Electrocompaniet AW 800 M stereo/monoblock power amplifier Page 2

Setup
As I placed the amps on my Grand Prix Monza amp stands, I noted their special feet, from SuperSpikes, a Norwegian company owned by Norwegian speaker-driver manufacturer SEAS. "You are free to change these to whatever you are familiar with or keep the original ones," Danielsen emailed after our talk. When I listened to the same recording and switched between those spikes and Wilson Audio Pedestals, the latter supplied a bit more air without changing the amp's sonic signature. I went back and forth between these supports during the review period.

Electrocompaniet's well-thought-out manual offers seven clearly illustrated setup scenarios that allow you to connect up to four AW 800 Ms in various mono, stereo, and biamp configurations. Connecting speaker cables for mono use is simple if you follow the hook-up instructions for "mono" on the back of the amp. I have little fondness for the European Union–mandated plastic safety shields on speaker cable connections, which on my review pair forced me to insert spades from below. I got it done.

It is generally unwise to plug a power filter into a power filter, and the Electrocompaniet amps have their own RF and DC filtering. So I ruled out plugging them in to the AudioQuest Niagara 7000 power conditioner I use for the front-end components. The remaining choices were directly into the wall or into the Stromtank S 2500 Quantum MK-II, which is not a filter but a battery power source/AC regenerator that can operate disconnected from the electrical grid. The S 2500, though, is not equipped to power two monoblocks that deliver 800W each into 8 ohms or 1500W into 4 ohms (footnote 1). Wall power was the only way to go (footnote 2).

Amplifier operation was as simple as flipping the main power switch on the amp's rear to "on" then depressing the front power button. Warm-up is said to take about an hour. I always gave it more time to ensure that my listening impressions reflected optimal performance.

Listening
The sound / the mystery?
The watery suns / Of those hazy skies?
Hold for my spirit / The same mysterious charms?
As your treacherous eyes / Shining through their tears ... .
The world falls asleep / In a warm light.
There, there is nothing except order and beauty,
Luxury, calm, and sensual pleasure.

Those perfumed words, imperfectly translated from Charles Baudelaire's poem "L'invitation au Voyage" and translated into music by Henri Duparc in his unforgettable setting of two of its verses, sang in my head as the Electrocompaniet AW 800 M mono amplifiers wove their spell. On Bach Trios (24/96 FLAC, Nonesuch/Qobuz), Yo-Yo Ma's cello sounded warm, beautiful, full, and uncannily real as he played J.S. Bach's "Wachet auf" ("Sleepers Awake"), with Edgar Meyer (bass) and Chris Thile (mandolin). I felt I was in a dream state. Coltrane's sax sounded so gorgeous on his performance of "Nancy (With the Laughing Face)," from Ballads (24/96 MQA, Impulse!/Tidal), and the core of Matthias Goerne's baritone was so filled with marvelous warmth and beauty in his recordings of "Schlafen, schlafen, nichts als schlafen!" ("Sleep, sleep, to do nothing but sleep!") from Alban Berg's Songs (4) for voice & piano, Op.2 with Daniel Trifonov (24/96 FLAC, DG/Qobuz) and Beethoven's "Adelaide" with Jan Lisiecki (24/96 FLAC DG/Qobuz) that I felt I could sink into their sounds forever and live the rest of my life in a suspended state, bathed in sonic warmth.

I noted other qualities, including the sense of power and rock-solid, marvelously strong bass at the start of Iván Fischer and the Budapest Festival Orchestra's recording of Mahler's Symphony No.3 (DSD128, Channel Classics CCS SA 38817). But it was the nonfatiguing, "I could listen to this forever" beauty of the AW 800 M's diaphanous, impressionistic rendering of music that continually entranced me. I felt as though I was floating in an opium-induced haze (footnote 3) from which I was occasionally jolted by the kind of superb bass that leaves a lasting impression.

Another wonderful taste of these amplifiers' outstanding bass arrived at the start of Raphael Payare and the Orchestre Symphonique de Montréal's recent Pentatone issue of Mahler Symphony No.5 (24/96 FLAC, Pentatone PTC5187067). When my friend Scott and I listened, we turned to each other and uttered "Wow!" simultaneously. Not since the mighty (and mighty heavy) Karan monoblocks had I heard bass this rock-solid and top-to-bottom firm. Some instrumental lines were less clearly delineated and discernible than with my almost-twice-as-expensive D'Agostino Momentum M400 MxVs ($79,950/ pair), but the bass was so superb that it left us wanting more. So, I turned to Patrick Mulcahy's prominent bass in Patricia Barber's "This Town," from Clique (24/352.8 MQA, Impex Records/Tidal) Through the Electrocompaniets, Mulcahy's instrument seemed to grow in size, moving a bit closer to the awesome bass I've heard through larger Wilsons with bigger bass drivers.

