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!
All magazine reviewers, all forum reviewers, you have been warned...The word neutral will not be tolerated anymore. Is your neutral my neutral, is their neutral our neutral.
I have never been so much confused now that the definition of neutral has been questioned by Charles...the Socrates of modern audio.
No attempt to redefine the term neutral. My point is how does one determine a component is neutral relative to competing components? WC said that the Boulder lacked soul. He isn’t the first listener to make this type of istening observation in regard to Boulder. Some have described their sound as clinical, sterile or analytical. Doesn’t this suggest a coloration or imparting a sonic characteristic at the opposite end of the spectrum from full bodied, rich or warmth?
You could make the case that a leaner/thinner or sterile (soulless?) presentation should not be the default criteria for neutral. It is another form of coloration/altercation that goes in a different direction. Just my observation and not a proclamation. No doubt we all perceive things differently when deciphering what we hear and our attempt to describe it. Charles
I don't normally post here, but I wanted to just say that I had the pleasure of meeting whitecamaross last week. What a nice young man with a beautiful family. We don't often get to put a face to a name, but I really enjoyed my time with him and his family last week. We hung out, listened to some fabulous music, discussed a number of different amps and preamps, and also, worked a little on setup and discussion of room acoustics.
As to the various amps being discussed, I've had had the chance to own many of them. Gryphon, ARC 160M, D'Agostino, Luxman, Constellation, etc. are all wonderful. Fabulous. It really comes down to "flavoring" and taste at this level. Preamps are a different breed. It could be argued that it's more difficult to make a truly world class preamp than an amp. REF10/VAC Master/VAC Statement/Ayre KXR20, etc. are definitely all world class in their own right.
Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussions and thank whitecamaross for his hospitality last week.
Very important discussion here about the term, "neutral." Literally, it means that nothing stands out or is emphasized. For example, someone with legal blindness 20/200 vision may see everything equally badly, and someone with superb 20/15 vision may see everything equally clearly. Both people have "neutral" vision, but it is obvious that the person with 20/15 acuity is getting more out of the visual world, and enjoying more of it because of the increased information content perceived, unless you want to be cynical and say that he also sees more of the flaws and is unhappy. Most of us spend money and effort on systems to get more out of the music we enjoy, therefore the rational goal is to try to be objective and go for accuracy and information retrieval. You otherwise might take the subjective "happiness" approach of someone like Nelson Pass, seek to flavor your music any way you like. But you will probably get tired with the flavoring approach, especially if someone brings over a component with more accuracy that makes you wonder why you have been missing musical information--this is because you have been artificially flavoring your system. If you are a wine connoisseur and enjoy many types of wines, don't add sugar to each wine you are tasting, since you will obscure the true character of each wine because each will taste like sugar.
techno_dude and charles1dad, interesting discussion about colorations of both tube and SS electronics. I agree. 35 years ago, I tried the class A Bedini 25/25 SS amp. It was thickly syrupy sweet with rolled off highs, vastly inferior to almost any tube amp of that time in accuracy, information retrieval and of course, musical appreciation. That Bedini was equally far different from many other SS amps I tried. So techno_dude, I agree it is absurd to say that some tube designer is trying to make it sound like SS. It is more fruitful to objectively describe the sound of any amp, whether it is tube or SS. I personally don't care whether a technology is tube single ended or push pull triode or pentode, or SS class A, AB, D, G, H, etc. I have an open mind to whatever comes along, although so far it seems that even the accuracy oriented Audio Research still has vestiges (slight amounts) of loose bass, sweet midrange, diminished highs compared to most but not all SS amps I have tried. To realize this, just play recordings of sounds of nature like ocean waves, birds, crickets, the wind, feet crushing leaves, buzzsaws, spoken voice, etc. Then listen at the beach, continue to take walks to orient yourself to the real sounds of things. There is nothing sweet about the sounds of nature--these entities are just as they are, without any of the chicken fat cushion of most "sweet" electronics, whether tube or SS. These "sweet" electronics are like a beautiful woman wearing loose clothing. But take the clothing off, and you will see more of her beauty revealed by seeing her muscled, toned and delicately curved features that were previously obscured.
