Revel Salon vs Vandersteen 5A

No, Raquel, I'm not thinking like back in the '70s... I'm thinking that the tube amp community needs to get off of the bogus negative feedback, high-order distortion, you-can't measure-it / you-don't-know-what-to-measure bs. Paraphrasing Einstein in this context is just silly; this is audio, not dark matter or the cosmological constant we're talking about. It just might be that the DHT 300B is indeed the best amp around, but I don't know since I haven't heard it. (And I probably won't, since I'm not interested in spending $28K on an amp.) I'm just questioning the arguments for why they must be better. I've heard some medium-nice tube amps (VTL, ARC) in one of my systems and, frankly, I never heard a difference (I was running Krells then), other than I could hear more hiss during idling from the Legacy Focus speakers I was using at the time. It's not that I think tube amps are so bad, I think the good ones are just as good for some speakers, I just can't hear the "it's alive" effect, and, frankly, I don't think it exists.

We completely agree on the Harmon International comments. The last time I bought a new Levinson component the CT facility was still open, and I doubt I'd be a customer again.

Mcreyn, give me a break. +/- 2db is almost certainly audible, -80db of distortion almost certainly isn't. Speaker vendors have their own unproven theories, like phase and time coherence. To quote Richard V, "they just sound better". Well, of course they do. :) But then why do speakers that don't have phase and time coherence sound good too? Or am I imagining that too? (Like Wilson, for example.)

Not to belabor the point, but an ARC amp likely would not sound so different, as ARC uses copious amounts of global feedback in its amp circuits and pentodes for output tubes (ARC = great preamps and boring amps). The VAC Renaissance amps have a feedback dial that allows the user to select up to seven decibels of global feedback - it's amazing to hear the amp go from pristine clarity and openness (0 decibels) to ... Bryston (7 db.). I not joking - I owned a 4B ST for years and know what the thing sounds like.

Being perfectly honest, I never fully fell in love with my Salons - not to initiate another joust, but I rarely warm to speakers that use high-order crossovers. There are advantages and disadvantages to both high-order and first-order designs, but I can't get past the phase shift with a speaker that uses a fourth-order crossover. The Salons are very accomplished for what they are and I could probably live with them again if I had to, but they weren't my ideal speaker.

Well, Raquel, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, because I'm not in the market for a $28K amp, and if that's what it takes to beat a solid state amp I'm going to have to be denied.

Analog... tubes... feedback is bad... high-order crossovers are bad... you fit a pattern. I've heard systems like that. Not yours, obviously, but systems like that. Can't say that I was impressed by the difference. Not that I ever heard one sound bad, just that I didn't see god the way I was supposed to. I guess I just can't drink the koolade.

Irvrobinson:

Fair enough - I respect reluctance to drink the koolade, so to speak. There's so much of it in high-end audio and it's lamentable.

One doesn't need gobs of money to obtain a no-feedback amp. The VAC Renaissance 140/140 Mk. III monoblocks cost $28k at retail (the Signatures were $36k), but can now be had for $7.5k on the used market. The 65 watt 70/70 Mk. III retailed for $14k (Signature was $18k), but can now be had for less than $4k used. As for reasonably priced solid-state alternatives, some of the Sim amps don't use feedback.

Let me be clear - I'm not saying that all amps that use feedback are crap. I mentioned my old Bryston 4B ST - it's a lot of amp for the money and can bring a lot of enjoyment if used properly, but it sounds two-dimensional and moribund compared to a good amp that does not use feedback. If I was putting together a second system and was confident that I was getting an amp that was well taken care of, I might consider a ML 334, irrespective of Harmon's problems (I have a friend who can pretty much fix anything if he can get a schematic), as it is again a lot of amp for the money. But does this amp, or for the sake of argument, the 33H that regenerates power and costs a lot more money, compare to my no-feedback darTZeel (solid-state) or VAC (tube)? If a more realistic protrayal of unamplified acoustic instruments (i.e., classical, much jazz) is the goal, no, I don't believe so.

I'm not as doctrinaire as you may think (I'm not running a 2A3 amp on a single-driver speaker fed by an Edison cylinder). Simply put, assuming a good room, decent A/C supply, knowledgeable set-up, and equipment of equal parts quality and construction, I believe that a no-global-feedback amp, tube or solid-state, of roughly 100-150 watts/channel on a 92+ db. efficient speaker featuring a simple 1st order crossover and fed by a quality analog source or full DSD recording is going to reproduce unamplified acoustic instruments in a more realistic fashion than an amp with a ton of output devices, tube or solid-state, using global feedback driving an 86 db. efficient speaker with a 4th order crossover that's fed by a typical PCM source - not to be obnoxious, but that's experience, not extremism.

All the best.