Nonetheless, at the New York launch of the Wilson Alexia V at Innovative Audio, I was blown away by the strength of percussion Peter McGrath had drawn from the orchestra on his private recording of John Corigliano's rage-filled Symphony No.1, performed by James Judd and the Florida Philharmonic (16/44.1 MQA). Returning to that recording again, I was delighted to hear the best rendition of that pounding bass drum I'd ever heard on my system.

After we shared a 6-mile hike, my friend Anna Frank requested Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon (24/192 MQA, Legacy Recordings/Tidal). We reveled in the strong, resonant bass and warm and smooth middle on the 2023 50th Anniversary remaster. Neither DSotM nor Giles Martin's acclaimed 2017 remix of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (24/96 FLAC, UMC/Qobuz) sounded as transparent as I'm accustomed to, but the surprising warmth of "When I'm 64" warmed the cockles of my aging heart.

As arresting as the Electrocompaniets' bass jolts were, I longed to return to the mysteries of their warm, seductively veiled sound. I did not wish to awake from the dream. Turning away from percussion-rich music, I delighted in visits with singers and songs I cherish. Through the AW 800 M monos, soprano Véronique Gens had never sounded so plush, or the violin in her string quartet accompaniment so warm, as on her recording Nuits, with I Giardini (24/96 FLAC, Alpha/Qobuz). Turning back the clock more than 80 years, I found myself more enchanted than ever by the sound of the great, precious Elisabeth Schumann's "My Lovely Celia, heav'nly fair" (16/44.1 FLAC, Warner/Tidal), from her priceless Icon collection. I was so astounded by the dynamic variation and nuance the AW 800 M monos extracted from this less-than-great digital transfer from an old 78 that I kept on wanting more.

Late on a full-moon night proved the perfect opportunity to revisit Duparc's setting of "L'invitation au voyage." Sopranos Maggie Teyte and Victoria de los Angeles both left unique versions of this song with haunting orchestral accompaniment. Searching Tidal, Qobuz, and my own music library, I discovered what is undoubtedly its first recording of the electrical era: Charles Panzéra's, with Piero Coppola and orchestra, from 1926. As I continued to explore, the first verse of baritone Pierre Bernac's 1945 rendition (with Francis Poulenc on piano) stood out as the epitome of refinement and elegance. Among modern versions, François le Roux's won me over. Electrocompaniet's magic carpet ride delivered joy upon joy.

One cannot remain forever with a song composed in 1870. Changing course, I turned to a new recording of Riccardo Muti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra performing Jessie Montgomery's "Hymn for Everyone," one of three pieces on Contemporary American Composers (24/96 WAV, CSO Resound CSOR 9012301). As much as I loved the recording's excellent bass and natural timbres, I discovered, behind the AW 800 M's seductive haze, a midrange with less black space between notes than I prefer.

Nonetheless, the Electrocompaniets proved ideal for Grieg's "Morning Mood" from Peer Gynt. I auditioned two renditions: one of Danielsen's recommendations, performed by Oivin Fjeldstad and the London Symphony Orchestra on The 50 Greatest Pieces of Classical Music (16/44.1 FLAC, X5 Music Group/Tidal) and a newer version of the Peer Gynt Suites from the Bergen Philharmonic under Ole Kristian Ruud (24/44.1 FLAC, BIS/Qobuz). Both sounded gorgeous, although the newer recording had a far wider soundstage, fuller midrange, and better dynamics. For atmospheric music of this nature, the Electrocompaniet was a winner. It didn't do as well on "All Blues" from Miles Davis's classic Kind of Blue (24/192 MQA Columbia/Tidal). As much as I loved the seductive midrange warmth of the presentation, that omnipresent veil smoothed out color contrasts and diminished transparency.

Back in the soup
"Just like one singer has one voice and the other singer has a different voice, different amplifiers have different voices," Danielsen explained before my first listen to the Electrocompaniet AW 800 M mono amplifiers. "That doesn't mean that one is out of tune; they just sound different.

