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

jays_audio_lab

Enjoyed the recent Cable video. Give us a run down of current Cables/Cords in your system.

Happy Listening!

If you really cared about how good the sound could be you would welcome new ideas. You only know what you have experienced. What if your stereo went to another level with what my friend did? You can certianly afford it. I am sure you could listen to all the above and return the stuff for a refund, if you do not like it. You don’t want better sound? Only what you know right now is good? Is selling Stromtanks more important than finding out the truth? They both use the same batteries and basic inverter technology. What if the above described system is way better than a Stromtank? Will you then sleep well at night knowing that you sold people something that was inferior because you wanted to make money? Maybe the Stromtank is way better?......maybe not  How will you know?....unless you listen.

There are those that read this thread that are more open than you. I am sure someone will try this and be mind blown......very little investment to find out and you can send it back for a refund. Why would the 1000 watt $16,000 Stromtank make better sound than the 5000 watt $2700 system listed above? The only person that can say which is better is those that have listened. We are in new territory here.......time for a change. Time to leave the past behind. Time to take a leap into the beauty of the now. I wish you much love and peace.

You just wasted a good 30 min of your life typing the U.S. constitution above...nobody is going to try ANYTHING you wrote above... Nobody that contributes to this thread... Why don’t you message viber and see if he can fly you into his home so you can do this ?

Then you can film it and put it on YouTube or send me the footage and I'll put it on my channel. 

Follow up on inverter power:

1. I earlier mentioned that Tom Lyle found that a $450 Goal Zero Yeti 400 (400 watt capable) inverter sounded the same as the $16,000 Strom tank (he did not have them there side by side). He ended up buying a larger Yeti for his power amp. My friend with the super Agogee speakers bought the $3000 watt Goal Zero Yeti and was using that with the Puritan line filter after it along with the Puritan ground filter and his own grounding rod outside his listening room.

2. Then he bought the Ecoflow Pro inverter (3600 watts).....and then had better sound than the Goal Zero.......well, the Ecoflow broke....so he got another one and that one also broke so he took the Ecoflow back to Costco and got his money back......

3. He buys the Giandel 5000 watt inverter and two 200 amp hour Lifepo4 batteries (5000 watts worth) that I put links to on this thread and also a 40 amp charger.....the total cost is about $2700. He tried a 1400 watt heater and the fan never came on.....so it will never make a sound, so you can have this stuff right in the listening room. He turned on his stereo and played the internet radio to let his stereo warm up and it sounded horrible.......so he left it on all night with about 100 constant watts going and the next day dropped a needle on a record. He called me up and started raving like I have never...ever heard him.....I thought he was actually kidding me.......but he was serious. He has never heard anything like it in his life.....his enthusiasm was like Jay getting both the latest Boulder pre and amp combined......he is out of his mind. Everything is so much better. He finally listened to digital today and it was much better but not as noticeable as his vinyl playback....btw he is using that latest field coil cartridge with its tube power supply and further modded with extra caps on the power supply near the tonearm.

The total cost of his AC system with Puritan, Puritan ground filter and grounding stuff is around $5500. More than likely this kills the Stromtank and he can run his amps on it and so he is completely off the grid. You can add as many batteries to the system as you like and play for days, if you like. All you have to do is remember to hook up the charger when you stop listening and remove it when listening......pretty darn simple. Anyone who does not try this system has no idea how good their stereo can be. So now you know. He is going to post a review and include pics on Whats best.....so you can see his entire system. I will let you know when he does.

If you want to play cheaply you can buy the 2000 watt Giandel and a 100 amp hour car battery and have a 1250 watt capable inverter.......for around $600 total.....plus a charger....maybe you have have an old car battery sitting around......then just buy the inverter......of course, the 2000 watt inverter will probably not sound as good as the 5000 watter.....but, you never know.......and, of course. regular batteries might not sound as good as LifePo4s.......etc. But.....I bet you would love it.

