My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!

This is a tough crowd.  Sheesh. 

I figured my attempt to be humorous would get deleted but that was fast.  I have had private requests to resurrect that post which I may do on another thread although I will revise it so that it is hopefully offensive to no one.  It was designed to poke fun at the typical audiophile (myself included).  It is indeed funny to see the lengths that audiophiles will go to for the sake of musical enjoyment and WCSS's journey is as extreme an example as any.  Nonetheless, it has been enjoyable to tune in every so often when I have found the time. 

Generally, when watching a movie, we're all rooting for the hero to "get the girl" at the end but with regards to WCSS's journey, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be rooting for since I don't know where WCSS is going with this.  It seems the goal isn't for WCSS to find his end-game setup but just to keep the thread going as long as possible and try as much gear as possible.  If this is the case, then so be it.  Comparative evaluations are valuable and WCSS's blunt honesty has been refreshing to read.

I'd like to apologize to Viber6 as I meant no offense (although he makes himself an easy target, lol).  I actually have much in common with his musical preferences (at least 75 percent of what I listen to is large orchestral or chamber music) although our priorities differ (and that's ok).  It has been said that the most difficult thing for an electronic audio system to convincingly portray is an unamplified human voice.  In any situation, if you close your eyes, you ALWAYS know when you're listening to a live human voice versus a recorded one.  Not far behind is an unamplified acoustical instrument and so unamplified acoustical performances are the most difficult types of music for an electronic audio system to faithfully reproduce.  If I listened to Adele or ColdPlay all day long (and I do enjoy listening to this music), I know I could get by with a much simpler setup and would probably have very satisfyingly reached my personal end game long ago.

Having said that, it's important for each of us to understand our priorities as we embark on our individual audio journeys since no one can have it all.  The ideal amplifier would have infinite open loop gain, infinite input impedance, zero output impedance, infinite bandwidth, and zero offset voltage.  Such an amplifier would be truly transparent (i.e. invisible) but unfortunately, such an amplifier doesn't exist.  Likewise, an ideal cable would have zero resistance, zero inductance, and zero capacitance which would make it completely transparent and while superconductors approach this ideal, such cables do not exist in the audio world.  Consequently, audio at any level is fraught with compromise and so audio wisdom is about knowing which compromises to value over others and this is a very personal thing.  In my case, my priorities are very simply transparency and resolution.   

I prefer to evaluate amps (and other gear) like the Olympics evaluates figure skaters.  Each amp gets a "technical performance" score which includes all the performance characteristics that are generally objectifiable.  Speed, dynamics, transient response, bass control, treble extension, midrange clarity...you name it.  With regards to any one of these individual qualities such as speed or transient response, most of us can agree when we hear something that is fast or agile.  If you use specific portions (10-15 seconds) of select tracks that you know well, it becomes fairly easy to test for these qualities even at audio shows under suboptimal conditions. 

Like in figure skating, each amp also gets an "artistic" score and this can be more difficult to assess and ultimately, may be the more important score.  This is obviously a more subjective quality and reflects our preferred proportions of all of an amp's qualities.  This can take time to assess and, in my opinion, is the reason to try and bring the amp home so that you can hear it in your system.  This is where "musicality" fits in although musicality means different things to different people which is why I am more inclined to know what WCSS means when he says his Constellation has excellent bass control than when he says that the Luxman sounds "musical" or "organic" or "natural."  One man's "warm" is another man's "neutral."

