[avahifi]

You need to be a bit careful about that "expensive parts" claim.

For example, one percent tolerance 1/2W metal film resistors cost about five cents each in production quantity.  If there is one hundred of them in a given product, that's all of $5.00 worth.

All "military grade parts"?  Well gee, then how come the radio in an Army Humvee sounds so bad, its made completely from military grade parts? 

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

[KnowTalent]

All "military grade parts"?  Well gee, then how come the radio in an Army Humvee sounds so bad, its made completely from military grade parts? 

Yeah, but mil-spec parts guarentee it will sound consistently bad over a longer life cycle      

[*Scotty*]

The one I would not do is buy a piece of stereo equipment based on a consensus of opinion about it that I read on-line. A decision making process relying on consensus will lead you straight to a McDonald's equivalent system,and yes Eight billion people can be wrong.
Scotty

[RUR]

...how come the radio in an Army Humvee sounds so bad, its made completely from military grade parts? 

DoD has been migrating away from Mil-Standards for the better part of twenty years as part of Acquisition Reform.  Mil-spec discrete parts have gone the way of the dinosaur and a Humvee radio is filled with commercial devices - probably manufactured by the lowest bidder.

[Glen B]

IMO the more expensive amplifier is likely the excel over the cheaper amp in subtleties such as timbral accuracy, lower levels of grain, better low frequency performance, greater transparency, greater detail, better soundstaging and image placement, etc.  Whether or not an individual is willing to spend the extra money depends on what they value in their music playback and whether they can even hear the differences.  I own/have owned both modestly priced and kilobuck high end equipment.  Both types have sounded pretty good, but I find the more expensive stuff to just have that extra little bit of refinement that I value. 

sorry, but it sounds to me like you are assuming that because you think the $$$$ amp has "mcintosh" on its front, and that $$ amp has "emotiva" on its front, that the $$$$ amp will have better - "timbral accuracy", less grain, better low end, transparency, detail, blah blah.  why?  cuz it's more expensive?  cuz it says "mcintosh" on it?  what a load.  unless you have listened to darredon's system and know his room, there is no way his hypothetical question can be answered, regardless of mfr, regardless of price.  even regardless of looking at the two spec sheets of each amp.  and, even knowing darredon's room/system, it's likely only a listening test would reveal the proper answer.  in my experience, price doesn't always determine sound quality.  many "cheap" amps sound fantastic, especially if paired w/the right speakers.  then, spend extra money elsewhere in your system - ie: room treatment, better source components, better preamp, etc, and you will be far more likely to notice the improvements "timbral accuracy", etc, then by swapping out $$ amp for $$$$ amp.

but, do i have my own biases as well?  absolutely, tho they are not based on how much something costs.  when i started reading this thread, i was wondering about darredon's system.  then, towards the end, he reveals he's using an 80wpc vac avatar super.  so, because of my biases, i would wager that what he is using now will sound better than either of the two amps he lists, regardless of speaker or room.  (unless he's driving some difficult speaker that drops down to 1 ohm, or something.)  why?  because a quality tube amp will be better than s/s, and 80w of tube power should be enough for most speakers.  that's my bias.   

Did I say cheap amps can't sound good ?   I did say in my post that "I own/have owned both modestly priced and kilobuck high end equipment; both types have sounded pretty good". 

I currently own mid-fi, vintage and high end pieces. While budget priced equipment can sound great, MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE is that in general, the more expensive pieces often had the edge in a number of the attributes I mentioned previously, and I stand by that statement.  

BTW, I'm referring to SS versus SS, not tubes.  I'm not getting into the tubes vs solid-state debate, although I cut my teeth on tubes in the 1970s.

[doug s.]

i also own and have owned wintage, mid-fi and hi end stuff.  i have not found cost to be a good indicator of sonics.  i have found that there is remarkable gear and unremarkable gear at all prices.  of course, this is "in my experience". 

as always -
ymmv,

doug s.

[Glen B]

Again, you're putting words in my mouth.  I didn't say cost was "a good indicator of sonics" or the sole indicator for that matter.  If I thought that to be the case, why would I also own budget priced gear ? 

I agree 100% that there is remarkable and unremarkable gear at all prices.  I just found remarkable expensive gear to be often better than remarkable inexpensive gear (comparing apples and apples, versus apples and oranges) not that the latter could not hold its own against the more expensive stuff. 

Let us just agree to disagree. 

[doug s.]

Let us just agree to disagree.  Wink

i agree...   

doug s.

[BillB]

Oh I was not implying that expensive parts sound better...just that they are more expensive and hence the big cost difference.

I think the build labor and engineering are the lion's share of the cost difference between the two.