Anyone famaliar with the manufacturer,and in particular this pre amp.The credentials and testimonials seem impressive.The advertised 10 day audition is appealing.
I know that my upgraded preamp had no burn-in time on it. The minute Joseph finished the upgrades, he popped it into a box and got it on the first Fedex truck so that he could catch his flight to Denver for the RMAF show. I'm not complaining. It was either that or wait until he returned from the show to do the upgrade and return it to me then. Another week's delay would have killed me. I haven't heard from anyone of receiving anything but a new unit when they order from Audio Horizons, unless it's specified that its a demo unit, which I've only seen one up for sale recently. Then again, for those few preamps that are returned to Joseph, he's got to do something with them to resale. As to if he refurbishes them to be as new when he resales is another question. Victor is getting recuperative rest today after an exhaustive time at the RMAF show with Joseph. He just e-mailed me and told me soon that he would be posting here to clarify some things about the new preamp upgrades as well as tell us all some good news about some contacts he and Joseph made at the show.
I am also under the understanding that the trial period is 30 days , not 10. I also know Joseph would give longer then 10 days if asked for break-in.
Sherod, you are right about a more revealing cable revealing more of the break-in. Not sure if Joseph burned my unit in for a time or not. I do know it continues to sound better - more body and warmth to my ears with each day of additional burn-in.
I am loving all of the new detail and transparency.
Stltrains, if you have bought a good set of early 60's Siemens CCa, hopefully prior to their change-over to another owner( @ 1965-66), with the grey plates, etc. you are going to be amazed at the magical portrayal of music. You'll especially notice this in locations 1 and 3. You might consider keeping Joseph's Siemens in 2 and 4 locations. I actually preferred the one pair of CCa's in mix with a later A-frame Siemens E88cc.
Bill, the preamp just passed the 59 hour mark and I'm starting to get a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. A smidgen of life, warmth and body along with increased micro dynamics and transparency is setting in...but just a smidge. In my e-mail exchange with Victor, I mentioned that "breath of life"( one of my fave phrases) which was lacking. He explained that what I'm hearing is the natural compression and lack of air that is evident due to the lengthy break in until everything suddenly clicks in within the 100 hour mark. Apparently, the preamp will continue to further improve well after the 100 hours, but it will take up to the 100 hours just to get that "breath of life" which I'm missing. We'll see.
I would agree with Tvad. I know from experience his wire takes a long while to fully break in. I think he uses the same wire in the wire harness.
Sherod, my unit is sounding amazing! Have you ever tried AH wire? It may be worth a try. Just start with an IC and see. Perhaps AH can send you a fully burned-in one to try!
I use the XLR in and outs on my preamp and wonder if you do Sherod?
Bill, I have tried a couple of the AH interconnects and preferred a cable mix that I already had. I am still using an AH Premium( original) power cord version in my system with good results, though. I can't use the XLR outputs because my amp is only single-ended and all the rest of my ic's are single-ended as well. I would imagine that the XLR set-up would be quieter.
I just have to toast your auditory memory. You are listening throughout a 100 hour break-in and still remembering what the unmodded 2.0 sounds like for comparision. I would have to have the units side by side and do my comparisons that way unless the differences were very dramatic. I am very interested in your impressions as the units break in fully - that will determine whether I take the plunge. Perhaps I will compare my unit directly to a new 2.1. to get a flavor of what the ungrades will do. I use the balanced outs.
Joe, I realize that the auditory memory is poor, however, being a musician and being very familiar with the live sound of instruments,I remember what the each preamp gave me in terms of reproducing recorded instruments which I am familiar with. I am going to continue listening nightly to my "new" preamp as it continues through its break-in towards the 100 hour mark. Stay tuned.
Only mental notes. I would like to have the two preamp versions side-by-side, but I will know in due time if I prefer this upgraded version to the old. So far, the new version does some things better, but the "breath of life" is still not quite there. The preamp has roughly 70 hours on it at this time. Thirty more to go.
Got the CCAs today opened up 2.1 and i must say the layout is superior. Removed the ecc88s that Joseph included cleaned and used the smallest amount of walkers sst on the pins. Joseph had small rubber dampers on the 88s so i put them on the CCAs and installed them in 2.1. Right off the bat the difference is quite audible. I was told that 80 plus hours will be needed for the nos CCAs to get well broke in. The only thing i have noticed is a ping from the left side when you tap 2.1 that wasnt there with the 88s. Now i think i understand what all the excitement is about with siemens CCA tubes being used with Audio Horizon gear. Sherod hang in there your going to be alright with your upgrade give it some time to work into your system and enjoy the music.
