Tweet
Of course for years Stereo Review magazine lived by their stance that all properly designed amplifiers working within their power range sound the same. So much so that their reviews usually only had one paragraph or maybe two confirming that the amplifier under review sounded just like all the others.
Stereo Review became Sound and Vision and is now a sister publication to Stereophile. I was looking for some info about an amp from just a few years ago and came on a Sound and Vision review of it, so took a look, and this was in the article:
"Sounds Like...
I’ve a deep-seated skepticism of reports of amplifiers “sounding” this way or that. Any competently designed modern amp, operating within its intended parameters, should be effectively transparent, at least until it approaches the limits of its usable dynamic range. (A big if, of course.) And the EA101EQ-G did little to alter my belief system."
and in the next paragraph:
"Via my long-term, stand-mounted monitors (the long-discontinued Energy Veritas 2.3 speaker), track after track displayed no difference from the sound I’m accustomed to hearing from my everyday preamp and power amp—the latter rated for 150 watts per channel. Sure, the big power amp could play slightly louder, and the Elac’s stress signature when pushed well into clipping—a noticeable brightening that edged into “shoutiness” on high vocals, solo strings, and the like—was a bit different. But otherwise, it was a case of pick ’em."
I wonder if it is an editorial stance that they are required to not consider that amplifiers might sound different?
For what it's worth, the amp in that article (ELAC EA101EQ-G) is the same one my son uses in his system. I had that amp for a couple years and comparing it in my system to somewhat similarly priced and spec'd integrated amps from Emotiva, Music Hall and PS Audio, they all sounded noticeably different using speakers from ELAC, Tekton and Magneplanar.
Stereo Review became Sound and Vision and is now a sister publication to Stereophile. I was looking for some info about an amp from just a few years ago and came on a Sound and Vision review of it, so took a look, and this was in the article:
"Sounds Like...
I’ve a deep-seated skepticism of reports of amplifiers “sounding” this way or that. Any competently designed modern amp, operating within its intended parameters, should be effectively transparent, at least until it approaches the limits of its usable dynamic range. (A big if, of course.) And the EA101EQ-G did little to alter my belief system."
and in the next paragraph:
"Via my long-term, stand-mounted monitors (the long-discontinued Energy Veritas 2.3 speaker), track after track displayed no difference from the sound I’m accustomed to hearing from my everyday preamp and power amp—the latter rated for 150 watts per channel. Sure, the big power amp could play slightly louder, and the Elac’s stress signature when pushed well into clipping—a noticeable brightening that edged into “shoutiness” on high vocals, solo strings, and the like—was a bit different. But otherwise, it was a case of pick ’em."
I wonder if it is an editorial stance that they are required to not consider that amplifiers might sound different?
For what it's worth, the amp in that article (ELAC EA101EQ-G) is the same one my son uses in his system. I had that amp for a couple years and comparing it in my system to somewhat similarly priced and spec'd integrated amps from Emotiva, Music Hall and PS Audio, they all sounded noticeably different using speakers from ELAC, Tekton and Magneplanar.
.gif "lol")
Comment