Just don't do what I do and spend top money on Ethernet cables... I'm not saying buy 99 cent Ethernet cables but don't spend $2500 like i did... In my $500,000 system i have to close my eyes and focus to see if i can hear a difference and yes it's there but folks most of your systems aren't at the level of mine. Buy some footers, spikes or acoustic panels for your room. 

I'm not saying Ethernet cables are snake oil, but $2500 for a 1 meter Ethernet cable is STUPID AS HELL. (YES I WAS STUPID). 

Of course, these are my findings in my system and i cant speak about everyone else's systems. If you consider my system a top system then take my advice. 

ha, so true.

Great video Jay.  Agree, especially on cable #5.  

Question that came up,... within a given brand's cable line-up, say there are 4 or 5 levels, would you try to move up the line generally in synch (all scs, pcs and ics) over time. Or would you jump to the top sc as soon as possible, then as funds allow, slowly raise the bar on the ics and pcs?

I do like the approach of trying not to let the weak link cable in the system lag too far behind.

1 dog year = 7 human years

1 WC month of audio ownership = 1.5 years typical audiophile ownership period

; )

I think you will stay with it for a very very long time. Enjoy!

Thanks - the turntable will have world class electronics presenting it to you all. I am baffled with the boulder 3000 series and yes, i expect it to stay for a very very long time. 

Now listening to the 3000 based Boulder system.

You are exactly right Jay. It obviously sounds better in all respects from your past.

Absolutely stunning! Interesting how much it shows even with this limited quality recording. Never heard these cuts remotely like this. Quite a B-day gift.

Even though I am a major analog guy, I seriously doubt that you will get this level of resolution with a TT. Although, it may sound more "pleasant". 

Don't waste your money on this cable. 

Viber6

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!  It is you who cling to your ancient amp, Rane, and lamp cord and consistently extoll their virtues as well as never ceasing to convert us to your definition of clarity above all.  Jay on the other hand has evolved and has been open enough to change his mind.  It is  because you that myself and several others do no longer follow this thread as closely as we used to, just got tired of the Repeat -0-Gram

Time to take off the kid gloves.  Jay has repeatedly said that his statements are just one man's opinion.  His equipment choices are his preferences and not necessarily THE TRUTH.  

I respect Jay's opinion, not the nasty excretions of one obvious individual here.  We need reasoned inputs from all followers of this thread who are interested and have something useful to say, not this nasty individual.  I appreciate the technical contributions of people like deludedaudiophile, as well as the subjective listening evaluations of others.  This nasty individual offers neither, but contributes nothing but negative energy to this thread, all aspects of a CLOSED MIND.

Hey if you really want to put this journey in perspective you should go back and look at the very early post. Back to page 20 or 30 when Jay was so happy with his ML 13a. His Hegel amp etc. I’d forgotten how far he’s come. The early re read is quite entertaining now that you know where he ends up. 

Come on guys this is supposed to be fun. 

I will clarify for the seemingly senile, serial-repeating blowhard who can never accept a view contrary to his.  It’s WC in his fricken lab - of course he’s already tried everything you suggest. And he tells you ad infinum that your ideas are laughable. They are wrong. Hope that helps

To correct the usual single nasty critic who lacks deep understanding, I will clarify again.  This issue about preamps was discussed about 1-2 years ago on this thread when Jay had the dcs Rossini I recall. A few knowledgeable people here said that the DAC's have an amplification stage which cannot be bypassed.  Even if there is a fixed gain output, the preamp circuitry of the DAC is still in the chain.  So by adding an external preamp, there are effectively 2 tandem preamp circuits in the chain.  Jay did acknowledge that adding his past preamps slightly reduced the detail and transparency of the whole system, but he vastly preferred the additional preamp for its benefits in larger soundstage presentation and dynamics.  This entire issue should not be framed in terms of whether the DAC preamp stage is better or worse than the external dedicated preamp stage, but whether 2 tandem circuits are better than 1. With all prior preamps Jay has used (all excellent), he preferred the 2 tandem stages for the benefits I just cited.  Of course, the 3010, being the best preamp by far, produces wonderful results, better than any other preamp he has used.

