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!
@viber6 I have had mine since 2017. I got the $300 upgrade on the Double Impacts , which is the mil spec internal wiring, the Mundorf or Clarity cap for tweeter section , the Jantzen oversized inductor in the woofer section and the Cardas Copper binding posts ,which I love . Moab was not available then. The Ulfberhts, and Encore were , but not the MOAB
Yes it was garbage for me. That connection on constellation gear was stupid. Look around and you'll find reviews by magazines that are in alignment with me.
WC, Speedbump6 mentions Chuck Miller, whose ID is millercarbon. Read his thread, "Tekton Design Moab." He answered some of my questions there. He is very enthusiastic and welcomes people into his Seattle home for listening. I'm sure he would gladly answer your questions.
Also, the latest Merrill bulletin has a comment by an owner of a Constellation preamp/power amp package. He says that the direct connection bypasses the input stage of the power amp. This results in better performance due to less circuitry but less gain (obviously). The same SPL can be achieved by a higher setting of the volume control. I like this design, where the best performance can be achieved by the 2 units that work together in this way. What did you find when you had the matching Connie pieces together, if you remember?
grey9hound, Did you consider the $4500 Moabs which use the double tweeter array? The Double impact at $3000 has a single tweeter array (my error above), which probably has an advantage of a smaller but more focused midrange and HF image than the Moab. Perhaps the single array models are brighter than the double array models, which may make certain bright recordings less enjoyable to you than the double array models would. If you wanted to upgrade the Double Impact with Be tweeters, the extra cost would be only $3500 compared to $9500 for the Be upgrade on the Moab.
@whitecamaross To me The Double Impact which I own, sound very detailed and very similar to an electrostatic speaker in that regard, but they have great bass , unlike electrostats . They have great bass down into the low 20hz range. I think the separation of instruments in space is their strong suit. You can easily discern different instruments and their place in the mix. They also present a deep soundstage. Keep in mind they are a four way speaker, but they are very coherent sounding and are very fast on transients .Depending on the recording and your equipment , they can sound like your are there for the live up close performance , but they are not overly analytical. They can play Techno as well as 1940s-1950 Jazz ,and do it very well. I would say that 1980s rock does not sound rGreat. (Ozzy and the like).... Too revealing. They will not make bad recordings sound good . I also think of them as a conduit to what your equipment or cables are. I can easily discern cable or equipment changes.
Do you own them? If so, please elaborate on their qualities based on what you hear in your listening space. I am interested in hearing what they do or don't do.
A lot of talk about tekton speakers here but why don’t I see a massive amount of owners posting here ? If the product is amazing ( I don’t know and can’t speak about it) why aren’t you all buying it ?
I have spoken on many occasions about Tekton speakers and their price to performance ratio but, they have been shunned here because, you and many others here think that if they do not cost an arm and a leg , then they are no good !
Anything is possible at Jay’s audio lab...I could shock you at any moment.... Wilson Wamm Rockport Lyra Focal grande Utopia Momentum relentless Tekton Mágico m6
It’s all about timing and being ready... I wait patiently and prepare financially to bring home and compare what you can only hear at shows. I am aiming to build two systems and do things that most people simply can’t do or choose not to do. Stay tuned...let’s keep pushing forward.
Tektons I had were the Pendragons and now; The Lore Reference & The Mini Lores[MLore] Since I am way down the food chain stereo gear wise to be honest I never brought them up as I didn't think they cost enough for the ones I have / had. It would be cool to have you put some of those Tektons thru their paces with your Badass Gear!
Good question WC! For me, I've had my speakers for longer than I've known about Tekton, and I have no reason to replace them. However, once they're old enough and don't perform as well, I will look for a replacement. I would not mind at all trying Tektons at that point, especially with a 60 day risk-free trial. Nothing better for me to judge a speaker than to bring it into my home. Dave
Ther are several threads about tektons on the forum, Chuck Miller’s has had a lot of feedback. I own Tektons, and many others do, who apparently have not found this thread. Those who have owned them seem to mostly be super impressed with them.
