One Amp To ‘Rule’ Them All....

Note that assembling an audio system by trying to get audio geeks to agree on some sort of amplification "standard" isn't a particularly good idea, as this crowd is going to display all the technical blather and subjective opining they can muster, which will likely just fog up your brain. It's what we do here. Get a high current power amp someplace and plug it in. I bet there's an audio equipment dealer someplace that sells such things, and, if you're lucky, recommend something. You can talk to the people at Audio Advisor or Music Direct to get some suggestions.

@noble100 

Tim,

I am in amplifier heaven!!! Here is the list of amplifiers I have at home right now:
Spectron Musician III mk2 (calls D designed by John Ulrich the same guy who designed my Kappas)
David Berning zh270
Balanced Audio Technology Vk-200 and VK-500 with BAT PAK
Conrad Johnson MF-2275
Electron Kinetics Eagle 2
Carver Signature Sunfire
Yamaha p2050
Yamaha p2150 
Crown XLS 1500 (x2)
Crown 1502 (x2)

This isn't some secret hunt for better amps for my Kappas. No I really am trying to ask us all to collectively come up with some amps that we can use as benchmarks for discussing in more detail the qualities elucidated by signal amplification. That's it.

There must be amplifiers in the world that work well with almost any speaker and are consistent competent performers that are also reasonably affordable. Defining some excellent examples and quite possibly some poor examples would help us all communicate better in terms of degrees about the qualities of any given amplifier in comparison to our benchmark amplifiers.  

Once we all have common frame of reference we can begin to talk in more detail about the qualities of signal amplification. We can easily say things like, "This amplifier creates a stereo image 2x as wide as our benchmark amplifier." Or "This amplifier has great damping, I'd say its about 10-20 better than our benchmark amplifier."  

Of the amplifiers I have and/or have heard, (that are reasonably affordable) I'd say these amps should be in contention for places as 'benchmark amplifiers': 

1) Carver Signature Sunfire (the inglorious everyman audiophile champ)
2) Adcom GFA 555 II (best midbass and just easy to listen to)
3) Yamaha p2150 (clean quick honest controlled)
4) Crown XLS 1500 (really a great option for beginning audiophiles!)

...the Carver might not be 'affordable' but it might already be 'the' unofficial benchmark amplifier out there in the world (again 'benchmark' meaning it elucidates all the qualities of quality amplification, is reasonably affordable, can play nice with any/all speakers, is competent and consistent). The Carver has tone, pace, quickness, some swing and some live feel, handles frequency extremes and any/all volume demands, has somewhat above average spatial qualities, it can relax and/or jump. It can feel a little thick or sluggish in the bass sometimes, but other than that, not much bad you can say about it. 

So Tim, am I making myself more clear? I want us all to try really hard to begin to compare apples to apples, although I know we all have trouble sometimes seeing the forest for the trees. 

brett mcee:
" There must be amplifiers in the world that work well with almost any speaker and are consistent competent performers that are also reasonably affordable. Defining some excellent examples and quite possibly some poor examples would help us all communicate better in terms of degrees about the qualities of any given amplifier in comparison to our benchmark amplifiers."

Hello brettmcee,

     Have you ever considered that an amp that works well with almost any speaker, is a consistent competent performer and is affordable may not even exist? 
     Even if one did exist, do you think the motley crew of knowledgeable and experienced audio junkies assembled here on Audiogon, burdened with their own firmly held audio dogmas like a gaggle of Taliban on an audio jihad, could possibly generally concur on exactly which amp that would be?
     Of course not.  Just as preposterous is expecting this unruly group of independent sonic beauty seekers to agree on benchmarks and a standard patois when discussing audio matters.  We're too busy tilting at windmills.
     I suggest your expressed goal of creating some kind of order and black and white certainty out of a chaotic shades of gray audio enthusiast diaspora will not end well and only result in frustration for all involved, myself included.

Best wishes,
   Tim

...not trying to frustrate anyone. I am very thankful for this community for all its hues and shades and even its dark corners. I love it even more for the brilliant, colorful characters you run into along the way. 

Home reproduction of audio is unlike any other pursuit. We never can go to a museum and see the way it was intended. We are responsible for reconstituting a recorded event as it suits us. And that is very, very unique in terms of 'art appreciation'.  

But it is 'frustration' that I am trying to get at, to chip away at. Gaining entry to high end audio is not easy or even friendly, sometimes it's not even fun. It's mad scientists practicing alchemy in dimmed rooms. Yet there is so much verifiable science involved. However we only apply the science as an initial hurdle and then sometimes when it suits us. Mainly we rely on 'synergies' and 'feels'. And I am fine with this for the most part because there is art in all of this as well.

I'm oddly mixed in a sense, having a Bachelor of Fine Arts and Masters of Science degrees and i do use computers (science/technology) to make animated features (art) all day long. Art and science certainly do mix and when mixed properly can make us 'feel'.

I started my deep dive into this stuff in 2009 and more intensely since 2015. I am still astonished everyday at how arbitrary and expensive it all is. I care about the health of this industry because I believe mental and spiritual improvement, (dare i say pure joy!) can be found in meditating on and experiencing excellent music as reproduced by our own hard-won 'spiritual machines'. I think more people should have access to quality audio reproduction and that it would benefit the planet.

To this end I am looking for a more direct road to audio Nirvana--not for myself but for others. I would like to make sure more people find easier entry into audiophile land. This is why I'd very much like all of you passionate audio nuts to help me define things a bit better. Lets figure out how to put some metrics to our subjective experiences. Lets see what synergies excite and concentrate certain qualities we love. 

I think it is worth while and should eventually create less frustration. 

There must be amplifiers in the world that work well with almost any speaker and are consistent competent performers that are also reasonably affordable.

There aren't.

Generally speaking, transistor amps have a hard time sounding right on ESLs because the impedance curve of an ESL isn't a map of its efficiency unlike many box speakers. Part of this has to do with the simple fact that an ESL isn't in a box :)  As a result most solid state amps sound too bright on ESLs (and they already have a reputation of sounding too bright as it is).


If brightness and harshness is a problem for you, then you are more likely to gravitate towards tube amps. Tubes tend to make less of the higher ordered harmonics that the ear uses to sense sound pressure (and this is keenly sensitive to such harmonics, throw in the Fletcher-Munson curve and you have a problem). This is why tubes and tube amplifiers are still in production 60 years after being declared 'obsolete'. It just happens that tubes obey the rules of human hearing better than transistors.

You don't have to know anything technical here- all you have to know is that tubes are still around because people want them. Before you can have a 'benchmark' amplifier, you have to solve the distortion issues that separate tubes and transistors. My advice is don't hold your breath.