My musical journey is nowhere as extensive as WCSS's but we share some things in common.  In 2017, I owned a pair of Martin Logan Renaissance 15A hybrid electrostats.  They were beautiful sounding and I enjoyed them but typical of line source speakers, they cast a giant ambient sound stage but they focused poorly.  No matter how I positioned them in my room, the image always seemed unnaturally tall and overly diffuse.  The transients were too soft for my liking and so I found myself spending tons of time, energy and resources trying to get them to image more succinctly.  As I had easy access to Pass Labs gear, I went through a gamut of their gear (INT-60, INT-250, XA100.8, XA200.8, and X350.8) although I never tried anything in their xS line in my home.  While Pass renders a beautifully rich tone with very satisfying bass weight, I found bass to be bloated and not well controlled and transients to sound too slow and soft for my liking and this is not something you realize until you start doing side by side A/B comparisons.  Nonetheless, I found that a soft amp did not do favors for a soft sounding speaker, at least for my tastes.  Transparency was not very good either.  One test I have for transparency is upstream cabling and components.  In my most transparent setup, if I change USB cables, it's very easy to hear differences and often, these differences are quite stark.  When WCSS says he hears a greater difference between DACs with the Rowland than with the Constellation, I already know which amp I would prefer.  When I had Pass Labs gear in my room, I could change cables, DACs, servers, etc., and hear differences, but they were considerably more subtle.  On the one hand, with Pass, you could get away with less than stellar upstream gear and still get beautiful sound but for someone who values transparency and resolution, this just drove me nuts since I knew that a Mac Mini should not sound as good as a purpose-built server.  Unfortunately, I had the same experience with McIntosh gear. 

I also tried the Merrill Thors and very briefly the Veritas and while these amps sounded "clear" and "accurate" and were better resolved than the previous amps, they lacked the dimensionality of the very best amps that I auditioned and sounded flat and almost too damped where decays didn't linger as long as they should have.  My experience was similar with Devialet but also with a pair of Kii Three speakers I had in house.  To date, I have not tried anything from Rowland or Bel Canto but thus far, class D has not been my preference.

I then moved on to the Luxman M-900U/C-900U and I found it to have nearly the same harmonic richness as Pass but considerably greater performance resulting in greater transparency and resolution.  This was the first time I heard my Martin Logans really come to life.  I found even better transparency and resolution from D'Agostino, Soulution, and CH Precision and while I could have lived happily with any of these amps driving the Renaissance 15As, I found the best synergy with a pair of CH Precision M1 monoblocks.  I think CH Precision and electrostats are a match made in heaven.

Ultimately, I came to realize that line source speakers aren't for me.  From my Renaissance 15As to a good friend's Sound Labs to my brother's Maggies and most recently, with the Alsyvox Caravaggios that were playing in Munich 2 months ago, I struggled with an overly diffuse image and soft transients.  I understand the appeal and love how you can recreate the ambience of Carnegie Hall with these kinds of speakers but they're just not for me. 

And so I switched back to point source speakers and this time to stay.  I had previously owned romantic sounding Sonus Fabers and I already owned single-driver, crossover-less Voxativs in my other listening room so I thought I might like Magicos in my large listening room to complement the Voxativs.  I even took the Magico tour in Hayward, California and was thoroughly impressed by the tech that goes into these speakers.  I auditioned a pair of S5 Mk2s in my home but preferred the subtle sweetness brought forth by the M3s.  I tried Devialet with the M3s and I liked the dynamics but the pairing didn't sound natural to my ears and I felt the DAC used in the Devialet could be more resolving.  The M3s powered by a Constellation Inspiration Stereo amp sounded underpowered but that was the best Constellation I could get my hands on at the time.  I was very impressed with a D'Agostino Momentum Integrated driving the M3s but the best that I heard the M3s sound was with a Soulution 711 stereo amp and 725 preamp.  I'm sure the 701 monoblocks would have been even better but I did not have access to these amps.  Ultimately, however, I struggled with bass output from the M3s that I felt was too weak for my large room (I didn't have subs at the time) and a presentation that still sounded a touch too clinical for my tastes.  

From the Magicos, I decided to try Wilsons and to cut to the chase, I have stopped looking.  If I could afford them, I would buy a pair of Wilson WAMM Master Chronosonics and feel it would be money well spent because I have yet to hear Mahler's 8th so convincingly portrayed to scale than by these speakers powered by a pair of CH Precision M1.5 monoblocks.  Instead, I have settled on the Alexia 2s and while they're not WAMMs, they have near the balance of transparency, resolution, and naturalness of the WAMMs that I find so appealing but at a much more affordable price point.