I am only raving about the theoretical concepts behind the Tekton tweeter array. We all agree that listening is the final arbiter. I mentioned 2 different theories about the respective advantages of the 20.7 and 13A. One theory won out in practice, to show how the 20.7 is superior in most sonic criteria. Will the tweeter array concept win against the probably inferior cabinet design and/or crossover design of the Tekton compared to Wilson? Only listening will tell. For now, speedbump6 is in the best position to tell us.
On to the next theory about whether an extra preamp stage is needed. I just listened to the latest video with the Christine preamp in play. Going back and forth with the song, Baby I love your way, they are very close. The earlier video without the preamp is recorded perhaps 1 notch louder than with Christine. I can't say I have matched SPL's properly, so at this time I can't say which I prefer. The brilliance is about equal on both. The Christine I found superbly transparent in earlier comparison videos, so it makes sense that I can't come to a conclusion. Sometimes I find the Christine more detailed, and other times I find direct more detailed.
But let's suppose that a certain preamp makes the sound more detailed than without the preamp, in an apparent refutation of my commandment to avoid unnecessary circuitry. How could this be? Two possibilities. One, there is a more favorable impedance match with the preamp added in. Second, the preamp may be functioning like a subtle EQ which favors HF.
I could insert my Rane EQ in WC's room, and show easily how the EQ makes the sound more brilliant than a direct connection without it. Even though the added circuitry of the EQ is certainly less transparent than the direct connection without it, the effect of judicious EQ overwhelms its slight lack of transparency. I could also show more brilliance with the Rane EQ than with the more transparent Christine but without EQ.
I could also use the EQ to make the Alexia 2 please me much more than the 20.7 (my favorite speaker on the videos) without EQ. The Alexia 2 is so good, and little behind the 20.7 for what I like, that I am certain of this, because there is much more benefit from using the EQ than switching between the 20.7 and Alexia 2. With the 13A, which I find significantly inferior to the other speakers, I am not so sure I could use the EQ to make the overall sound superior.
If anyone thinks that I am doing drastic things to create totally artificial sounds like hyped up disco recordings, I can say all it takes is relatively small boosts or dips to show what I have described. In a blindfold test, I could show most listeners that I can provide extra detail and still keep the overall sound natural. They would prefer the sound with the EQ in the system.
Also, carey1110 mentioned that people who listened to the Dag preamp with the EQ engaged preferred it to the Dag without the EQ.
Yes the strongest asset of Tekton seem to be the way they have infected the Audiogon forum, strong marketing and not much more, no one i trust has heard them and raves about them.Viber6 has not heard them and raves about them, go figure !
A lot of talk about tekton speakers here but why don’t I see a massive amount of owners posting here ? If the product is amazing ( I don’t know and can’t speak about it) why aren’t you all buying it ? I mean if you praise it then how come it hasn’t made it to your room.? That has always been a big question in my head... Once again, I have not heard it or owned it so I'm neutral but I'm asking those who really rave about it and don't have it at home ?
carey1110, The question is "what is live?" Some people prefer to sit in the middle to get that laid back sound. Others prefer to sit closer. Both are different versions of live. This is OK, but my objections revolve around writers who sit in the middle, 50 feet away, go back home and listen to their recordings of the same piece, and then say their systems are too bright and upfront. They don't realize that the recordings are made with much closer mikes than the listener 50 feet away. There are variations in the use of more distant mikes to mix in some distant ambience in some recordings, or the very close stage perspective of other recordings. But in general, the recordings have a much closer perspective than 50 feet away. Such a writer should sit in the front row, listen and then go back home to compare, and then figure out the adjustments of his system to get a true facsimile of live from his system, according to what the recording presents.
WC, We can have our requests, but of course you will bring in something when an attractive deal comes through, so you can remain financially solvent and continue your great journey.
Having said that, my top interest is the ML CLX, which to me is the most intelligent design of ML. Its midrange and HF panel is still curved, but it is the narrowest of the ML products, and it had the purest and focused mids/HF of various ML panels I heard years ago. The electrostatic flat bass panel probably provides the highest quality of bass down to 56 Hz. I could live with that loss of low bass for most of my music, but dasign suggested adding REL subs to get everything. Using the sub below 50 Hz wouldn’t pose significant integration problems with the electrostatic bass, and wouldn’t color the midrange the way the 13A does.
My close next interest is Tekton. Those innovative tweeter arrays enable coverage of 270 Hz (double arrays in Ulf, Encore, Moab, Double Impact models) or about 500 Hz (single arrays in Electron, Impact Monitor and other models), up to extreme HF. The challenge will be to see if the low mass tweeter coverage of much of the midrange outperforms the more massive drivers of Wilsons and Magicos. Of course, Tektons are cheap because of direct sale, and the cabinets are probably not of the quality of Wilsons or Magicos.
The ultimate Tektons are probably with the Be tweeters, which can be used on any model if you work with the designer, Eric Alexander. They add lots of costs, to about $14K for the Be/Moab, or even $5500 for the Be/Electron. Nobody has posted anything about how they sound compared to the regular versions. And Be versions will almost never appear on the used market. If you want to see how the ultimate Be versions compare to your much more expensive Wilson or other top speakers, it might be worth taking a small loss to see if the Be versions are life changing performers at still reasonable prices, as I suspect.
I heard there is a lot of unsold Focal Sopras in stockrooms because of Covid. This is a popular speaker, so without knowing what was coming , they overproduced it.
Then, mighty chance we see another pair of Sopra 3 in WC ´s room...to test with the Gryphon Mephisto. Would have been better with the newer Essence , which imho has no reason not to be the equal of the Mephisto if you have reasonably sensitive speakers. Focal Sopra 3 are that kind of speaker. They don’t need a whole lot of current like the Wilson Alexia oversized woofers do.
Viber I think we all agree that live is better than reproduced. That’s not the same as comparing two reproductions. Like two audio systems. The differences lie in what each of us determines as what is closer to live. In what way it is closer to live. Your preference is pretty clear I think. You said 1st row front and center. Some prefer mid hall so their “closer to live” may differ from yours.
viber6 We have already established that you prefer the photoshopped version, prettying things up with a little EQ. As for Tinder, do a google search, download and start swiping. You might actually find a well proportioned violin playing audiophile to share those sleepless nights with !
Also, why do we spend big money on vacations to see beautiful lakes, mountains, colorful towns, when we could just look at free brochures and entertaining videos from travel companies? These brochure pictures were taken on perfect days, but when we get there, the weather may not be ideal, but the live experience is not to be compared to the images of it. Even the word, "image" is the same as "imaginary", which is why the reality of live unamplified music is so much better than the "imaginary" audio system. I know everyone has their subjective preferences, but I try to capture as best as I can the shocking reality of the live quality in my audio system, so I can gasp and see the goosebumps on my legs, rather than just politely say, "I am relaxed in my subdued mood."
What's tinder? Do you have a link, or is my question ignorant? As with audio, what have been your experiences comparing live views of people with pictures or videos of them? Drastic photoshopping can slim down a fat person, so that is misleading. But even skilled makeup on a beautiful woman will not make her as head-turning in a video or picture as live. Both ways will be beautiful, but I have always gasped at the greater beauty seen live.
The relevance of this to my audio preferences is obvious.
WC, That is truly interesting what you found comparing the 2 projectors. I am not familiar with video equipment. My one fascinating experience in this area was at conferences where I was close enough to see the live speaker, and compare to the projected image. I assume those projectors are decent quality, but maybe not as good as what you have. I enjoyed the much greater detail and features of the live person. The video was smoothed over. The woman had smoothed over features on the video, but in person she was more attractive if not so perfect. That's another example of how live rawness is better than reproduced smoothness, whether in sound or visuals. A few years ago, I watched the old Art Garfunkel (of Simon & Garfunkel, very popular before your time) being interviewed by Rosanna Scotto on TV. He had seen her many times on TV, but when seeing her live a few feet away, he exclaimed that she was really beautiful. I don't think he was buttering her up for hosting him. I have had similar reactions to seeing beautiful women close up live, and then seeing good pictures of them which were a letdown by comparison.
