How are you doing, Zaikesman? Hope the tube exploration is going well.
To answer your question, simply look at the title of this thread and the arguments that Sean so lucidly lays out. First, I would like to say that in my opinion, which may or may not be off base, the implementation of a technology should improve over time.
However, that does not appear to be the case. As an example, the current issue of Stereophile includes a review of the $9500 Hovland solid state amplifier. Now, if you read both the "subjective"(Bolin's review) and "objective"(JA's measurements), you will notice that because of disappointment from both vantage points, Hovland reworked the design of the product. Would they have otherwise? I doubt it.
Of course, I give them credit for the improvement that was made, but it still didn't seem that they have achieved the status of producing a great power amplifier. My expectation of any piece of audio equipment costing $9500 is that it should sound great, be reliable, and be well designed. I don't think that's too much to ask.
This Hovland amplifier is unable to drive loads more demanding than 4 ohms. My own NAD 2600A, circa 1987, has proven reliable in driving such demanding(lower impedance than 4 ohms) loudspeakers as Apogees, Acoustats, Thiels, Wilsons, etc., and its measurements prove it can basically handle anything without breaking a sweat. I would like to see some explanation of how this amplifier, produced in the year 2004, improves upon Aragon, Classe, Jeff Rowland, Krell, Mark Levinson, etc. gear from the late 1980s, all of which have no problems in driving much more demanding loads than the Hovland is capable of.
I don't mean to bash Hovland, I am a huge fan of their tube preamp, but can we honestly say that this power amplifier justifies its pricetag? To me, I would gladly forego its cosmetics, faceplate, acrylic base, and blue LEDs for superior performance.
To answer your question, simply look at the title of this thread and the arguments that Sean so lucidly lays out. First, I would like to say that in my opinion, which may or may not be off base, the implementation of a technology should improve over time.
However, that does not appear to be the case. As an example, the current issue of Stereophile includes a review of the $9500 Hovland solid state amplifier. Now, if you read both the "subjective"(Bolin's review) and "objective"(JA's measurements), you will notice that because of disappointment from both vantage points, Hovland reworked the design of the product. Would they have otherwise? I doubt it.
Of course, I give them credit for the improvement that was made, but it still didn't seem that they have achieved the status of producing a great power amplifier. My expectation of any piece of audio equipment costing $9500 is that it should sound great, be reliable, and be well designed. I don't think that's too much to ask.
This Hovland amplifier is unable to drive loads more demanding than 4 ohms. My own NAD 2600A, circa 1987, has proven reliable in driving such demanding(lower impedance than 4 ohms) loudspeakers as Apogees, Acoustats, Thiels, Wilsons, etc., and its measurements prove it can basically handle anything without breaking a sweat. I would like to see some explanation of how this amplifier, produced in the year 2004, improves upon Aragon, Classe, Jeff Rowland, Krell, Mark Levinson, etc. gear from the late 1980s, all of which have no problems in driving much more demanding loads than the Hovland is capable of.
I don't mean to bash Hovland, I am a huge fan of their tube preamp, but can we honestly say that this power amplifier justifies its pricetag? To me, I would gladly forego its cosmetics, faceplate, acrylic base, and blue LEDs for superior performance.