid-range and soaring and transparent top end. I never heard anyone claim that the bottom end in the Insight amps was lacking, and, with the HT3's bass extension, you will have enough power to demolish your house without ever leaving your listening chair.
So assuming I'm content to leave my house standing, I can buy a single double 440H, if that's not an oxymoron, and still have no lack of bass response? More so than with an ultra double 550?
-
See if you can find a used Spectron Musician III SE mk2. on Audiogon.That amp mates wonderful with the Salks especially with a tube pre-amp, which you have. It really controls those woofers with an iron fist. The sound is fast, detailed,transparent, smooth with a deep,wide, soundstage. The highs are open,delicate,with nice decay.
"nice decay" sounds appealing, if it means what I think. The Bryston 4B seemed to emphasize the leading edge of notes, which sometimes was good for drum beats, guitar chords, and such; but it seemed to lack follow-through on the duration and decay of notes, losing some of the musical beauty and at time exagerating sibilants, as in plenty of "sssss" but not enough "exy". The AVA 550 is the counter-example, in my limited experience.
But wait, this is a dreaded class D amp!? And expensive! The iron fist bass control seems plausible but what's all this about the highs? Have you heard this yourself?
-
Oh, for $5000.00, you could purchase two AVA Insight Double 440 or Insight 440H amps and an Insight Phase Inverter Bridge to drive the amps in mono, which will give you 1000 watts per channel of tight, defined, fast, deep and powerful bottom end with glorious mid-range and soaring and transparent top end. I never heard anyone claim that the bottom end in the Insight amps was lacking, and, with the HT3's bass extension, you will have enough power to demolish your house without ever leaving your listening chair.
So assuming I'm content to leave my house standing, I can buy a single double 440H, if that's not an oxymoron, and still have no lack of bass response? More so than with an ultra double 550?
You know, I don't know. George doesn't think that the AVA amps have great bass response, and he has a lot more experience with amps than me. I am happy with my AVA amp, but I trust George's evaluation of equipment. Notwithstanding, I seem to recall reading about a comparison in which the AVA Insight 440 had better bass extension than the AVA Ultra. Martyo would be better to comment, however, because he has had both.
-
See if you can find a used Spectron Musician III SE mk2. on Audiogon.That amp mates wonderful with the Salks especially with a tube pre-amp, which you have. It really controls those woofers with an iron fist. The sound is fast, detailed,transparent, smooth with a deep,wide, soundstage. The highs are open,delicate,with nice decay.
"nice decay" sounds appealing, if it means what I think. The Bryston 4B seemed to emphasize the leading edge of notes, which sometimes was good for drum beats, guitar chords, and such; but it seemed to lack follow-through on the duration and decay of notes, losing some of the musical beauty and at time exagerating sibilants, as in plenty of "sssss" but not enough "exy". The AVA 550 is the counter-example, in my limited experience.
But wait, this is a dreaded class D amp!? And expensive! The iron fist bass control seems plausible but what's all this about the highs? Have you heard this yourself?
FWIW, I couldn't live with the highs on a stock MK II SE model (especially for a $7k list amp).
George
-
Oh, for $5000.00, you could purchase two AVA Insight Double 440 or Insight 440H amps and an Insight Phase Inverter Bridge to drive the amps in mono, which will give you 1000 watts per channel of tight, defined, fast, deep and powerful bottom end with glorious mid-range and soaring and transparent top end. I never heard anyone claim that the bottom end in the Insight amps was lacking, and, with the HT3's bass extension, you will have enough power to demolish your house without ever leaving your listening chair.
So assuming I'm content to leave my house standing, I can buy a single double 440H, if that's not an oxymoron, and still have no lack of bass response? More so than with an ultra double 550?
You know, I don't know. George doesn't think that the AVA amps have great bass response, and he has a lot more experience with amps than me. I am happy with my AVA amp, but I trust George's evaluation of equipment. Notwithstanding, I seem to recall reading about a comparison in which the AVA Insight 440 had better bass extension than the AVA Ultra. Martyo would be better to comment, however, because he has had both.
Just to be clear, I listened to the single model listed, not the entire AVA lineup.
I thought the AVA was a solid product, nothing less, nothing more. My opinion is simply that, an opinion and shouldn't count more than other people's opinion.
Now if I can convince oneinthepipe to make the 30 minute drive and come on over (hint, hint), he can hear my system and have a reference for what I like and how my system sounds. That might put greater or less emphasis on my opinion in his eyes.
George
-
Hey buddy, good to finally see your first posts, especially with such a perfect username. I'll pm you some links to previous threads about some of the gear and opinions expressed here to give you a more complete picture. 8)
-
I thought the AVA was a solid product, nothing less, nothing more.
Denon, and NAD, and Rotel, are "solid products." The AVA FetValve amp is a superlative product, especially for the price, and imo outperforms its share of amps costing significantly more.
-
You know, I don't know. George doesn't think that the AVA amps have great bass response, and he has a lot more experience with amps than me. I am happy with my AVA amp, but I trust George's evaluation of equipment. Notwithstanding, I seem to recall reading about a comparison in which the AVA Insight 440 had better bass extension than the AVA Ultra. Martyo would be better to comment, however, because he has had both.
Marty has been a huge help, providing demos, loans (gear not $$), and advice. :thumb:
I certainly value his opinion and comments, but it's interesting to hear other perspectives as well, especially on the Insight/Ultra bass comparison.
-
I had a Symphonic Line integrated amplifier that sounded excellent with Salk HT3 when I had them in my system.
I believe I have read about other Salk HT3 owners having very good results with Odyssey Stratos Extreme monoblock amplifiers.
I have heard the AVA amps with HT3 a number of time and believe there was a pretty good synergy, especially in Jim's system.
Bigredmachine needs to chime in on this thread since I believe he has probably tried more amp combinations with the HT3 than anyone in the world.
-
Many thanks for all the feedback.
Recommendations have included:
McCormack DNA-500
Modwright KWA150
Moscode 401HR
Parasound (model?)
CI Audio D-200
Clayton S-40
Spectron Musician III SE mk2
TRL Samson monoblocks
I haven't ruled out AVA, actually the Ultra Double 550 is my mental reference.
My auditions so far have all been free loaners (hence the small number). Looks like the buy-to-try approach is the remaining option, at least for vendors with a satisfaction guarantee.
For what its worth, TRL told me its so hard to keep up with demand for Samson monoblocks that they "no longer have the time to offer a return policy."
-
earsfirst...
For $5000 or less?
This would be my choice....Link... (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/mccormack/dna500.html)
And yes....I've heard it with the HT3's....a very good combo....a solid foundation... :wink:
-
I had a Symphonic Line integrated amplifier that sounded excellent with Salk HT3 when I had them in my system.
I believe I have read about other Salk HT3 owners having very good results with Odyssey Stratos Extreme monoblock amplifiers.
I have heard the AVA amps with HT3 a number of time and believe there was a pretty good synergy, especially in Jim's system.
Bigredmachine needs to chime in on this thread since I believe he has probably tried more amp combinations with the HT3 than anyone in the world.
I don't mean to speak for BRM but I have heard him highly recommend the W4S SX-1000. I'd love an audition, but W4S wants a 15% restocking fee on returns and I find that hard to accept. I want the return option because I have this preconceived notion that class D doesn't do high end, and I want AVA quality high end.
-
I had a Symphonic Line integrated amplifier that sounded excellent with Salk HT3 when I had them in my system.
I believe I have read about other Salk HT3 owners having very good results with Odyssey Stratos Extreme monoblock amplifiers.
I have heard the AVA amps with HT3 a number of time and believe there was a pretty good synergy, especially in Jim's system.
