Power Amplifiers Rated By The Martin Colloms Scoring System

[User211]

Given Tom's request for amplifier reviews, this is what Martin Colloms has rated various power amplifiers at using his scoring system. I have put them in ascending order of merit. I just thought in was an interesting read. I wouldn't take it too seriously. I know I don't agree with all the rankings - far from it in some cases!

OK so it's no indicator of how well each design will cope with Logan's, but you can rest assured that the powerful ones will all cope pretty well, I'd expect.

Krell Evolution One 130
Conrad Johnson Premier 350SA 110
Krell FPB700cx 100
Audio Note Ongaku 85
Karan KSA 450 80
Krell Evolution 402 75
Krell FPB 400cx 75
Krell FPB 400 65
Krell FPB 650m 55
Cary 300se LX20 (fixed bias) 50
Hot Tubes JD1 50
Cary 805 c (load dependant) 45
Krell FPB600 45
Conrad Johnson MV60se [6550] 40
Audio Note Kegon SE ( WE300B) 40
Krell FPB300 Mk2 39
Cary 300se LX20 (auto bias) 38
Conrad Johnson Premier 8a 38
Conrad Johnson LS70 38
Edge NL 10 Mono 37
Karan KA S270 power 36
Cary 572 SE 35
Conrad Johnson Premier 140 35
Conrad Johnson MV60se [EL34] 35
DNM PA3s 33
Halcro DM 38 33
Krell FPB300 (original) 33
Naim NAP 500 32
Krell KAS 2 31
Krell KAS-2 30
Audio Research VT 150 (SE) 29
Audio Research VTM200 28
Naim NAP 250 classic 26
Cyrus PA 7 monos 24
Bel Canto SET 80 23
Conrad Johnson MV55 23
Krell MDA 300 23
Conrad Johnson MF 2300 22
Conrad Johnson MF 2500 22
Mark Levinson ML 333 22
Krell KSA 100s 21
Krell KMA 160 21
Audio Research Classic 120 20
Classe CA 200 20
Flying Mole DAD -M100 proHT 20
Krell KSA150B 20
Krell KSA200s 19.5
Krell KST power 19.5
Audio Research D120 19
Audio Research D120 19
Conrad Johnson MV125 18.5
Audio research MA100 18
Audio Research D25 18
Audio Research D400 18
ARC D125 18
Krell KSA 80 17.5
Tag McLaren 100X5R stereo 17.5
Classe CA 201 17
Electrocompaniet AW 250 power 17
Muse 175 power 17
Audio Research M300 16
Cary SLP 70 Power 16
Goldmund Mimesis 3 power amp 16
Jadis JA200 16
Mark Levinson ML 20.5 16
Audio Research SP11 Mk2 15.5
Musical Fidelity A370 15.3
Jadis JA 30 power 15
Sharp 1 bit SM-X100 15
Spectral DMA 50 (pre 1990) 15
Audio Research M 300 14.5
Krell KMA 100 II 14
Sunfire 300W 14
YBA 1 power 13.5
Cello Performance power amp 12.8
Radford STA 25II 12
Technics SE-A 3000 power 12
Audio Research D115 II 11
Quad 202 10
Krell KSA 50 9.7
Quad 606 8.5
Quad 405 7.3
Quad 303 6.5

 

[aliveatfive]

You failed to list his ranking of the ARC Ref 110, which he placed way at the top.

 

[User211]

I didn't - the list I got it from didn't have it in there... sorry! If you know it's rating I'll put it in. Or just post it!

 

[risabet]

What, no VTL Seigfried, actually no VTL amps at all!

 

[RUR]

or BAT or McIntosh.

 

[C.A.P]

I see a lot of Krell there ! MC likes Krell , I have read many of his reviews.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Pass Labs?

GG

 

[User211]

It's a bit C-J, ARC and Krell dominated... to say the least, but that's pretty much what he always seemed to review when he used to write a lot for H-Fi News. I always used to suspect he was on the Krell payroll!