grey9hound, we would be interested in WHY you think the Tektron Double Impacts are so good. Don't just say they are "the best," or some other undefined value judgment. What are the sonic characteristics in tone, dynamics, etc. for music you evaluated? WC continues to elaborate on these qualities of different amps, speakers which I find informative. I am also looking for value, but I want to know what to consider, based on real criteria. If someone wanted me to evaluate a typical cheap component from Best Buy, unless he was my friend, I want a fee for my time probably wasted for the highly likely outcome that the component is mediocre.
Mike welcome to Audiogon!How does the Ayre MXR20-KXR20 combo compare to other SOTA pre-power combos ?People say the MXR20 is short in the bass region, is that true ?
Hi viber6, somewhere along the line you developed the mistaken notion that many of us give a fk what you think. If you want to learn anything about the Tekton there is long thread.
"There is nothing sweet about the sounds of nature" One problem with High End audio is a vocabulary where there are no precise or clearly defined words/terms. So individuals are free to use words that can be interpreted differently when communicating with others.
For me the essence of unamplified instruments and vocals is natural sweetness and beauty, pure and uncorrupted. A few days ago I was listening to a professional tenor saxophonist practicing a few feet away from me. My goodness, talk about sheer and pure sweetness, richness and vividness of sound coming from that un-miked instrum9.it doesn't get any better.
Most probably the term sweetness has a different connotation to me. It's no add on coloration and that big beautiful sounding Tenor Sax had it undeniably. Oh the body and tone I heard. Charles
jetter--with your attitude, I don't give a fk what YOU think. Many people here have acknowledged my contributions. A few have emailed me privately in appreciation for my extensive musical background which informs my statements.
Some thoughtful and excellent posts by Viber6, IMO.
In fairness to Techno_dude, though, while I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say that ARC "tries to make their tube gear sound like SS," I believe that a major contributor to his perception is the fact that ARC amps tend to use more feedback and consequently have lower output impedances and higher damping factors than many and perhaps most other high quality tube amplifiers.
The interaction of that relatively low output impedance (for a tube amp) with a speaker's variations of impedance as a function of frequency will tend to have tonal consequences that come relatively close to those that would result with a solid state amp, nearly all of which have output impedances that are near zero and inconsequentially small relative to speaker impedances.
Stated another way, ARC tube amps tend to act more like voltage sources than most other high quality tube amps. Meaning that for a given input voltage to the amp it will come closer to maintaining a constant voltage into varying load impedances than most other high quality tube amps (and therefore delivering more power into low impedances than into high impedances), as long as it is operated within its maximum voltage, current, power, and thermal capabilities.
charles1dad, agree with your observations of the sax player. You didn't mention that you also heard his spit and detailed action of the keys which are glossed over by a lot of equipment. Also, maybe he was playing in a smallish room, that magnifies the body and bass content of the instrument, compared to the larger studio for recording or concert hall. I find the most useful environment for judging live sound is outdoors with plenty of space, obviously. There are no absorbing materials such as wood or other confusing acoustical variables to contend with. You get the pure, unadulterated quality of the instrument itself. Just stand close enough as you did, so you will get the appropriate volume level. Harry Pearson believed that there is an ABSOLUTE SOUND so he called his magazine as such. I think I remember that he referred to it as the sound in the concert hall, but I go further by saying it is the sound in the quiet outdoors.
almarg, thanks a million for your convincing technical explanation about why ARC amps sound as they do. In a related discussion, Bruno Putzeys of Mola Mola uses lots of feedback to reduce distortion to almost zero, and claims that it is an important reason for the accurate "nonsound" (colorless, my words) of his products.
jetter--sorry if my choice of words made it appear that I think the Tektons are bad, so thanks for alerting me to this, and I will be as considerate as possible in the future. I would not make such a pronouncement, mainly since I have not heard them at all. I just ask that everyone here try to provide as much useful objective information as they can, within the limits of their time. I have not heard WC's particular model of the Magico either, but since WC provided much useful information about them and he has a long track record of consistently honest and careful listening, I trust and go by his observations. It would be great if everyone can aspire to his level of disclosure. This thread is great because many people do just that.