It should come as no surprise that while a great amp will always be a great amp, the best amp for one speaker is often not the best amp for another speaker and that is the whole point of this post.  Beyond transparency and resolution, there is synergy to consider and synergy or lack thereof is difficult to predict.  With the Alexias, I tried Pass Labs once again (X350.8 with XP-22 preamp) and it was not a great pairing.  Same thing with a pair of McIntosh MC611s.  Just too slow.  I know the Luxman L-509X has received much love on this thread and so I bought one to try out and all I can say is don't waste your money on this intregated.  It cannot do the Alexias justice.  The Luxman C-900U/M-900U is an excellent combo with the Alexias and I actually prefer the M-900U in stereo form as opposed to monoblock form because I hear better subtlety and nuance with the stereo version, especially at low volumes.  I thought the Hegel H30 fronted by a Soulution 520 preamp was very good.  Even better is the Soulution 511/520 that I currently have in house but the very best pairing I have heard with my Alexias thus far have been the VTL Siegfried II monoblocks with 7.5 III preamp, D'Agostino Momentum Integrated (I have not yet tried D'Agostino separates), and CH Precision L1/M1 monoblocks.  As previously stated, I have not tried anything from Rowland but I do have a Merrill Audio Christine and Element 114 coming my way shortly.  

As for active preamps, I agree with WCSS on this one.  As someone who values transparency, to insert another gain stage to the signal path is a step in the wrong direction but for certain speakers, I find them to be necessary evils especially since I only have one digital source and I don't spin vinyl.  If you notice that with various manufacturers, whether it be VTL or Soulution, as you go up their line of preamps, what you typically gain is transparency.  Active preamps can be very transparent but unfortunately, this transparency can be very expensive.

I apologize to WCSS for hijacking his thread with such a long post but not to worry, this will probably be my only post here (unless it gets deleted again, lol).  Hopefully, the contribution is helpful.

I agree with @keithr. I subscribe to the viewpoint that the room dictates the speaker which then dictates the amp.

Of equal importance to an optimized room is a good power infrastructure (a good panel, large gauge wiring in the walls, highly conductive outlets, low resistance power cords, good line conditioning). Get these 2 things right and everything else becomes dramatically easier.

As for Blue Jeans Cables, I don’t know about this. Their analog interconnects are pretty bad.

With regards to isolation footers and racks, it’s sickening to see how expensive some of these items can be, sometimes more expensive than the components they’re isolating and so it’s easy to want to dismiss them but they can and do make a significant difference. The best analogy I know how to use is videography. For those who are into photography and especially videography, as you know, if you cannot hold steady while taking a shot or filming a scene, the resultant image focus will be less clear and details will appear smeared and with higher resolution gear, the detriment is all the more noticeable. It’s the same thing with audio and micro-vibrations aren’t just airborne but also emanate from the components themselves, especially large vibrating transformers in power supplies and so amps especially benefit from good footers. Isolating or channeling these vibrations away from the components should very noticeably improve image focus and detail clarity and it takes seconds to hear it.

Regarding @spinaker01's comment:  "The power infrastructure is a good idea but effect varies depending on the quality of the house wiring (and external) components. I generally find newer neighbourhoods under 10 years old to be pretty good."

I agree that newer homes are probably better off than older homes with respect to power.  With time, circuit breakers, connectors, outlets, or anything else in the circuit with exposed copper will oxidize resulting in higher resistance.  But new homes, even within the last 10 years, very seldomly provide an adequate power infrastructure for audio, even with modest systems.