I have had my 2.1 upgraded from 2.0 for two weeks now and I do find it does many things better then the original version. I have outlined these things in my posts.
The unit is to my ears quite different sounding from the 2.0. I do miss some of the warmth of the 2.0. My unit must have 80 hours or so on it now. It would be very nice to have both versions at once to A/B. My speakers tend to be on the warm side as well as my front end. The AH cable is on the warm side also. If my dac/transport , wire and speakers were more on the "bright" side of things I could see where my system may be tilted to the bright or in-your-face side of things.
With the balance of my current system the upgraded 2.1 works well. I know the unit is still changing as I am playing a couple of disc's over and over as the unit breaks in.
I will post more on the chages after 100 hours like Sherod.
strltrains - also take off the rubber dampers and see what it sounds like. It should be much more lively and dynamic. My cca's were very much better without dampers. Of course you have to watch for microphonics, but floating the circuit board or slightly and gentley widening the pins may do this if needed without damping the sound.
Gentlemen,this thread is smokin.As you may recall I acquired a REF 3 several weeks ago and have been auditioning and comparing with my TP 2.0nB.Time to share my impressions. The system: SOURCE:Denon 3910,fully modified by Audio Reference Mods INTERCONNECTS:RCA silver handcrafted one metre length PRE AMPS:AH TP 2.0nB/REF 3 INTERCONNECTS:Silver Bullet 6 XLR's AMPLIFICATION:Cary V12,modified by Sounds Good To Me(really) SPEAKER CABLES:ZU Bi wire SPEAKERS:Innersound EROS 3 Electrostats (passive version) POWER CORDS:Several after market power cords none of which is expensive or exotic.
To particularize the tube complement in the AH is a quad of Siemens NOS ECC81.Power cord is a simple Belden one metre length. Tube complement in the REF 3 is the a quad of Sovtek 6H30P dual triodes plus a 6L6GC and 6H30P in the power supply. Power cord is factory issue and the size of a small Anaconda I might add. Both pre amps were auditioned on a variety of my favourite recordings. FINDINGS: 1.The REF 3 gets everything right,from the strike of a piano key to the pluck of a guitar string.On live recordings there is just more information,in one instance the distinct variations in the pace of the audience hanclapping was evident.A ring of a cell phone and the chuckle of a band member,although subtle was audible. 2.There is a sense of utter poise to the music,the performance is effortless,kinda like Roger Federer on the tennis court.Dynamics are fast and rich,timbres deep and profound.The timing and texture of presence and aliveness is seductive. 3.The balance control is a neat feature,also the remote,now I don't have to rise as often to adjust the volume or pour another glass of wine. 4.Build quality,fit and finish are superb which I would expect from AR,and so it is with the AH. 5.In both units the bass is authoritative and accurate,I could discern no audible difference.The REF 3 shines in the mid and upper ranges it's like uncovering another layer of music,just that little extra level of detail. In terms of low noise floor both units exhibited dead black silence. Soundstaging and presentation went to the REF,but not by much. WHAT DO I KNOW: 1.I know the REF 3 is 4 times the $$$$ of my AH.I find that the REF 3 is superior in the overall presentation of music. I am of the opinion that side by side blind immediate comparisons would bear this out.Having said that,I believe,taking into account your comments,that if I upgrade my unit to the TP2.1 status ,splurge on a quad of Siemens cca's,and upgrade the power cord that the performance would equal the REF 3 and I would still be ahead about $5K. 2.There is something endearing about AH,Joseph Chow and his trusty left winger that appeals to me.I want these guys to make it and I'm very content to stay in this famalia. 3.I believe I can make improvements elesewhere in my system that will give me a bigger bang for the buck. I hope you enjoyed the read,it was my first time.
Please be gentle with me my audiophile friends. I am considering to buy the Rogue 99/ Halcro Mc20 to drive my LFT ET8bs. I owned the Bp26/ 4BSST/ Paradigm S2 and sold them all in a month. Huge soundstage but kind of flat and imaging is not quite "there". I love dipole sound and settle down for the ET8Bs that I consider my reference speakers that I will build my system around. In short, Would the TP2.1 better than the 99 in term of sound stage and imaging ? I understand that the 99 only sounds good when cranking up to high level of listenning. So many good testimony, I am tempted to place a call to order the TP2.1. Give me some good reasons, please.
Easy Sherod, you'll get there in due time, I know about patience, it's one of my non-virtues !
Mark, enjoyed your post, it's comforting to know the AH 2.0 is in good standing with a reference preamp as the AR REF 3.