It isn’t just one or two people that think so. Read the Tekton Double Impact thread. I believe the Double Impacts to be some of the very best conduits for your gear and equipment,
that i have heard,
I think there are several others on this thread who would agree. I did not say that they are The Best.I said that for the Money that the cost, i think they are the best Value ...The best performance for your dollar spent. I can hear a difference of when i change . .. for example the rectifier tubes in myMcIntosh MC30s or when i change the ouput Tubes (6L6GC) from Svetlana to the GE 6L6GC from the 1960s . I can hear a Major difference when i change the Telefunken 12AX7 in V1 to the Mullard 12AX7. I can hear spekaer cable and Interconnect cable changes , Very easily, AND I think most everyone on this thread could hear it if they were here listening Most of these are minor sound changes , but I can hear them with the DI speakers and my Mid-Fi McIntosh Mx151 and MC30 tube Amps.
grey9hound, yes, I have read a lot of the Tekton thread, but as WC says, reviews are tainted by politics and advertisers. That's what makes WC's comments so refreshing. So I would appreciate your personal observations with more observations.. Like you, I believe in value related to sound/dollar at any level. For example, I believe the still expensive Martin Logan CLX offers extraordinary value compared to the big Neo, although the proof of that would have to come from a careful A/B of both. Right now, I have about 40 hours on the Mytek Brooklyn Amp. The sound is excellent in comparison to many far more expensive amps I have tried, and it represents superb value at $2K retail. More observations to come.
@viber6 I am not one to promote something just because own it The Double Impact speakers are very revealing ,especially of component changes. The speakers are highly detailed with good to great Bass depending on your amp, pre and cabling.The have outstanding separation of instruments and . They can sound forward if your setup sound forward .They can sound laid back , if your setup is laid back. I am using Purist Audio Dominus Fluid Interconnects and Dominus fluid power cords with my McIntosh gear. With that being said the Tektons in my room with Lyngdorf Room correction sound very well balanced with great Deep bass and bass definition and maybe slightly laid back . I think the slightly laid back sound is mainly due to the Purist Audio Fluid shielded cables and the MAC gear. This also allows you to be able to Really crank it up without being overwhelmed or having a presentation that feels like it is "Screaming" at you at high SPL levels. The Double Impacts for me, are the BEST Audio purchase, that I have ever made.
My take on preamp vs amps 2018 technology. I don’t think it is harder to make a good preamp than a good amp. 10 years ago I would have agreed, but not now. Dacs and preamps have evolved the most in the last 10 years.( speakers and amps much less so)
It is easy to see sota integrated amplifiers that rivals separates like never before. Why, because it is the preamplifing section that has evolved...smaller and better ...less cost for the maker. Living example:
I had a 2006 Ayre combo...the K5xe mp and V5xe. I sold it and remplaced it with a Hegel H160 integrated that was obviously better... I also this a test with the Ayre combo, I borrowed a friends Yulong DA8 Dac to use it as a remplacement preamp of the K5xe mp.... Wow I could not believe my ears, much clearer, better prat , better resolution with the little Yulong. So it s easy to conclude that preamp technology in the Yulong dac is better than the old preamp technology in the Ayre K5xe mp. My point has been proven with a tangible living example.