Bigredmachine needs to chime in on this thread since I believe he has probably tried more amp combinations with the HT3 than anyone in the world.
I don't mean to speak for BRM but I have heard him highly recommend the W4S SX-1000. I'd love an audition, but W4S wants a 15% restocking fee on returns and I find that hard to accept. I want the return option because I have this preconceived notion that class D doesn't do high end, and I want AVA quality high end.
FWIW, check out the review on the Wyred 4 Sound SX-1000 in the latest issue of "The Absolute Sound".
Pretty positive review.
If you want to stick with Class D, I also suggest you try and audition the CI Audio D-200's or D-500's.
I liked aspects of what the D-200's did on the HT3's when I tried that combo.
George
-
There are generally two types of people/sides when it comes to amplifiers. One side believes they make a noticeable difference, and the other side believes a well engineered amp will sound no different than the next.
My opinion is that amps don't add much to the sound if they are properly designed, so you're not going to gain a ton (unless you're comparing SS and tubes). However, if the rest of your system is strong, you'll be more likely to notice those subtle changes, or perhaps you'd never notice at all...who knows? This topic is subjective, so you really do need to listen to everything you can. If while listening you hear no differences between amps, go with the cheapest solution with the most amount of power (in order to control that 10" bass driver). If you do, narrow your search down based on listening and research, and try to bring the final candidates home for an audition.
I recommend the McCormack DNA500 and would also add a used pair of Parasound JC1 monoblocks to the list. You may be able to find a pair for $5000ish. If you find you don't hear any difference between amps, get two Emotiva XPA-2's ($800 each) or two Parasound 2250's and run them in mono.
Happy hunting.
-
Many thanks for all the feedback.
Recommendations have included:
McCormack DNA-500
Modwright KWA150
Moscode 401HR
Parasound (model?)
CI Audio D-200
Clayton S-40
Spectron Musician III SE mk2
TRL Samson monoblocks
I haven't ruled out AVA, actually the Ultra Double 550 is my mental reference.
My auditions so far have all been free loaners (hence the small number). Looks like the buy-to-try approach is the remaining option, at least for vendors with a satisfaction guarantee.
For what its worth, TRL told me its so hard to keep up with demand for Samson monoblocks that they "no longer have the time to offer a return policy."
Earsfirst
It's clear you have a strong idea on the ideal sound you're looking for, and selected robust candidates in your audition list. Clearly you're only going to find the one that works best for you by listening at home in your system.
Vendor satisfaction/return policies all vary, both in written form and also in written form vs reality - some vendors make you jump through hoops and question your judgement, while others make it pain free and some even have a high restocking fee. In addition, when I've been very keen to audition gear and been unable to obtain it from the vendor, I've bought used and been able to resell at minimal or zero cost. Anyway, just a few ideas and good luck with your choice - it will be interesting to get feedback on your progress.
Phil
-
Now if I can convince oneinthepipe to make the 30 minute drive and come on over (hint, hint), he can hear my system and have a reference for what I like and how my system sounds.
George
Whoa hoa, I am there. PM sent.
-
Earsfirst,
Where do you live?
Right now I'm using the following with my HT-3's:
Wyred ST-1000
Wyred Special Edition Pre-amp (first review to be out soon)
Raysonic CD-168
Reality Cables (shipping this week)
I've also used the Odyssey Mono SE's. I agree with the other posters, you need to hear for yourself and decide.
On Wednesday, a BAT VK-75SE will arrive. I've been told I'll need to get another and run them as mono's but I'm really interested to hear the HT-3's with some tube muscle.
They're great speakers. I finally feel like my system is respectable. If you or anyone else is willing to make the drive to Newport, RI, you're more than welcome to listen/compare as much as you like.
Luke
-
I am not sure what your budget is, but if it is up to $5K you might want to look at the Modwright KWA150. I have heard and read nothing but great things about it, and it sounds like it might be a match made in heaven for the HT3. I know that Funkmonkey uses a Parasound that he really enjoys with his HT3s....
I use four channels of a Parasound Halo A-51, in a passive bi-amp configuration to drive my HT3s. It's the only amp I have used on them and have no complaints, but also nothing to compare it to. From all that I have read the JC-1's are even better performers, but I wanted a 5 channel (well at least three) amp so I could drive the front three speakers in my combined 2-channel/HT set-up.
I've heard some great things about the Modwright KWA-150 as well. Even though I initially balked at the wattage rating, I think that amp (or two as mono-blocks) could be a great combination with the HT3s. But, pricey.
The McCormack DNA-500 was top of my list before I got the Halo, after much research. If I was able to separate my HT from my 2 channel rig I would pick one of these up (used) or try to get a demo Modwright for the 2 channel, and keep the Halo for the HT.
I have also heard the HT3s driven by a 140watt/ch Yamaha AVR and they sounded good enough to sell me on the speakers. So, like others have said already, it is going to get down to your personal preference; in your room; with your pre-amp and source equipment.
Best of luck to you, I am sure no matter what amp you choose (with enough power) the HT3s are going to sound great.
Cheers
-Funk
-
Many thanks for all the feedback.
Recommendations have included:
McCormack DNA-500
Modwright KWA150
Moscode 401HR
Parasound (model?)
CI Audio D-200
Clayton S-40
Spectron Musician III SE mk2
TRL Samson monoblocks
I haven't ruled out AVA, actually the Ultra Double 550 is my mental reference.
My auditions so far have all been free loaners (hence the small number). Looks like the buy-to-try approach is the remaining option, at least for vendors with a satisfaction guarantee.
For what its worth, TRL told me its so hard to keep up with demand for Samson monoblocks that they "no longer have the time to offer a return policy."
Pretty decent price on a pair of used JC-1's:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1247094717&/Parasound-Bob-Crump%27S-Halo-
I am not affiliated with the seller in any way.
George
-
I like Parasound and I've always wanted to try the JC1's with my HT3's. Unfortunateley, that's too much money to spend on a whim. I'm pretty damn satisfied with my Cal Audio amp as it is. I like it better than my old Parasound, Sherbourne, and McCormack amps.
-
Another good amp deal:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1246999095&/Clayton-M200-Monoblocks-Price-
-
Has anyone heard the Clayton's with HT-3's? (Before the release of the KWA, I was talking with Dan at MW and he had good things to say about them.)
I've been eyeing that listing as well, but have nothing to go on but a few reviews.
Thanks,
Luke
-
well you've certainly been recommended a lot of very good amplifiers, so i won't add to your list. i would like to +1 the moscode. i think it's an extraordinary amplifier as well. i've owned the spectron musican iii and while i loved it in my personal experience the bass portion didn't have quite the impact i was looking for...i've been told this is because the ridiculous damping factor of the amplifier overdamped my speakers. whether or not there's any truth to that i have no idea...but when i biamped the spectron it certianly sounded wonderful with a tubed pre.
best,
-
See if you can find a used Spectron Musician III SE mk2. on Audiogon.That amp mates wonderful with the Salks especially with a tube pre-amp, which you have. It really controls those woofers with an iron fist. The sound is fast, detailed,transparent, smooth with a deep,wide, soundstage. The highs are open,delicate,with nice decay.
It won't give you added warm or bloom, but will be true to the source, IMHO.
Joe
Joe,
I've read nothing but praise for this amp, I'd love to try it. My budget dictates stereo not monoblocks. Which do you have?
I may consider the upgrades but its a stretch. Did you get V-Cap or Bybee options? Were you able to compare with and without? Do you consider either one essential?