"We want people to focus on and enjoy music. We think you can listen to the warm, natural, and organic sound of our amplifiers for a long time without ever getting fatigued. You won't get tired, especially when it gets loud. And there's no noisefloor that you can hear."

The AW 800 M's unique voice is perhaps best described by returning to where I started, with soup. In the most miraculous miso soup I ever tasted, meticulously cut, carefully proportioned, and impeccably arranged vegetables and herbs floated free from each other in a clear, savory broth. Each morsel had its own unique flavor, as did the broth itself. Because no taste overpowered any other, the entire bouquet of flavors was there to savor.

Many humans would gladly exchange that miso masterpiece for a bowl of the Atlantic Fish Company's finest Boston Clam Chowder. Need I begin to recount how different they are in taste, consistency, subtlety of flavors (or lack thereof), and appearance?

Which is superior? Our frequent online critics will be all too eager to either supply a definitive answer or to state that only by measuring certain viscous parameters can you be sure which soup is best. I, in turn, would advise you, unless you have specific allergies or sensitivities, to stick with taste. As different as they are, you may find you crave both. And even if you prefer one over the other, you'll be richer for the experience—as you will for tasting the Electrocompaniet AW 800 M Reference mono


Footnote 1: Stromtank's Wolfgang Meletzky believes that his S-4000 and S-5000 models can power high-power amps without a problem.

Footnote 2: It's worth mentioning that a single 120V circuit, even one rated for 20A, can only supply 2400W continuous, insufficient to support the maximum rated output power of two AW 800 Ms. If you want to drive both amps to full power, you'll need two circuits.

Footnote 3: Baudelaire became addicted to laudanum, an opium derivative.

COMPANY INFO
Electrocompaniet AS
Teknologiveien 2
4120 Tau
Norway
47 51 74 10 33
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
Auditor's picture

This is totally unrelated to audio...

I love the phrase "the world is a backdrop for my ego".

I don't know if Jason came up with this, but it's brilliant.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

Jim Austin occasionally adds some pithy phrases to my reviews, but that one is all mine.

jason

Ortofan's picture

... a blind, level-matched protocol for their amplifier comparisons and, thus, came to the conclusion that one of the higher-end Yamaha integrated amps could provide as much amplifier performance as anyone needed. If you wanted an even higher level of construction, then there was Accuphase.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

all amplifiers sound alike? Glad to hear that Julian Hirsch is alive and well, even though he was dead wrong.

My review of the Accuphase monoblocks is coming soon.

John Atkinson's picture
Jason Victor Serinus wrote:
Glad to hear that Julian Hirsch is alive and well, even though he was dead wrong.

The poster was actually referring to Peter Aczel, though he, like Julian Hirsch, is no longer with us.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

teched58's picture

..that John Atkinson is this era's answer to Julian Hirsch. JA1 has proudly carried forward the tradition of measurement, which Hirsch pioneered in the 1960s and '70s.

Of course, I mean the comparison as a compliment to JA1 and his assiduous work over the years.

As for JVS's uninformed (the most polite way I could put it) and gratuitous slam of Hirsch, all I can say is that I am embarrassed for you. It is not even factually correct.

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

Mr. Hirsch reviewed everything solely based on measurements and everything sounded alike to him. Occasionally he described the build quality nicely. I'm not sure I ever read a bad review of any component he was ever assigned to evaluate. His legacy is of being a tester. His skills as a writer - especially when compared to masters of the language suchg as JVS, Herb, JA 1 and 2, Alex, "Sam T", - the less said the better.

beave's picture

Have you ever read a bad review here? Stereophile says they review products they like. Maybe it was the same for Mr. Hirsch?

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

First off, Stereophile and other magazines are not Consumer Reports. Most if not all magazines, do not give bad reviews to products/places etc. They are not news organizations doing investigative reports. This holds true for Motor Trend, Wine Spectator, Conde Nast Traveler etc. They may like some products more than others but Stereophile will probably choose to NOT review something rather than alienate an advertiser. Not sure if you know this, but print journalism is fragile business these days. PS - And I think the reviewers like some products more than others - they just say it politely - and JA 1 HAS pointed out flaws in measurements etc. He will not say this product is a piece of shit but he has said there are flaws etc. and raise an eyebrow about the engineerings etc. Mr. Hirsch on the other hand, did not go into great detail about "the sound" of equipment. He wrote about features, new technology, the size and shape and he was obsessed like the rest of the audio industry w THD as the yardstick for everything.

teched58's picture

I would trade a little less purple prose from JVS for a scintilla of understanding of electronics.

