Amp pricing & diminishing returns / what's your take?

[pearsall001]

I've been looking at a few amps for my system to run in both HT & 2 channel listening. My source is a Consonance Droplet5.0 tube output player, NAD T773 receiver as pre/pro, AADaudio 2001 monitors (8ohm, 86db sensitivity) The amps in question are: Mac MC252, Bryston 4BSST, NuForce ref 9, Rotel RB1090. Prices new are: Mac-$3800, Bry-$2800, NuForce-$2500, Rot-$1800. As you can see that's a pretty big pricing gap. My question is about the sonic qualities between them & if some really warrant the extra coin? For example the diff in price between the Mac & Rot is $2000. Does the Mac bring $2000 more musicality to the table than the Rot or even the others? At what point does the scale start to tip downwards in regards to cost/performance ratio? I haven't included Krell, Classe, ML because I believe the scale really starts to dip downwards with them. Maybe I'm off base here but I am open for suggestions & your comments. Warranties (although important) re-sale pricing, braging rights etc. would not be a deciding factor in my purchase. I really don't like buying used either, I prefer new.
Thanks

[AudioArchitect]

With hi-end audio equipment diminishing returns always set it early. You are paying the extra dollar for subtle changes like more detail retrieval, better bass definition. Its really never going to be a night and day difference. However, if music and movies are a large, important part of your life then you can justify the difference. Consider the following is a Ferrari $150,000 better than a Porsche 911. You cant really answer this unless you love cars. Obviously moving from 190mph to 205mph for 150,000 is really ridiculous, but then you have things like style and pride of ownership, and peope that swear that the extra engine oomph is worth it.

All that being said, McIntosh makes some of the best amplifiers out there. I would take that over Krell, Halcro, Pass Labs any day of the week. The Bryston is also incredible as its very neutral-sounding and its built like an absolute tank. I am not sold an the digital amplifier technology. They are great when space is limited but I would never take it over traditional class A/AB type designs at this point. Dont listen to the hype about them, because in my listening experience they dont measure up. The industry is full of marketing hype, but companies like McIntosh and Bryston has been building great products since the beginning and have spend years refining their designs. The Rotel is a very nice amp for the money, but the other two will raise the bar a bit. I would consider auditioning the equipment first however. This is my order of preference:

Mcintosh
Bryston
Rotel
NuForce

[BobDole]

Only your ears can decide this for you. When I make decisions re: cost vs. performance, I consider 2 things - 1) can I afford the more expensive option and 2) would the money make more of a difference elsewhere in my system? Although diminishing returns do set in at the higher end of the spectrum (10k speakers vs. 40k speakers), at the price point you describe, the differences are often not subtle. Although I haven't heard the NAD receiver you have, in my experience receivers seldom make good pre/pros (especially for 2-ch listening). If it were me, I would sell the receiver and put the money into a separate pre/pro and an amp. I know you said you don't like to buy used, but if you shop around you can find some amazing deals on dealer demos and trade-ins with full warranty (Bryston is especially good about this). As AudioArchitect said, you really have to listen to the amps to decide for yourself. If you are set on buying new, the least your dealer can do is let you audition the amps in your home.

I also wouldn't rule out Krell and Classe. You could buy a Krell Showcase processor and Showcase amp for slightly over your budget if you went with a dealer demo (which would carry the 5 year warranty). I recently moved from using a Pioneer Elite receiver as a processor with an Anthem amp to the Krell combo and couldn't be happier.

[classic77]

This is my take.....On an analytical level the more money you spend on audio equipment will give you better music or HT, but on an emotional level the increase is nowhere near as large. I don't know where I heard this once but someone told me that a audiophile will spend most of thier money on HIFI equipment whereas a music lover will spend most of their money on music. I can get goose bumps listening to music with my $42 headphones on the computer at work just as much as on my 10+k audio system at home, because it's the music/artist creates the music and not the equipment. If your really getting into the music you won't care very much about the equipment your playing it on. If your sitting there listening to your equipment you won't be listening to the music as much. I think some audiophiles loose track of this and prefer to listen to their equipment rather than listen to music.

The difference between the most expensive and least is $2000 which in my book is alot of money. You could buy alot of new music for that amount of money. You could buy some real reference audio cd's likes XRCD's with the saved money, which IMO would probably offer a bigger increase is sound quality than buying a more expensive amp.

[BobDole]

[QUOTE=classic77]This is my take.....On an analytical level the more money you spend on audio equipment will give you better music or HT, but on an emotional level the increase is nowhere near as large. I don't know where I heard this once but someone told me that a audiophile will spend most of thier money on HIFI equipment whereas a music lover will spend most of their money on music. I can get goose bumps listening to music with my $42 headphones on the computer at work just as much as on my 10+k audio system at home, because it's the music/artist creates the music and not the equipment. If your really getting into the music you won't care very much about the equipment your playing it on. If your sitting there listening to your equipment you won't be listening to the music as much. I think some audiophiles loose track of this and prefer to listen to their equipment rather than listen to music.