@grey9hound & @viber6, The larger Tektons using 15 tweeters are able to crossover the midrange at 300 Hz to the tweeter array and using cones only up to that point, a frequency very close to where the ML Monoliths crossover is to their electrostatic element. I have a pair of DIs in my system which cross the 7 tweeter array in at 600 Hz, and in 2 minutes the increase in vocal detail was noticeable to me and my wife compared to our previous speakers, a great buy at $3000 and a market disruptor at that price point IMHO.
grey9hound, Thanks for your further assessment of the Tektons. I read the reviews, and can say that your comments are the most useful, in part due to the honest tone set by WC on this thread. I agree with you that anyone considering dynamic speakers at any price should be mindful of the Tektons. I also endorse your ideas about room correction, even though I never tried the Lyngdorf. I will go a step further, and now reveal my most controversial idea yet, which will earn HOWLS of protest and derision by many sanctimonious purists here. Drumroll.... The absolute necessity of an equalizer. I have been using my $600 Rane ME60 equalizer for 23 years now for both recording and home listening. It is a stereo 32 band 1/3 octave from 20 to 20,000 Hz, with each of 32 bands adjustable from minus 12 to plus 12 dB. The newer model has a choice of 2 curves centered on any band and another adjustment of minus 6 to plus 6. It is old fashioned analog but widely adjustable as you can see. I started recording my orchestra without the EQ. The hall is a medical school small auditorium, and the stage a small boxy affair not designed to fit an orchestra, but just a lecturer and a few things. When the conductor noted that my recording sounded heavy and dead, I then tried the equalizer, cut the overblown bass and boosted the highs. All very tastefully done, not with the aid of instrumentation, just by ear. After that, everyone was astonished at the clarity and impact. Nobody accused me of sound manipulation or thought the sound was artificial. At home for playback of commercial recordings that are usually recorded to give a more distant perspective than the close one I prefer (although the commercial perspective is still much closer than a typical audiophile likes who goes for the midhall sound), I boost the highs which makes the more laid-back recorded perspective sound more like the exciting sound I hear from being on stage immersed in everything. This works because high freq are the ones most drastically lost due to distance, so I compensate. Also, when I play my violin, the sound under my ear is MUCH more detailed than most any listener hears from a distance. I can skillfully equalize most recordings of solo violin to sound like what I hear under my ear. Your sound preferences may differ from mine, but you can experiment with the equalizer to get the sound you like. If anyone says that all this is manipulating sound and making it arbitrary or artificial, I say you all are doing just that with flavoring your particular soup with different preamps, cables, cartridges, different tubes, caps, fuses, etc. Most manipulations of sound are by speaker designers who make their personal choice of colorations and tradeoffs that THEY like. The next biggest sinners are recording engineers with their arbitrary choices, especially with processed rock/pop music. For ultimate sonic thrills, sit with me on stage or hear an outdoor unamplified performance up real close. Aside from that, which is what we are all forced to do with our commercial recordings, adjust the playback with the equalizer to what you like. For those of you who respect my sincerity, I can assure you that small tweaks of the EQ sliders will make much more of a difference in the sound than the differences between many amplifiers. If I were a shady audio salesman, I can get the customer to like any particular amp best, depending on a subtle EQ adjustment, all tastefully done to make it not obvious. Without my Rane EQ, there is no amplifier at any price that will give me the musical satisfaction I would get with the EQ and many modest amps. I still appreciate the better accuracy of a better amp, but this still is using the amp WITH the EQ. Another benefit is that my Rane has a volume control which enables me to get rid of the preamp. At the time I got the Rane, I was using the Spectral DMC gamma preamp, but the Rane electronics set to flat (no EQ use) was more revealing and transparent than the Spectral, so I happily dumped the Spectral. Bypass tests showed that the Rane is very transparent. Go try to find a totally transparent line stage preamp, but the point is moot because I consider the EQ a necessity to get the sound you really want. The only sacrifice I make is that the Rane is not a control unit, so I have to unplug to get another source. For those who feel that a preamp is necessary to get better dynamics (although they will admit that transparency and information retrieval is sacrificed more than a little), that's OK, just insert the EQ either before or after the preamp. You'll still get the benefits I describe here.
klh007, thanks for your interesting observation about the tweeters of Tektons. I feel that dynamic tweeters are inherently superior to larger midrange and LF drivers, because they are smaller and more sensitive, lower mass, etc. BIGGER is often WORSE, as in size of drivers. So it is clear that much of the midrange is more accurately handled by the better tweeter, if you have enough tweeters to get the dynamics required. Dynamic tweeters can have electrostatic clarity, but forget about dynamic drivers for comparable midrange clarity. In this case, the several tweeters extend the electrostatic-like clarity into the midrange, so it is appropriate and interesting that you make an analogy with the ML hybrid stat.
