My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
So I have been in a long journey looking to find the best amplifiers for my martin logan montis. As you know, the match between an amplifier and speakers has to be a good "marriage" and needs to be blend exquisitely. Right now, I think I might have found the best sounding amplifier for martin logan. I have gone through approximately 34-36 amplifiers in the past 12 months. Some of these are:
Bryston ST, SST, SST2 series NAD M25 PARASOUND HALO PARASOUND CLASSIC KRELL TAS KRELL KAV 500 KRELL CHORUS ROTEL RMB 1095 CLASSE CT 5300 CLASSE CA 2200 CLASSE CA 5200 MCINTOSH MC 205 CARY AUDIO CINEMA 7 OUTLAW AUDIO 755 LEXICON RX7 PASS LABS XA 30.8 BUTLER AUDIO 5150 ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005
With all that said, the amplifiers I mentioned above are the ones that in my opinion are worth mentioning. To make a long story short, there is NO 5 CHANNEL POWER AMP that sounds as good as a 3ch and 2ch amplifier combination. i have done both experiments and the truth is that YOU DO lose details and more channel separation,etc when you select a 5 channel power amplifier of any manufacturer. My recollection of what each amp sounded like is as follows:
ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005 (great power and amazing soundstage. Very low noise floor, BUT this amplifiers NEEDS TO BE cranked up in order to fully enjoy it. If you like listening at low volume levels or somewhat moderate, you are wasting your time here. This amp won’t sound any different than many other brands out there at this volume. The bass is great, good highs although they are a bit bright for my taste)
NAD M25 (very smooth, powerful, but somewhat thin sounding as far as bass goes) Bryston sst2(detailed, good soundstage, good power, but can be a little forward with certain speakers which could make them ear fatiguing at loud volumes)
Krell (fast sounding, nice bass attack, nice highs, but some detail does get lost with certain speakers)
rotel (good amp for the money, but too bright in my opinion)
cary audio (good sound overall, very musical, but it didn’t have enough oomph)
parasound halo (good detail, great bass, but it still holds back some background detail that i can hear in others)
lexicon (very laid back and smooth. huge power, but if you like more detail or crisper highs, this amp will disappoint you)
McIntosh mc205 (probably the worst multichannel amp given its price point. it was too thin sounding, had detail but lacked bass.
butler audio (good amplifier. very warm and smooth sweet sounding. i think for the money, this is a better amp than the parasound a51)
pass labs (very VERY musical with excellent bass control. You can listen to this for hours and hours without getting ear fatigue. however, it DOES NOT do well in home theater applications if all you have is a 2 channel set up for movies. The midrange gets somewhat "muddy" or very weak sounding that you find yourself trying to turn it up.
classe audio (best amplifier for multi channel applications. i simply COULDNT FIND a better multi channel amplifier PERIOD. IT has amazing smoothness, amazing power and good bass control although i would say krell has much better bass control)
Update: The reviews above were done in January 2015. Below is my newest update as of October 2016:
PS AUDIO BHK 300 MONOBLOCKS: Amazing amps. Tons of detail and really amazing midrange. the bass is amazing too, but the one thing i will say is that those of you with speakers efficiency of 87db and below you will not have all the "loudness" that you may want from time to time. These amps go into protection mode when using a speaker such as the Salon, but only at very loud levels. Maybe 97db and above. If you don’t listen to extreme crazy levels, these amps will please you in every way.
Plinius Odeon 7 channel amp: This is THE BEST multichannel amp i have ever owned. Far , but FAR SUPERIOR to any other multichannel amp i have owned. In my opinion it destroyed all of the multichannel amps i mentioned above and below. The Odeon is an amp that is in a different tier group and it is in a league of its own. Amazing bass, treble and it made my center channel sound more articulate than ever before. The voices where never scrambled with the action scenes. It just separated everything very nicely.
Theta Dreadnaught D: Good detailed amp. Looks very elegant, has a pleasant sound, but i found it a tad too bright for my taste. I thought it was also somewhat "thin" sounding lacking body to the music. could be that it is because it is class d?