-
I have the moscode 401hr and it's fabulous
bare in mind, my $10,000 SRA Craz rack helps to extract every last ounce of bass out of the amp - and for those of you with digital sources - you are also missing a lot of low end found on well integrated analog
I play upright so I know low end pretty damn well
(http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/vs/s/f/1243210831.jpg)
that given
I'm always trying to extract more passion out of the music
I would consider the BAT and the wyred for sound amps
I may buy some magnepan 1.6's for my bedroom (arc ls5 mkii pre sitting idle) and try various balanced input amps in that settings - any suggestions?
pete (bigredmachine) told me when I bought his v3s that the wyred amps were the best he ran with the HT3's
hopefully he will post here
george's comments are on high end killer amps
costing much more than an ava amp
he's tried a lot of combos in search of audio synergy
so take his recommendations to the bank
sorry guys but in many cases
you do get what you pay for
-
I have the moscode 401hr and it's fabulous
bare in mind, my $10,000 SRA Craz rack helps to extract every last ounce of bass out of the amp - and for those of you with digital sources - you are also missing a lot of low end found on well integrated analog
I play upright so I know low end pretty damn well
(http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/vs/s/f/1243210831.jpg)
that given
I'm always trying to extract more passion out of the music
I would consider the BAT and the wyred for sound amps
I may buy some magnepan 1.6's for my bedroom (arc ls5 mkii pre sitting idle) and try various balanced input amps in that settings - any suggestions?
pete (bigredmachine) told me when I bought his v3s that the wyred amps were the best he ran with the HT3's
hopefully he will post here
george's comments are on high end killer amps
costing much more than an ava amp
he's tried a lot of combos in search of audio synergy
so take his recommendations to the bank
sorry guys but in many cases
you do get what you pay for
Great setup! And great to hear about the Moscode 401HR from you and others (Zybar, AliG) that have or have tried it. I recently picked one up from Agon. Unfortunately, the top half of one of the tube ceramic bases came unglued during the shipping process. So I sent it back to George Kaye for repair and have yet to hear it.
--Doug
-
I have the moscode 401hr and it's fabulous
bare in mind, my $10,000 SRA Craz rack helps to extract every last ounce of bass out of the amp - and for those of you with digital sources - you are also missing a lot of low end found on well integrated analog
I play upright so I know low end pretty damn well
I've heard a couple of different audio setups that IMO give great reproduction of acoustic bass like Yo-Yo Ma and Leo Kottke, but don't measure up for amplified bass in rock music or for Bach's Tocatta & Fugue in D minor and Saint-Saens organ concerto. Does your system do all of that?
Do you have any recordings of yourself so that you can play a duet or counterpoint or jam or whatever?
sorry guys but in many cases
you do get what you pay for
But sometimes you're lucky and get more than you paid for, like with the HT3's for example. I keep wishing for that kind of luck with an amp that fits my budget.
-
Hi Guys,
Realistically how would a 100 watt good quality audiophile amplifier sound with these speakers? 83db shouldn't be that hard to drive?
I'd consider a pair in the next few years but my amplifers range from 88watt - 150watts/8ohm.
Regards
Rod
-
Hi Guys,
Realistically how would an 100 watt good quality audiophile amplifier sound with these speakers? 83db shouldn't be that hard to drive?
I'd consider a pair in the next few years but my amplifers range from 88watt - 150watts/8ohm.
Regards
Rod
Rod,
Depends on many factors.
Size of the room.
Type of music played.
SPL level the listener is trying to obtain.
Characteristics or quality of those 100 watts.
For example, when I tried the Bella Extreme 100 amps or Dodd 120 amps with the HT3's, on some music they sounded excellent and I could listen all day long (i.e. small scale jazz, folk, acoustic rock), but when I wanted to crank it and listen to other music (rock, orchestra, big jazz bands) it simply fell apart and couldn't deliver what I was looking for.
I don't think it is a coincident that the best overall amps I tried with the HT3's had at least 200 watts (and in some cases much more) into 8 ohms on tap.
George
-
Hi Guys,
Realistically how would an 100 watt good quality audiophile amplifier sound with these speakers? 83db shouldn't be that hard to drive?
I'd consider a pair in the next few years but my amplifers range from 88watt - 150watts/8ohm.
Regards
Rod
Rod,
I've been driving my HT3's with a Musical Fidelity 500 watt amp - as expected it has no problem driving the speakers. When I had the MF away for modification I used a Butler 3150, 150 watts, as a replacement - similar to George's findings the Butler was a nice amp but couldn't give me high volume levels with rock music. Now I'm running a Modwright KWA150, this is amp is a bit of an enigma as it has the deepest most controlled bass I've generated from my HT3's and is still able to simultaneously deliver smooth and sweet high end performance. The KWA is more than adequate for the HT3's.
My practical conclusion also confirms that the characteristics and quality of the amp is critical and, as 100-150 watts is borderline for the HT3's, then your caution is justified. I would recommend you get specific feedback on the amps you intend to use.
Phil
-
[
sorry guys but in many cases
you do get what you pay for
But sometimes you're lucky and get more than you paid for, like with the HT3's for example. I keep wishing for that kind of luck with an amp that fits my budget.
[/quote]
I was waiting for someone to take the bait
the moscode is a big amp for a small price
the ht3 - you could pay three times as much and not get the same engaging resolution
-
[
sorry guys but in many cases
you do get what you pay for
But sometimes you're lucky and get more than you paid for, like with the HT3's for example. I keep wishing for that kind of luck with an amp that fits my budget.
I was waiting for someone to take the bait
the moscode is a big amp for a small price
the ht3 - you could pay three times as much and not get the same engaging resolution
[/quote]
Unfortunately, I never found a cheaper amp than the Moscode that I felt was better on the HT3's.
It certainly must exist, but I didn't find it. :cry:
George
-
Great thread, I luv to hear the replies!
I heard several of the amps named above in my rig and while I do not get into ranking I simply like synergy. With that said from what I heard at Akfest the Modwright with the HT3's I suspect is very,very good.
I played with my buddies McIntosh 402 this weekend. Unlimited power in reserve and great control over the TC sounds woofer. The head room was very nice. OTH, we needed to dial it in with a different PC and Isolation platform or devices to get the most out of it. We just could not get enough air out of the top end, but sweet lower mids.
There is no best amp for the HT's only your best preference in sound.
I have had tube.class D, Hybrid and SS. Let your own tastes determine which amp you prefer 8) It's all about the music!
-
george's comments are on high end killer amps
costing much more than an ava amp
he's tried a lot of combos in search of audio synergy
so take his recommendations to the bank
Leaving aside the amps and ears in question, all due respect etc, this is frankly just bad advice. The only thing following it seems guaranteed to accomplish is to spend tons of money on an amp. George can have golden ears and all that, but as carusoracer wisely notes it still comes down to your personal preference, not someone else's. Never take anyone's recommendations to the bank when that kind of money is involved. I've heard differences between components in one listening environment that I did not hear between the same components in a different listening environment.
sorry guys but in many cases
you do get what you pay for
I've heard enough 'high end killer amps' to know that diminishing returns becomes a real factor. $10000+ amps are almost never twice, or half-again, or 10-20%, better than amps costing half or a third as much. From that point of view, you actually don't get what you pay for.
-
george's comments are on high end killer amps
costing much more than an ava amp
he's tried a lot of combos in search of audio synergy
so take his recommendations to the bank
Leaving aside the amps and ears in question, all due respect etc, this is frankly just bad advice. The only thing following it seems guaranteed to accomplish is to spend tons of money on an amp. George can have golden ears and all that, but as carusoracer wisely notes it still comes down to your personal preference, not someone else's. Never take anyone's recommendations to the bank when that kind of money is involved. I've heard differences between components in one listening environment that I did not hear between the same components in a different listening environment.
sorry guys but in many cases
you do get what you pay for
I've heard enough 'high end killer amps' to know that diminishing returns becomes a real factor. $10000+ amps are almost never twice, or half-again, or 10-20%, better than amps costing half or a third as much. From that point of view, you actually don't get what you pay for.
Brian,
If you read my posts, I have always suggested that people try things for themselves and make decisions based on auditions if at all possible. Carusoracer knows that very well as we have talked and exchanged e-mails around amplification for the HT3's more times than either of us can remember or probably want to admit. :wink:
I disagree that you can't take somebody's recommendations to the bank. If you can be confident that the person making the recommendation shares your same likes/dislikes (either by hearing their system, talking to them, etc...), their opinion can be valuable in helping to reduce possible candidates to audition or even buy. The key is understanding the person's viewpoints and likes/dislikes so you can put everything into the proper context.
We all know that a $10k amp is probably not twice as good as a $5k amp, etc... what good does it do to continually beat that drum? For example, I don't believe Audiotom is asking is asking for what we perceive to be the best value...he is asking for opinions around what could be better than his Moscode. It is up to Audiotom or any other person to apply their own thoughts and criteria to determine the "value" question and whether any amp is worth what it costs.
If people like tvad, arthurs, and alig (all people whose opinion I trust and is meaningful to me) didn't post their thoughts and opinions on the Moscode, I might not have tried it and enjoyed it with my HT3's.
George
-
If people like tvad, arthurs, and alig (all people whose opinion I trust and is meaningful to me) didn't post their thoughts and opinions on the Moscode, I might not have tried it and enjoyed it with my HT3's.
Right. That's not what "take it to the bank" means, though.
-
The Moscode 401 is a worthy example by the way. I've heard people rave about it, and I've heard of others expressing bewilderment that it costs as much as it does. We agree everyone should listen for themselves. (I have never auditioned it.) My opinion is that unless your room is a very good listening environment, many of the subtleties between expensive amplifiers don't amount to a hill of beans.
-
I've never heard any of these amps, but speaking as an economist...............I know I could get an amp for 1k or a little over that I would be happy with driving the HT3's. If I really had the option of spending an extra $9000 on something, it would be a better speaker. I can think of one that Jim makes, or will make shortly, but there may be others out there as well.
-
I've never heard any of these amps, but speaking as an economist...............I know I could get an amp for 1k or a little over that I would be happy with driving the HT3's. If I really had the option of spending an extra $9000 on something, it would be a better speaker. I can think of one that Jim makes, or will make shortly, but there may be others out there as well.
What in the 1k range would you suggest?
-
Dennis claims to be speaking as an economist but of course he's also speaking as the guy whose ears are responsible for the speaker in question. That should speak fairly loud and clear I would think...I'm pretty sure Jim Salk doesn't use anything particularly outlandish to test his speakers, nor in his own listening room, either.
It isn't to say you can't wring a few more ounces out of it, but some perspective is a very good thing. To me the fact that some owners of the HT3s could not be satisfied with anything less than a $5000 Moscode, when the people who made it seem to do just fine on several thousand less, generates a certain cognitive dissonance.
-
Brian
I've had a $1000 used amp
Audio Research D200
it didn't do the Salk justice on demanding material - retricted dynamics
I have no itch for an HT4
very content with the HT3
I bought the Moscode and found out what the Salk's could really do. I also spent significant money on isolation - and yes it is worth it - the image is holographic - the notes are articulated from the background not smeared together and really jump out at you
in my own amp evolution - I want to go even farther than the nice warmth dynamics, and clarity of the Moscode. Just the slightest, and I mean slighest grain is present. That's why I just splurged on a BAT VK600. Not the SE, good deal on audiogon. George's input, a nice review comparing it to the WYRED, etc, I knew it would be my amp. I want to make sure I'm getting as much engaging passion out of the music as possible
I respect opinions of guys like George, BigRedM, Doug Deacon, TVAD, Dan Ed, flying red (some audiogon members) and have bought certain equipment without hearing it (including Salk) based on their strong recommendations.
Dennis and Jim are pragmatic - and couldn't see spending that kind of money, as designers - I understand - they probably think it's overkill and they don't recommend pricey speaker wire that us listeners own. But for those audiophiles who quest for the sound (not the prestige of owning something) and do diligence, it's well worth it.
-
The Moscode 401 is a worthy example by the way. I've heard people rave about it, and I've heard of others expressing bewilderment that it costs as much as it does. We agree everyone should listen for themselves. (I have never auditioned it.) My opinion is that unless your room is a very good listening environment, many of the subtleties between expensive amplifiers don't amount to a hill of beans.
Brian,
We are in total agreement on treating the room and its importance in the audio playback chain.
My room is heavily treated and I will never not have a non-treated audio room.
George
-
Brian
I've had a $1000 used amp
Audio Research D200
it didn't do the Salk justice on demanding material - retricted dynamics
I have no itch for an HT4
very content with the HT3
I bought the Moscode and found out what the Salk's could really do. I also spent significant money on isolation - and yes it is worth it - the image is holographic - the notes are articulated from the background not smeared together and really jump out at you
in my own amp evolution - I want to go even farther than the nice warmth dynamics, and clarity of the Moscode. Just the slightest, and I mean slighest grain is present. That's why I just splurged on a BAT VK600. Not the SE, good deal on audiogon. George's input, a nice review comparing it to the WYRED, etc, I knew it would be my amp. I want to make sure I'm getting as much engaging passion out of the music as possible
I respect opinions of guys like George, BigRedM, Doug Deacon, TVAD, Dan Ed, flying red (some audiogon members) and have bought certain equipment without hearing it (including Salk) based on their strong recommendations.
Dennis and Jim are pragmatic - and couldn't see spending that kind of money, as designers - I understand - they probably think it's overkill and they don't recommend pricey speaker wire that us listeners own. But for those audiophiles who quest for the sound (not the prestige of owning something) and do diligence, it's well worth it.
Audiotom, I didn't mean to suggest all $1000 amps were good by definition, either. I don't think it's unfair to point out that your jumping from a mediocre $1K amp to a great $5K amp isn't evidence of much apart from the possibility that you (and the folks you mentioned) know a mediocre $1K amp and an excellent $5K amp when you hear one. I personally wouldn't want to be drawing many conclusions from that about the price of admission for amps.
I'm not for a minute suggesting that following the recommendations of someone you trust is necessarily a bad thing.
As for your last point about Dennis' and Jim's pragmatism, obviously I can't speak for them, but I think their ideas about overkill derive from their frequent inability to hear much of a difference, and not just thriftiness. I hope they'll step in and correct me if I'm wrong about that.
-
Dennis and Jim are pragmatic - and couldn't see spending that kind of money, as designers - I understand - they probably think it's overkill and they don't recommend pricey speaker wire that us listeners own. But for those audiophiles who quest for the sound (not the prestige of owning something) and do diligence, it's well worth it.
So you're saying that some audiophiles know better than Dennis and Jim in terms of getting the best sound out of a system using speakers they designed?
If you don't respect their hearing when it comes to wire, how can you respect their hearing when it comes to speakers?
-
Brian,
We are in total agreement on treating the room and its importance in the audio playback chain.
My room is heavily treated and I will never not have a non-treated audio room.
George
I think it's at least as important as the speakers, for real hifi results anyway - both being more important than the rest.
-
Brian,
We are in total agreement on treating the room and its importance in the audio playback chain.
My room is heavily treated and I will never not have a non-treated audio room.
George
I think it's at least as important as the speakers, for real hifi results anyway - both being more important than the rest.
Some of the research done by people like Toole and Geddes seems to indicate that heavy room treatment is not a good idea...