Interesting discussion guys. Lotd of great information being shared which is what this thread is all about. As far as Tektons, I did look at the website and read a few reviews. Very interesting brand which could be an option down the road. That said, I want to make people aware that I have to keep my budget spread across different pieces. I can’t put 75% of it into speakers and the other 25% in amps, preamps and sources. For right now I want to keep going with the magico. That said, I want to share what my definition of neutral is based on my experience. Neutral: I think of it as any component that does not add or take away from what is being fed to it. It has no character of its own and this gives it somewhat of an analytical sound to it that many times could actually make you feel like they have no character. Perfect speaker would be the revel salon 2. That speaker sounded anemic when I first owned them and I didn’t know why. I tried many things to fix its lack of bass then many months later I got a second pair and by then I had a better front end. I was using the ref6 as a preamp and I think a pass labs amp or something like it. I recall I wasn’t ever happy with its bass and then I got my hands on the ref10 for the first time and all of a sudden I was hearing bass I didn’t hear before. I felt the room pressurize etc. I will never forget that Point is that neutral components do have a special place but quite often they are so rough dial them to sound how you want. A lot of work goes into this. I personally don’t like neutral amps too much. This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t try them but I rather not because they never seem engage me.
WC, i'm not stirring anything up. i enjoy this hobby..to a fault for sure.
my wife can watch standard definition tv and not blink an eye.
she can listen to a boom box and dance and enjoy the music.
me?
if it ain't OLED HD and high end audio gear then i ain't watchin' or listenin'....
honestly, back as a teen when i discovered my first stereophile magazine i became obsessed in trying to hear the music that i loved the best way that i could.
Viber6, I totally agree with you. I have what I consider a relatively high end system, and I employ a Manley Massive Passive Tube EQ in my setup as well. Some recordings just need a little help from time to time. It’s all about the enjoyment factor to me. If you have the most neutral, or revealing system, but don’t enjoy the “not so well recorded music”, that you love, what’s the sense?
Alright ladies and gentleman: in order to satisfy the audiophile that can’t afford the 2301s or 200.8s, I have purchased a pair of bhk 300s Monos. They will be here Friday. Are you all ready ? Ps audio bhk300 vs McIntosh 2301s will be the first shoot out.
@WCSS, Sounds like a good idea to keep the Magicos for now. Revel Ultra Salon 2 also would be my choice as well. Of course, you got me thinking about what the Martin Logan 15a would sound like with that MAC 2301 combo. PS Audio, well, you will have them to get to the bottom of how they sound. Very excited that you got to meet the owner of Suncoast Audio. I have not met him (live in North Florida), I would like to have some time with him. I like his take on this thread.
