TAS LIST- the-ten-most-significant-amplifiers-all-time!

[garylkoh]

Is the SWAMP the amp developed by John Ulrich (now of Spectron) and Arnie? Yes I believe that was one of the first.

Yes. That's the one. Actually, John Ulrick and Jim Henderson.

 

[DonH50]

Was that the Infinity amp that couldn't handle capacitive loads? I seem to recall a 4000 model number... Whatever it was, it was a disaster.

 

[garylkoh]

I don't know if it couldn't handle capacitative loads, but it was a disaster because it wasn't very stable. Here's the story from John Ulrick in Positive Feedback:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/pfbackissues/0604/pappas.spectron.6n4.html

 

[muralman1]

muralman1

1. What amp in your knowledge kicked off Class D?
2. Why is Class D bad for business?
3. And why is that your system can attest to #2?

1.) That was answered with the Infinity Swamp. From what I understand, that was a bust.
2.) Class D is bad for the audio business because a good one will balk at most TAS favorite buddy parts.
3.) My system is most probably the most sensitive system in existence. Local audiophiles know this. Every small defect is magnified. Folks have brought their CD players and learned to their dismay how badly they compare to mine. All CD players with a filter, and/or upsampling chip, and/or oversampling chip will sound terribly contrived. There goes nearly all players and transports. Cables with but the thinnest of insulation is quiet enough to use. That throws out almost the entire cable industry. So there you go, sorry.

Vince

 

[fas42]

My system is most probably the most sensitive system in existence. Local audiophiles know this. Every small defect is magnified. Folks have brought their CD players and learned to their dismay how badly they compare to mine. All CD players with a filter, and/or upsampling chip, and/or oversampling chip will sound terribly contrived. There goes nearly all players and transports. Cables with but the thinnest of insulation is quiet enough to use. That throws out almost the entire cable industry. So there you go, sorry

Vince, you're being too harsh . I know what you're saying but it is not quite as simple as you're implying. When a system is in a very fine state of tune, as yours is, it will react dramatically to any change of component, and it is unfair to point the finger of blame at an introduced piece of gear or tweak as being the root cause. It could easily be your own, normally well behaved gear which is actually provoked into misbehaving that is in a sense to blame for the bad sound when something changes.

To shed further light, my system when working well would compare with yours in terms of the listening. But if we attempted to mix and match between our two systems it would be a disaster. My setup would sound atrocious, as would yours.

Why? Because every system ultimately should be considered a single functioning unit, no matter how many lumps of metal and wood connected together with various bits of wire and things are part of its makeup. Once a system is performing at a very high level just swapping various bits in and out is almost guaranteed to be a failure. To continue a recent analogy, what success do you think you would have moving various parts of different teams' Formula 1 cars between each other on an ad hoc basis?

Frank

 

[DonH50]

I don't know if it couldn't handle capacitative loads, but it was a disaster because it wasn't very stable. Here's the story from John Ulrick in Positive Feedback:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/pfbackissues/0604/pappas.spectron.6n4.html

Thanks. Yes, stability was the issue... The one I heard was perhaps a later (but not much more stable) model as I think it looked a little different. I also was at the Chicago CES where a pair of Cobra Cables fried a pair of the Infinity monoblocks (a little "zip" sound and they were dead -- couldn't handle the added -- quite high -- capacitance of the Cobras with the speaker load).

I think it was quite a few years later before the technology and design evolved enough for Class D amps to be a viable product.

 

[muralman1]

Vince, you're being too harsh . I know what you're saying but it is not quite as simple as you're implying. When a system is in a very fine state of tune, as yours is, it will react dramatically to any change of component, and it is unfair to point the finger of blame at an introduced piece of gear or tweak as being the root cause. It could easily be your own, normally well behaved gear which is actually provoked into misbehaving that is in a sense to blame for the bad sound when something changes.

To shed further light, my system when working well would compare to yours in terms of the listening. But if we attempted to mix and match between our two systems it would be a disaster. My setup would sound atrocious, as would yours.

Why? Because every system ultimately should be considered a single functioning unit, no matter how many lumps of metal and wood connected together with various bits of wire and things are part of its makeup. Once a system is performing at a very high level just swapping various bits in and out is almost guaranteed to be a failure. To continue a recent analogy, what success do you think you would have moving various parts of different teams' Formula 1 cars between each other on an ad hoc basis?

Frank

I don't believe that. The first amps I tried on my eth terrible speakers were Pass Labs X-600 monos. With those amps, no change was all that noticeable. We all compared various CD players with Wadia coming out on top by a slight majority. Fancy power cords sounded the same. Speaker cables could be anything. That is why my neighbor, MIT sell so many crazy expensive cables. TAS feeds into this money buys happiness neurosis.

