Multi-amp shootout at Tony´s house featuring the Teac A-L700P

[ben.]

Some very good insights here, I think. Nice review Tony, thanks for the effort.

I think the Teac does pretty well for itself, but does suffer from a certain lack of character. Many, possibly most, would consider this a significant strength. So far, I don't. Besides, I just can't get over the deficiencies I've found in the bass presentation. I happen to like the character of a good tube amp. When presented with empirical data suggesting their inferiority, I am willing to (perhaps prematurely at times) to stipulate to their shortcomings technically. They just sound so damn good to me.

Dean, you're becoming a bit cheeky lately... it's not like you get a hard time when you try new things or anything! My band is looking at buying some PA gear here shortly, and the QSC series you referenced is on my short list. Light, clean, cool, powerful? If they dispensed Jameson they'd already be racked up.

[Deang]

Hee hee, yeah, I'm a gearhead, and I always get a little giddy about a new piece. But you know, all the amps I've ever owned really did sound good, and this one is no exception. I'll always dig good tube amps for their good tone, and always preferred them over solid state because for their apparent lack of grain and hash -- but this thing is spit clean and musical. The really cool thing is that it sounds as good down low as it does cranked up, and the dynamic impact knocks you back in your chair without pinning your ears back.

[ben.]

Ahh, the lack of of a "sweet spot" in volume would be really nice.

[sunnysal]

Ben,

I, for one, am not ashamed of having a sound preference in amps, just like I do in music. I say we hold our heads up in regards to the equipment we pick to play our favorite music.

I play with the various components until I get a system that plays MY music in MY room the way that I like it. I am probably 75-80% in the "subjectivist" camp at this point. I want a system that does a reasonably good job of providing measurably accurate replay, but in the end I will tweak until I get a sound that pleases me, damn the measurements.

I think the "objectivists" are a bit like the PMRC (tipper gore´s famous censorship lobby), trying to foist thier view of how music should sound on the rest of us.

Most of the objectivists I have met seem obsessed with tweaking their systems to sound like "Alice Tully Hall on December 13th 1989 when they I Yo Yo Ma play Mozart". However they all seem to have only a dozen or so albums they listen to and seem to spend more time analyzing the accuracy of the sound then they do enjoying the music. Perhaps all members of this "objectivist" club are not the same but as they say, I call them as I´ve seen them so far...

YMMV, IMHO, regards, tony

[Deang]

Wow Tony, who said anything about feeling "ashamed"?

I agree with the jist of what you're saying, that's why it's next to impossible to make definitive statements about what "sounds the best", and making recommendations is almost just as hard. The more you learn and experience, the more difficult it becomes. I've decided the best approach is to become independantly wealthy, and own three or four nice systems.

[ben.]

Though our posts might read like Tony and I are disagreeing, I think we're saying pretty much the same thing here, right? The subjective will always hold more sway with me as well. The Teac, or something similar, is most likely destined for a reference monitor system in the studio, where its neutrality is actually a benefit for me.

In a nutshell, I wish I had the bread for J-F's gear while he's temporarily insane, too!

[sunnysal]

of course we agree ben and dean, just taking the chance to swing at the objectivists...lol

3 or 4 systems? oh yeah! Jeff´s stuff and Klipsch for my main listening room, a Krell+Revel system in the living room/party hut and lastly an all Mcintosh system for looks and great sound for the family room/theatre.

warm regards, tony

[cjgeraci]

----------------

On 4/16/2005 3:37:58 PM DeanG wrote:

I guess it's time for me to come out of the closet: The Teac, like the Sonic Impact -- is a bare bones, least you can do it with design. To hear what this technology is capable of when implemented in a more serious fashion -- try the QSC PLX-1602, or one of the Carver Pro Z Series amplifiers. Having tried both, I preferred the QSC. QSC doesn't use Tripath, but it is a "switcher". These amps are insanely clean and open, and completely redefine "grain free". No conventional solid state, or tube amp I've ever heard does a better job of getting out of the way.

----------------

Dean's comments help keep the Teac amp in a proper perspective. I'm still a big fan of the little amp because it sounds much better than it costs - at most volumes. However, my own ears told me this weekend that when pushed to its upper limits, it can sound as shrill as some solid state. Therefore, as Dean pointed out, volume junkies may wish to try the QSC or Carver.

But, that being said, the Teac is still a surprising amp for its meager cost.

Carl.

[Daddy Dee]

----------------

On 4/16/2005 3:37:58 PM DeanG wrote:

I guess it's time for me to come out of the closet: The Teac, like the Sonic Impact -- is a bare bones, least you can do it with design. To hear what this technology is capable of when implemented in a more serious fashion -- try the QSC PLX-1602, or one of the Carver Pro Z Series amplifiers. Having tried both, I preferred the QSC. QSC doesn't use Tripath, but it is a "switcher". These amps are insanely clean and open, and completely redefine "grain free". No conventional solid state, or tube amp I've ever heard does a better job of getting out of the way.

----------------

interesting audioasylum review on Carver Pro ZR amp:

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/amp/messages/21654.html

[Colin]

nice comparisons, thanks!