So I sold my Bryston 4bst and bp25 pre so I could get into surround sound. I got a Pioneer SC25 but it is so difficult to set up to get something that I like, so I keep changing settings and trying something new all the time and waste time experimenting instead of listening to the music. So I had a "brilliant" idea "why not get an affordable amplifier for music" hence the question "what is the best amplifier under $1000" I have a pair of Totem Staffs and a pair of Totem Rainmakers, thanks in advance.
I did like the Bryston set up, but here are 3 good reasons 1. I started to listen to a podcast where many of the guests give great reasons why surround is better than stereo, not just movies but for music as well, so this was very compelling and trigger the idea "what if..." 2. I had an extra pair of Totem Rainmakers, and wanted to use them. 3. There was nothing really wrong with sound of the Bryston, it was really clean and powerful. This is what was bugging me; I noticed that I didn't listen to more than one CD at the time, I got tired rather than involved (I used to have an Arcam alpha9 and did get a lot of use of that one) because in order to enjoy the virtues of the Bryston, I had to get the volume up, and I couldn't do anything else, I could not have it running in the background while doing something else because the high volume gets in the way. So now my wife is saying "I told you so!" but I don't miss the Bryston so much, it's just that I have not found what I am looking for. Thanks for any help in the issue. Sergio
First of all, surround is not better than stereo for music listening. Music is recorded to be listened to in stereo, when you're listening to music in any surround mode it's a processed signal, not a true signal.
Besides that, I can see what you mean. Bryston has a particular sound (or non-sound) that can be described as very precise. I could see how some people find this tiring to listen to.
It sounds like you actually have a similar liking in sound that I do. I tend to like things that are warm, smooth, and laid back sounding, hence why my main speakers are Sttafs.
Let's say that for a hypochondriac and ADD personality "tubs" are not the best company, I think that I would be checking the tubes, testing new tubes, changing tubes..... other than that I like the sound of some tube amps that I have listen to. OH! and the mid-range ones tend to be more expensive than $1000.00
I think Sergio should spend some time listening to live music at local clubs to get a better understanding of what he likes.
If listening to podcasts gets him to move in the direction that he did I would say that he does not have enough of a base understanding of musical performances or recorded music to begin to know what he wants.
Hey Michael, thank you very much for the suggestion but let me give you more info: 1. I am almost 50 years old, I have worked in the recording industry, I love live music, and I love technology. 2. Points made by the podcaster: "live music can't be reproduce by any equipment regardless of cost", "if it were up to audiophiles of the '30s we should have just mono and just one very good speaker" But I digress, if you or any one on the bulletin would advice on the best amp that is under $1000 that would be greatly appreciated, thank you.
My point is, there's no "best". It really comes down to personal opinion. There's some guys on the forum here that would argue that Bryston would be the best sounding amp under a certain dollar level, others would disagree. It's all subjective. That's why Mike suggested you get out and listen to a bunch of different gear and decide what you like.
I could tell you what I think is the best amp is, but you would take it home and maybe be disappointed.
I would say to take a look at what stores in your area are selling. There can be specials, sometimes in the slow summer months, where you might be able to get something that is normally more than $1,000 for less. Or do you plan to buy online?
Under $1K there are the usual suspects:
Marantz Cambridge Audio NAD Rega (Brio 3) Audiolab (not so usual)
Personally, I enjoyed my time with an Audiolab amp and will listen to one again soon, so it gets my vote. Frankly, I kind of think AL sounds like a poor man's Bryston, it's clean, precise, full bodied, and is also well built and has a very utilitarian look to it. But then again people seem to either love or hate AL, and I don't actually get a vote.
At the end of the day you probably have to check out what's available in your area, listen to some systems, and try to identify what sound it is that you want. Not the easiest thing to do all in one shot, I've found.
David, I appreciate your point of view, but my alternative would be reading ads from manufacturers. I think that your opinion and Michael's are more valid because they are of your personal taste and that is real and without personal benefit. I want to get something that is not my main stereo but still descent, Let's put it this way, What would be the minimum that you would willing to live with? please advise, thanks a million.
Sergio you sound like a perfect candidate for the McIntosh MC252 and C220 combo.
But that's way above your $1,000 price range.
Shame. I'm of like mind/ears. I like warm, smooth, emotionally involving components and speakers.
And Byston has always left me cold and fatigued. Hence the reason I don't go for Bryston.
Maybe you should save more money, for a longer period of time and audition the McIntosh gear I mentioned. If it turns out to be what you like (and I think it will be), it will be the last amp and preamp you'll need to buy .......for a very long time.
Sergio, what might help here is if you could offer some examples of amps/systems you've heard that you really liked and why.....and perhaps some you didn't like and why. We can all throw out brands or amps to check out, but without having some idea what sounds good to you it's very difficult to offer accurate suggestions.
It would also be helpful to describe the room you're listening in (dimensions, furnishings, flooring, etc).
""if it were up to audiophiles of the '30s we should have just mono and just one very good speaker"
1) What's wrong with that? You believe more than one very good speaker is required because you've been sold that line of thought. You would have what? Two less than very good speakers for the cost of one very good speaker? I thought you required the best.
If more than one is "better" then how many speakers makes "best"? Five? Ten? There is a good bit of research that suggests the entire room should act as a transducer and we can eliminate individual speakers altogether. I hope you see the flaw in your ointment so to speak.
2) There were no "audiophiles" in the 1930's. With only one speaker to play with, there were only music lovers. "Audiophiles" came along when the opportunity to consume vast quantities of electronics became the end game rather than simply the means to an end.
