2. amps-preamps
  3. 159920-976

What is missing here?

In this months Absolute Sound magazine there is a nice review of an amp that many of us would probably consider based not only on the review but on the topology utilized with the amp. The amp in question is the new Air Tight ATM 300R. This amp utilizes the 300B tube and according to Dick Olsher " The Air tight ATM300-R wowed me with countless hours of listening pleasure. It consistently brought to life the full sonic promise of the 300B". Sounds amazing right??


Except, nowhere ( except in the specs section) does it mention that this amp is limited to 9Watts/Ch!! And at that it is putting out about 10% distortion! So not only is the amp severely limited to which speakers one can match it to, but those speakers had better be ULTRA high efficiency. While most experienced a’philes will expect the extremely severe limitations of this kind of max output, how many casual listeners who read this article will realize the extreme limitations that this amp comes with? Certainly none of that is mentioned in the review, which brings up the question...why not??? How many even somewhat seasoned a’philes have made the mistake of matching a flea powered amp with a less than favorable speaker load? Let’s hear about it....
128x128daveyf
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
daveyf, I said that "few low power amps could match." I did not say that no low power amp could match. There are some excellent low powered amps given the right speaker. My very first amp was a Dynakit ST 70. But for the last 40 years I have had relatively inefficient Ribbon or ES loudspeakers and frankly, low powered amps need not apply if you want the dynamic range of these speakers expressed in full. 
Diving Klipsch Cornwalls the Dynakit ST 70 would sound supreme. Like ESLs no but, very enjoyable just the same.
daveyf's avatar
daveyf OP
2,871 posts
 
Folks, where do I give the impression that I am the one being misled from the article I quoted in the OP?
Absolute Sound is a magazine that is read by a wide variety of audience demographic. ( Most probably fairly experienced audiophiles, BUT NOT ALL!).  I am fairly certain that there are people who are in the market for an amp that read reviews in these periodicals and rely on what the reviewer states. By omitting this very important piece of information, I personally believe that the reviewer is not doing any service to his readership. Clearly others think this is no problem, as they think that anyone who would consider such a purchase should either be a) fully educated as to its limitations from past experience or b) willing to accept that the buyer should be beware and as such if it is a non-working solution for their amp needs --well that's just too bad. 

Interesting perspectives here from my point of view...and educational to me.
daj
87 posts
 
Dat dare horse done got beat to death, but p.s:

@daj  Please point to where I have stated I have a grievance with the amps designer! --
"I believe that a reviewer has a responsibility to a reader to educate them as to what the possible issues (failings) of the product are"

Implying the product's power output is it's failing. Not so.
daveyf's avatar
daveyf OP
2,871 posts
 
@daj Perhaps you are trying to read too much into what I am getting at...
aewarren
644 posts
 
No daveyf, it certainly does not concern me that TAS omitted what was obvious to nearly everyone, even yourself. The reviewer also omitted the fact that you have to plug it in for it to work. Maybe if you read the review again with comprehension, you’ll understand why you are getting so much backlash. And no one had to tell me that I shouldn’t buy a VW Bug to pull my travel trailer either.
More to discover