-
Dennis and Jim are pragmatic - and couldn't see spending that kind of money, as designers - I understand - they probably think it's overkill and they don't recommend pricey speaker wire that us listeners own. But for those audiophiles who quest for the sound (not the prestige of owning something) and do diligence, it's well worth it.
So you're saying that some audiophiles know better than Dennis and Jim in terms of getting the best sound out of a system using speakers they designed?
If you don't respect their hearing when it comes to wire, how can you respect their hearing when it comes to speakers?
I wouldn't make too much out of what I said. I'm pretty confident that there's a lot more difference between the HT3 and the HT4 than there is between the HT3 with a solid but not super expensive amp and the HT3 with a $10,000 watt machine. But I'm not saying there isn't any difference between amps. I'm agnostic because (1) I haven't heard all thant many amps with my speakers and (2) I've never been able to do controlled tests between the amps I have heard.
-
Depends what 'heavy' means, probably.
-
I had a phone call yesterday from a prospective HT3 buyer, who bought my B&W speakers that the HT3's replaced. What I told him was that my source and amplification had changed but the HT3's had remained constant, and I had no desire to change them either. The HT3's are resolving enough to differentiate changes in all the hard ware and tube rolling changes I've been through - the HT3's are that good.
We all have different listening environments, different degrees of hearing and different levels of expectation. Jim and Denis have put together a world class product, and some of us have extracted more performance from them by matching them with 'superior' components. I see no conflict with this and the designer/builder perspective, in fact it's a compliment to the HT3 that it can serve to satisfy a whole spectrum of users with different priorities and budgets.
-
Dennis and Jim are pragmatic - and couldn't see spending that kind of money, as designers - I understand - they probably think it's overkill and they don't recommend pricey speaker wire that us listeners own. But for those audiophiles who quest for the sound (not the prestige of owning something) and do diligence, it's well worth it.
So you're saying that some audiophiles know better than Dennis and Jim in terms of getting the best sound out of a system using speakers they designed?
If you don't respect their hearing when it comes to wire, how can you respect their hearing when it comes to speakers?
Potentially.
It isn't a matter of respect (I respect Jim and Dennis immensely) - it is a matter of choice and circumstances.
Jim and Dennis choose certain equipment (whether it is an amp, wire, source, etc...) depending on price, performance, etc... just like the rest of us do. I am also guessing they face many of the same constraints (room, money, significant other, etc...) we all do and that they don't have unlimited funds to throw at audio.
If that is the case, I think it would be wrong to assume that they have the ultimate setups and that they are ringing ever last ounce of performance out of their speakers. Heck, when you think about it, you realize it just isn't possible!
When you throw into the mix that we all hear differently, have different rooms, and have different likes/dislikes, it becomes even more obvious that the best any vendor can do is pass on recommendations (based on personal findings and user feedback) and try to help their customers. Which is exactly what Jim and Dennis do all the time on the forums, in person, or whatever way we communicate with them.
George
-
Dennis and Jim are pragmatic - and couldn't see spending that kind of money, as designers - I understand - they probably think it's overkill and they don't recommend pricey speaker wire that us listeners own. But for those audiophiles who quest for the sound (not the prestige of owning something) and do diligence, it's well worth it.
So you're saying that some audiophiles know better than Dennis and Jim in terms of getting the best sound out of a system using speakers they designed?
If you don't respect their hearing when it comes to wire, how can you respect their hearing when it comes to speakers?
I wouldn't make too much out of what I said. I'm pretty confident that there's a lot more difference between the HT3 and the HT4 than there is between the HT3 with a solid but not super expensive amp and the HT3 with a $10,000 watt machine. But I'm not saying there isn't any difference between amps. I'm agnostic because (1) I haven't heard all thant many amps with my speakers and (2) I've never been able to do controlled tests between the amps I have heard.
Dennis,
Let's get you back up to MA so I can play my systems with different amps (all of which technically match up with the rest of my gear - i.e. no impedance or electrical mismatches) and you can hear the differences (or not).
Plus I would simply just love to hang out with you for an afternoon or evening. :thumb:
George
-
Dennis and Jim are pragmatic - and couldn't see spending that kind of money, as designers - I understand - they probably think it's overkill and they don't recommend pricey speaker wire that us listeners own. But for those audiophiles who quest for the sound (not the prestige of owning something) and do diligence, it's well worth it.
So you're saying that some audiophiles know better than Dennis and Jim in terms of getting the best sound out of a system using speakers they designed?
If you don't respect their hearing when it comes to wire, how can you respect their hearing when it comes to speakers?
Potentially.
It isn't a matter of respect (I respect Jim and Dennis immensely) - it is a matter of choice and circumstances.
Jim and Dennis choose certain equipment (whether it is an amp, wire, source, etc...) depending on price, performance, etc... just like the rest of us do. I am also guessing they face many of the same constraints (room, money, significant other, etc...) we all do and that they don't have unlimited funds to throw at audio.
If that is the case, I think it would be wrong to assume that they have the ultimate setups and that they are ringing ever last ounce of performance out of their speakers. Heck, when you think about it, you realize it just isn't possible!
When you throw into the mix that we all hear differently, have different rooms, and have different likes/dislikes, it becomes even more obvious that the best any vendor can do is pass on recommendations (based on personal findings and user feedback) and try to help their customers. Which is exactly what Jim and Dennis do all the time on the forums, in person, or whatever way we communicate with them.
George
It seems that you are making an implicit assumption that more expensive gear is better gear.
I would argue that audio electronics are not an area where the sound quality limitation is related to cost (or space for that matter).
-
If that is the case, I think it would be wrong to assume that they have the ultimate setups and that they are ringing ever last ounce of performance out of their speakers. Heck, when you think about it, you realize it just isn't possible!
No one is assuming that, though. I stepped into the discussion because someone made the comment about 'getting what you pay for.' I think that's usually worth rebutting or at least qualifying.
I don't know how every vendor does its pricing, but I'm not persuaded it's very often superior technology that constitutes the bulk of what you're paying for in an ultra high priced amp. I think a lot of it is some combination of 1) a business model that requires high prices, 2) boutique parts whose theoretical performance advantage doesn't justify the price, and 3) chassis/aesthetic overkill - all that before dealer markups if you're not buying direct. (My amp, for example, could easily sell for $3000 at a salon, and for $4-5000 if it had a thicker brushed silver faceplate, robust IEC inlet and fancier binding posts.)
-
Let's get you back up to MA so I can play my systems with different amps (all of which technically match up with the rest of my gear - i.e. no impedance or electrical mismatches) and you can hear the differences (or not).
So you're setup for double-blind testing with matched levels?
-
It seems that you are making an implicit assumption that more expensive gear is better gear.
I would argue that audio electronics are not an area where the sound quality limitation is related to cost (or space for that matter).
Nope, not making that assumption. Believe it or not, I am always looking for a bargain and I certainly don't choose gear based on price.
Everything is always impacted by price and space.
George
-
Let's get you back up to MA so I can play my systems with different amps (all of which technically match up with the rest of my gear - i.e. no impedance or electrical mismatches) and you can hear the differences (or not).
So you're setup for double-blind testing with matched levels?
Matched levels yes.
Double-blind no.
George
-
Everything is always impacted by price and space.
Above a certain minimum price level, performance is not related to cost for home stereo electronics. There is plenty of inexpensive gear that will perform as well or better than far more expensive gear.
Anyone with enough room to allow for the proper setup of a pair of good stereo speakers has plenty of room for whatever ancillary electronics are needed.
-
Dennis and Jim are pragmatic - and couldn't see spending that kind of money, as designers - I understand - they probably think it's overkill and they don't recommend pricey speaker wire that us listeners own. But for those audiophiles who quest for the sound (not the prestige of owning something) and do diligence, it's well worth it.
So you're saying that some audiophiles know better than Dennis and Jim in terms of getting the best sound out of a system using speakers they designed?
If you don't respect their hearing when it comes to wire, how can you respect their hearing when it comes to speakers?
I wouldn't make too much out of what I said. I'm pretty confident that there's a lot more difference between the HT3 and the HT4 than there is between the HT3 with a solid but not super expensive amp and the HT3 with a $10,000 watt machine. But I'm not saying there isn't any difference between amps. I'm agnostic because (1) I haven't heard all thant many amps with my speakers and (2) I've never been able to do controlled tests between the amps I have heard.
Dennis,
Let's get you back up to MA so I can play my systems with different amps (all of which technically match up with the rest of my gear - i.e. no impedance or electrical mismatches) and you can hear the differences (or not).
Plus I would simply just love to hang out with you for an afternoon or evening. :thumb:
George
Well, I would certainly enjoy that as well. Thanks for the invite. Of course, I've got to figure out a way to get a pair of HT4's on the U.S. Air shuttle so I can test my full hypothesis concerning the differences between speakers vs. amps. Maybe I'll settle for slipping my little AVA Insight amp into a carry-on bag.
-
Forgive me for not having read all of the previous posts in this thread, for what I have to say is my opinion uninfluenced by what might have been stated previously.
I have preferred direct coupled solid state amplifiers with relatively high damping factors over tube amplifiers since 1971 (yes, I am a "seasoned" music lover). The reason is that I believe that the bottom end (bass) of a musical performance is the foundation upon which the other parts of a composition are built, which requires that a reproduced bottom end be as faithful to the recorded performance as possible. Given that transformer coupled amplifiers (i.e., all tube amplifiers, except for OTL tube amplifiers, as well as transformer coupled solid state amplifiers, such as many McIntosh amplifiers) have far lower damping factors than most direct coupled solid state amplifiers (i.e., solid state amplifiers that use sufficient negative feedback), direct coupled solid state amplifiers are generally better at accurately reproducing the bottom end of recordings than are transformer coupled amplifiers. This means that if you want to have minimaly colored bottom end, you might have to give up some of the midrange "warmth" and "openness" (related to low damping factors inherent to transformer coupled designs) of tube amplifiers to get it. That is a trade off I am willing to live with and actually prefer. Note: Hopefully, my post won't lead to a rehash of the subjective drawbacks of negative feedback in amplifier designs.
So with all of that said, what I have been using with my HT3's are McIntosh MC162 direct coupled, solid state, 2-channel amplifiers operating in bridged mode, one for each stereo channel. Nominally, in bridged mode each amp provides 320 Watts into 8 ohms and 500 Watts into 4 ohms, with an overhead of about 1.2 dB and a minimum damping factor of 200 (a very high damping factor relative to transformer coupled designs). The HT3's simply sing with those amplifiers driving them (to my ears, at least), particularly in the critical bottom end.
I recommend you try a really good, powerful, solid state amplifier with a minimum damping factor of at least 100 to drive your HT3's. At least, give such a setup a try. You might decide to go with a tube setup, but at least you will know you made the right decision.
Bob
-
I'd like to hear from Jim (Dennis maybe?) if he gets/has been able to use high price loaners electronics/cables from the manufacturers?
I would imagine that many of them would love to have his endorsement.
-
How about if we consider entrepreneurship and human nature here. In the greatest consumer society ever known to man, marketing has become so sophisticated it is a course of study at our greatest universities. Isn't it possible that the best way to market a direct sales product is to maximize your potential customer base? If you are selling speakers, amplifiers, wire or isolation systems you want to give the impression they work in the widest range of situations. So in your promotion and discussion of your offering you try to eliminate as few potential customers as possible. You demo your product with associated equipment carefully chosen to include the maximum number of buyers. The greatest number of buyers is not at the top of the spectrum, but the middle down. So you try not to alienate these people. If you demoed with 10K amps and 2K wire a certain alienation would occur and the perception that this is what is required for your speakers. So, to me, Jim's approach to ancillary stuff makes a lot of sense and as a retired entrepreneur what I would do. However, he runs the risk of not being taken seriously by the audio elite. But, I think it is the wise choice. His work speaks for itself if you take the time to listen. Speakers are the most defining part of an audio system and his will respond to whatever ancillaries you choose. As the quality of speakers varies greatly, so too does the quality of amps, preamps, wire and tweeks. Isn't it common sense? Charlatans exist everywhere in every business. Geniuses do too. One of the great benefits of Audiocircle is to try to sort out the good guys from the bad guys, the artists from the rip-offs.
-
By "audio elite" I assume you mean people with lots of money.
-
Brian, not necessarily lots of money. The "audio elite" are people who look at themselves that way and may or may not have money. The "carriage trade" are people with lots of money who want the best and will pay for it, but may not have the experience to even know it when they see it or hear it. Audio retailers love to see these people come in. Jim is not going after these people. And he is not going directly after the audio elite. Only indirectly by producing a great sounding speaker.
-
So if I decide to look at myself as part of the audio elite, I'm therefore part of the audio elite? I'm afraid I don't understand.
-
I have preferred direct coupled solid state amplifiers with relatively high damping factors over
Bad idea. Check Frank Van Alstine's back issues of Audio Basics for the full explanation of why "DC" amps never work.
I've seen the effect on a scope and it isn't pretty. You're far better off using an amp with a high pass filter at the input and normal design with coupling caps.
I've also heard "DC" amps going back to the Crown DC300. They produce what I call "lumpen bass."
-
earsfirst - I sent you a PM - please check.
Thanks.
-
woolz - post 22 you really hit the nail on the head
thank you
there is also a contingent called the audio snob - much like the wine snob
always has to have the privaledge new flashy piece, condesending etc.
those who focus more on the music over the gear to get you there, don't get caught up in that element
jim and dennis' speakers sound great with modestly priced gear
and their nuances come out even more when careful selection of gear brings that extra element out of the music
I like Jim's approach, I'd also like to fly him down to New Orleans and have him hear what his HT3's are fully capable of.
Personally, having met Jim at his shop, I'd expect that he'd take note, but it wouldn't stop his enjoyment with modest front end gear one iota
-
spectrum, but the middle down. So you try not to alienate these people. If you demoed with 10K amps and 2K wire a certain alienation would occur and the perception that this is what is
I think it would be the opposite from what I've seen of audiophiles. (And audiophiles are pretty much where Jim's market is. He's not selling his speakers at the big discount stores or to their customers.)
Doing a demo with ultra-expensive ancillary components would tend to impress the yokels. "Gee, these speakers must be the shiznitz if he's demonstrating them with $100K worth of amps and cables!"
Then the potential customer notices how Jim's speakers are actually more affordable than those from many other companies. They're pretty too, and look like fine furniture.
They're still monkey coffins, but they're very refined monkey coffins. :)
Monkey coffins, especially tall thin ones with midrange drivers pretending to be woofers are what sells.
-
I like Jim's approach, I'd also like to fly him down to New Orleans and have him hear what his HT3's are fully capable of.
Personally, having met Jim at his shop, I'd expect that he'd take note, but it wouldn't stop his enjoyment with modest front end gear one iota
Now you're playing audio snob. You think you know better than Jim what his speakers are capable of, and you can show him how it's really done.
Speakers, recordings, and the listening room account for 99% or greater of how a sytem sounds. Electronics are only responsible for fractions of a percent of improvement.
-
I'm still wondering who this fabled 'audio elite' is and why that term shouldn't be interpreted as 'people who spend big bucks on audio.'
Audiophiles are an eclectic bunch and, as turkey says, lots of them haven't been terribly impressed by some of the $100K systems they've heard. I've listened to enough ridiculous systems that didn't sound at all like live music not to be fooled by this silliness anymore.