Krell Duo 300: Good amp. Nice and detailed with enough power to handle most speakers out there. I found that it does have a very nice "3d" sound through my electrostatics. Nothing to fault here on this amp. Mark Levinson 532H: Great 2 channel amp. Lots of detail, amazing midrange which is what Mark Levinson is known for. It sounds very holographic and will please those of you looking for more detail and a better midrange. As far as bass, it is there, but it is not going to give you the slam of a pass labs 350.5 or JC1s for example. It is great for those that appreciate classical music, instrumental, etc, but not those of you who love tons of deep bass.
It is articulate sounding too Krell 7200: Plenty of detail and enough power for most people. i found that my rear speakers contained more information after installed this amp. One thing that i hated is that you must use xlr cables with this amp or else you lose most of its sound performance when using RCA’s.
Krell 402e: Great amp. Very powerful and will handle any speaker you wish. Power is incredible and with great detail. That said, i didn’t get all the bass that most reviewers mentioned. I thought it was "ok" in regards to bass. It was there, but it didn’t slam me to my listening chair.
Bryston 4B3: Good amp with a complete sound. I think this amp is more laid back than the SST2 version. I think those of you who found the SST2 version of this amp a little too forward with your speakers will definitely benefit from this amp’s warmth. Bryston has gone towards the "warm" side in my opinion with their new SST3 series. As always, they are built like tanks. I wouldn’t call this amp tube-like, but rather closer to what the classe audio delta 2 series sound like which is on the warm side of things.
Parasound JC1s: Good powerful amps. Amazing low end punch (far superior bass than the 402e). This amp is the amp that i consider complete from top to bottom in regards to sound. Nothing is lacking other than perhaps a nicer chassis. Parasound needs to rework their external appearance when they introduce new amps. This amp would sell much more if it had a revised external appearance because the sound is a great bang for the money. It made my 800 Nautilus scream and slam. Again, amazing low end punch.
Simaudio W7: Good detailed amp. This amp reminds me a lot of the Mark Levinson 532h. Great detail and very articulate. I think this amp will go well with bookshelves that are ported in order to compensate for what it lacks when it comes to the bass. That doesn’t mean it has no bass, but when it is no Parasound JC1 either. Pass labs 350.5: Wow, where do i begin? maybe my first time around with the xa30.8 wasn’t as special as it was with this monster 350.5. It is just SPECTACULAR sounding with my electrostatics. The bass was THE BEST BASS i have ever heard from ANY amp period. The only amp that comes close would be the jC1s. It made me check my settings to make sure the bass was not boosted and kept making my jaw drop each time i heard it. It totally destroyed the krell 402e in every regard. The krell sounded too "flat" when compared to this amp. This amp had amazing mirange with great detail up top. In my opinion, this amp is the best bang for the money. i loved this amp so much that i ended up buying the amp that follows below.
Pass labs 250.8: What can i say here. This is THE BEST STEREO AMP i have ever heard. This amp destroys all the amps i have listed above today to include the pass labs 350.5. It is a refined 350.5 amp. It has more 3d sound which is something the 350.5 lacked. It has a level of detail that i really have never experienced before and the bass was amazing as well. I really thought it was the most complete power amplifier i have ever heard HANDS DOWN. To me, this is a benchmark of an amplifier. This is the amp that others should be judged by. NOTHING is lacking and right now it is the #1 amplifier that i have ever owned.
My current amps are Mcintosh MC601s: i decided to give these 601s a try and they don’t disappoint. They have great detail, HUGE soundstage, MASSIVE power and great midrange/highs. The bass is great, but it is no pass labs 250.8 or 350.5. As far as looks, these are the best looking amps i have ever owned. No contest there. i gotta be honest with you all, i never bought mcintosh monos before because i wasn’t really "wowed" by the mc452, but it could have been also because at that time i was using a processor as a preamp which i no longer do. Today, i own the Mcintosh C1100 2 chassis tube preamp which sounds unbelievable. All the amps i just described above have been amps that i auditioned with the C1100 as a preamp. The MC601s sound great without a doubt, but i will say that if you are looking for THE BEST sound for the money, these would not be it. However, Mcintosh remains UNMATCHED when it comes to looks and also resale value. Every other amp above depreciates much faster than Mcintosh.