That says a LOT about the AH 2.0, but I bet the gap "would close" with a 2.1 fully-broken-in (2 weeks solid) put to the test.
I see it like this, the REF 3 is the latest factory incarnation available from AR at this time and the AH 2.1 is Joseph's latest factory incarnation available, that would really put things into perspective.
Sherod, yes it is. Really want to hear what Victor has to say. I assume they know the "end" result after complete burn-in. I assume they know if the sound becomes more tube like and as you say has "breath of life"
While I am getting more tube warmth the new version does lack in the one area Sherod keeps bringing up - "breath of life". I like that phase.
Tvad calls it 3D or musical. Thus far, after near 100 hours of burn in, my unit excels in many pure audiophile terms like powerful bass, transparancy, inner detail, imaging, stage size, instrument space and position, clarity at all volumes, purity etc...
It is so much better in these areas that it blew me away. This is all good. Over time I have to agree with Sherod, the newer version is weaker in "breath of life". Combined, all these differences make for a very different sounding preamp.
Perhaps burn in will ultimately bring this attribute to the music.
Gammajo thanks for the input on my pinging or i should say microphoning. Will try what you mentioned. Did you mean lifting the pcb that the tubes mount to? Going to play with it tonight. The 2.1 with cca tubes makes this already fine preamp a killer preamp. And i am not even using the balanced inputs. Do you guys have balanced units. If so whats your thoughts. The pinging is bothersome only when changing lps. I just might blow off dealing with pinging tonight and just relax and play some good old classic rock and roll. thanks again Gammajo
Stltrains, Regarding the pinging sound on one of your channels, I'm guessing that one of your new Cca tubes is microphonic. The 6922( E88cc) family, particularly NOS vintage ones were notorious for being microphonic. You might consider contacting the person you bought it from to see if he will exchange the bad one for you, unless they are a perfectly matched pair. Then you'll need to exchange with him the matched pair. Before you do that, however, exchange the tubes from left to right to see if the "pinging" sound moves to the other channel. If it does, then you definitely have a bad tube. If the pinging remains in the same channel after reversing the tubes, then you have another issue to problem solve for. I'm glad to hear that you are enjoying your preamp with the new Cca tubes. If the tubes are really NOS, then they should get even better after about 100 hours. Have fun.
Andrewdoan, I'm sorry that no one has answered your request, so I'm assuming that nobody has had the chance to compare the Rogue with the TP 2.1n. As you know, Audio Horizons offers a trial and money-back guarantee. From a few previous posts there is some confusion as to the adequate time allowed in this trial to fully evaluate the preamp, however, most of the current owners seem to have kept their preamps while making up their minds before the 10 days ended. If you have or can get a Rogue unit for evaluation, I would suggest that you time it to get both the TP 2.1n preamp in at the same time of the Rogue unit and do a fun comparison of both in your system to make up your mind of which you like better. Maybe, someone will still chime in yet to give you their personal opinion of each.
"Over time I have to agree with Sherod, the newer version is weaker in "breath of life". Combined, all these differences make for a very different sounding preamp.
Perhaps burn in will ultimately bring this attribute to the music."
Bill, I heard this "breath of life" phrase in an older review from back in about 1978 of a pair of speakers that were time and phase aligned. Ever since then, I've kept this phrase in my mind as to me it encompasses a lot of things. Actually, that elusive "breath of life" is more important to me than any of the other attributes you mentioned, yet when a component expresses that "breath of life" the other attributes should be there as well, but not always. In a nutshell, "breath of life" means real and palpable to me. If I'm listening to a good piano recording, I expect it to give me a "live" presentation, not a reasonable facsimile of one, no matter how clean and big it sounds on that stage. So far, with my upgraded preamp, the presentation of the soundstage is larger than life, and the sound is all coming from a two-dimensional plane. For example, when I listen to an orchestra that has been well recorded, I want to hear the trumpets coming from the back row, the flutes and clarinets on the front, the percussionists even further back. To me, at this point, the orchestra seems to be all sitting together on the front row. This is difficult to explain, for me.
Hello guys and let me say thats what i love about this great hobby the support and responses from fellow audiophiles when in need. This is what i did. I swapped front to back and removed the damper. Same ping but right channel instead of left. I inserted one of the ec 88s into slot 4 and tried no ping. Slots 1 and 3 are the ones i want the CCAs in so i still have most of the benefit of the CCAs. Going to contact my seller and see what he has to say. Thanks again all.
StlTRains - The other responders are right that NOS can be microphonic, but I had alot more trouble with microphonics with Siemens E188cc's than with my cca's. I own two seperate quads of these. IMO they should not ring even without the use of dampers becuase all dampers that I have tried also dampen the sound.