WC, I believe you’ll find the BHK to be a very good value and worthy amplifier (possibly competitive with the incoming Pass Labs 200,8). My gut feeling is that neither will equal the level of realism and naturalness you’re hearing from the MAC 2301. Based purely on your written description this amplifier and the Magico is quite an impressive pairing (within the context of your overall system synergy ). You have used the term "real" several times in regard to the sound quality of the MAC 2301. I find this to be a very positive and revealing outcome of its overall impact. Charles
WC, excellent choice to get the BHK monos. The reviews describe them as accurate with a hint of sweetness due to a tube stage, which you will probably like in order to take the edge off the hot tweeter of the Magico for some recordings. For accuracy and information retrieval, I think the ultimate shootout will be the BHK/LuxM900u and possibly any Dag. See if you can get the original Rane ME60 equalizer which I think is more neutral/transparent than the later model. I can assure you that if there are small or even moderate tonal differences between any of these amp contenders, the differences will be swamped by small tweaks on the Rane. With RCA inputs, the maximum gain on the Rane is about 1 (0 dB), but with balanced inputs, the available gain is 4 (6 dB), much more than 6 dB on the newer model, so it will be fascinating for you to try the Rane, experience the wide flexibility in flavoring your recordings any way you like, from subtle to big differences. Set to flat, you will find that using the Rane as a line stage is very transparent. Eliminating your preamp will be a revelation for information retrieval. The Rane is sold in pro audio stores very cheaply, and it an outrage that this cheap pro audio unit is more transparent than a lot of audiophile electronics, which are marketed and sold at exorbitant prices to ignorant, gullible audiophiles with little musical background. I'll go further to say that using the Rane, you could get the Focal Sopra 3 to sound like the Magico, and vice versa. I know you sold the Focal, but you get my point. The differences with the Rane are that important and life-changing. The Rane will still reveal the tube nature of the Mac2301 and the refined SS nature of the other SS amps you are trying. If you really want fun, the Rane is it. Thanks to robc33, the Manley EQ is another option.
robc33, thanks for mentioning the Manley EQ. We ought to encourage everyone to get interested in EQ and see what products on the market to try. They can be used tastefully for tweaking, or used as major surgery to correct bigger problems. No need for expensive room correction software products--just use your ears with the far simpler and much more flexible EQ units. It takes time to tweak and listen, but the nice thing is that the learning curve is your own preferences, not trying to understand someone else's manual and frustrating software problems. This is so much fun, which should appeal to any audiophile who wants to tailor his sound in so many ways, big or small.
whitecamaross OP924 posts08-29-2018 10:38pmAlright ladies and gentleman: in order to satisfy the audiophile that can’t afford the 2301s or 200.8s, I have purchased a pair of bhk 300s Monos. They will be here Friday. Are you all ready ? Ps audio bhk300 vs McIntosh 2301s will be the first shoot out.
I say the Mc2301s will win out easily because of their "Realness". The BHK300 will win out on Bass and Dynamics , but Give me the Realism That is what you get with tubes and especially mac tubes... Realism
Viber , I find your EQ opinion strongly valid. ( and before I would have never considered an eq in my system as I was a stubborn purist). This thread has opened my eyes ( and ears lol). Since I have tasted the tone controls in my Mac preamp, I would not live without them !
So my recommandation to users looking for a new integrated or preamplifier, go with something like Accuphase, Luxman, McIntosh, etc. They all have EQs or tone controls that are always bypassable. Once you get a taste of this, you cannot go back.
greyhound, my vote also goes to the 2301s ( vs the BHK 300). But again WC is in for a very interesting experience comparing both, and trying the 300s on his Magicos.
techno_dude, congratulations on your conversion to our EQ religion. But unlike religious wars, you can EQ any way you like, either subtle or in a major way. I agree that standard tone controls are very useful, although I think that professional grade EQ's like the Rane are much more flexible with so many more options. For example, if I want an even more analytic dry sound with maximum detail, I will cut the range of 200-800 Hz by about 2-3 dB and keep the highs unchanged, instead of boosting the highs more. If I wanted a more creamy midrange, I would do the opposite and boost the range of 200-800. There are so many possibilities according to your experimentation by ear. Cut 200-400 by 1 dB and cut 400-800 by 3 dB, etc. These settings are not set in stone. They will vary according to the music, particular amp, speaker, although I generally sit tight and don't change settings often since I am satisfied these days. The purists go crazy and even I don't know precisely what I am doing and am creating many overlapping curves because I am not using a spectrum analyzer, but who cares, as long as I am listening carefully and get the sound I want. Maybe I can't do a sex change operation and convert the SS amp into a tube amp, but how about creating a 55%male/45% female or 30% tube/70% SS type of sound? No problem, completely legal, and no audiophile social stigma attached to that! As RIAA says, who cares what other people think, as long as you satisfy yourself. Also, you don't have to pester the speaker designer to change the crossovers or the balance of the drivers. Just EQ the whole thing for yourself. Tremendous empowerment is yours. Yeah, man!!