That said, my future purchase (when i can find a steal of a deal) will be the Pass labs 350.8. I am tempted to make a preliminary statement which is that i feel this amp could be THE BEST stereo amp under 30k dollars. Again, i will be able to say more and confirm once i own it. I hope this update can help you all in your buying decisions!
Viber, so the treble of the block audios really doesn’t exist. What I mean is that they just pass the signal from the preamp. They have no real sound of their own other than may be they have more oomph than most amps I’ve owned. The Plinius does have its own sound. It delivers awesome sound but if I were to compare to the blocks then you’d instantly hear that the bass and mids aren’t at the level of the block audio. The Plinius isn’t transparent just like pass labs isn’t either. Block audio is more transparent and it does something that I never shared with you all before; it manages to pass the “feeling” and emotion of the music better than any amp I’ve heard. It literally puts you in the mood of the music you’re listening to. I actually caught myself a few times feeling this phenomenon and then I scratched my head thinking why my mood had changed all of a sudden.
Hello WCSS, I'd but, as you probably imagine, the Rowland M925 at my personal top, with M535 closely behind it....
I know what you are saying about an amps ability of conveying the "feeling of the music"..... Because this is exactly what M925 and M535 do for me....
Let me elaborate a little..... Mere precision in the rendering of the audible frequency band and reasonably low distortion conveys the nutshell of the music, but might in itself be insufficient to move us emotionally... We might find the system to sound somewhat unemotional.... WHere the emotionality of the component may come in is in its ability of reproducing extremely fine detail in the music, as well in the extra musical information.... THus vibrato in strings, articulation of harmonics and enharmonics in cymbals, fret work in electric guitars and plucked basses, sound of the mechanics in a piano, the subvocalizations and breathing patterns of a performer.... At some point we are transported into the world of the performer.... We hear the music from the inside of the music makers.... We seem to grok the intentions of what the composer "heard" in their mind, and what the performer has grokked of that musical thought, and their success of transfering those wordless ideas into the live performance..... Yes, this is rare enough an experience, and I have not heard it in too many systems.
Some rare amps, like M925 and M535 seem to go beyond this... They can uncover a deeper layer.... The layer of what the performer and sometimes the author are conveying unintentionally... Details in the sound they produce that may be a deeper layer of revelation of their passion, or even their hesitations and their misgivings..... You can hear this in very small details of note attacks and decays, where a finger might be barely trembling in hesitation, or instead the highlight of a harmonic structure that reveals to us that the pianist or the vocalist have intuit a new implication in the structure or subtext of the piece.... M925, and M535 in a subtly different way, all give me these.
Here are some quotes by the conductor and music educator Benjamin Zander.... He summarizes these ideas very powerfully during his master classes to his top music performance students:
"It isn’t how he’s playing, it is how he is
being"
"Don’t play the cello as an instrument, play
the cello as something to be with."
“Perfection is great, but is not enough… Give it everything
you got… And then watch the ripples!”
Benjamin Zander
[On YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1_KOJ8h9qY]
If an audio component can offer us what Zander is saying, regardless of the type of music that we enjoy listening to, we might be on the right track.... M535 and M925 do it for me.
WC, I understand what you mean--the Block is so transparent that you have difficulty isolating the treble, etc. This is similar to a description of love for another person. You don't want to analyze your feelings, you just submit to them. However, it is true that the midrange is by far the most important region of the freq spectrum that we respond to, and the Block may have the best midrange. I still believe that the original Quad 57 electrostatic had the best midrange of any speaker, even if other aspects were flawed. But I want it all, so let's see if the Titan, Rowland give it all--overall transparency plus the sparkle of the Plinius. I get the feeling that the Block doesn't have quite the sparkle, but you love its other qualities so the sparkle may not matter as much to you at this point.