Since I got my present amps, and preamp, my sound morphed all over the place. Now, power cords do make a difference. CD players sound different, but it isn't a matter of choice, there are lots of losers, and one fabulous winner. After settling on a very good source (The DAC I have and a suped up Lambda transport) I turned my attention to the wires. The difference between round and thin was a revelation. The way I terminate the ends of my cables made a positive difference to. The kinder I am to the signal, the more I am rewarded. When I look at it now, I realize it all makes common sense. Quantum mechanics explains it all. This is a matter of engineers trying to tame an electromagnetic wave pattern without disturbing it. My system proves that can't be done. Using conventional amps, the sensitiveness is lost. No matter what you do to big class A and AB amps, they won't come close to the ultimate sounding music found in this class D system. Just adding the 47 Lab Flatfish transport picked up the sound to ethereal. The 47 lab designer is a like thinker.

Vince

 

[FrantzM]

<snip>
2.) Class D is bad for the audio business because a good one will balk at most TAS favorite buddy parts.
3.) My system is most probably the most sensitive system in existence. Local audiophiles know this. Every small defect is magnified. Folks have brought their CD players and learned to their dismay how badly they compare to mine. All CD players with a filter, and/or upsampling chip, and/or oversampling chip will sound terribly contrived. There goes nearly all players and transports. Cables with but the thinnest of insulation is quiet enough to use. That throws out almost the entire cable industry. So there you go, sorry.

Vince

mman1

I can't make much sense of what you mean in your second statement ..

Staement 3 seals it off .. I am certain it won't do much for your credibility ...

 

[fas42]

I don't believe that

...

Since I got my present amps, and preamp, my sound morphed all over the place. Now, power cords do make a difference. CD players sound different, but it isn't a matter of choice, there are lots of losers, and one fabulous winner. After settling on a very good source (The DAC I have and a suped up Lambda transport) I turned my attention to the wires. The difference between round and thin was a revelation. The way I terminate the ends of my cables made a positive difference to. The kinder I am to the signal, the more I am rewarded.

But you do believe it! You have just said there, exactly what I mentioned, your system currently is performing at a very high level, and now it is extremely sensitive to any further changes! We do agree, in fact ... don't we??

Frank

 

[caesar]

Does it make any sense at all to talk about great amps without mentioning the speakers they drove well (or not so well)?

Or am I missing something?

 

[muralman1]

mman1

I can't make much sense of what you mean in your second statement ..

Staement 3 seals it off .. I am certain it won't do much for your credibility ...

I can't pretend I make perfect sense to anyone. After all, it is my word against TAS, and tens of thousands of reviews of products. The sellers and builders just push the ignore button (If this place has one). What I am saying is, great class D amps require a refinement of system choices. I am probably speaking of ICE amps solely.

 

[egidius]

Does it make any sense at all to talk about great amps without mentioning the speakers they drove well (or not so well)?

Or am I missing something?

well, you could go about it the other way round, but no your spot on! only where does it stop? you always have to look at the global thing, except you might have to take it apart; if I'm not mistaken Kant actually said something along those lines?

e

 

[egidius]

I can't pretend I make perfect sense to anyone. After all, it is my word against TAS, and tens of thousands of reviews of products. The sellers and builders just push the ignore button (If this place has one). What I am saying is, great class D amps require a refinement of system choices. I am probably speaking of ICE amps solely.

I am with you there: This list seems to be as much influenced by how much these amps got sold; but what actually was significant? Not that I would know, to be honest.
But with speakers it seemes easier, you can always agree on Quad!

As for me; I feel a really good OTL amp would need to be in there, Futterman was a great breakthrough, but (hearsay) very unreliable?!
So I could mention Berning, but also Einstein has had some amazing variations on the Ciclotron.

 

[Lee]

Thanks Peter. Good article.

Last October I heard these Technical Brain amps reproduce very convincingly a piano performance. I was floored.

 

[flez007]

Still kicking myself for selling my Marantz 8/7C.. now I see them listed here... such is life!

 

[mep]

The Phase Linear 400 amp made the cut and I have the Series 2 version which is much improved. Being a dyed in the wool tube lover who owns a Jadis Defy 7 MKII (and many great tube amps before the Jadis), I have to say I'm humbled. I know some other people have said some unkind things about this amp, but I have no reference for what made up the rest of their system. This is a damn good sounding amp and I don't really care what anyone else says. If your amp isn't at least as good as the Phase Linear 400 Series 2, you don't really have much to talk about. I find this amp to be very neutral sounding. It just sounds like music. It is powerful, fast, clean, and has great bass. It is stupid good for the money if you can find one in good shape and replace the filter caps.

 

[DonH50]

I loved the bass but did not like most else about my original Phase 700 (not sure it was a 700B). Actually, though I thought the high end a little harsh, that was partly due to the speakers (Infinity QLS, EMITs). The main problem I had with it was that it was the most unreliable amp I have ever owned, and when an output transistor went out it tended to short the rails to the speaker, taking the woofer with it. Grrr...

 

[caesar]

I'm surprised the Spectral DMA-50 didn't make any of the lists.

I'm sure they left off some amps on purpose to keep people talking.

 

[muralman1]

I'm sure they left off some amps on purpose to keep people talking.

Ah, wise businessman.