I often wonder if JVS could tell you what Ohm's law is. He certainly can't explain Nyquist to you. He seems to think it's optional.

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

I don't know what Ohm's Law and I don't effing care. I know some basics. I know what certain topologies mean. I listen to music for how it makes me feel. I listen to equipment that I think sounds good. JA is the Ohm's law expert. He knows measurements and the tech. Do you think most film critics went to film school? Do all food critics have degrees from the Culinary Institute? Do automobile reviewers have degrees in mechanical engineering or automotive design? All probably not. THEY ARE. WRITERS FOR ENTERTAINMENT CONSUMER MAGAZINES. THEY WRITE. THEY DON"T WRITE WHITE PAPERS. Jeez some of you really just don't get it and are so naive and uninformed about the role of magazines.

teched58's picture

Johnny, I always liked your guitar playing.

You claim you know basics, but if you don't know Ohm's law, you don't know basics.

How was New Orleans?

Glotz's picture

Julian Hirsch was utterly bereft of any insight or conviction. I read Stereo Review for years on the news stand (without purchasing but my first
copy) and other than specs about mainstream receivers, there was nothing of any value for prospective consumers to compare, contrast or draw conclusions from. Utterly worthless and an insult to the paper it was printed on.

Folks that crap on Stereophile for being 'marketing' for their largely positive reviews are lost in an era where truly crap components made their way at the marketplace in the 1980's. To equate Stereophile and Stereo Review as being similar should get you banned from this (and all) audio websites.

I find it catastrophically offensive that someone one would state those two magazines are similar and yet question the judgment of Johnny for knowing the difference and then claiming he doesn't know anything because he doesn't know or value Ohm's law. Heelarryous.

(Julian also 'reviewed' Ohm speakers positively and they were absolute garbage musically.)

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

I don't need to know anything about Ohm's Law to get the magic of Haydn string quartets or Johnny Thunder's guitar playing on Personality Crisis. I don't need to be a metallurgist to know that my All Clad frying pan outperforms the $10 one I bought as a college student either. Many of you equate science and engineering knowledge with musical performance and enjoyment. It's a little art, science and magic and you can't quantify it. That piece of equipment that doesn't measure well and costs a lot can't possibly be better than the one that costs less and measures "perfectly." Ha.

Glotz's picture

I would party with you any time.. even if it meant crossdressing to New York Dolls and destroying archaic thought!

You fucking RULE Johnny.

teched58's picture

I'm glad you gentlemen have a publication that caters to your audiophile heuristic -- if it's extremely expensive and measures poorly, it must be the best.

This is what keeps our beloved Stereophile (as well as the far less interesting TAS) in business.

Glotz's picture

Clearly you are insincere.

And no, drawing asinine conclusions is not art nor science. You would actually need to listen to equipment over time to determine its greatness. Listening critically is the key and takes time and experience- And occasionally going to audio shows to compare and contrast with one's own biases and past experiences

What you are essentially saying is you just like trolling this magazine's website to convince subscribers that this magazine isn't worth our time. And the measurements and their limited scope is somehow tantamount to all else.

That is the definition of stupid.

teched58's picture

I am absolutely not being insincere.

Stereophile, though no longer in its salad days, is still the most important publication in the audiophile ecosystem. Even with the emergence of sites like ASR.

And without people like you and the late Mr. Thunders, who sincerely believe the ascientific cant you spout reflexively like a mantra each time a trained engineer comes atcha, Stereophile would disappear.

That said, two things can be true at the same time. A) I believe Stereophile is important and B) I also think, well, you know what I think of JVS and his ilk as well as your nonsense.

I would hope that we all kinda grok that when all of us older guys exit the soundstage, the kind of robust, cranky debating and infighting with which many have been consumed for lo these many years will be no more.

P.S. As far as "the definition of stupid," you appear to be more familiar with that than I.

Glotz's picture

Appear? You couldn't discern bullshit from truth, engineering or subjective listening. You project a ton in trying to foist your own value here. Keep hiding behind whatever supposed superior knowledge you have.

You have none with statements like "expensive and measures poorly.. must be good." What are you bringing forward with statement like that? Zero substance, just the same trite accusations ad nauseum.

I do not need any of your 'observations'. You're a troll, pure and simple, with zero value to audiophiles.