Guido--interesting thoughts. I met Benjamin Zander at a preconcert lecture, found him inspiring, and thanked him for helping to make me a better person and doctor. I still find that at first I may have emotional wonder at the beauty of a performance. Later, I listen to the record again and again, and discover the details of how I came to react emotionally--subtle characteristics of tone, rhythm, dynamics, tempo, etc. Sometimes we listen in a relaxed way for the overall emotion, and other times we listen analytically. Both ways are useful for enjoyment of great music.
whitecamaross when you get an opportunity- talk about the Esoteric ans Luxman digital front ends. Are you spinning discs or going the DAC/Server route? Happy Listening!
Luxman d08u: sweetness, beautiful engaging sound. You can sit down for hours listening to it.
Esoteric k1: more transparent, less forgiving of the source. Huge soundstage, articulate bass with lots of tight punch.
Luxman d08u is excellent if your sources are decent. For example, I have my oled tv going out optical into the dac so I can watch sports or movies through my speakers occasionally and the Luxman was better than the esoteric. It gave more sparkle and sweetness. The esoteric sounded less detailed with my tv feeding signal to it. It pretty much told me “this is what your tv is telling me to play for you”
I’m not sure if you have played around with the setting on the K-01x. You will get some interesting and different results although there is a long break-in period for each setting.
WC, I am trying to understand how you describe sound characteristics of a component. For the esoteric k1, you said it is more transparent and less forgiving than the Luxman, then you said it was less detailed with the tv signal. I think you mean that the esoteric is less pleasing. Usually a component that is transparent is also more detailed, but with inferior sources that detail is less pleasing. Also, "more sparkle and sweetness" is confusing. Usually, sparkle is associated with more HF at the cost of some sweetness, and sweetness usually involves loss of some HF as with many tube amps. In your first paragraph, saying the Luxman's sweetness which enables you to listen to it for hours, is similar to your description of amps with some roll off of HF. So I am guessing that you mean that the Luxman is sweeter, less detailed with less HF sparkle, more tolerant of inferior sources.
Why is it every time someone mentions sweetness you immediately associate it with high frequency rolloff? Surely being a trained classical musical listener as you claim, you have heard the differences between a cheap violin and a superb instrument. Playing the same notes one has a much "sweeter and more pleasant sound it has nothing to do with rolled off highs; most likely caused by a different set of harmonics not a loss of high frequency. I own Luxman and Pass gear which here is categorized as leaning to the "sweet"side there is no rolloff of high frequencies just as I am sure Roland, Block, and myriad others do not intentionally eq out the highs. You have your own definition of so called sweetness which does not agree with many of us listeners,
shannere, You are correct that sweetness is correlated with a different set of harmonics. If you deliberately EQ a sound to have quantitatively more HF, that will cause it to sound less sweet. The reverse is also true--EQ it to reduce HF, and the sound becomes more sweet. All fine amps have flat extended freq response, and we don't know all the theoretical circuit design factors that explain psychoacoustically why we may perceive one amp to have more HF than another. By the way, many fine old Italian violins are sweet and mellowed out with loss of HF. By contrast, a typical modern violin is harsher with more HF, but the HF are full of unnatural distortions which are not true harmonics (integer multiples of the fundamental). The scratching of the bow on the string has very high freq components beyond human hearing, and even the scratching sounds in the 10-20Khz range are part of the total sound of the instrument, but they contribute to the less sweet aspect of the sound. If the bow has too much sticky rosin, the sound is scratchy and less sweet, but if the rosin is used up, the tone is too smooth with loss of HF--it is pleasant and relatively sweet, but the listener finds that the projection (loudness) is lessened, largely due to relative loss of HF.
@viber6 So, going with the items you've mentioned about different violins and rosin on the bow, then, in order to determine accuracy of a violin recording on a sound system, one would almost need to know these factors about the violin/rosin, etc used in the recording. Also needed would be whether or not the engineer eq'd anything to compensate for harshness or softness or sweetness, etc. It would seem that determining accuracy in a sound system might be very difficult, based upon these parameters. This makes objective a bit more difficult. Perhaps subjective then takes over, and for some, it's their subjectivity that factors into attempting to reach a certain objectivity. Dave
Hello Dave, you are absolutely correct.... Fact is that things are even a little bit more complicated than that... There are very often intermodulative artifacts that crop up somewhere in the recording or reproduction chain which can mask as treble energy or brilliance, or even transient toe-tapping speed... They can often be detected for what these distortive artifacts really are as hardness or even harshness in certain complex chords, such as sevenths, ninths, augmented fourths, and so on
SWEETNESS= ENGAGING, TONS OF FATIGUE FREE LISTENING SESSIONS, NOT TRANSPARENT (meaning NOT TRUE TO THE SOURCE). It imposes its own sound signature regardless of how crappy the incoming signal is.