The difference between the most expensive and least is $2000 which in my book is alot of money. You could buy alot of new music for that amount of money. You could buy some real reference audio cd's likes XRCD's with the saved money, which IMO would probably offer a bigger increase is sound quality than buying a more expensive amp.[/QUOTE]

I completely respect and understand your take on it, but I feel almost exactly the opposite. I have a modest, but still somewhat expensive system (~25k) and a fairly extensive CD collection (500+ discs). I'd rather make all of my CDs sound better by upgrading the system as opposed to buying a few new discs. Also, I tend not to think of it as a zero sum game - I don't buy fewer CDs because I upgrade the system. Maybe I should - I would probably be much happier with another 6000 dollars worth of gear and only 100+ cds...

to each his own, eh

[Emaych]

I just purchased some $18K (retail) Krell amps (sold a pair of Bryston monos AND some other amps to do this), and was listening to my reference discs over the weekend. I got a whim to try out a disc recommended by the Stereophile reviewer who wrote an article on these Krell monos -- it was one I had in my collection, but never listened to it after the first run.

When I put it on I remembered why. The sound quality was so abrasive and hideous that it was not music to me -- I sampled some tracks and took it off. No amount of enriching, enlightening "musical" wealth on that disc would ever have me listen to it again, so at what point does the sound become bad enough that it is not even music?

I sold those Brystons and alot else to step up to Krell, and to me the difference was not small. If you are sitting listening but not being engaged, what is the point? When you sit enraptured grinning from ear to ear, is that not what you pay the money for? In one case, you are distracted, drifting and uninvolved -- in the other case you are communing transcendant with the artist. What are you looking for?

To me the real insanity is spending double what you need to for nothing. I mean the practice of buying new. For a new Bryston, you COULD buy a used Krell which will get you where you want to be -- so you need not compromise in sound, only in your buying prejudice. Incidently, the Bryson monos I sold were so new looking, you could not have told the difference, so for two years off the twenty year warranty, the buyer saved about four thousand dollars and was thrilled -- now that will buy alot of music and/or equipment!

Another thing -- when he goes to resell, he is going to get back the same amount, whether 6 months from now or two years, or it will be right in the same range. Why not buy used and resell all the amps you go through till you find the one you're going to stop on? That is what I was going to do -- was going to get Krell (never heard them before I spent $8K and brought them home), then McIntosh, then Levinson...but guess what? I think I might be stuck on Krell -- not really what I had in mind because it was more money than I expected to "drop" -- but if it gets me where I need to be.......

[BobDole]

[QUOTE=Emaych]I just purchased some $18K (retail) Krell amps (sold a pair of Bryston monos AND some other amps to do this), and was listening to my reference discs over the weekend. I got a whim to try out a disc recommended by the Stereophile reviewer who wrote an article on these Krell monos -- it was one I had in my collection, but never listened to it after the first run.

When I put it on I remembered why. The sound quality was so abrasive and hideous that it was not music to me -- I sampled some tracks and took it off. No amount of enriching, enlightening "musical" wealth on that disc would ever have me listen to it again, so at what point does the sound become bad enough that it is not even music?

I sold those Brystons and alot else to step up to Krell, and to me the difference was not small. If you are sitting listening but not being engaged, what is the point? When you sit enraptured grinning from ear to ear, is that not what you pay the money for? In one case, you are distracted, drifting and uninvolved -- in the other case you are communing transcendant with the artist. What are you looking for?

To me the real insanity is spending double what you need to for nothing. I mean the practice of buying new. For a new Bryston, you COULD buy a used Krell which will get you where you want to be -- so you need not compromise in sound, only in your buying prejudice. Incidently, the Bryson monos I sold were so new looking, you could not have told the difference, so for two years off the twenty year warranty, the buyer saved about four thousand dollars and was thrilled -- now that will buy alot of music and/or equipment!

Another thing -- when he goes to resell, he is going to get back the same amount, whether 6 months from now or two years, or it will be right in the same range. Why not buy used and resell all the amps you go through till you find the one you're going to stop on? That is what I was going to do -- was going to get Krell (never heard them before I spent $8K and brought them home), then McIntosh, then Levinson...but guess what? I think I might be stuck on Krell -- not really what I had in mind because it was more money than I expected to "drop" -- but if it gets me where I need to be.......[/QUOTE]

you are 100% correct about buying used. Buying new gear at this price point is almost always a bad idea, especially when it comes to amps. I have a much more modest Krell setup (Showcase processor and amp), but it cost me as much as a vastly inferior Anthem AVM-30 / MCA50 combo (I bought the Krell as a dealer demo). When I'm ready to upgrade, I will almost surely stay with Krell. Do you have the 400cx or the 700cx? Truly awesome amps.