What's that Jadis JA200 score?:ROFL: Got something against the French?

The Sunfire does poorly too, but their amps are oft recommended here.

 

[Rich]

Best I can tell, this list is completely meaningless. One person's subjective viewpoints about a small smattering of the available audio gear, reduced to a numerical number based on his own subjective ratings system which he has developed and altered over many years.

I can honestly say that this list tells me absolutely nothing about the relative quality of these components or their individual similarities/differences in sound. I could publish a list of the different amps I have heard and rank them according to my own numerical system and it would be only slightly less relevant than this guy's list (although probably more relevant for Loganites).

 

[User211]

Then by that same argument, Rich, aren't the responses we dish out to people's requests for recommendations completely meaningless too? Or do you simply just have a problem with the numbers and no description? It's probably possible to track down all the original reviews.

To Martin's credit, he is an intelligent writer.

http://www.stereophile.com//loudspeakerreviews/650/index.html

Martin's CLS review. Worth a read - I found it quite interesting. He's not that keen on them, really. Seems to think tubes are the best match for them.

 

[Dreamer]

No Plinius amps on that list either. I don't own one but I've heard Plinys driving CLS's (DTB300's in fact!) and Summits (at a dealer), and I thought they sounded better than the Krells and ARCs at similar price points...

 

[DTB300]

Then by that same argument, Rich, aren't the responses we dish out to people's requests for recommendations completely meaningless too? on them, really. Seems to think tubes are the best match for them.

Meaningless is probably not the right word. The reviews we read as well as the recommendations we give here are just opinions. Not gospel truth. Reviews are just someones idea/opinion on how a piece sounds. Here our recommendations are usually given if your feel someone should consider the item or not. Both of these can help someone find a starting point, but again are just opinions.

 

[Rich]

Then by that same argument, Rich, aren't the responses we dish out to people's requests for recommendations completely meaningless too? Or do you simply just have a problem with the numbers and no description? It's probably possible to track down all the original reviews.

I didn't mean to imply that all of his reviews are meaningless. But yes, this list with a bunch of subjective numerical ratings according to his own idea of how these different pieces "rate" on a quality scale, is pretty meaningless to me.

It would be just as meaningless if I stated to someone that Pass Labs X-350.5 rates a 13, while the CJ Premier 140 rates a 10, and the Sanders Sound amps rate a 15. These numbers, based on a rating scale entirely made up by me, and based on my own personal sound quality preferences and their synergy in my personal system, give no indication of the relative strength and weakness of the products, the comparisons between them, or their true sound or build qualities, or how they interact with different speaker types. In other words, a list of several dozen reviewed items that provides only a simple conclusory numerical rating based on an entirely subjective perspective of one person as a final determinant of the total comparative "quality" of each of the components, is completely meaningless in a very real sense.

I think the glaring omissions in this list, as well as the obvious bias to certain manufacturers, like Krell, are also a pretty good indication of just how meaningless it is.

 

[User211]

Good response, Rich. Half the reason I posted the list was to get a feeling for what others thought. Personally, I think it is completely ridiculous! Hence my assertion not to take it too seriously.

Look at the ratings for the top 5 entries. Then compare with other great amps lower down in the list - say midway. There is absolutely no way that they are 3-4 times as good as amps rated in the 30s sonically.

Also, the way he "marks" the amps is in a number of different performance areas he has isolated. When you do this, you lose sight of the whole.

In particular, I believe the Jadis JA200 score is so low because that particular amp will fail to produce the kind of dynamics and drive that Martin likes. Hell, it even audibly hisses, at least through the CLX. Yet it is one of the most beguiling amps to listen too - really relaxed and smooth in it's presentation. And great with very high resolution speakers because it pumps out detail in a very relaxed fashion. In short, it won't and will never annoy, unless it is overdriven, I'd imagine.