One of the most cost-effective upgrades I have experienced and can, therefore, recommend, is a dedicated line but not for the reason that most expect -- noise isolation -- but rather to lower line resistance.  And I have found this to be effective not just for power hungry amplifiers but for EVERY component in my chain.  Based on how you spelled "neighbourhoods." I presume you are not based in the U.S. but by U.S. electrical code definitions, a 20 amp dedicated line will have 12 gauge wire in the wall and so while some will claim they have a "dedicated line," according to Vince Galbo of MSB, "12 gauge wire is absolutely insufficient for high end audio systems" and that "the gauge of the wire is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the fact that the line is dedicated."  For those interested in more of what Vince has to say, here is that link:

http://www.msbtechnology.com/faq/how-to-wire-your-house-for-good-power/

My present home is 10 years old and utilizes 14g wire in the wall along with inexpensive Leviton outlets.  Some time ago, in one of my listening rooms, I had 20A dedicated lines installed with 10 gauge Romex for about $300 per line including labor and was very impressed with the improvement.  More recently, I had more dedicated lines installed in this same room but also in my large listening room that houses my Wilsons but this time, I used 6 gauge wire in the walls.  This wiring is not the exorbitantly priced in-wall wiring that you can buy from JPS Labs or Audience or WyWires but was better than standard 6 gauge Romex and it cost me about $10 per foot or roughly $800 per line which is still much less than many power cords you can buy.  In one location in my house, I have a 6 gauge line within a foot of one of my older 10 gauge lines which is within a foot of a 14 gauge line that came with the house and so it became very easy to do an A/B/C comparison and so with my audiophile group, we did blind testing.  As I plugged my components into the 14 gauge vs 10 gauge vs 6 gauge line, it was impressive how dynamic contrasts improved but also by how the presentation became more relaxed, open and effortless and this was easily detectable under blind testing.  This is probably the most cost-effective upgrade I can think of.

As for outlets, they do make a difference.  The cheap Leviton Decora outlets that came with my house use fairly small gauge brass connectors that are conductive enough to power a lamp or a toaster but leave much to be desired when powering an amp or a DAC.  If you are going to install large gauge wiring in your walls, it would make no sense to keep the cheap outlets that came with your home.  I have found certain Hubbell outlets to be much more conductive simply because they use larger gauge conductors (I paid $50 each for these).  I am also very impressed with the Furutech GTX-D(R) NCF outlets which use much more conductive pure copper (i.e. no brass) which is then plated with Rhodium although these Furutechs are a touch brighter than the Hubbells that I have.  Also, the Hubbells that I have can accommodate 6 gauge wiring without having to resort to pigtails whereas the Furutechs can only accommodate a maximum of 8 gauge wiring.

When designing a dedicated room for either 2-channel or home theater, power infrastructure needs to be very intentional and it is much easier to implement it while the room is being built than after the fact.  

As for line conditioning and power cords, that is another conversation altogether and while these are important considerations for all gear, even if you have dedicated lines, rather than take this thread too far off topic, here is my journey with line conditioners for those who are interested:

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/i-use-amazing-sound-application-linestage-power-conditioners-...

For those who are skeptical about the impact of power cables, over the years, I have probably spent more time comparing power cables than any other component and even when subjected to blind testing, in the most extreme instances, I have found a power cord to make a greater difference than an amplifier upgrade.  Here is a helpful link:

https://www.gcaudio.com/tips-tricks/why-power-cables-make-a-difference/

I agree that vibration isolation devices like a rack or specialized footers shouldn't be prioritized above components such as speakers, amplifiers, preamps, DACs, etc. but I feel they should be prioritized equally to things like power cords or interconnects and should be considered sooner rather than later.  In the same way that you cannot fully appreciate what your amp is capable of with the wrong power cord, it's the same thing with vibration, especially micro-vibrations, which are airborne, floor-borne and component-borne.  In my own experience, the noise reduction brought about by good isolation devices, whether it be a rack or a footer, can be rather dramatic.

Here's a youtube video comparing the impact of the Furutech NCF Booster.  These are basically cable lifters (signal and power) but they do more then elevate cables off the ground and isolate them against floor-borne vibrations.  Furutech's NCF (Nano Crystal Formula) sounds like voodoo but Furutech purports that it converts micro-vibrations into heat, essentially dissipating them.  Do cables vibrate?  All cables that pass an alternating current vibrate.  Power cables, for example, vibrate at 50 or 60Hz which is in the audible spectrum.  