I agree that a dedicated preamp is probably better than the preamp section of a DAC. I recently posted that WC had the Esoteric DAC, which I think required an external preamp. That's the type of design I like--let the dedicated D/A directly output into a dedicated preamp, otherwise you have the absurdity of 2 tandem preamps. Since the DCS probably does the D/A better than the Esoteric, imagine the ultimate for clarity--such as dedicated DCS D/A without the extra preamp stage, going into the dedicated preamp. Somehow the Esoteric did everything WC liked at the time, including dynamics, but the DCS D/A is even better. We don't know how much better a DCS without its preamp stage might be than the present DCS with its preamp stage.
Just look on Amazon for the orange goggles, less than $10. Before you finish typing in all the numbers I gave, the whole thing pops up. Read the hundreds of reviews of customers who tell of their sleep improvements. I have another one in my office and ask my patients to put it on, look at my computer cable, and I ask what color it is. It appears grey or a dull green. Then when they take the goggles off, they are shocked that it is blue. That shows how effective the shielding is for blue light. Even when wearing the goggles, I have to limit the TV time in the PM, or else I will have more trouble sleeping. I have a 4 watt light bulb in the kitchen in the evening. I am an obsessed sleep-o-phile.
Thanks for reminding me about the Mark Levinson Audio Palette.
shannere, Great question. I would love to A/B the Mephisto against my little Bryston 2.5B SST2. Both seem to be "wild animals." On efficient speakers, WC would have all the power he needs from the Bryston and would consider it a wild ride. I am not a wild guy because I drive my 2010 Toyata Prius conservatively and get 58.4 MPG whereas many Prius drivers are more aggressive and only get MPG in the 40's. But my wildness is fulfilled by going for brilliant HF oriented sparkly sound. My Mytek Brooklyn Amp+ is a little euphonic compared to my Bryston, but it has a basically neutral sound. The Mytek is cooler in tonality and leaner than the Merrill 114 I had on trial. The Bryston is my choice for small scale chamber music and classical music earlier than 1850 which doesn't have any cymbal crashes or blasting trumpets. But I need more power for the big pieces. The Mytek is my choice for that. In a way, I'll say that the Bryston is like the ruthless raw excitement of no preamp, and the Mytek is like a great preamp added for more dynamics and fullness. The Mytek is still what most people here would consider ruthless, in comparison to Merrill, Dag, Pass, Luxman, maybe Simaudio. Of course, this is only speculation on my part, utilizing only WC's comments, although I can say that about the Merrill based on my own listening. I haven't heard the others, but based on WC's descriptions, I think I have it right.
speedbump6, I agree completely. I doubt WC would have both the Alexia 2 and Focal Maestro at the same time, but it's wishful thinking to see how they would compare. I'm also a Focal fan and have Focal Utopia M components in my car and my home speakers have Focal drivers. However, I've liked Wilson speakers as well, and I like the way the Alexia 2's come across in WC's videos. Dave
Received the following message. Thought it was it was important to rectify WC ´s post about the Mephisto specs.
Quote : « Hey saw your post about him going nuts but doing an amp and speaker change at the same time. Also Jay gets the capacitance wrong (I know you said not to focus too much on specs). But he says its 1,000,000 uf but its actually 500,000 uf. Someone posted this on youtube comments and that guy is right. Its right on the gryphon site. »
And the Sasha daws were compared to the Scalas, and a Otto ally different setup as far as the supporting hardware. Possibly the outcome could be different, but I have found each brand to have an underlying tonal signature, which is why the Focals did not do as well in that shootout. But you never know until you try. I have the Fical Ultima line of speakers in my car system, and own both their Utopia and Stella headphones, so I’m a fan of Focal. I don’t believe that the maestros would win in a contest with the Alexia’s, but different people prefer different sound, so I’m sure for some the Focal would be a better choice. All you have to do now is convince Jay to bring in a set of them to find out. Good luck with that, sounds like it’s not happening at this point in time from the previous comments about what he’s doing. Hell, I’d even ship my tekton ulfers to him to do a shootout with those if he wanted to spend the time and energy on them. Just can’t do everything that everyone would like to see and hear. There’s only so much time and money.
Just an opinion here, but I doubt that there'a preamp section of any DAC (regardless of expense) that's as good as a separate well-engineered preamp. The advantage of a DAC used as a preamp is basically a shorter signal path with less external components in the path. However, that can often get outweighed/outperformed by a better built external preamp. Of course, there's much more items to add and tailor the sound of an external preamp - power cords, interconnects, additional shelves, cable lifters, vibration control, fuses, another power conditioning outlet, tubes in some cases, etc. Lots of $$$ and time involvement. I'm sure some folks would rather spend all of that money on better speakers/amps/dacs than on an external preamp setup and tweaking. I'm betting that WC, with his vast experience thus far, probably has an opinion on whether it would be better to put money into a preamp and all the fixings or upgrading speakers/amps/dacs. Dave
Techno I’m Not saying they are absolutely the best speaker in the world I’m just saying they never seemed a bad as you made them sound with Your earlier remark. Just saying that having owned them I can really appreciate what they do. Are they better that the Focal? Well I don’t know because I haven’t heard the Focal. I appreciate your opinion it just compels me to respond thats all. Not personal.
Here is a quote lifted from Audiophile Style regarding DAC direct vs adding a line stage/preamp;
Not every DAC goes direct into every amplifier perfectly. After experimenting a lot with both approaches, with a lot of DIY efforts where I could change the output stage to suit the amp, I have found that current headroom of the DAC's output stage seems critical to get a robust DAC direct sound. Some IC opamps used in output stages only have around 30 mA current capability, where others can have 75 mA, or even over 100 mA. Of course the stoutness of the power supply powering those IC opamps also matters. If the IC opamps in the DAC output stage are operating anywhere near their limits, they tend to sound a bit weak in terms of dynamic expression.
I think this echos Jay's thoughts on this question, not all DACs have the juice to be as dynamic and controlling as needed and a preamp can bring back the dynamic excitement and control letting the amp and system reach their upper limits of performance.
Yes I’m am biased and I’m not the only one. If you were familiar with them you might be too. Sorry I can’t help it. Owned so many brands of speakers I can’t even count them. This one is special to me.
The Focal Maestro are a different beast. And remember WC’s friend who came to compare the Scalas against the Daws... The Focal won big time, it was a revelation compared to the Daws.
Carey, WC insist on not trusting online magazine reviews, yet you quote them repeatedly. You seem to be obviously biased toward Wilson. What are your motivations regarding that brand sudden panic defense ?...
In comparing the DAWs to the Alexia’s I felt the Alexia 2 is much better. The highs are crisp but not etched. Much more organic, natural and live. I found that the Alexia 2 is more revealing than the DAW in that it gives you the entire picture top to bottom not just fine detail in the upper register. The wood of instruments Are More apparent and the strings of a wood instrument 🎻 more amazingly life like. Very subtle changes in the music are more evident . However it can still bite where the music calls for it. The bell of horns very obvious and can be in your face if recorded that way. I listen at lower volume than most and want to hear all the details Without having to crank it. The Alexia 2 does this for me. I find the this speaker will reveal the electronics no matter what. If you put a warm Tube Mac on them they will sound warm and rolled off. I have been experimenting with different preamps and feel this speaker to be very neutral and without prejudice. I also feel it was more coherent over all than the DAW due to the dissimilar woofers. My room is 17’ x 20’+ And behind me opens into the rest of the house. I have a cathedral ceiling with 18-20’ sloping ceiling. My speakers are placed very similar to the DAWs I had. The DAW was a bit lean and maybe on the bright side in my room so the Alexia works perfect. Remember even though the upper drivers are the same the crossover is different. If my room was smaller I think I’d still go with the Alexia 2. Hope this helps in giving another perspective on the Wilson Alexia 2
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.