If you take the trouble to read Martin's reviews, he writes extremely well. And I think that CLS review really gives you an idea of what the original CLS sounded like. The flaws that he points out in the sound still exist in the lastest panels to a lesser extent. Tell me you can't read it and empathise with a least some of what he says. I know I can.

Having said that, the amps up the top are acknowledged classics, so he isn't and cannot be far off the mark in terms of pecking order, give or take a few obvious mistakes. However, the relatively constrained list of manufacturers is an obvious problem.

 

[Rich]

Your point about the Jadis really hammers home the underlying reasoning for my opinion that numerical ratings are pretty useless for equipment at this level. Each piece has its own personal sound signature and things it does well and things it doesn't, and each person has their own particular preferences and needs, depending on their system and their room acoustics. So trying to rate the sound quality of amps in a contextual vacuum using a subjective numerical ratings system is completely meaningless.

It is dependent on one person's subjective opinions based on their personal preferences, room and system. None of which translates necessarily to the opinions and system and room acoustics of anyone else. A numerical rating says nothing about how a product actually sounds in a particular system or compares to other products.

Thanks for posting the list, though. If nothing else, it provides for some interesting discussion. Which is why you posted it in the first place, I suppose.

 

[tonepub]

Best I can tell, this list is completely meaningless. One person's subjective viewpoints about a small smattering of the available audio gear, reduced to a numerical number based on his own subjective ratings system which he has developed and altered over many years.

I can honestly say that this list tells me absolutely nothing about the relative quality of these components or their individual similarities/differences in sound. I could publish a list of the different amps I have heard and rank them according to my own numerical system and it would be only slightly less relevant than this guy's list (although probably more relevant for Loganites).

Except you probably haven't heard anywhere near as much gear as Martin Colloms in a controlled situation with all first class associated components....

 

[Bernard]

Does anyone care about those ratings....apart from Martin Colloms, that is ?

 

[Rich]

Except you probably haven't heard anywhere near as much gear as Martin Colloms in a controlled situation with all first class associated components....

No doubt that is true. And I probably don't have anywhere near his capability for picking up on nuances in musical reproduction. But I still stand by my statement. Again, I am not picking on Collums. I have no doubt he is quite capable and his reviews provide a lot of useful information.

My quibble is with the utter uselessness of using a list of numerical ratings assigned to products reviewed over decades on different systems as a means of differentiating the absolute quality levels among various components. Surely, you would agree that a list like this, in and of itself, is pretty meaningless and useless as a means of determining the relative quality levels between various high-end amplifiers. Such a list, whether compiled by Collums, or me, or anyone else, is utterly useless in my opinion.

 

[DTB300]

Except you probably haven't heard anywhere near as much gear as Martin Colloms in a controlled situation with all first class associated components....

How True. But it is still an "opinion" on how a component sounds - correct? But this list is more of an "experienced" list than the normal end user list would be. So there is credibility associated with the list.

Over time as one reads reviews and gets a chance to hear components in similar setups, you can find out if you have the same preferences as the reviewer. This is when a review and maybe a list like this can possibly assist you in a purchase decision. But to think if you purchase the top listed amp that you system will be transformed is crazy - synergy, synergy, synergy.

 

[tonepub]

In your guys defense, I do agree with you on the numerical rating and it's significance.

The hardest part of the reviewer thing is that unless you went to MC's house
or mine, you don't know what sound we like.

If you listened to my system for 30 minutes, you'd have a feel for what sound trips my trigger, just as I could if I could sit down at your house for 30 min.

I still maintain that all of these ratings are only a starting point.

My ultimate goal as a reviewer is to help you discover the gear that is going to satisfy your needs the most. If you get an ARC amp or whatever and love it, that's what needs to happen. Doesn't really matter what my personal preference is, you're the one writing the check.

That's what a lot of reviewers lose sight of....