As I posted recently, my bet is that there is only a barely audible difference in clarity/transparency between the 3010 and bypassing it.  But with his latest Magico S7 speaker which is far superior to his prior speakers, and the Boulder 3060 which is far superior to any power amp he has used, he is now enjoying the clarity/transparency of his entire system like never before.  He said that he doesn't need to listen at high SPL's to get enjoyment, the way he needed to listen with less revealing equipment.  So I began to wonder whether his priorities have changed, and if he now values clarity/transparency more than before.  It was natural for me to again raise the issue at this time regarding preamp or none.

Jay, it is a worthwhile exercise for you to try the DAC direct into the 3060 amp and compare with the 3010 inserted, using music played at very low SPL's of 20-40 dB.  I suspect the 3010 is so good that there will be only a slight benefit in transparency direct without it.  I don't think YT has the resolution needed to demonstrate this, so only you and visitors who know your system will be able to assess this.  This will also be a great test of your ears to see what differences you notice.  The 3010 is superb, but I doubt it is totally transparent due to lots of circuitry.  If it is 99+ % transparent, you may find that the added 3010 yields benefits in macrodynamics and spatiality that are still the deciding factor for you.  I might feel the same way, if I primarily listened to large scale music with large macrodynamics.  Since I primarily listen to more delicate music for ultimate clarity, I would choose source direct, without any preamp, using the best attenuator.  For less frequent large scale music, I would reconnect the first rate preamp to regain (pun applicable) the large dynamics.

One nice feature of a TT system is that the cartridge only needs an RIAA EQ circuit to play LP's, plus a large gain of 70 dB to deal with low output moving coil (MC) cartridges.  In many cases, this is plenty of gain to yield everything--clarity and macrodynamics.  If this isn't enough gain, an additional gain stage can be considered.  The most transparent line stages have low gains of 6-9 dB or so, which have the best chances of providing maximum transparency.  Medium and high output MC's don't need much gain, an advantage, but generally the most detailed and neutral low output MC's needing more gain still produce the most detail.  Low output MC's have the lowest moving mass and fewest turns of wire, offering the most clarity, other factors being equal. 

It’s the age old thing of Viber telling WC that dac-direct (or phono direct or whatever) to power amplifier is better than using a good preamp. And for the millionth time WC telling Viber it is a "laughing matter"

Iteration one million and one will probably happen early next week

"DAC" has been mentioned in the last few posts. I assume that we are talking about the 3010 Preamp? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

For the one millionth time in this thread .....

No DAC gets close to the 3010...it becomes a laughing matter when comparing the two...

@viber6 

I think WC already mentioned in a video that there is not any DAC that has better sound quality than the 3010.   Not sure though if clarity and transparency is the highest goal for WC - he would need to comment on that.  From what I gather, WC likes a combination of attributes and the 3000 series satisfies all of them in spades. 

Dave

The only electronics for amplification that is truly necessary is the power amp.  But there is NO preamp that is 100% transparent.  What remains for you to explore is how close to 100% is the 3010 preamp.  If you choose a recording with music at an appropriate SPL where you go from the source straight to the power amp, then compare to when the 3010 is inserted at unity gain, you will learn more.  When you get the Kronos and use your 2108 phono stage, there is a choice of 60 or 70 dB gain, so you can do this experiment with more recordings.  Of course, you need a volume control for fine tuning of output, so the question is whether the best passive volume control unit is more transparent than the 3010.  As ricevs would say, even the best passive unit has wires and resistors which have a sound.  Going by the principle that less is more, I would expect the massive amount of circuitry in the heavy 3010 to have less transparency than the passive attenuator.  Using 70 dB of gain for phono will likely yield enough gain to be able to have enough SPL with a passive attenuator.