It may well be that demoing the Salk speakers with megabuck electronics would scare some people away; that's a fair point. I just don't see how those people can be said to represent any kind of 'elite.' You can't buy a great pair of ears, but you can buy a great sounding system for the price of some Salk speakers and the supposedly 'modest' electronics he happens to use. And you can spend five times as much for no meaningful improvement.
Again and again, the underlying assumption is, "Come hear my really expensive stuff; it's better. Also, it's more expensive. It costs much more than the modest gear, which is modest because it doesn't cost nearly as much." Telling the manufacturer he hasn't yet heard "what his speakers can really do" is a bit off, isn't it?
-
Guys, this thread is steering quite far from the original intention and I dont see any help being given to the OP at this point. Lets try and clean it up and keep it on track. Constructive help is great, but grandstanding will not be tolerated.
-
Guys, this thread is steering quite far from the original intention and I dont see any help being given to the OP at this point. Lets try and clean it up and keep it on track. Constructive help is great, but grandstanding will not be tolerated.
Grandstanding?
I would assume you mean:
"To perform ostentatiously so as to impress an audience."
I don't see that anyone was doing that here.
-
Again and again, the underlying assumption is, "Come hear my really expensive stuff; it's better. Also, it's more expensive. It costs much more than the modest gear, which is modest because it doesn't cost nearly as much." Telling the manufacturer he hasn't yet heard "what his speakers can really do" is a bit off, isn't it?
Well put.
I do really feel that Jim knows what his speakers can do, and has certainly selected ancillary equipment that is entirely adequate. As such, if I were looking for amps to use with the HT3s, I would ask Jim what he recommends.
I am positive he would steer you straight.
Note that there are many people in the audio business that I would not trust to give an honest opinion. However, Jim strikes me as a straight-shooter and I think he wouldn't recommend something if he didn't feel it was good.
-
I have preferred direct coupled solid state amplifiers with relatively high damping factors over
Bad idea. Check Frank Van Alstine's back issues of Audio Basics for the full explanation of why "DC" amps never work.
I've seen the effect on a scope and it isn't pretty. You're far better off using an amp with a high pass filter at the input and normal design with coupling caps.
I've also heard "DC" amps going back to the Crown DC300. They produce what I call "lumpen bass."
Perhaps I didn't clearly state what I meant. By "direct coupled" I meant that the output power devices of the amplifier are connected directly to the loudspeaker instead of being connected indirectly through a transformer. I did not mean that the amplification stages in the amplifier are directly coupled to each other (i.e., without using coupling capacitors). The amplification stages of the MC162 are AC coupled to one another via capacitors and the output power devices connect directly to the loudspeaker instead of through a transformer.
Bob
-
Note that there are many people in the audio business that I would not trust to give an honest opinion. However, Jim strikes me as a straight-shooter and I think he wouldn't recommend something if he didn't feel it was good.
+1, especially after reading their posts for some time and meeting them at AKFest
-
Ok, one last try...
Myself and others aren't saying price absolutely equals performance or quality. However, we have given examples and opinions where amp A cost more than amp B and we felt that amp B performed at a higher level. Amp A didn't perform at a higher level because it cost more, it simply performed at a higher level and happened to cost more.
Why is it so hard to believe that something that costs more "could" be better? :scratch: Not that it is automatically better because of its price tag.
Let's use Salk speakers instead of amps for a little exercise...
Don't we all pretty much agree that as you move up Jim's speaker line the performance level increases?
As great a value that Jim's products represent (based on many of our comments), does anybody believe that the HT3's are 3 times better than the Song Towers just because they cost 3 times more?
Since I don't believe most of you feel that way, why are some people applying that logic to amps, sources, cables, etc...?
Again, I am not trying to impose my value system or viewpoint on anybody, I am simply asking that all viewpoints be considered and not make this into a black and white discussion.
Now, how about we get back to making recommendations to earsfirst and audiotom based on the criteria they supplied?
George
-
Why is it so hard to believe that something that costs more "could" be better? :scratch: Not that it is automatically better because of its price tag.
Of course it could, and no one, in this thread, has suggested that it couldn't. OTOH, it also seems easy for some to assume that modestly priced gear = modest gear. Again, it was originally a response to the 'folks, you really do get what you pay for' comment, and to certain subsequent ones.
Also, it's perhaps a fundamental disagreement about 'how much better' (see below).
Let's use Salk speakers instead of amps for a little exercise...
Don't we all pretty much agree that as you move up Jim's speaker line the performance level increases?
As great a value that Jim's products represent (based on many of our comments), does anybody believe that the HT3's are 3 times better than the Song Towers just because they cost 3 times more?
Since I don't believe most of you feel that way, why are some people applying that logic to amps, sources, cables, etc...?
For one thing, most audiophiles seem to accept, with good justification in my opinion, that speakers make much more difference than amps, sources, etc. Therefore it does make sense to apply more rigorous economic logic to the latter - what you pay for top-line speakers needn't be approached by what you pay for the front end. From that point of view, it is quite unnecessary to spend $15,000 on an amplifier, when that amount of money can get you at least within a shake or two of the best performing speakers to be had - and certainly the best speakers you could hope to appreciate to the fullest in a potentially compromised listening environment.
Again, I am not trying to impose my value system or viewpoint on anybody, I am simply asking that all viewpoints be considered and not make this into a black and white discussion.
Has anyone accused you of trying to impose your values? I don't think you ever have, I don't think I have a reason to think so. I always give consideration to your viewpoint, as you are clearly an experienced listener with a lot of exposure to different stuff. And I hope I don't come across as a black and white sort of guy.
Now, how about we get back to making recommendations to earsfirst and audiotom based on the criteria they supplied?
Personally I don't view side-debates like this as irrelevant or counterproductive. I find them interesting. Maybe that's just me. If I had come across such debates sooner in my 'audio journey', who knows, I might have approached things differently.
-
Well, I guess we'll just have to accept the fact that this thread has gone off track. But I think it's still been useful. It's certainly motivated me to make another trip up to Boston to hear the HT3's with lots of $$$$ driving them. My main problem with mega buck amps vs mega buck speakers is that I don't know quite what the theory is behind some of the super expensive amps, whereas it's pretty obvious why an HT4 costs more than an HT3 which costs more than an HT2...................... Deeper bass costs money. There's no real short cut there. And copper shorting rings cost more than no shorting rings, and you can document that distortion goes down with the copper. And two drivers cost more than one, and two give you more sensitivity. And sloped cabinets, and bigger cabinets, cost more. But when it comes to amps, and wires, and interconnects---I see the higher price tags, but I don't always see the science or common sense. Actually, I usually don't see it. So that's why I'm not willing to accept any claims about amps until I can verify them. Well, that's true of speakers too. Uh--what was the question?
-
here's my suggestion for amps:
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1246073811&/Electrocompaniet-AW400-Mint-Mo
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstran&1247863826&/Electrocompaniet-AW-220-Monobl
these amps deliver current far above what most amps w/similar wpc-ratings amps will deliver, and are stable into loads under 1 ohm. while i prefer tubes, electrocompaniet amps are what i would choose for solid state. while i have never heard the ht3's, since most folks say they really need a good s/s amp, i would seriously consider the ec amps w/them... they are smooth, dynamic, extended, detailed... not tubes, for sure, but not too far off...
also, i agree w/dennis murphy - i would suspect that the ht4's w/a modestly priced amp would outperform the ht3's w/ an expensive amp (especially in this case, as the ht4 seems to be much easier to drive than the ht3) - i'd inwest the additional money on the speakers instead of on the amp...
on another note, i would consider this preamp - perhaps you wouldn't need a different amp then one that you have already tried... 8)
http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?preatube&1248292924&/Melos-333-Reference-Gold
doug s.