By floating the board I meant that Joseph for me (to solve microphonics) did not screw down the board that the tubes are plugged into but rather let it float free. The problem herein is that it needs to be tied down for shipping which IMO is not a big problem.
I use balanced outputs to my amp but unbalanced inputs from my DAC, so I have 1/2B type unit. I did notice quite a positive difference using the balanced outputs versus RCA - quieter, more three dimensional, more air. But much of this could also be due to different IC's. I used AH IC's for the balanced and Guerilla Audio silver for the RCA.
Mark - Thanks for your detailed, cogent and honest Ref 3 comparision. While 4X AH price is out of my current league, it is nice to hear anbout a really great product.
Stltrains, I'm glad to hear that you isolated the bad tube. You might like this new configuration better. It's very similar to my configuration. I also hope that the seller will work with you on the exchange. Keep us posted on the sound with these new tubes.
Stltrains, Gammajo and Sherod. Just wanted to add these observances that I experienced with my AH 2.0n. I added extra copper shielding between the power board and the tube board thinking it will make improvements. All it did was to remove the "air" or "breath of life" from the instruments making the sound more sterile and flat. The Loss of immediacy and refinement was too much to bear so I removed it and my sanity returned.
This preamp is already properly dialed in and I believe that if Joseph wanted to produce an all out state of the Art pre, this would be it with other refinements like a true seperate and robust power supply. He has everything else right in my opinion.
By the way I have both circuit boards isolated and floating and recommend it highly. The cca's are another must upgrade that all AH owners should do.
As to the break in period, I wonder if the new wiring is the culprit here?
I put a ec 88 in slot 2 to have balance. Contacted my tube man and as you guys know the cost of ccas is well, a sellers market. I hope to hear from him tomorrow. I have made so many changes that i think i need a good nights listening to get my bearings. Gammajo but as far as i can tell with a short time with out the rings i believe more air and a delicate sound. I had a hard time finding a difference with half cca and ec 88 to. Like Sherod said if we could just leave well enough alone. but nooo we have to experiment and try different things.
For the technically-minded, the new output caps in the TP 2.1 upgrade are 1uf value. These are bypassed with a .22uf Solen cap to tame down the highs a bit. The TP 2.0n had a 4.7uf Hovland. I find this interesting as this value difference might make a difference in matching to input impedances of certain amps. Perhaps Victor will expound on this.
I use balanced in and outs on my 2.1 upgraded preamp. I understand in my version Joseph puts some more money into the XLR jacks. I think he builds in some sort of balanced transformer in each channel. I have to check on that. I also noticed a nice improvement using the XLR's as I also own AH RCA IC's.
That wire harness is long from the front of the unit to the back. The new chasis 2.1 has a much shorter cable as the volume knob is connected to a rod which reaches far back into the unit.
Grant, My upgraded preamp just passed the 120 hour mark. Yes, the voices do seem to appear to be still slightly recessed. The highs are also a bit softer,i.e. cymbals and bells are a tad soft. I used the word subdued with Victor and he calls it soft(You call it "to-ma-to", I call it "to-mah-to"). The soundstage seems to be wider, yet not deeper( overall much larger than life to me). I am going to give it through the weekend and by then, if I'm not satisfied, I'm going to talk with Victor or Joseph to see if I can semi-revert back to the original TP 2.0n version. I have tried many different versions and value sizes of output caps in my previous TP 2.0n version and Joseph said that when he upgraded my preamp he had to repair some traces on the board that had rubbed off somewhat( from all the cap changes I made). Victor "strongly" urged me not to experiment with cap replacements anymore. Still, at this juncture, my ears are missing the "breath of life" sound that the Hovlands were giving me, in spite of Victor's opinion that the Hovlands sound a little compressed and veiled in comparison to the new caps. Since Joseph doesn't give an itemization of all what changes he makes( only a generalization), I'm wondering if my older Hovlands would still be a drop-in replacement for the new output caps. Victor told me that the Hovlands would work in the new unit, but hasn't responded to a follow-up e-mail where I asked him to confirm with Joseph about the Hovlands being a drop-in replacement) You might want to consider communicating with me privately from here on so as not to ruffle some feathers here on this thread.
I do not find my upgraded version softer or recessed. My experience is just the opposite. Voices are more forward and symbals have more impact and decay. The 2.0 is softer sounding in my system to be sure.
The sound is not as round and warm as the original version yet. Like a little more BODY to the voices and hope burn in will do that.
Very interesting set of experiences between all of us thus far.
