System Factors where BHK 250 might be Too Close to Call with BHK 300?

Since we may be hearing “too close to call” shortly, and since I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about BHK amps…

It got me thinking…

I’ve read the threads that say the BHK 300s are far superior to the BHK 250, and of course at double the price they should be…


Everything is system dependent, right?..

And my question is…

Under what system conditions might the BHK 250 close the sound quality performance gap on the BHK 300s such that it would be, you guessed it, TOO CLOSE TO CALL? (“TCTC”)

Is it even possible? Let’s assume preamp is BHK for sake of argument.

Now given that the 300s have more wpc, higher current capacity, better damping factor, additional power supplies, etc., etc., I’m assuming having a speaker that is not in the “hard to drive” camp will benefit the 250.

But where would line be such that TCTC, if anywhere? Speaker 90db or above? 8 ohm nominal? 6 ohm minimum? Smaller listening room helps? Speakers maybe not super highly resolving?

Or are the 300s that much better that it’ll never be TCTC, under any system circumstances? (if only everything in life were that way… we’ll at least for next several days anyway, haha.)

My system utilizes speakers with 92db sensitivity and 2 subs, going from a BHK 250 to 2 BHK 300s made a significant difference in dynamics, resolution and easy of sound.

In PS Audio’s own words…
The Mono Signature 300 doubles the output current with half the impedance of the stereo model. Each Mono Signature produces 300 watts into an eight-Ohm loudspeaker, 600 watts into four-Ohms, and 1000 watts into 2-Ohms. But more than just doubling the current, the BHK Signature 300 also doubles every internal component of the 250 into one: double tubes, double power supplies, transistors, capacitors and resistors. The results are hard to put into words. The BHK Signature 300 is a clear step above the stereo 250, on the order of 20% better, though both have the same character of sound. Both the Stereo 250 and Mono 300 are one of the best performing, musical sounding amplifiers ever made. Imagine your delight listening to either.

20% better for 100% more money. That’s why I have BHK250.

1 Like

Hmmm, “significant difference” and 20% … that’s not TCTC yet. Need better answers!! JK.

Really hoping there are situations where gap significantly tightened but willing to accept answer if truly big gap always there

The question you are asking seems to be a pretty subjective one which ultimately comes down to personal preference.

For what it’s worth I am selling a pair of BHK 300s for less than a new BHK 250.


I’d say when the rest of your system isn’t good enough. If you have speakers w a limited frequency response or a weak pre. You will always be limited by your weakest link. What is yours?

Well I’m kinda starting from scratch on remodeling my main system. It’ll take awhile to get there and don’t have any of this yet but it’ll probably be Spendor D9.2 speakers maybe with a couple Rel subs (e.g. 510s). And then a streamer/dac maybe Auralic Vega G2.1 or similar. To go with whatever amp I settle on. Other leading contender is Luxman L590axii class A integrated.

Moving up from Spendor D7, Cambridge Edge W power amp, Teac NT-505 streamer/dac/pre. Richard Gray conditioner.

My opinion. Get the speakers first then build out from there

1 Like

Haha, the Spendor D9 or D9.2 are the only component I’m really locked into mentally, as opposed to integrated amp or separates let alone streamer/dac. (And I have D7 so I know how they generally sound)

So regardless of order I purchase stuff in, which will depend on opportunity due to limited resources, I think the Spendors are locks

I wouldn’t pay retail for the Spendors.

Certainly, the whole system matters most, but I had a BHK 250. And when I went to BHK 300"s, I felt the improvement was a minor improvement.
All else the same in my system, I felt that the improvement was just an incremental improvement.


Similar sentiment. Went from 250 to the 30O’s and all was better but not twice as good. I have Maggie’s and more power is helpful in handing the low end. I would put this improvement on par with a cable exchange, so you have to justify the 2x bump. Norton has a killer price on his 300 pair, can’t go wrong with that.


The point is, in the world of audiophiles, sound quality does not improve proportionately with monetary value. As Ron said, it is incremental. for example, a $10,000 phono cartridge is not 20 time better than a $500 cartridge.

Selection depends on budget, individual taste, physical space, personal need, and approval from one’s better half :smile:

1 Like

That said, the 300’s are magnificent.


Alright, now this is sounding more promising! “Incremental” isn’t TCTC, but it’s moving in right direction. Another experienced “minor” improvement after change…dang, now that is almost getting into synonym territory with TCTC!!! Hmmmm…

Yeah of course the whole “diminishing returns” thing will apply like it always does in audio. Rarely, if ever?, will spending double result in twice the performance increase (instead nearly always some smaller percentage), especially when migrating within family between the same technology, just more of same technology with the upgrade.

Regarding the Spendor comment, speaker preference is such an individual thing, and as the component with the biggest variability or capability of affecting overall sound, I feel the most important.

But at least in this area I feel 100% confident that these will be right FOR ME.

Reason I’m so confident is that when I got the D7’s it was following an EXTENSIVE period (4months!?!) of audition of maybe two dozen speakers in the $4-10k range across numerous dealers (I basically took time and effort to extensively listen and compare and A/B everything I could within a 300 mile radius), and I just always kept coming back to the D7’s. I’m talking a total of maybe 40-50 hours of auditions across numerous amps too just to give you an idea and across the 20-25ish speakers (minimum half hour careful listening to each, the D7’s I probably listened to for 4 hours with three different amps across thee separate sittings), so I feel really confident in that choice.

And come to think of it, moving from D7 to D9 or D9.2 for me probably is similar to decision those of you who went from BHK 250 to 300s made. You knew you already loved the 250 so moving up the ladder to get more and better of same sound signature within family made perfect sense.

Vandersteen, Maggie, Linn, Paradigm, Focal, Kef, Bowers & Wilkins, Rega, Goldenear, Sonus Faber, Dynaudio, Klipsch, Martin Logan, … I listen to them all extensively. And until I get to position to be able to get Wilson Sasha DAWs, I’m pretty much a Spendor guy!! Also own D1’s in second system and SA1 in office third system do yeah, I’m a Spendor guy…

Any speaker brands not on list ( Harbeth, Magico, Joseph Audio, Revel, Monitor Audio, proAC, …) wasn’t for lack of trying, just didn’t have dealer access to during my search and gotta draw line somewhere… haha, for me that was everything within several hundred mile radios I could fit in to hear

1 Like


The D7 is one of those I wanted to own. It received a raving review by Sam Tellig in 2014. After measuring its performance, John Atkinson said: I must agree not only with Sam Tellig but also with Martin Colloms, who wrote of the D7, in the July–September 2013 issue of The HiFi Critic : “here is a modern interpretation of the classically neutral, accurate and well integrated design.” Edit: It held its place in Stereophile’s A list 2016, 17, 18 and 19.

1 Like

It has been my experience , that when starting out with say as an example a 2500.00 system to a 5000.00 system, you get a 100% improvement. then onto 10K maybe 80% . when you start getting into the top of the line it costs an awful lot to get very little. to use a race car analogy. Speed costs how fast do you want to go. Audio is an outlet to some, a hobby to others, and an obsession to those who can afford to go after that last bit of sound improvement. 50 k latter and counting.

1 Like

I believe it is called the “Law of diminishing returns”.