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

What primordial semi-scientific ooze are they emerging from? It's a bunch of people like you - bitter know-it-alls, relentlessly negative troll types that have to be the audio Taliban and stand up for the audio consumer and protect us from expensive equipment that measures poorly (that reminds me, where is Ortofan and why hasn't he recommended a Parasound or Marantz amp to compare w the amp JVS wrote about)? You both know better than me - me the one w the 4K tube amp that has loads of lovely 2nd harmonic distortion (by the way, there are many many revered audio engineers that designed amps w a shit ton of euphonic warmth as a foundational part of the circuit and sorry if you don't like it. Mr G said it best - why do you read Stereophile then ? To chuckle at all the suckers ?
Do you make fun of people that read Architectural Digest but live in a modest condo ? Magazine content like Stereophile is aspirational. People do not want to read magazines with average shit photographed and written about.

Archimago's picture

I think those (including myself) who place importance in measurements are aiming for "high-fidelity", not "euphonia".

Whether the album sounds good or not is a reflection of the quality of the musician and recording itself... The job of the hardware is just to get out of the way, a characteristic we can measure based on engineering principles, the goal is not inherently to "sound good" which is a subjective judgment that we're all free to hold (2nd harmonics can certainly be pleasant for some).

Audiophiles from both schools of thought can enjoy music.

I think those who are aiming for objectively high-fidelity reproduction also tend to be more sensitive to the price as a reflection of value using the objective measuring stick of low-distortion-low-noise/$100 or something like that. That's not an unfair measuring stick if that's what we want, and consistent with the overall philosophy. As a mature technology, many high-fidelity devices don't have to cost a lot of money for good engineering. For example, excellent DACs can be had for a few hundred bucks so when a $10,000 DAC comes along, it makes sense for "us" to make some comparisons and judge whether things like noise floor and distortion levels are commensurate with the price.

I don't think many objective-leaning audiophiles are jealous of the luxury priced products. It's just that much of what is being sold simply isn't "aspirational" within this view of the hi-fi hobby if the objective results don't reasonably correlate with the price structure.

Yes, perhaps Stereophile and the subjective reviews are not suited for this form of audiophile. Maybe the "high end" with its values and heroes isn't something certain audiophiles will appreciate. Although it's still nice to see the measurements and appreciate (or not) the current newest products. Plus it's nice to read about music recommendations.

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

the trolling types aren't. Their specific intent is to sh-t on anything else and to be negative contrarians. The audio Taliban again. I don't troll a good review of a lower priced well reviewed component and make fun of it and then respond here and say "but for $5k MORE you can get this AVM amp." or god forbid suggest an amp made in Asia (except for the amps that THEY endorse.). I shouldn't let it get to me but I'm not alone in the dread of reading the comments of these negative noodnicks with low budgets but big egos and opinions. I'm also not advocating that a good system has to cost 6 figures either. My system is quite modest with no component costing over 5k.

Laphr's picture
Quote:

I think those (including myself) who place importance in measurements are aiming for "high-fidelity", not "euphonia".

High fidelity is not actually well-connected with a few measurements. That's an assumption. And euphonia is a negative projection against the listeners who obviously hear beyond them.

Quote:

Whether the album sounds good or not is a reflection of the quality of the musician and recording itself...

Incorrect. Great audio identifies itself by how it recaptures everything, warts and all. Once you hear it you get it.

Quote:

The job of the hardware is just to get out of the way, a characteristic we can measure based on engineering principles

Also incorrect because again there are no measurements for that sound. 'Getting out of the way' is an empty ideal when there's no way to establish it. Especially when it's assumed to be the product of measurements.

Quote:

...the goal is not inherently to "sound good" which is a subjective judgment that we're all free to hold (2nd harmonics can certainly be pleasant for some).

That's just phoning in your projection, and the 'subjective' part is a tell for your bias. Look what comes next.

Quote:

I think those who are aiming for objectively high-fidelity reproduction

There it is. The 'objectively' better sound is assumed to exist while the subjective sound is projected to be inferior, all based on assumptions about measurements.

Quote:

Yes, perhaps Stereophile and the subjective reviews are not suited for this form of audiophile.

That's probably true, just not the objective part. Too many unfounded assumptions.

Ortofan's picture

... best-selling brands of power amplifiers at the major on-line dealers?

One of them is not Electrocompaniet. Rather, it's brands such as Parasound, Marantz, NAD and Rotel.

