6foot8 Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 OK...I am spiritually ready to take criticism about my preference for BGW power amps in my system. Parrot, Michael, Dean...anyone who can explain to me why this type of amp will not sound as good to the flawed human ear as say a Mac, haffler, NAD, or whatever have you. I started out with a small sound reinforcement comapny 25 years ago and used BGW for my power amp needs, they had some noteriety at the time and a good local reputation. They indeed sounded good to me. I gave up on that line of work as college became my focus for many years, but I still remember how I liked the sound. So let me have it...what is wrong with BGW as an amp for my Jubilees....please no SET discussions here...I have solid sate and will continue to have solid state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael hurd Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Nothing wrong with that at all, PWK in his later years used a BGW amplifier to drive his klipschorns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 If it sounds good, IT IS GOOD. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 probably the LEAST noticeable link in the signal chain ...is a quality power amp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6foot8 Posted August 18, 2005 Author Share Posted August 18, 2005 Thanks guys but I really would like to know if there is a reason (ie design philosopy) why this type of amp, notwithstanding the cooling fan, is inappropriate in most circles for critical listening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 not to My ears ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 ---------------- On 8/18/2005 6:31:12 PM 6foot8 wrote: Thanks guys but I really would like to know if there is a reason (ie design philosopy) why this type of amp, notwithstanding the cooling fan, is inappropriate in most circles for critical listening. ---------------- The only circle that matters is your circle. Any advice from us is all about our circle. That being said-- DUDE! You need a tube amp! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 why sweat it, Tall One .... there are plenty of AnalPhiles .... gotta have this Amp, That Speaker, Those Cables i worked in a recording studio 10 years... my cousin owns a mid-size studio in NYC Playback is Courtesy of ... Crown, 'n JBL...... .. .... ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 ---------------- On 8/18/2005 7:21:11 PM Duke Spinner wrote: why sweat it, Tall One .... there are plenty of AnalPhiles .... gotta have this Amp, That Speaker, Those Cables i worked in a recording studio 10 years... my cousin owns a mid-size studio in NYC Playback is Courtesy of ... Crown, 'n JBL...... .. .... ..... ---------------- He needs to upgrade! To bigger JBLs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 This question cannot be touched without starting a flame war, so here it comes... I would have to hear it before forming an opinion. And that's the truth. It's a matter of comparison. But you are now moving up the speaker ladder just like I did, so this might have some bearing... I have an old Crown IC stack from the early 80's that I've owned since then and it is completely horrible sounding to me now; I loaned it to a friend who also prefers ANYTHING else. Thought it was great back then, but the major change for me was when I upgraded to more expensive speakers, and the results are apparent in the soundstaging: black space, "air", imaging and depth queues, all of which MY Crown lacks. IME amps made for PA use typically are not concerned with producing a convincing soundstage - what that entails I really cannot say - but its easily discerned when listening on good hi-fi speakers whether it is "there" or not. Your experience may vary. This is all MO. FLAME ON! DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 ---------------- On 8/18/2005 7:20:10 PM Allan Songer wrote: That being said-- DUDE! You need a tube amp! ---------------- i don't think, bein' an Old s.R. Guy ... tubes are gonna make him happy, Alan ... i do run 60 wpc w/ 2/ 6L6GC/ ch ... on my Corwalls...makes very happy jazz .... but he aint gonna likethat w/ his Jubilee project ..i know what he's got in mind ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 you meant ICY - 150 .. didn't you d-man ..???.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spkrdctr Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 Dman, that is twenty years old or older! Of course it sounds crappy. You need to compare it to something new like a Crown K1 or K2. Remember caps dry out and there are plenty of caps in a twenty something old amp! Other than this I have nothing to say on this topic...