• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Now that's the build quality I'm talking about

restorer-john said:
How is my meaning unclear?

I (myself) have never heard (listened to) a superb testing (as measured by me) amplifier that was poorly built.
............

Your Dynaco ST-400 may have been poorly built and may have 'sounded superb' to you. How did it perform on your test bench?
Click to expand...

Now your meaning is more clear; you never encountered an amp that was poorly built that tested superbly. Along the way you listened to these superbly testing amps. What wasn't clear is if these amps also sounded superb, but I reckon that's not the topic here.

I have no idea how the Dyna would've performed on a test bench.
 
I have a nice system. All of my gear has superb build quality (and it took me a long time to get here). I have some of my original system in the closet, for nostalgia, and it is black box Pioneer gear from the very early 90's. It does NOT have the same build quality. Now, it doesn't cost the same as my current components, and not surprisingly, doesn't sound as good. There is a definite sonic character: less refinement, detail, high end detail. This disparity is even more intellectualized when you realize that with amps especially, the build quality allows for better venting and most likely (almost a given) in bigger power supplies and output stages, which need more structurally strong chassis for support. Bigger power supplies give either more power or more current to lower impedences, which is a defining part of better amps. It is very rare to find a substandardly built component that sounds good, but the opposite is almost as true: well built gear almost always sounds good. Whether it is YOUR flavour of good is debatable, but all the hallmarks of good sound will be there.

I have a Rotel RA 1412 integrated amp that has machined knobs, thick faceplate, and meters, like the Yamaha S-3000. It weighs 50lb. And the Yammie is $7000. I always wondered what an integrated like mine would cost today. But that is VERY expensive, no matter how you cut it. At the price it had BETTER sound good.

Pity Yamaha won't rerelease the fabled 10000 series, at least the amp.
 
I would like to address Steve Huff's review of the Yamaha A-S3000 $7,000 integrated amplifier. I know that he first raved about the superb audio of the amp, but then returned it because of shutdown problems. I am sorry that he had a problem but was disappointed that he gave up so easily.

He made mention that when the amp was purchased via Amazon, he was not happy with the way it was packaged. It was single boxed with only styrofoam bars in the box supporting the amp. That REALLY is a shame. My AR receiver had a plywood mounting panel in the box and it was bolted to the plywood. That is really the way a heavy amp should be protected. For that amount of money the packaging should have been a lot better, including double boxing. I'm pretty sure that the amp got some rough treatment in transit and a relay was badly affected.

If I had the money to spend I would go for that amp myself, but I would look for a seller that would protect the amp better.
 
For crying out loud, let's all just concede that the 70s were the pinnacle of all things audio and get on with griping about other stuff.
 
Good idea!
I propose this simple way of determining build quality for yourself with no technical expertise: Buy the equivalent weight in beer of your favourite amplifier, drink and post the results.

Jeffery said:
For crying out loud, let's all just concede that the 70s were the pinnacle of all things audio and get on with griping about other stuff.
Click to expand...
 
Now my Yamaha is not a Yamaha A-S3000 $7,000 integrated amplifier but I am pleased with its sound and build quality and especially its cost.

It is a Yamaha R-9 stereo receiver, 125 wpc, class A and AB operation and cost $8 at a garage sale in Oct 2013. A bargain at that price with tuner included.

I am not $7000 serious about this hobby and there is plenty of good build and sound quality gear to be had at way less than $7000.

Charlie
 
restorer-john said:
Good idea!
I propose this simple way of determining build quality for yourself with no technical expertise: Buy the equivalent weight in beer of your favourite amplifier, drink and post the results.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your assessment of my technical expertise!

If beer weighs about the same as water @ 8.3 lb/gal, then I have amps that'll come in at around 18 gallons per side, made decades past the 70s, so I'll pass on drinking those kegs.

But don't let me rain on your parade, you guys got a line on it :thmbsp:
 
Vintagear said:
I disagree 100%

I run digital files through a Sansui AU-719, little brother to the "wire with gain" AU-919 and peoples jaws drop now. If an amp is neutral and clean, it's neutral and clean. In the late '70's a brand new AU-919 would have amplified exactly what you fed it. Just as a restored one does today.

The auto and computer analogies I see all too often are irrelevant because A/B audio amplifier technology has not progress at the pace that those manufacturing segments have.
Click to expand...

I would like to have either the AU 719 or 919.

I failed to make my points in previous posts. In the 70s there was a huge bias towards latest and greatest electronic technology. A superb tube amp would have sat on the shelf and gathered dust while mediocre SS amps sold. In that time period if you could have magically put 2014 amps on the shelf virtually all the customers would have bought them and the hi fi press would have gushed. Nice Knobs and meters would have become signs of obsolete old technology instead of being perceived as build quality.

By purely technical objective measurements, a modern integrated circuit has much higher quality and better performance than a circuit board with discrete devices and point to point wiring.
 
Reynolds531 said:
I would like to have either the AU 719 or 919.

I failed to make my points in previous posts. In the 70s there was a huge bias towards latest and greatest electronic technology. A superb tube amp would have sat on the shelf and gathered dust while mediocre SS amps sold. In that time period if you could have magically put 2014 amps on the shelf virtually all the customers would have bought them and the hi fi press would have gushed. Nice Knobs and meters would have become signs of obsolete old technology instead of being perceived as build quality.

By purely technical objective measurements, a modern integrated circuit has much higher quality and better performance than a circuit board with discrete devices and point to point wiring.
Click to expand...

While it's human nature for people to always want the newest toy in the store, I have to disagree with your last statement.

Today's audiophiles and press rave about boutique manufacturers like Leben. Leben can and does charge a premium partly because of their build quality (something they tout). Here's a quote from Leben's literature:

"All of the Leben products are hand made by well trained and experienced people, and are all beautifully finished with high quality components by point to point wiring. All products are still made in Japan, and Leben product’s owners can expect long life and high reliability as well as a highly musical and rewarding performance."

As I've said before and as Restorer-John eluded to, the build quality of many of the better old mid-fi amps is more similar to the modern high-end boutique stuff like Leben than it is to a modern mid-fi amp.
 
Quote from article:

"Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—."

I think the people on my side of the aisle of this discussion are the ones that are repeatedly bringing up the "verifying" aspect. How else but on a bench can we determine that we are not "doing too much trusting"?

Quote from article:

"And it is not as if the universe is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work."

I don't think the inner workings of class A/B amp technology is one of those "mysteries."

Either way I can't see how the article has any relevance.
 
Vintagear said:
Quote from article:

"Modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying—."

I think the people on my side of the aisle of this discussion are the ones that are repeatedly bringing up the "verifying" aspect. How else but on a bench can we determine that we are not "doing too much trusting"?

Quote from article:

"And it is not as if the universe is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work."

I don't think the inner workings of class A/B amp technology is one of those "mysteries."

Either way I can't see how the article has any relevance.
Click to expand...

Just a response to your pic. WHich also had no relevance. :)
 
It was a follow-up to Jeffery's post.

Keep Calm= No need for anyone to get bent out of shape.

Believe in Science=There is no room for dogma in a discussion about A/B audio measurements that can be easily verified using current methods still being used at top engineering schools today.

But as Jeffrey said, "people are going to believe what they want to believe" (as we can plainly see).
 
Vintagear said:
Believe in Science=There is no room for dogma in a discussion about A/B audio measurements that can be easily verified using current methods still being used at top engineering schools today.
.
Click to expand...

I thought this was a discussion about build quality with talk of sound quality excluded?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom