high-end vs. ultra high-end amplifiers

Dazzdax = A very interesting and controversial post. Can you elaborate and edify us what comparisons you did with what gear? How did you come to your conclusions? In what specific areas did you feel certain amps bettered others? Were you listening in similar rooms/speakers/systems or different rooms and systems at different times?

May I approach this from another angle -- it is no secret that the price of a piece of equipment can be perceived by us in the hobby as directly related to performance (and maybe status). Could it be that some of these expensive pieces are designed above and beyond sonics, i.e., appearance, fit, finish and feel that can drive up these ancillary costs considerably? Not to mention the nameplate factor proudly displayed for all to see. Porsche does now, after all, offer a tiptronic (automatic) transmission. When I purchased my (then) SOTA Levinson 20.6's, I will admit that the black faceplate with the white lettering was more of a factor than I'd like to admit. But I still have yet to hear a finer sounding SS amp in my system and room.

So it does not come as a surprise that small outfits (George Wright comes to mind) can provide a superb product at significantly lower prices which can make us look at our priorities a little differently.

I think some amps appeal to your own ears and others don't. But I also read a review recently of the Aleph 30 amplifier in which they noted that some designers design for specs while others design for music (musicality?). This could be the case.

I am just taking a stab at this, but I think Boulder et al. targets a different (sub)market than the big boys, which affects their respective product goals. Similar to what has already been said, the big boys cater more to the casual enthusiast, etc. while the smaller outfits are more prestigious for and respected by people further in to the hobby.

Positioning and cost are significant factors. Larger companies (ML, Krell, etc) cater to a large part of our small hi-end market and have to sell a minimum volume in order to break-even. Their positioning is "hi-end" but they have to keep market-share in order to survive. So, some compromises must be made in order to price their products within the boundaries of their target market.

FM Acoustics, for example, keeps a small production capacity, sports prices that START where others stop, and, being a small-scale producer doesn't need to support large sales. So they take less head of design&production cost; whatever the asking price, they expect that their small sales volume target will be met whatever happens. Sales at their level, they believe, are inelastic. Their positioning is "top end".

More importantly, these so called "ultra" products, can only be justified as a purchase by a small part of the market: those that have the ancilliary equip to fully enjoy differences in sonic performance (such as these differences may be). Again, Krell etc, must play for market share, so sales volume and marketing are prime considerations, they have to cater to many who, a) can afford the asking price and b) will be aware of a "difference" by using this product with their GEAR -- what Krell etc expect that gear to be (upper-mid level hi-end, usually).

As to design: there is nothing to support (IM knowledge) that bigger Cos cannot design... rather, they target the best sonic result within given retail price constraints. The effort goes there.