Amp Specs esp. DampFactor : Citation, Adcom, etc.

True enough, and I do appreciate the feedback especially as it is a good point, but all of the equipment I am considering is what most would call "classic" stuff. For instance, although I've got the Citations already, if I didn't there wouldn't be any place to audition them any longer. As it is, I'm mostly sticking to equipment that either I've owned in the past (I've had an Adcom GFA-545 and -555 years ago, but never with my current speakers) or equipment people close to me have owned. Essentially, Acurus, Aragon, Hafler, etc. I figure all of these are worth considering, and then I can try to mix and match with my needs (I have a pair of Duntech PCL-3s, Allison Fours, and a 7-channel Maggie system). If my experiment fails I can always resell the equipment, but I am hoping this will help make a more informed decision. The real problem is that with this equipment, and the equipment that I'm trying to match, an audition is almost always out of the question. You see my dilemma?

However, I will need ALOT of help discerning what the specs mean, or likely mean and how they might match this equipment.

Aewhistory,

Amount of gear sold here shows that problem is common. Maybe local dealer will lend you an amp or will let you bring your speakers (my did). Going by spects (especially DF) will be fruitless IMHO. Inductor in series with the woofer limits DF to about 100 anyway.

Hi Kijanki,

You make some good points. The dealer with whom I should have a good relationship--I've given him over $20k worth of biz--is a complete ass in my opinion, so I don't go there any longer, but there are some others I could approach.... I just don't have a working relationship with them. However, your suggestion got me thinking about another option: using some friends and other audiophiles for demos. This might be the way to go.

I do have a few questions, however, about specs. Some folks are passionately against using specs in judging equipment and others, albeit a smaller group IMO, are just a passionate that specs/performance should be measurable. Personally, I'm a military historian and tend to be analytical, so while I can appreciate both sides of the debate, the end result frustrates me. So my main question is in trying to understand the two sides, or rather how do I reconcile these two positions?

Another question I've got concerns the use of amplifier types for reg. speakers vs. subwoofers. Currently I use my Citations to drive two passive SVSs subs (one of the reasons for my fixation on DF), but I don't know if I should get a dedicated 'sub-type' amp such as the one designed for the buttkickers, should I keep my current setup (and I still need to experiment between regular vs. bridged as well), or get a couple large mono-blocks for the subs. This is the sort of problem/question I'm trying to figure out. But without listening, what sort of factors should I be looking for?

This is why I'm confused. I've been 'into' home theater for about fifteen years, I've read magazines, forums, etc., so I'm hardly a newbie, nor am I completely ignorant. Yet, I find information that consistently confuses me. Here is an example: I've just purchased an old Janis sub (haven't gotten it yet) to experiment with matching it with my speakers. It uses a tiny little 80watt amp to drive a 15" driver! However, I'm told that the DF for this amp is very high. How does this jive?

So on the one hand, everyone is always talking about major wattage to drive subs, meanwhile the Janis has this big driver and dinky amp with a high DF. So I'm stuck trying to reconcile all of this information and this is the genesis of why I asked for any other specs I could find to put together a spreadsheet.

BTW, I hope my ignorance isn't too frustrating. I'm just a little frustrated myself trying to make the right choices and digesting this information.

Thank you, Aaron

Aaron - I have Hyperion HPS-938 speakers that have very limited dealership in US. I bought it based on glowing reviews (6 month old dealer demo) without auditioning since I'm in Chicago and the closest dealer is in Pennsylvania. In worst case I would sell speakers but they turned to be absolutely great. Later I found that there is a website of Hyperion users that allow to audition in somebody's home.

I also, being an engineer, tend to over-analyze but I found things much more difficult (black magic?). I would even say that often amp with worse specifications has better sound. It has to do with how these specifications were obtained (negative feedback?) what is synergy with the rest of the system etc.
I tend to read editorial reviews but with a grain of salt. Stereophile reviews are always good and while they don't review non-advertisers they often compare gear. User's reviews and opinions here are great value to me (learning a lot).

I don't have any experience with subs but I'm sure others can help. One thing I noticed that extension is not automatically equal quality. My previous cheaper speakers had two 6" woofers while new ones have two 8" woofers in much larger cabinet but extension is worse (35Hz vs. 32Hz). What got better though, is bass quality - string attack and decay plus better tone and dynamics. I suspect that extension can be forced with extra driver and cross (like 2 1/2 crossover) or tuning of bass refleks. Bass refleks can also be tuned to minimize distortion (current speakers). Bass lower string is 42Hz while piano's is 27Hz but seldom used. For HT it is another story. My TV sound comes thru my system but the main purpose is music. I'm even afraid that sub might screw-up bass definition. There is also money allocation - good subs aren't cheap.

Some folks are passionately against using specs in judging equipment and others, albeit a smaller group IMO, are just a passionate that specs/performance should be measurable. Personally, I'm a military historian and tend to be analytical, so while I can appreciate both sides of the debate, the end result frustrates me. So my main question is in trying to understand the two sides, or rather how do I reconcile these two positions?

My feeling is that the proper reconciliation of those two positions is that an understanding and assessment of specs is both useful and necessary in RULING OUT component selections that would be poor matches to either other components in the system (e.g., impedance incompatibilities, gain or level mismatches, etc.) or to the listener's requirements (e.g., peak volume capability, deep bass extension, physical characteristics, etc.). That hopefully allows the potential candidates to be narrowed down to a manageable number, and may allow some expensive mistakes to be avoided.

The list of remaining candidates can then be further narrowed either by listening, or if that is not possible by careful assessment of reviews and user comments (with grains of salt liberally applied).

Best regards,
-- Al