Regardless of what you may think, listen to this A/B comparison of this system with and without the Furutech NCF Booster.  Even through this recording, the differences are obvious and in my opinion, the impact of these boosters (and I own a few of these) pale in comparison to the improved clarity and image focus brought about by a good rack and footers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrgIAsLI7lQ

@geoffkait , an alternating current is absolutely vibratory.  Alternating currents result in magnetic fields that are then capable of electromotive force.  Why do you think a transformer (which is a passive electrical device) vibrates when an electrical current is passed through it and why do you think transformers cause a 60 cycle hum that is audible?  This isn't the thread for this type of discussion and so I'll leave it at that.

As for the sonic differences between a stereo Benchmark AHB2 and a pair of Benchmark AHB2 monoblocks, here's a youtube video that highlights the differences.  It's pretty easy to hear the improvement in sound staging and bass dynamics with the monoblocks in this recording and how the stereo amp sounds more strained. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC3OCq_OxMM&t=265s

I have never heard a stereo amp that sounds as good or better than the monoblock version of that stereo amp, even at low volumes.  It comes down to the power supply compromises that are unavoidable in a stereo application.

@jays_audio_lab , if you're wondering why you've been banned from WBF, I believe I know the reason why.  Basically, you've ticked off one of WBF's big sponsors, Critical Mass.  Joe Lavrencik even refers to you as a clown.  If you didn't know, Steve Williams, who is one of WBF's owners also happens to be a dealer for Joe's CS2 footers and he has worked very hard to convince everyone on that forum that these footers are the best thing since sliced bread.  I suspect you will never be invited onto that forum. 

https://whatsbestforum.com/threads/introducing-center-stage-2m.33340/page-8#post-738504

As for the stereo Rouge versus the 200w class A monoblock shootout, I will be very interested to hear how this comparison plays out in Jay's room but I already have a pretty good idea.  

I have not personally heard the Rouge but I have plenty of experience with some of these so called giant killers that are especially favorites of the fanboys on ASR because they measure well as if high SNR and low THD+noise tell the whole story.  This includes the Benchmark AHB2 monoblocks and the new gen class D amps from ICEPower (Bel Canto), NCore (VTV), and Merrill Audio (Element 118) that I have had in my listening room.  Some may remember that Merrill lent me a pair of his Element 118s for a few weeks and I posted a review on a different thread here on A'gon some time ago.  

As for 200w class A monoblocks, I don't know exactly what Jay has in his room but I have had 2 sets of amps in my listening room that meet these specifications:  the Pass Labs XA200.8 (which are long gone) and the Block Audio SE Mono Blocks (which I have now).  I have been able to directly compare the Block Audio monoblocks against the AHB2 monoblocks and VTV Ncore NC2000 monoblocks driving my pair of Wilson Alexia Series 2 speakers.  

While I can go into much greater detail about the differences among these amps, the 2 biggest differences I hear come down to (1) space and (2) decay.  Even with the Block Audio monoblocks set to "Eco" mode which is essentially class AB mode (idle power draw of about 50 watts per monoblock), the Blocks sound much more spacious whereas the AHB2s and NCore sound flatter and more confined.  Switch the Block Audios from Eco to Class A mode (idle power draw climbs to about 500 watts per monoblock) and the Blocks sound even more spacious (trust me, I have zero desire to consume 500 watts per monoblock at idle for no good reason and yet this is what I find myself doing).  Same thing with decay, with either the AHB2 or the NCore, the decay truncates much more rapidly whereas with the Blocks, you can hear the decay float in the air longer and more realistically.  This is especially evident with organ concertos.  With either the AHB2 or the NCore (and especially with the NCore NC2000 monoblocks which can output 2,500 watts into 4 ohms), you feel like the organ is expressed forcefully but you also feel as if the concerto is taking place in an anechoic chamber whereas with the Blocks, you get a greater sense of being in a cathedral.  Because the presentation of the AHB2 and NCore sound flatter, the layering of detail is less well expressed which is responsible for the perception of less resolution as well as truncated decay.  Yes, the AHB2 and NCore sound clean and clear and have good control but they lack the dimensionality of the Blocks (and other amps like the Blocks) that ultimately make the presentation sound less authentic and less engaging.  I'm not talking about contrived euphonic space that are introduced by some tube amps (which I don't care for at all) but the real space and depth that you would hear at a live performance venue.  When someone tells me their amp sounds like the performers are in the room, my immediate thought is "thanks, but I'll pass.  When someone tells me their amp transports the listener to the venue, ok, you've got my attention.  To my ears, these are power supply differences and where the less expensive amps seem to be lacking.  