I will look up the specs for my SS amp tonight. I am also getting a nice triode tube amp Friday and will play with that!
I also think the output or gain of the AH is an issue to look into. The version one owns and the use of XLR or RCA connections perhaps changes the output or gain. Not sure if impedence changes.
Here are the specs from the AH site.
TP 2.1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Frequency Response: 10 Hz to 50kHz +1/-2 dB Total Harmonic Distortion (THD): 0.05% @ 1 kHz, -20 dBv, A-weighted Dynamic Range: Better than 90 dB Signal to Noise Ratio: Better than 105 dB Channel Separation: 90 dB @ 1 kHz 70 dB @ 10 kHz Gain 20 dB or 10dB with B upgrade Output Impedance: Less than 600 ohms AC Voltage: 120 Volts AC Frequency: 50/60 Hz.
I have the upgraded B(balanced?) and N version and use the XLR connectors. The gain is 1/2 or only 10 db instead of 20 db for RCA. I am not a tech guy and perhaps this means nothing but having to turn the knob higher to achieve the same volume.
My B version XLR connections sound better in my system vs the RCA. It is easy for me to compare both as I own both AH RCA and XLR cables.
My AH DAC has two settings for output a low and high gain. I use the lower setting. Not sure if this has any impact?
Well all i dont have a audition 2.1 any longer. I'm not letting this fine preamp go anywhere I'm buying it. It was not a easy decision as my nuforce p-9 is also a very good performer. Very quite, fast, but in the end i have warmed up to the sweet tubed sound of Josephs very fine 2.1 preamp. This preamp seems to match up exceptionally well with my ref 9 se v2s and linbrook signature system. Along with my jps sc2 ics and speaker cables i am getting sound that i hope to live with for a long while. Going to leave the explorer in me locked up and enjoy the beautiful sounds of music i am hearing now from my system. My analog front end is certainly providing the source for a clean, sweet, delivery of musical sounds. I would like to give Joseph and Victor a big thank you for designing, manufacturing, and running a audio company that puts out super fine gear and offers a high level of customer satisfaction.
Grant, I feel a bit uncomfortable mainly because I seem to be the only one so far who has issues with the new, upgraded preamp( besides yourself, that is). I just want to make sure that all is okay before I make any final assessments. I'm currently communicating with Victor who is awaiting a response from Joseph on what I can do to determine why I am hearing what I'm hearing.
Another vote for keeping the discussion on the thread as I too am interested, knowing that nothing is gospel and that you have to heard for yourself with your room, equipment and set of ears. I mostly use a grand piano in the same room as my reference as I go about changes to my system. Have to say that the original decked out AH 2.0(cca's,BN design) seems pretty darn close to ideal to me with my equipment. But I have not heard a broken in 2.1 yet.
Grant, I'm not so sure yet that the issue is with the amp interaction. It might be just a coincidence that we both share sister amps. I am going to take an educated guess that based on my experience(with changing out the output caps, experimenting with different brands and values, as well as with many smaller bypass caps)that there might be a phase anamoly or irregularity with the new output caps and the solen bypass caps. In the TP 2.0 version with upgraded Hovland caps, rated at 4.7uf, I tried different values of the same Hovland cap( 1uf,2uf,3.3uf, and 4uf) None sounded as good as the 4.7uf value which Joseph was using. This lead me to believe that Joseph knew what he was doing and had pretty good ears. I later tried various Audiophile-type caps( Dynamicaps,V-caps) with same and different values and always came back to the 4.7uf value. For some reason, this value worked best with my VAC amps and sounded the best to me. Initially, I preferred the V-caps( 4.7uf oil-impregnated) because they just had more life and dynamics to them. But after a while there was this over-warmth and smoothing effect which robbed the music of proper attack to my ears, so I eventually went back to my trusty Hovland caps. It was when I recently found a new power cord line, Fusion Audio) that these really brought out the life and realism of my system, especially the TP 2.0. Everything finally just "clicked" in. Based on my faith of Joseph's ears and work, I decided to try the new upgraded version and that is where I am now after about 130 hours of burn in. One of the things that I noticed when I was experimenting with different caps and bypasses, the preamp never, and I mean never, sounded right with the bypass caps, no matter what value. Every bypass cap caused some type of phase anamoly which skewed the frequency response in an unnatural way. Depending on the value of the bypass, this skewing ,or plateau-effect, if you will, took away that natural balance and breath of life from the music. My TP 2.0 sounded its best when only one value cap alone was used in the outputs. Ultimately, as imperfect as the Hovland 4.7uf is, it sounded the best in the circuit of the TP 2.0. Joseph got it right the first time around, IMHO.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