Sergio, with either $1k or $100k, the best is never achievable. As you have couched your inquiry, every amplifier will be an unmitigated success and every amplifier will be an abysmal failure as each component has both good and bad points to offer each listener. Only you can determine what is best for anything to which you attach significance. Since you love technology, ask yourself what is the best technology you know of and go buy that. It will be an unmitigated success - for now.
Beyond that, sir, you are asking how bad was the guy who no longer occupies the White House.
OK people, after so much help from some of you and scolding from others, I returned my Pioneer receiver and got a Naim (Nait XS) and I am a happier man even than before when I had the Bryston, but now i have a different dilemma: I have a pair of rainmakers and a pair of staffs, I like the clarity of the Rainmakers but I also like the base of the staffs - the question is - I am better off with the staffs or would I be better with the rainmakers + subwoofer and if so what subwoofer would be more suiting. I hope to hear some good advise and a million thanks for it.
As a Sttaf owner, I would have to say the Sttafs, although I could see how some people prefer the resolution of the Rainmakers. It's really more your own personal preference.
Hi Sergio, It sounds like the speaker in Totem's line for you, if you've got the buck to put down, is the Hawk. It has the resolution and then some of the rainmakers, in pace with the Model 1 and has the depth of the Sttafs. I was sold on them the first time I heard them; however, haven't been able to set away the cash to get them.
Thank you George, you are right cash is hard to come by, but also the Hawks have a paper drivers and (since I am ignorant) I think that they will fatigued faster than the other versions and that puts me off. Am I just totally wrong about this?
Paper driver cones are not an issue at all, Sergio. Doped paper has been around for a long time. As long as the driver is not exposed to high humidity or direct sunlight, the cone material(and surround)is a matter of choice for the speaker designer, based on sound and performance only.
Sergio, Paper drivers are not a concern - they have been around since the beginning and will probably be around to the end. Paper in some ways is superior to other materials - it can provide a very natural and accurate sound if done right. The woofers on the Hawks are very high quality - Scanspeak Revelators, I believe. They are very details, and hence, if your source of amplification is bright, it will be told by the Hawks. However, if things are right and balanced in your system - it will be just lovely. As always, you need to audition them with either the gear you are going to use to drive them or somethng similar. For me, other than the Model 1's the Hawks are my top pics for value in the Totem line - but they are all different with different followers.
Thank you for the great advise. I went to the store and audition the Arros, Model ONEs and the Hawks, From my point of view they are priced properly in relationship to the performance, the best value was on the Arros, the best base was for the Hawks and the best attack for the Models ONEs. So I think that the Model ONEs are for me for two reasons 1. $500 difference, 2. the Model ONE has enough base and since I already have a sub it would complement them. Please let me know if you think that I would be making a big mistake going this way, comparing speakers in half an hour doesn't make you an expert on those speakers and $500 is a lot of money but if you spread it over 5 years is not that much (good excuse eh! ) thank you guys this is really a nice conversation.
You started with the Rainmakers and the Sttafs but found the Rainmakers to lack bass and the Sttafs to lack some of the detail you found in the Rainmakers. The Arros are a superb value but have their own limitations - they just can't produce relativistic sound pressure levels and lack bass. The Model 1's are a great overall package and were the speaker that gave Totem their break into the market as a high-end speaker manufacturer/designer. If you feel the Model 1's lack what you want in the lower octaves, you are barking up another tree and are in for more trouble in using a sub. Sub, unless they are perfectly matched to the Model 1's will give you more trouble than anything. You will end up in no time want to get another sub, trying different subs etc. etc. You either like the Model 1's as they sound and can live without the bottom octave or perhaps you should look to the Hawk. Don't start thinking to use a sub with the Model 1's to make up for something - you will just not be happy. If you really love the sound of the Hawk and have the money then you should go for it. Again, you need to love them. Try to listen to the difference you hear between the Model 1's and the Hawks. What do you like in the Model 1's better, what do you like in the Hawks better? What are the shorcomings you perceive in either? The list of pros and cons of each is where you need to go. There will always be compromises in sound, no matter how much you spend but you're looking for something you can be happy with, and enjoy without getting into excessive tweaking and having to spend more money down the line. Let me put it this way. If you find that the Model 1's and Hawks are equally to your liking, except for the lowest ocatves AND you hope to save some money with the Model 1's, using your sub - you are most likely going down the wrong path. You will end up spending more than the difference in cost between the Hawks and Model 1's in trying to find a sub that works with the Model 1's. It would be better in such a case to just go for the Hawks and be satisfied. Better to save up a few more months in fact to get the Hawks. However, if you like the sound of the Model 1's better than the Hawks, except for the bass. Then you've got some thinking to do. Do you like the Model 1's sound that much more than the Hawks that it makes you feel you can live without the bottom end. Lot's of questions, concerns and no PERFECT answer in the quest for the absolute sound.
Thank you George, your advise puts things into perspective, most of us are here because we can always get something different (if we had the money) there is not such a thing as the perfect speaker, is always a trad off and choosing the one that you are happy with is the important thing. So simple and easy to forget, eh? I think that at the moment I will stay with my staffs for base and I will upgrade the rainmakers to Model ONEs.
Glad, I could put things into perspective. Another couple things to remember, all good things come in time & enjoy the journey - it's sometimes as much fun as getting there.
Please report back on the Model 1's - by the way, if you haven't heard them, try to see if you can audition the Totem ONE (it's a special edition 35th anniversary Model 1 with a no compromise construction i.e. they have used all the best components), the sound is just fantastic. Cheers.