I'll conclude this lengthy post with a comment about interconnects and speaker cables.  Personally, I did not care for Nordost Odin or WireWorld (thin and bright).  I agree with Jay, with Wilson speakers, there's a reason why you'll often find them paired with Transparent cabling at shows as there's clearly good synergy there and in my case, I use calibrated Transparent Reference XL interconnects and speaker cables and have been quite pleased.  I have tried the Opus Gen 5 speaker cables and even uncalibrated, I found they are a notable step better then what I have although I found the Tara Labs Grandmaster speaker cables to be better still.  The fullness and richness is there just like the Transparent Opus but bass dynamics, control, and resolution were superior with the Tara Labs.  With Wilson Audio, I don't think Transparent is the only good fit but it is certainly the safe bet. 

Yes, @keithr , what I have suggested is purely speculative and I could be wrong.  Your response suggests you know the truth and so please share.

I have been a member of WBF for years and there are good people there and good discussions do happen there.  I have had private interactions with Steve Williams.  He can be prickly.  I have purchased CS2 footers from Steve and was dismayed to hear him badmouth the competition when we spoke by phone.  He even yelled at me for suggesting another product was just as good.  I won't lie, I lost a bit of respect after that and have chosen not to do business with him again.

Like any footer, platform, rack or component that impacts vibration, they will each have their own character and so not surprisingly, YMMV.  I happen to like what the CS2 footers do for some components, even very expensive components and so it's probably not fair to say the CS2 are not appropriate for all ultra high end gear but I also understand what Jay is trying to say.  With cost-no-object gear like Boulder, as an example, it is less likely those companies have left anything to chance when they design their gear and so the voicing of their products with the footers that are in place is likely deliberate.  You can certainly alter the presentation with a certain rack or footer but then you'll need to decide if the difference is an overall improvement.  With the big Block Audio monoblocks I have now, I have tried the CS2 footers and like Jay found with the Boulders, I am preferring the stock footers to the CS2 but a few audiophile colleagues who came by preferred the CS2.  There's really no way to know for sure unless you try.   What I like about what Jay does is he shares his opinions but then lets others hear for themselves.  While YouTube is not a complete substitute for an in-home audition, there are certain qualities that come through well and so the service that he is providing is quite valuable.  For that, I am grateful.

Here are my thoughts and my vote:

The #1 amp in each of the 3 demos is the Rouge.  It is more incisive and has the cleaner edge.  You can hear notes start and stop more clearly.  Because the sound stage is narrower, it comes across sounding deeper.  From a technical standpoint, people may give this amp the edge over the class A amp and that's fair.  For complex music with numerous instrument lines (like symphonic music), this presentation dissects the instruments better.  If you prefer to listen to your music through a microscope, you might prefer this amp.

The #2 amp is the class A amp.  The sound stage is wider and consequently comes across as having less depth but the depth is there.  It trades the incisiveness of the #1 amp for a more immersive sound where instrument lines blend together.  The #1 amp presents the trees while this amp presents the forest.  The presentation of the #2 amp is more relaxed and more mid-hall whereas the #1 amp is edgier and more in your face.  For some, the #2 amp will be the more musical and less fatiguing presentation.  It is also the more forgiving presentation where bad recordings will be more listenable.  

Here's the thing.  If the #2 amp is the Block Audio, switch this amp to Eco (class AB) mode and it sounds much more like the Rouge and there are numerous instances where I prefer these monoblocks in class AB mode.  

For my tastes, I prefer the #2 amp.  To my ears, the differences aren't that subtle.  The #1 amp is just too edgy and lacks finesse and nuance.