-
Well, I guess we'll just have to accept the fact that this thread has gone off track. But I think it's still been useful. It's certainly motivated me to make another trip up to Boston to hear the HT3's with lots of $$$$ driving them. My main problem with mega buck amps vs mega buck speakers is that I don't know quite what the theory is behind some of the super expensive amps, whereas it's pretty obvious why an HT4 costs more than an HT3 which costs more than an HT2...................... Deeper bass costs money. There's no real short cut there. And copper shorting rings cost more than no shorting rings, and you can document that distortion goes down with the copper. And two drivers cost more than one, and two give you more sensitivity. And sloped cabinets, and bigger cabinets, cost more. But when it comes to amps, and wires, and interconnects---I see the higher price tags, but I don't always see the science or common sense. Actually, I usually don't see it. So that's why I'm not willing to accept any claims about amps until I can verify them. Well, that's true of speakers too. Uh--what was the question?
Dennis,
I agree that it is easier to understand price differences in speakers, but even there, we all sometimes scratch our heads around prices.
I think we should probably separate discussions on amps vs. cables. I think it is much easier to measure and see the differences on amps. :wink:
George
-
also, i agree w/dennis murphy - i would suspect that the ht4's w/a modestly priced amp would outperform the ht3's w/ an expensive amp (especially in this case, as the ht4 seems to be much easier to drive than the ht3) - i'd inwest the additional money on the speakers instead of on the amp...
doug s.
Doug,
Now you are into a whole other discussion... :o
We move away from what's a good amp for my HT3's to if I spend "X" amount of money, how much should go to speakers and how much should go to amplification?
FWIW, I agree with you guys in that moving up to the HT4's should produce a bigger improvement than making an amp change with the HT3's. The only reason I say "should" is because I have never heard the HT4's.
George
-
i would suspect that the ht4's w/a modestly priced amp would outperform the ht3's w/ an expensive amp
I don't want to be a bore, but this is one more example of the unspoken assumption that more expensive equals better! I'm not sure it's even intentional, I just think people reflexively think in these terms about audio (I'm sure I could catch myself doing the same thing at some point). Can we replace the terms 'modestly priced' and 'expensive' with 'average' and 'excellent'? :)
-
be approached by what you pay for the front end. From that point of view, it is quite unnecessary to spend $15,000 on an amplifier, when that amount of money can get you at least within a shake or two of the best performing speakers to be had - and certainly the best speakers you could hope to appreciate to the fullest in a potentially compromised listening environment.
$15K will easily get you a pair of Geddes Summas and 3 subs, or a Linkwitz Orion++ system.
End of story. :)
-
Again, I am not trying to impose my value system or viewpoint on anybody, I am simply asking that all viewpoints be considered and not make this into a black and white discussion.
Has anyone accused you of trying to impose your values? I don't think you ever have, I don't think I have a reason to think so. I always give consideration to your viewpoint, as you are clearly an experienced listener with a lot of exposure to different stuff. And I hope I don't come across as a black and white sort of guy.
I feel that some things are quite black and white. There is plenty of research showing where we need to be when designing speakers. Too many designers seem to ignore that research.
-
be approached by what you pay for the front end. From that point of view, it is quite unnecessary to spend $15,000 on an amplifier, when that amount of money can get you at least within a shake or two of the best performing speakers to be had - and certainly the best speakers you could hope to appreciate to the fullest in a potentially compromised listening environment.
$15K will easily get you a pair of Geddes Summas and 3 subs, or a Linkwitz Orion++ system.
End of story. :)
End of story....hardly.
I haven't heard the Summas yet, but I would take the Salk HT3's over the Orion's any day.
Oh wait, I did that already. :duh:
George
-
HT2...................... Deeper bass costs money. There's no real short cut there. And copper shorting rings cost more than no shorting rings, and you can document that distortion goes down with the copper.
See the papers by Geddes and Lee about perception of distortion.
-
Again, I am not trying to impose my value system or viewpoint on anybody, I am simply asking that all viewpoints be considered and not make this into a black and white discussion.
Has anyone accused you of trying to impose your values? I don't think you ever have, I don't think I have a reason to think so. I always give consideration to your viewpoint, as you are clearly an experienced listener with a lot of exposure to different stuff. And I hope I don't come across as a black and white sort of guy.
I feel that some things are quite black and white. There is plenty of research showing where we need to be when designing speakers. Too many designers seem to ignore that research.
Weren't we talking amps and not speakers? :scratch:
You don't have to sell me on speaker design and its importance. My current speakers and purchase of HT3's and SongTowers show my commitment to quality speaker design and implementation.
George
-
I haven't heard the Summas yet, but I would take the Salk HT3's over the Orion's any day.
Orions or Orion+ or ++?
The original Orions are superior to the HT3s, but they are limited in terms of maximum SPL. The Orion+ is fully dipole, and the ++ goes far towards eliminating the output limits.
Or are you opposed to the Orions because they don't use tweako electronics? :)
-
Turkey, this is a tread about amps for a Salk speaker in the Salk Speaker circle. Clearly, this is not the place to discuss other speakers.
-
I haven't heard the Summas yet, but I would take the Salk HT3's over the Orion's any day.
Orions or Orion+ or ++?
The original Orions are superior to the HT3s, but they are limited in terms of maximum SPL. The Orion+ is fully dipole, and the ++ goes far towards eliminating the output limits.
Or are you opposed to the Orions because they don't use tweako electronics? :)
Turkey,
I am not opposed to the Orion speakers in any fashion. I simply feel that the HT3 and many other designs are more complete and more to my liking. I am a strong believer in active systems and had great success with Emerald Physics CS2's (which I also preferred over the Orion speakers).
I also have no issues with you preferring them - we all have our opinions.
My system is not built on "tweako electronics". The products I own and use are built on solid technical engineering principles and designs.
BTW, I try very hard to be a productive member at AC and give something back to the community. I would appreciate it if you stop with the childish and unproductive jabs and comments. I will of course provide you the same courtesy.
George
-
i would suspect that the ht4's w/a modestly priced amp would outperform the ht3's w/ an expensive amp
I don't want to be a bore, but this is one more example of the unspoken assumption that more expensive equals better! I'm not sure it's even intentional, I just think people reflexively think in these terms about audio (I'm sure I could catch myself doing the same thing at some point). Can we replace the terms 'modestly priced' and 'expensive' with 'average' and 'excellent'? :)
no, you are wrong, here. this is an example of the same price of "set a" will give you better performance, compared to the same price of "set b"; where "set a" is ht4 speaker/lower-priced amp; and "set-b" is ht3 speaker/higher-priced amp.
in one sense, yes, i am generically inferring that a modestly priced amp is not as good as an expensive amp. however, what i am also inferring is that you are fortunate enough to find the absolute best sounding modest priced amp w/the ht4 and the absolute best sounding more expensive amp w/the ht3.
but, i completely admit that my example rules out the possibility that it is possible that a particular modestly priced amp that is paired w/the ht4's could be better than any amp at even eight times its price. you win! :lol:
so:
"average" amp + ht4 > "excellent" amp + ht3
however, i still cannot subscribe to the above, because, like you, i believe that you can get excellent amps that are not that expensive... 8) of course, the average joe would think a $1k amp is obscenely expensive when you can buy a complete h-t system for that! :lol:
doug s.
-
The assumption is that more expensive = better. In some cases, as in the Salk speaker line, it's true.
In audio, it's often not the case. Expensive = higher material and labor costs, marketing savvy and so on, etc. blah, blah, blah.....