Perhaps "people" do not want to read magazines with average products photographed and written about, but those average products are what they are buying.

JohnnyThunder2.0's picture

Britney Spears sold more records than Leonard Bernstein but that doesn't mean the NY TIMES is going to write about her. Crosley sells more turntables than Linn. Should we write about them ? This is not an argument about quantity and what sells the best. It's not even an argument about quality because there is absolutely nothing to disparage about Parasound or Marantz. But that doesn't mean it is sexy to write about or in magazine parlance - a story worth writing about. All you are proving is that amps in the $500-$2500 range sell more than pricier models. Duh. Motor Trend writes about the Ford 150 (the same way that Stereophile reviews lots of Parasound) but they also write about the latest Porsche and Mercedes and Lambo...So go publish your own magazine where they only review stuff that sells well to the masses. See how it does. See how long it lasts. See how little advertising you get. See how f-ing boring it is to read about. If your point is to advocate how good a value Parasound is, just say it without pointing out that to spend more for something else is misguided. I could have purchased the Parasound JC3+ phono stage - there were aspects of that stage that really appealed to me but it simply doesn't fit in the space I have and there I own a small UK stage like an EAR 834p. People need choices for their personal preferences that go beyond simply god damn measurements.

Glotz's picture

Whatever the designer has decided for euphonic or accurate is that designers conscious decision, not a failing of accuracy-minded value parameters.

Laphr's picture

"if it's extremely expensive and measures poorly, it must be the best."

Is that really what you meant to write?

"This is what keeps our beloved Stereophile (as well as the far less interesting TAS) in business."

Because it's a conspiracy too?

Laphr's picture

Despite his endless misspelling of Cynic, I enjoyed Aczel. Once he discovered the market for obstreperous people who couldn't appreciate the music made by what they could not afford, he formed something of a balance. At least in his mind. And unlike today's version of the same journalistic affectation, he could write.

I can't think of a illustrative corollary but then I haven't spent a lot of time on it either.

Ortofan's picture

... if an amplifier has flat frequency response, vanishingly small static and dynamic linearity errors, high enough input impedance and low enough output impedance, noise level below audibility, and high enough channel separation, then it will not have a detectable sound quality. This assertion, they claimed, was confirmed by their ABX listening tests.

If one needed more power (100W @ 8 ohms/200W @ 4 ohms) than the Yamaha integrated amp could supply, then they recommended power amps from Boulder, Bryston or Rotel.

Their impression was that the Boulder was overbuilt (and priced accordingly), while the (non-Michi) Rotel was quite acceptable, and the Bryston was worth the added cost (over the Rotel) given its 20-year warranty.

Their technical editor was a degreed EE with a Ph.D., who provided an analysis of the circuit design for the amplifiers under review.

beave's picture

...vanishingly small NON-linearities, not vanishingly small linearities.

Ortofan's picture

... either non-linearities or linearity errors.

Laphr's picture

Seems they made a categorical statement that would speak for all listeners. Did they speak for all samples and phenomena too?

Archimago's picture

And this too can be measured.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2021/08/summer-musings-no-not-all-amplifiers.html

The question is how different the amps are from each other and whether the speaker match results in audible changes like frequency response.

But yeah. Within reasonable technical parameters, most good quality amps I think will sound very similar if we were to A/B compare; more so than some might want to admit especially with huge price differences! ;-)

Laphr's picture

The effort that goes into measurement crystal ball gazing while denying expert reports of what it actually sounds like must be exhausting.

beave's picture

Technical knowledge? Listening experience? Have they passed some test and received a certificate? Have they even had their hearing checked? Do they bother to account for the inevitable unconscious biases that can affect listening perceptions?

Let me rephrase it thusly: Which would better inform me what a product sounds like? A suite of measurements, or the musings of an "expert" listener who listens to a piece of gear in a different room than mine, with a different set of ears than mine, with a different brain than mine, with different connecting gear than mine, and with different music preferences than mine?

Laphr's picture

You roll up on the fine downtown restaurant and bellow at the chef, demanding that he's a commercial fraud but he also has to hand you a chemical analysis of a dish you can't afford to order and will never appreciate. You're probably tons of fun around anybody who enjoys normal human experiences. Sommeliers must love you. Enthusiasts of all kinds adore you.

You just actually projected that better sound is on tap for people who can interpret it from tables and images but can't hear it in person.