If you are past your former prioritizing of dynamics at the sacrifice of transparency, and now value clarity and transparency as the highest goal, this exercise will be the  next level of inquiry.

Good morning folks,

Throughout the video above, i chose recordings of different quality. You heard Elvis, Tracy Chapman and of course the typical audiophile songs. The intent was to let you all hear how this super transparent system handles everything. I believe you can capture the sheer clarity and articulation even if you are using your phone on speaker mode. The system is at such a high level that i don’t dare to disassemble it.

The question remains, why does it take so much money to make a power amplifier perform like the 3060? Why is it so important and expensive to reduce the noise floor in order to extract everything from the recording?

It’s tough to answer those questions. I am no engineer but the gap between the 3060 and other amps I’ve owned is quite significant; The gap between the 3010 and my previous collection of preamps is astronomical.

I truly wish that all of this performance could be had for a fraction of the price but that isn’t reality. Maybe in the next 10 years or so we could see components with the level of performance of the 3,000 series from Boulder for a fraction of the price? Who knows...

I hope you all have enjoyed the video.

Happy Birthday! Jay

Thanks everyone for all the birthday wishes!

I imagine that you may already be buying vinyl.

Don’t know if anyone has recommended them, but about the best source for top sounding recordings is Better Records dot com. Their “White Hot Stampers” are consistently the best of used vinyl. They do get a bit outrageous in pricing. $600 for a popular LP is a lot, but there are many $1-200 ones that are unlike any pressings out there. When I listen to a White Hot Stamper, it is like I just upgraded my front end by several notches. Give yourself some nice B-day presents.

Can't say it any better than it's already been said, Happy Birthday Jay!

Best wishes on your birthday Jay.  Your hard work is greatly appreciated.

Happy Birthday Jay!  In a bunch of years this will be your system you'll be previewing on your channel

Happy Birthday Jay!!

Hope you get a chance today to soak in and celebrate your successes, family and the many folks you have touched on this journey you have shared with all of us.

Thank you for that and best of luck going forward achieving your goals.

Happy B-day WC!

Dave

Deludedaudiophile,

No, only your 1st option is correct.  When I bought a CD player in the early 90's, I had a low opinion of digital vs analog.  I also listened at a dealer, and he said the same thing--CD's were rolled off in HF compared to the LP version.  An audio buddy at the time had the same findings.  He was the one who introduced me to the Linn LP12 TT and Grace 707 arm.  I brought my flagship Denon DD TT with the same Denon 103D cartridge he had on his Linn.  His Linn wiped out my Denon TT with the same cartridge in his system.  We both had excellent ears and well set up systems.

I totally agree with your last paragraph.

@ron17 + 1,000,000!

Happy Birthday Jay!  

Thanks for taking us on a journey many of us would have loved to take on our own but didn't have the funds, patience, dedication and thick skin!  

Have a great day and a great next year!

PS...  I think it must be a full moon again this week...

Just want to take a short break to wish Jay a HAPPY BIRTHDAY today.  Getting to know Jay over the years has given me a real inside look at the hard work and dedication he spends on his / our passionate  hobby.  He works tirelessly  around the clock to keep this thread and his YouTube channel going and filled with content that no one else is doing.....not even close.  Keeping up with Jay's journey has been a breath of fresh air for so many people around the world.  It has taken our minds off of all of the problems we each face everyday, while keeping us informed  on cutting edge audio technology.  Thank you my friend.

Hope you can take it easy and enjoy your day with family and friends.

thezaks,

You said, "Perhaps someone will prefer digital, because they prefer the way it's mastered, regardless of the other variables."

YES, that's agrees with what I just posted.

With my young, pristine Denon 305 cartridge, and even on friends’ modest TT systems with receivers, the CD was markedly rolled off in high freq. This was consistently true.

Three options here:

1. The mastering is different.
2. Your CD player is broke or poorly design (or something else broke in your system)
3. Your phono systems are not set up properly.

If this is consistent record to record, then likely it is 3. Don't assume your vinyl system(s) are flat unless you have tested it to be flat. Before I learned how to do that, my vinyl systems were often far from flat. Not low end either.

I suspect that classical recordings from the digital era are flatter in expectation of typically flatter playback equipment / speakers. That is just a guess.   I am like you, I don't have any qualms about applying equalization to make something more to my tastes, not to mention whoever made it is not listening to the same system as me.

Grislybutter, good analogy about being ON the beach (LP) vs looking AT the beach (digital).

Deludedaudiophile, you have a valid point about the difference in mastering between the LP and CD versions of the same recording. Going back to my post about the 3 ways I did comparisons, several LP’s were far different than the corresponding CD, but using an LP with analog and digital versions was much closer. With my young, pristine Denon 305 cartridge, and even on friends’ modest TT systems with receivers, the CD was markedly rolled off in high freq. This was consistently true. I don’t know much about mastering LP’s, but it seems that a lot of the mastering process involves use of EQ. Since we have no control over the mastering process, we just have to accept what finished recordings are available, listen to comparable LP’s and available digital versions and see what we prefer. In addition, I began using EQ for playback after I started with CD’s, to correct deficiencies in any recording. If I don’t like the recording technique and mastering of the engineers, I can do it my way with my Rane ME 60 EQ.

Also, it was perceived that the digital process of recording was more accurate and revealing than various analog processes and playback with euphonic cartridges and tube phono stages, so I noticed that classical recordings in the digital era were more laid back and distant than my LP's from the 50's through 70's.  Digital engineers probably moved the mikes more distant, to reduce ultra revealing edginess from closer mikes.  The classical recordings from the 50's and 60's are particularly bright on Columbia and Mercury LP's.

@thezaks

You at least make a valid argument though most "good" DACs don’t have a sound except what’s in the media source. The same is rarely true for vinyl.

to my very limited knowledge and experience 

listening to an Album is like walking on the beach. 

listening to digital is like watching a movie about walking on the beach. You never get to be in it. But you get closer and closer to feeling you are

My experience with tape has really impressed upon me how far vinyl and particularly digital has still to go! I suspect once Jay hears a great tape player ( I’m talking of Studer A820 level-and I’m not sure that Oz has anything like that??) then he will most likely be a bit gob smacked, I know i was!

@deludedaudiophile

"Digital and vinyl versions are mastered differently. They can't be compared."

Absolutely they should be compared - at least, from the standpoint of whether one would prefer vinyl or digital (or both).  All variables are important - the differing equipment, the media, the mastering, etc.   Perhaps someone will prefer digital, because they prefer the way it's mastered, regardless of the other variables.   Another person might not be particular about the mastering, but would base their preference on how digital sounds vs analog.   Everyone's different.

Dave

The stand will make a difference on the phonostage and the Stromtank I'll be using for the phono and turntable...

Jay, 

When Oz does the Kronos setup at his place, you can also first go to his place and A/B the reel-to-reel tapes with your Kronos.  His tube (?) phono stage will not be anywhere near as revealing as your Boulder 2108 phono stage, so the Kronos will be at a handicap.  Maybe you can bring your 2108 which is probably not too heavy, so you and he could compare with that, in his system.  Then you can bring it all to your place, before you get the TT stand.  It will be interesting to see the effect of the stand on the whole TT system.  Since the Kronos has the ingenious double platters which cancel vibrations, I won't be surprised if the stand makes almost no difference.

@viber6   Great post. There are indeed a number of variables that seem to be misunderstood, or entirely not contemplated, by technical audio pros when it comes to the sound and experience of the musician. Musicians tend to have a certain sound in their head along with striving to get that sound from their instruments. The better ones, IME, are able to well reproduce that with regards to the instruments they pick.

I compared vinyl and digital formats of the same recording in a few ways.  One, I used 80's recordings of digital on an LP and the CD.  In several of these recordings, the CD was veiled in the entire freq range compared to the same recording on LP, played on my Goldmund Studio TT + Alphason arm + bright Denon 305 cartridge.  When my Denon aged, it lost clarity, and then the CD was more detailed, especially in HF.

Second, I have a 1961 RCA analog original recording which I compared to the AAD CD of the same recording.  Also, several Columbia (now Sony) 1959 to 1965 recordings compared to the AAD versions. Same findings as the previous paragraph.

Third, I had an 80's LP recording of the Haydn Military Symphony no. 100.  Side A was mastered from the analog tape, and side B was from the digital tape.  I did this A/B when my Denon cartridge was young and detailed.  This time, both recordings, played on my same TT/arm/cartridge and phono stage, were much closer in overall sound than on my other test with the LP vs CD. The salient differences were in the HF.  The digital showed the typical early digititis of brittle artificial bright HF and seemed more brilliant, but it was unnatural.  The analog was smoother, more lifelike with more layers of depth to this orchestra piece.   But it was somewhat of a tradeoff as to which version someone would prefer.  Digital was brighter and more upfront, but more hifi character.

The digital measurement specs were probably better than the analog.  But it was early digital, with many improvements in naturalness to come.  Has digital matured to now compete with great analog?  

deludedaudiophile,

I respect and understand objective measurements AND my cruder ears.  My ears cannot diagnose what electronic distortions are present, but standard measurements cannot pick up some of the things that the crude human ear picks up.  Going back to early solid state amps of the 60's, THD measurements and flat freq response were the only thing that mattered.  Golden ear types were scorned, but they heard unpleasant things not revealed by low THD.  The technicians opened their minds and came up with TIM (transient intermodulation) distortion measurements.  More data has since been collected, but the technicians still cannot correlate specs with the sound of an amp used in a complete audio system.  

Do you actually have auditory experience comparing the sound of different preamps, amps, cartridges, interconnect and speaker cables, power cords?  Or are you like the popular Mark Davis in the 70's Boston Audio Society who insisted that all amps with flat freq response and the exact same volume level sound the same?Most audiophiles who listen carefully know this is completely false.

Outside of hifi audio, I speak here as an accomplished violinist who has played internationally in all types of classical ensembles, played 100's of old master Italian violins, listened in worldwide concert halls from many seats closer and more distant, made recordings using ear-selected mikes and mike preamps.  It is well established that despite all the scientific advances in understanding chemical analyses of varnish, dimensions and plate topographic thickness of violins, NOBODY today can make a violin whose sound approaches the brilliance and kaleidoscopic tone quality of 300 year old violins.  Today's technicians are clueless about what makes a great sounding violin.  

Respect both the art of subjective listening AND the science of measurement which are complementary.  A great doctor is one who has the necessary clinical judgment to correlate subjective clinical info with objective test measurements.  For example, when evaluating a man with fatigue, serum testosterone (T) is an important thing to measure.  But T receptor function is not measurable, so in order to decide whether any measured level of T is significant, the best way is to assess the clinical symptoms which integrate the limited measurement of serum T with unknown T receptor function, and possibly other hormone and nutritional effects that interact.  Too many MD's have a limited understanding of the numerous factors that go into the best assessment, just as there are many pure technical audio pros who don't understand sound as heard and experienced by the practitioner, the musician.

That should be the case...Oz might bring his reel to reel so we can compare too.... This will get interesting 🤔

If we take the premise that source first is of primary importance in our systems, it would seem that the order for that would be 1) master tapes, 2) vinyl..and the best vinyl recordings via either the ‘One step’ process or Direct to Disc recordings and lastly  3) Digital..