The esoteric k1 is transparent (not sweet). It gives you everything that comes to it. It does not make a crappy tv digital signal sound outstanding. It presents it very dull. The luxman "fixes" crappy signals by imposing its "sweetness" and making most sources far more enjoyable. Luxman is sweet sounding and NOT DULL AT ALL. i can listen to luxman for hours and not once do i feel that it sounds dull or boring. Quite the opposite.
@thezaks I agree with you 100 % Just like when people say that it (a pre-amp or amp) isn’t true to the source . How do you know what the source sounds like . You had to hear it through some component. Unless you were there in the studio when it was recorde ... you do NOT know , and even then, the recorded sound is what the Engineer wanted . That does not make it uncolored. Unless you use the same equipment that the recording studio used , then you do not know what the source sounded like, but once again, that only makes it what the Engineer wanted or envisioned (which might be true to the source)... not necessarily uncolored.
Well stated. My same experience with the Luxman. I am using the DA-06 and previously owning an Esoteric it did mot have that same luscious sound that puts a smile on my face and allows me to listen for hours. Keep up your journey it has been an enjoyable one to follow.
WC, Yes, I agree with your description of sweetness. A little sweetness is equivalent to reasonably transparent, so therefore enjoyable and engaging. Too much sweetness means a major lack of transparency, and dullness. So the Luxman has a little sweetness, a Goldilocks "sweet spot" (note the pun) for detail, transparency and nice tone.
I have a different perspective, it's not to say my perspective is "the right one" though I will say it's the right one for me. I strive to assemble a system that reproduces the recorded performance and venue as it was performed, as accurately as possible - as if I / we were listening to the live performance being performed in our listening room. I strive for and admire a component that is ruthlessly revealing. Most live performances I've not listened to, but there are a minority of live performances I have listened to, and our moderately high end system reproduces them pretty darn well. I strive for components that are ruthlessly revealing because I have found these components to bring the most lifelike reproduction of the music as it was recorded. Bad recording sound bad - make no mistake, and at this level of equipment performance - the quality of the recording is critical. Exposing myself, when wanting to "take in" a great performance, I've become extremely critical of software. But, with great recordings - the enjoyment of listening to a lifelike reproduction of a great performance is the reason I've invested in our audiophile system. It's for the enjoyment of (the illusion of) live music; great live music stirs our senses and moves our souls! In addition to the quality of the recording, I've found with our system the venue of the recording is also another critical issue. Because our speakers and room aren't grand (we have Sasha I's in a 16' wide by 23' long room with the speakers across the 16' wide front wall), our system reproduces smaller acoustical performances convincingly and conversely doesn't do nearly as well with large orchestra performances (which I'm fortunate to enjoy live). In the past when evaluating a component that "homogenized" sounds - that is, made recordings sound more similar (which helped poor recording sound better) - I noticed specific sounds of fantastic recordings weren't nearly as distinguished. I believe we can all agree that at this level of equipment performance, small performance differences (in addition to being very expensive) can be the compelling difference of reproduced music being involving as opposed to being enjoyable (all else being equal). Without making specific references to equipment, an example of what I'm trying to convey; we were listening to a very well recorded acoustic performance, performed in a relatively small venue - which was great, like really great. Listening through my system - I mean we all really enjoyed that playback. It was a night I'll always remember. Then, I switched to the new component (which I previously experienced but didn't say anything about) and we heard a new, better defined recorded performance. Images were not only better defined and more 3D like, their separation and position, not only being able to identify what / where they were but what they were doing was dramatically improved. My guests just turned to me (after the performance was over) and smiled as if I did a bate and switch on them - all 3 of them! Even the applause after the performance was better defined and much more clearly distinguished as being in front of the performance instead of being integrated within the performance. We could even easily identify where the microphones were placed. Going back to my system before introducing the new component just wasn't an option. I relate this to when whitecamaross shared with us that he heard new things on the Neo's from a familiar recording - a performer walking across the stage which wasn't clearly defined / distinguishable with previous speakers (which I meant to ask if he felt the performance of previous speaker systems could have been improved with tweaking their set up?). I still am very aware when I listen to really great systems because when I go back to my own system, I become very critical and - in some cases the past, I didn't enjoy my own system as much as before hearing an outrageous system. So in conclusion for this comparison (for me and without listening to the both components), the Esoteric seems to be the component I would prefer over the Luxman. We're all entitled to our own preferences, so long as we recognize and respect each others choices.