And that hearing test part is just delicious, because nobody can appreciate the sound of music without perfect ears. Beethoven composed nothing but noise.

I don't think you're here for either sound or music. It's more obvious than that. You audio wedding crashers are widely know. JohnnyThunder already said it

Quote:

What primordial semi-scientific ooze are they emerging from? It's a bunch of people like you - bitter know-it-alls, relentlessly negative troll types that have to be the audio Taliban and stand up for the audio consumer and protect us from expensive equipment that measures poorly

the trolling types aren't logical. Their specific intent is to sh-t on anything else and to be negative contrarians. The audio Taliban again.

I shouldn't let it get to me but I'm not alone in the dread of reading the comments of these negative noodnicks with low budgets but big egos and opinions.

Mr G said it best - why do you read Stereophile then ? To chuckle at all the suckers ?
Do you make fun of people that read Architectural Digest but live in a modest condo ?

So why are you here? We know you can't identify what you admit you can't hear. So you are here instead to elevate yourself by being obnoxious. Pointless and wrong came along for the free ride.

MatthewT's picture

Slow day measuring junk over at ASR?

Ortofan's picture

... be amazed by this quote from one of his reviews of a particular power amplifier:

"Its listening quality is superb, and not easily described in terms of laboratory measurements. Listening is the ultimate test and a required one for full appreciation of the [amplifier]."

georgehifi's picture

With this word Victor "unique", are you saying it's "colored", or do you think it's more "real" than say all the Class-D's you've been listen to? (forget about tubes they're all colored in some way)

Second thing JA about these "bridged" (stereo) monoblocks amps coming from "big BJT solid state" background where are the transformers?? the only place could be in the very shallow gap under the power supply caps, and that doesn't seem enough room for 2 x decent sized toroidal trannies + electrostatic shielding?.

BTW love the unmolested (with any filtering) near perfect 10khz square wave!
I would have loved to see the 2ohm wattage "bridged", probably wouldn't even get to the 8ohm wattage figure, unstable/blow/fuse.

Cheers George

Ortofan's picture

... between the front panel and the banks of filter capacitors.

https://electrocompaniet.com/cdn/shop/files/electrocompaniet-AW800M-monoblock_poweramplifier_above.jpg

While Hi-Fi News did not perform continuous power tests below 4 ohms, according to their dynamic/peak output tests at 2/1 ohm loads in stereo mode the AW800M was capable of 1352W/1854W.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0004/3352/0692/files/Electrocompaniet_EC4.8MKII_AW800M_Outstanding-award.pdf

Glotz's picture

Have you heard them recently? I mean, you haven't and "The world is just a backdrop for your ego.. " Just kidding, George.

georgehifi's picture

Ooooops! correct, I was looking at this, thinking just the front panel was missing. DUH!!! Thanks for that.
https://ibb.co/dLrqnC6

Cheers George

Mikke's picture

Although eloquently written this review is very difficult to fathom. Am I supposed to understand - behind the lyrical descriptions of miso soup - that this amplifier has terrific bass but embodies the music in a veil thus obstructing transparency?

georgehifi's picture

"lyrical descriptions"
Gotta read between the lines there Mikee

Well the Miso has seaweed, so it's gunna sound/smell a "bit fishy"?

Cheers George

Anton's picture

Basically, it’s two incomplete parts of the hobby thinking they each have it all figured out.

Tribal cults at either extremes.

Archimago's picture

NT

David Harper's picture

Could anything be less important than the audiophile concerns being discussed on these pages? The sound quality of home audio amplifiers?
Really? Is no one here watching the news?

The above was an admittedly dumb post on my part. When I made it I had just finished watching a documentary about the war in Israel.

MatthewT's picture

What good comes from watching endless news about barbarians?

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

Decades ago I read the testimony of one German woman—someone who was anything but a Nazi sympathizer—who said that during the darkest hours of WWII, she kept her hope alive by listening to a specific Beethoven string quartet over and over. Music plays a vital part in our mental and spiritual health; it helps connect us with something far greater than ourselves.

Admittedly, one does not need a $50,000 set of monoblocks to feel the power of music. But for those of us who find affirmation and support in music, and to whom nuance and fine differences matter, sound quality is an important consideration. When a given piece of equipment brings me closer to the source of creation, I value it highly. In this respect, for many people other than myself, audiophile pursuits are more than a "hobby;' they are about connecting us with something far greater than ourselves.

hiendmmoe's picture

I agree with Mr. Serinus completely!

X