Empirical proof of the validity of the claim? :D
Or urban legend and simply consensual validation? ;)
Printable View
I don't have any MP3 files since, apparently, their sound quality SUKs.
I do have lots of DVDs with 5.1 THX, etc., however.
Although these are generally high quality audio, I am often dissapointed with the way the sound is MIXED.
The engineers seem to jam about 80% of the sound material throught he front channels and the rest is poor quality stuff that is feed to the other channels. Some recordings, particularily live pieces, sound like they stuck a $5 mic on the rear wall and feed that sound to the rear channels.
I'm I the only one is is not thrilled with 7.1 sound?
I'm not an amplifier manufacturer, so my caveat is that only they can tell you.
Having written that, I'm not averse to educated guessing. I'm thinking some of it may be based on durability and longevity issues; some may be based on inherent sonic capabilities not related to THD, some may be related to marketing department requirements, and some may be related to target audience expectations.
One of the nicest sounding receivers I've ever heard is the Panasonic SA-XR10, powered by Panasonic's first-generation digital, Class D switching amp. After hearing several at the homes of acquaintances whose systems were pretty much el cheapo, I was really impressed with the unit's performance. I subsequently bought two of them, and I still run my S/2600 pair through one.
The slimline box, light weight, and mirror-finished front made it seem like it would be an underperformer. While lots of common folks bought it for its look and convenience, Panasonic lost money on every one I believe, because people wouldn't pay serious coin for something that was that small and that light.
Later iterations got thicker enclosures and some added heft, even though the boxes are mostly filled with empty space.
Lots of hi-fi enthusiast still equate big, heavy anchors with quality amps, so I can see no incentive for manufacturers to disappoint them., especially if buyers are willing to spend the kind of coin they're charging.
Not willing to spend the coin (bottom-feeder, remember?) though I did buy one of my Crowns brand-new back in 1974. But I am a fan of big-heavy stuff:
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...DSC_0231_1.jpg
and I often find myself in good company :D :
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...wnampscopy.jpg
I went through the Crown web page recently; I don't beleive they make any big heavy amps anymore; right?
I asked a sound engeneer about this recently and he said ..."those days are gone."
I'm assuming you can answer your own question if you looked at the Web page. You probably know more about Crown's current offerings now than I do. My comment was in direct reference to a small, light consumer receiver that in fact implemented a Class D topology that couldn't recoup its costs due to consumer perceptions.
Most hi-fi enthusiasts and and audiophiles won't have professional gear in their racks or rooms.
OTOH, those who spent a year or two in the road warrior sound reinforcement business welcome lighter, cooler, smaller amps for a number of reasons.
If you take a high end audiophile-grade amp, it's de rigueur that it will be lusted after more if it's bigger, heavier, has more big cooling fins, and maybe a single, sexy LED indicator. In many cases it will even be prominently displayed on a low platform between the speakers.
I don't know that many of us would do that with our Crowns, Haflers, Mackies, Crests, or QSCs.
I believe the point T-dome was working was that most audiophiles today are posers who value the look of a vacuum tube and bells and whistles over real performance. Or at least that if it don't look pretty, it won't get bought by the $5,000-interconnect guys. I'm taking the tact that it wasn't a slam at the objective utility of some pro gear used in a home setting, or even the plane-Jane appearance of your BGWs!
What he said.
Plus, have you ever seen someone with one of those hi-fi shrines who had a pro Crown (or other pro unit) perched gloriously on that little altar in the middle? These are no doubt very fine systems, but they make my point.
All I'm saying is I've never seen a Crown or a Hafler in one of these glorious-looking set ups. If I had one of these guys or gals over to my house and I had one of those 5" high Haflers with powdercoat finish and gain controls on the front sitting on a little amp altar, they'd have a hard time not laughing at me.
(Of course, you understand, I could give a sh!#, right?)
Now, compare those with my "audiophile stack" as related in this thread:
http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...ad.php?t=11795
:D
Hah! The paint on one of my DX4200s is coming off the back panel. Though I might have to get some peeling handles just to disgust snobby friends. As if the lamp cord doesn't perform that function already!
As they say in sports-car racing: When the green flag drops, the bullsh*t stops.
I like the older Crown amps and use them in my set-ups. No cooling fans, good sound, reliable as hell, easy to get serviced if needed.
Back in the day weight was a factor when all you had was class A, AB amps. Same with speakers before Neo Magnets. Weight is fuel and at these prices the more pounds you can shave off the better.
Rob:)
Heck, my first Crown looked like this (eBay photo, not mine) and I still have it. Used to just keep it in the closet, but not because I wasn't proud of it. I bought it new in '74, still use it today, and it still sounds great. Back then Crown knew college students would rather eat than buy front panels! My how times have changed. Now they'd rather have bells, whistles, lights, and only enough power to reproduce their MP3s.
What's wrong with a fine set of blackfaced amps?