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted August 18, 2005 Share Posted August 18, 2005 ---------------- On 8/18/2005 2:26:37 PM 6foot8 wrote: So let me have it...what is wrong with BGW as an amp for my Jubilees....please no SET discussions here...I have solid sate and will continue to have solid state. ---------------- I am not familiar with the BGW power amps, but I guess being designed primarily for pro audio use, reliability and the need to maintain fairly high power outputs would take priority over absolute sound quality. Maybe there wouldn't be a real lot in it, but the s/n ratio and distortion factors may be a little higher than some dedicated domestic equivalents. Also the outright frequency response of the BGW may not be wide as say, a McIntosh equivalent. McIntosh offer some great solid state units like the MC252 - a solid state amplifier offering around 250 watts per channel with very low distortion. Matched with a suitable Mac pre-amp, this pair would make an interesting comparison to what you currently have. In lessor speaker systems than you have, maybe the BGW amplifier would still sound okay. But with a big horn system like the Jubilee, you should be able to hear a substantial improvement. Even at idle, I would imagine the BGW would be a little noisier than the Mac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6foot8 Posted August 19, 2005 Author Share Posted August 19, 2005 Thanks all for the input..let's keep the discussion going. My BGW's have been restored at Amplifier Technoligies (formerly BGW) so I assume any semi-conductors that have deteriorated from factory spec have been replaced. I was told once that they have nothing more than an Op-Amp front end and that design have very poor fidelity. Is there any truth to this? My 750B really did sound better to me and several friends than my NAD 218THX doing an a/b test on my LaScalas before the Jubilees arrived. I know the NAD is not considered audiophile quality but in most circles it would rate better than a 30 year old pro amp. The BGW produced much better bass and I discerned no real graininess in the mid range. Overall I think it sounded better. I don't understand the engineering aspects of why this amp should not sound as good and I would like an education on this topic if there is anyone out there who can help. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 well where's DJK ...????? who's tellin' you that Pro Amps don't have good spec's..??? here's some from my 20 y/o crown D-75 Freq. Resp. ------------ DC to 20k hz@ +/-0.1 dB @ 1 WATT Phase resp. ------------ +10 > -15 deg from 20 hz to 20 khz @ 1 WATT THD ------------ LESS THAN 0.001 % at FULL POWER IMD ------------ LESS than .01 % from 1/4 watt to full power S/N ------------ 106 DB at full power Damping factor ---------- greater than 400 From DC to 400 Hz ... not rated at 1000 hz (midrange ) like QSC well you get the idea ... Something wrong with Those spec's ....??? hey .. Spec's are just that D-75's SOUND GREAT .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Spec's ... the two that probably mean the most, anyways ... IMD Damping Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6foot8 Posted August 19, 2005 Author Share Posted August 19, 2005 Thanks Duke. Come on guys...help me out with this. There are some very knowledgable folks on this forum whom I am sure have the answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted August 19, 2005 Share Posted August 19, 2005 Dennis ( DJK )...Is the BGW guy ... hopefully he'll respond here ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted August 20, 2005 Share Posted August 20, 2005 ---------------- On 8/19/2005 7:02:16 AM 6foot8 wrote: Thanks all for the input..let's keep the discussion going... ---------------- That's an interesting comparison with the BGW and the NAD. I would have thought the NAD would have impressed you more than it did. It is possible that a well designed pro amp will give middle ranking domestic power amps a run for their money. The fact that you have upgraded the amplifier has obviously been of benefit. I cannot see the BGW competing against the more serious amplifiers like the McIntosh MC252. I would also be wary of 'face offs'. Where one amplifier is compared directly against another over a short period of time. In my experience, and with my untrained ears, I have invariably been impressed by the more dramatic sounding amplifier, not necessarily the more accurate, refined and detailed amplifier. Over longer term listening sessions, I have come to realise that these initially, impressive sounding amplifiers, have not been what I was looking for. The better designed (and more expensive) amplifiers need more time to demonstrate their strengths. In addition I think we need to 'retrain' our hearing. If we have been used to a particular sound for some time, I suggest we need time for our hearing to adjust to a new sound, and be able to recognise what a well designed amplifier can do. With the BGW, I suggest your Jubilees, while sounding okay, may only be scratching the surface of their potential. While you may not want to hear this, Big Man, I think your search for a suitable amplifier worthy of the Jubilees, is going to cost you big $$$. While I like NAD, and many other competing amplifiers in their price bracket, I think you are wasting your time even considering them. You're on the right track with McIntosh. Perhaps Mark Levinson - How about the No. 383 S/S integrated? What about the top line Aragon amplifiers? Edit: Now I know you've discounted a tube pre/power combination. But have you tried one? I have been considering the Peach/VRD combination. There are several Forum members who have had excellent results from this combination driving Klipschorns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.