thezaks, You are right in theory about a certain lack of objectivity due to the sounds of different violins. However, the variability in the sounds of violins is less than the variability of the sound of amps, and of course, speakers. Most violinists will perform on different violins with the same optimum amount of rosin to get the right tone for each instrument. There have been demonstrations of the sound of different violins played by the same violinist. Educated listeners from a distance had trouble reliably discerning which violin was being played. One particular concert where I was sitting 30 feet away, I was fooled into thinking a certain modern instrument sounded like a 250 year old famous Italian one. But when I visited the maker of this modern violin and played his violins, it was much easier to tell the differences between his similar violins (yes, there is a house sound of a particular maker, although individual violins are subtly different) and my 1890 violin or other older ones. This is why I have said that individual details of a performance are much more obvious when sitting close. But even under my ear, there is a big universe of differences between all of these violins and any complete audio system. One famous recording was done in the 1960's by the great violinist Ruggiero Ricci, called THE GLORY OF CREMONA. He played a dozen old famous violins in different pieces, which is a bit of an apples/oranges comparison, but he also played the very short introduction to the Max Bruch Violin Concerto No. 1, on different violins. The differences can be heard, but they are relatively subtle compared to if you played a single cut on different amps and of course different speakers. For example, the very mellow Gaspar da Salo violin played through a Boulder amp would sound more sterile than a more brilliant Strad violin played through a Conrad Johnson tube amp.
viber6, Thanks for the compliment - which I'll happily accept from a well respected source. Your post is very insightful - I learned quite a bit in addition to being humbled!
You bet - lots of folks will feel the way you do. Your subjective preferences for the type of sound you like become the objective sound you want to get out of your system.
I can see both sides. My dealer years ago had YBA CD players, as well as Cary, Oracle, and others. Some of those players were more neutral and transparent. The YBA CD1 dual chassis had the emotional connection for me and was the one I ended up with. I had that player for years. Now that I am away from 2 channel, I strive for a sound that gives me both sides of the equation. If I have to lean to one side just slightly, it will be the emotional side. That’s my preference, and I know many would prefer otherwise.
There’s nothing wrong with liking one or the other. For instance, I was just reading about the comparison of the bmw 750 vs S550. Both great but the driving experience is very different. It is hard to pick one over the other. It’s the same thing with audio equipment when you get to a certain price point. I like inviting sound that grabs me and makes me listen. Transparent is good but at times it can get me upset because maybe it’s a song I like and it sounds horrible and at that moment I prefer the component that is not transparent so I can enjoy that one song a little more. We all have songs that we love from our youth that dont sound good today with our components and that blows.
tjassoc, If you like, I can bring my violin and play for you at your home. You might have recordings of solo violin pieces, or I can play the violin part of some concerto recordings you know. We'll have fun. I am in NJ on Sun, so if you email me with your details, we can get together. russlaudATgmail.
WC, I don't think a more transparent component would make your favorite song sound quite as bad as "horrible"--it would reveal the flaws of the recording and even the singer, but it would also reveal more of the goodness that you like. Add it all up, and you get at worst a mixed bag of pluses and minuses, and at best a greater appreciation of the goodness while forgiving the more obvious negative aspects. This is like appreciating an honest friend who tells you the truth, as long as he doesn't insult you.
@viber6 It depends upon a person's perspective and preferences. The pluses/minuses might be tolerable and not "horrible" to some folks, and thus appreciated. For others, it might be "horrible" or at least - not liked as much, and a little sweetness to make it overall pleasing might be their preference.
I agree with WC - I want songs from my earlier years to sound good overall, which for me, might mean a tad of sweetness.
I hate violin solos unless you EQ it thru a Rane! I find Stradivarius roll of high frequencies too much specially with the later woods used in their construction or the chemicals used to treat the woods. lol
You will be happiest with the Lampizator Pacific IMHO. The following is from a review at audiostream.com. It compares the Pacific to the Audio Note 5,and because they are both non-upsampling and zero feedback designs, I personally think they give us the most natural sound.
.
Like the Audio Note DAC 5 Special I also have in review, the Pacific makes you forget completely about the fact that it is reproducing the recorded event and unconsciously allows one to be utterly engaged in the music playing. Coincidence? Probably not and I’ll tell you why I think that. Both units utilize zero-feedback, zero upsampling and zero oversampling DAC architecture. While the DAC 5 Special maxes out at 18/96 (by design), the Pacific can handle PCM conversion of up to 24/192 files via SPDIF and up to 705kHz DXD/512 DSD via USB and PCM 32/356 via LAN, so the high-resolution crowd is covered. Read more at https://www.audiostream.com/content/lampizator-pacific-dac-preview#xVtItFE2qooEFYq6.99
Ok guys, im picking up the Lampizator pacific tomorrow. If you all recommended me the lampizator on this thread and it doesn’t deliver, I’ll come after you all lol
What does Mike from Suncoast Audio think of the 2 choices that you have it down to?
Sure seems like a tough choice. Isn't the MSB the only one that does MQA decoding? Tidal has MQA, and it might be something good (I've heard some say it's really freakin' good). Might be something good to have.
@WCSS It will.....It will. !!!!!..It will take time to break in .You MUST be patient ... PLEASE . I am Damned excited that you actually are getting something that I would love to own and I HAVE owned .....well kinda...I had .the BIG 6 . Besides the Czechs, (Block Audio) are right next door to Poland ( Lukasz Fikus of Lampizator).They should play nice together :) I am going to go out on a limb and say that it will be similar to the ARC REF10,... in that it will be Damned hard to let go of . Patience on Break In. Patience If you want me to break it in for you, send it to me . I’ll take 2 weeks off of work and play with it the entire time. It already comes with some of the best tubes money can buy ( KRON KR45, or PX-4 ) SO.. i doubt very seriously that you would need to tube roll. It also comes with Mundorf silver /gold solder and copper metal foil output or coupling caps (probably the Jupiter copper foil Paper and wax...THE BEST), which are same caps that I have put in my Granite Audio 864SR. HELL YES !!!
Here was my Lampizator Big 6 It too, had the Jupiter Copper Foil output capacitors. This was my actual ad . Damn..... I let it go too cheap. ! Check out the pics
I guess in the New Year it may be time for me to exit Audiogon. I left Facebook two years ago and don't miss it at all. Everyone still believes it's about a specific component being better or worse. It's about how a component sounds when inserted into a system. In one system the sound may be preferred and another it may not. In either situation it doesn't mean it's better or worse.
@ricred1 I think everyone knows THAT , by know (component in your own system ) , but more often than not , you usually do NOT get a huge mismatch ..... that is just ... no good . Most highly rated components don’t necessarily "Fall on Their Face". It is pretty unusual to have something that is a mismatch or major disappointment, at this level. It is still about a component being better or worse (in your own system), but you make it sound as if it could be a Total Dud . Unfortunately everyone has their own beliefs. and their own setup.. Better or worse than what .. BTW? I guess you just can’t take the pressure of everyone thinking that it is about a specific component being better or worse . It IS ALL subjective . I guess if you can’t take that , and have to leave Audiogon, then you might need counseling , to understand why ... ?
@ricred1 You used the word "everyone", and I would disagree with that. Especially since I also agree that it has to do with how the components compare in the system/room as a whole. It's not an absolute - just because it's better in one system/room, might not mean it will be better in another system/room. However, I think WC has done a great job identifying how components work better with certain systems and preferences, based upon the sonic attributes.
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.
