|'); } // End -->|
In Reply to: What amps have you owned? Any less than 30 years old? posted by vacuous on August 11, 2006 at 19:40:42:
In my house, the standard by which sound reproducing equipment is judged is not by the age or type of equipment but by direct comparison to actual musical instruments of which we have and play quite a few. The most reliable opinions are made by exactly such comparisons. My guess is you don't own or play any musical instruments so why should anybody listen to your opinion about sound reproducing equipment? My guess is that people like you don't make their judgements based on direct comparisons with real musical instruments but with what they like at the moment or think they remember they heard the last time they actually experienced real music (which for many audiophiles uses the term music in its loosest sense.)
"That you call tube amps 'junk' in your above post, shows that your opinions verge on contempt, which is not a balanced or reliable point of view." It doesn't verge on contempt, it is recognition that vacuum tubes are an antiquated inefficient method for amplifying electrical signals. That is why the electronics industry abandoned them 40 years ago. The re-emergence of a niche market for obsolete techologies like tubes and phonograph records is interesting and I'm sure it will be studied in the future by experts in the psychology of economic decisions but tubes wil never replace transistors as a viable state of the art method for audio signal amplificaton.
My main sound system shares a room with a 1927 Steinway grand piano, a family heirloom which was restored in the mid 1980s. And believe it or not, there are some recordings which can be made to sound surprisingly close to it. I'm curious to know what YOUR standard for comparison is. "Anything else is a waste of forum space."
What amps do you own? Any less than 30 years of age?
If you haven't bought an amp in 30 years, why don't you just say so?
It is the Klaus Peterson 120 amp. Never heard of it? Nor had I until I did some research. The late Harry Klaus was involved with the design of a number of Dynaco designs like the ST-120. John Peterson owned Stereo Cost Cutters and purchased the remaining inventory when Dynaco closed its doors in 1980. It was a "Big Lots" Dynaco using leftover parts. I had a ST-120 myself and no doubt it would have benefited from having a MOSFET output.
It performs very well and was the equal of several Hafler amplifiers we compared it to at a friend's house. It does exactly what it is supposed to do. Once you reach that point, anything else is a waste of money. We have a name for that...it's called "engineering."
have exerted a profound influence over the audio industry across time. How many thousands of music lovers have (and continue to) enjoy a wide range of reasonably priced Dynaco and Hafler products? As for me, I owned the PAS-3x, PAT-5, FM-5, and ST-120 in my early years. I built the middle two from kits.
Frank Van Alstine was the first of many to recognize the underlying potential of many Dyna and Hafler products. He took them to a new level of performance using higher quality parts and stiffer power supplies beyond the scope of Hafler's intended cost targets. It was one of FVA's enhanced PAT-5s that replaced my Citation 11 in '76 or so. Where Dyna used the cheap LM301 opamps, he replaced them with LF356 FETs. All of the (noisy) 5% carbon film resistors were replaced with Dale 1% metal films. Similar upgrades were made to the 'lytics in the signal path. All solid engineering moves. It was more dynamic and cleaner than the otherwise good Eleven.
I used it until '81 when I moved to the next level of performance with an Audio Research SP-6C. I use a hybrid SP-9 MKIII today. While my system's sonic capabilities have progressed beyond those days, I will always have fond memories of Hafler's products. As for Frank, he continues to offer upgrades to those many Hafler children still in the field.
The 60 wpc Mosfet 120's amps can be bootstrapped to create a single 250 watt amplifier, testimony to its capable power supply. For my purposes, 60 wpc driving my speakers in my room will produce undistorted sound as loud as I care to have it. There is no purpose to having more or cleaner power available. That's called engineering, getting the size of things optimal to work with each other. There are other applications in my house which require far more powerful audio amplifiers, and others which require far less. Getthing those right is also what engineering is about. Buying whatever is advertised as the latest gee whiz in the magazine is what audiophile disease is all about. The two have nothing in common.
Well, that is obvious to all of us, SM given your attitude and choices. There are many who differ having gone beyond that level. :)
Buying whatever is advertised as the latest gee whiz in the magazine is what audiophile disease is all about.
Agreed. Advertising copy is as useless as specifications to conveying any useful information as to how the device works in the real world. Auditioning the component is the only way to grasp its performance envelope.
> was the equal of several Hafler amplifiers <
Yeah, that some good shit fer sure.....
....the way he skirts the issue at hand. I'm sure he'd win.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: