Not jumping on you here so please do not take it that way.
The perfect word in your sentence is "NUMBER". It is JUST a NUMBER and it does not define, convey, or tell what the product is capable of doing in the way of sonic reproduction.
To base one's choices PURELY ON NUMBERS is back-arse-wards. The number game is just that, a marketing number game. If someone is looking for very high SPL reproduction along with maintaining sound quality and has the need to listen to music at 100-120 dB's, then the numbers game may become an issue. (The HT geeks are very staunch on their required SPL numbers for subs)
So less than 200 is "mid-fi" quality? Maybe I did not interpret correctly what you were saying here. Or are you saying with Mid-Fi anything below 200 is not as good as something above 200???
Okay, I respect your subjective opinion on this. You need power to make the sound come alive. Do you prefer you music at a louder level?
Don't follow you on this: Detail but lacking presence? Do you mean the music and all the details of the instruments are there, but you are not feeling it??
Quality Chain: "Sometimes" is the correct term, as cost comes into play with everything we purchase, not just our beloved audio toys. Cost does not always equate quality.
And I believe most of us here are in the same boat. Some have a larger boat and some have a dingy, but we each have what we own and love it. So to categorize or stereotype a component based on numbers is completely wrong in my opinion.
BTW, my lowly, POS amp I use falls way below the 200 number you have proposed for discussion here.
Yes, the life of posting on an internet forum...
But you did say: "If and when I do let this go, I'll never go back to less than 250/channel though as long as I have ML's...they just love it."
It is great you have found an amp you like as that is what this hobby is all about, and as you have stated one must give up something at times to get something else. The give and take of audio.
Sorry I still disagree with this statement or generalization about power, sonics, etc.
Nope, I said that, and did not imply you did - sorry. But since my amp is below the 200-250 watermark being discussed, it must be inadequate for ML's - a POS.
Listening at levels - let me throw out 85dB's - which is fairly loud - most amps will only need 5-10 watts (depending on distance you are sitting from the speakers), but still be able to produce some transients. Good quality amps will be able to handle this very easily and be rated far under the 200-250 watt level.
BINGO - JUICE (current), not power (watts). This is what most of us here have found with our ML's - good quality power and not just power.
Yeah, it has been a fun discussion. Most newbies to the audio world will confuse power with quality and thinking a higher powered amp means a better sounding one.
Yes, the life of posting on an internet forum...
But you did say: "If and when I do let this go, I'll never go back to less than 250/channel though as long as I have ML's...they just love it."
ML's love CURRENT, not power and the two should not be confused by people. In fact the amp I use now has a lower rating than the receiver I used to use and the sound is night and day between them.
Knowing that some of the older ML's have a very low sensitivity rating, and wanting to play someones ML's at certain levels would warrant the need for more power. Most of the ML speakers can be driven with as little as 10 watts adequately - BUT the word ADEQUATELY depends on what the SPL levels you are looking for. If you are in the 100+dB's area, then 10 probably will not suffice.
It is great you have found an amp you like as that is what this hobby is all about, and as you have stated one must give up something at times to get something else. The give and take of audio.
Sorry I still disagree with this statement or generalization about power, sonics, etc.
There are some great sounding amps for a great price, then there are out of this world priced amps which sound great and vice versa. It is all about the sound, not marketing hyped-up numbers on brochures or web sites.
Nope, I said that, and did not imply you did - sorry. But since my amp is below the 200-250 watermark being discussed, it must be inadequate for ML's - a POS.
Listening at levels - let me throw out 85dB's - which is fairly loud - most amps will only need 5-10 watts (depending on distance you are sitting from the speakers), but still be able to produce some transients. Good quality amps will be able to handle this very easily and be rated far under the 200-250 watt level.
BINGO - JUICE (current), not power (watts). This is what most of us here have found with our ML's - good quality power and not just power.
Yeah, it has been a fun discussion. Most newbies to the audio world will confuse power with quality and thinking a higher powered amp means a better sounding one.
Easy there ! I have had lots of my posts dissected and contradicted (and in turn I have done the same), and I take it in the spirit in which the comments were made - a passion for audio (okay, by very opinionated people, myself included). It's unfortunate that you seem to take the comments as a personal insult.
Rich, I was going to suggest that you buy it
devil, so you can compare it to your present amp, but I have no idea what you have at present as I have been waiting really, really, really long for your system description.
Rich, I was going to suggest that you buy it
I said I was not attacking you in one of my posts in this thread.....
Oh, now I remember: ARC Ref3, Sanders' Amps, and Summits? And, of course, you are vinyl-challenged
Oh, now I remember: ARC Ref3, Sanders' Amps, and Summits? And, of course, you are vinyl-challenged
My apologies, good sir! I always thought that the phrase "Digitally endowed" meant having fingersAhem, some of us prefer the term 'Digitally endowed'
Please use the correct terminology
My apologies, good sir! I always thought that the phrase "Digitally endowed" meant having fingers