mikepaul, interesting question about audiophile happiness. Even though I have done a lot of work on the system, I now sit back and listen and am happy with what I have worked for. But I have been to lots of live concerts in the past few years and I am unhappy with a lot of what I hear LIVE. I want to get the seat in the middle of the first row, and am not happy with the duller sound from further back if I can't get my choice seat. If I am able to buy a ticket in the 10th row, I look for closer seats and scramble closer in the last few seconds until the lights are out. Even in that best seat in the first row, I still finds lots of things to criticize from an audio point of view. I am actually happier listening at home, although I admit that my sound is still not quite natural like the real thing. So at the concert, I accept the faulty sound and just enjoy the music itself. There is an obvious parallel to your relationship with your mate. She is not perfect, but hopefully she possesses a combination of attributes that make you happy. I also enjoy music in the car, and listening to music on youtube in crummy sound. The great legendary musicians in 1930 sound are more enjoyable than many of today's young musicians in SOTA sound.
@viber6 I play in orchestras, and it's true that there is no comparison between a recording and the being *inside* a live orchestra. The sound in the audience is much duller. You're right to find the closest possible seat, preferably in the middle, but there is not a huge difference side to side - you'll get a difference balance, but it'll still sound wonderful. I've never heard a recording that captured the sound from within the orchestra properly. For those of you obsesses with old recordings of orchestras, it's just so far from reality I don't know what to say. The closest are some of the recent recordings of Chicago, Philly, and Boston. I'll also give a nod to the recent Mahler 9 by Los Angeles. But even these high quality recordings still don't quite capture it.
The EQ in JRiver Media Center works very well ,also. As an aside I am also using Pandora Plus through a Roku Ultra (HDMI out ) to the OPPO UDP 203 (HDMI in). I am also sending everything that comes from the Oppo UDP 203, using the (Audio Only HDMI out of the 203) into the McIntosh MX151 for the D to A conversion. This way I get the Benefit of having only 1 digital to Analog conversion being done. Of course anything that goes through the MX151 gets the Lygndorf Room Perfect applied. I do not know what the format or bitrate is from Pandora Plus , BUT, this is an amazingly good sound Oh I almost forgot , The HDMI cables are the Purist Audio Design HDMI In the previous setup i was using Purist Audio Ultimate USB, but found the HDMI to be slightly better sounding
as well as the having the ability to carry any digital format or signal. The cost for the USB is $900 and the HDMI is $200
Ok I just ordered Wireworld silver eclipse 8 speaker cables and balanced cables. That being said, here is what my system consists of today: 1. Magico s5 mk2 2. McIntosh mc2301 3. ARC REF10 4. Esoteric K1 5. Ps audio p20 6. Wireworld silver 7 xlrs And speaker cables 7. Wireworld platinum usb 8. Wireworld eclipse 7 Ethernet cable 9. Wireworld silver eclipse 7 power cords 10. MacBook Pro 9. Tidal with roon 10. Dual 20 amp outlets
That being said, out of all the systems I’ve owned, this is the most real sounding I’ve put together. I don’t recall anything sounding this real that I lived with. APPROXIMATE Msrp of $150,000 dollars.
grey9hound, Thanks for informing me about your digital/internet EQ. How much does all that cost? Whatever it costs, it is worth it and is likely a much more productive investment than $50,000 or so in amps. I am still in the dark ages with my cheapo Rane ME60, but it works so well and is almost infinitely adjustable by hand. The Rane electronics is so good that being analog all the way as a preamp with its EQ is great. The simplification mentioned by techno_dude is also a good way to go, if he is really good at fine tuning his tone controls. My present setup is the CD transport going into the Benchmark DAC1, then analog output of the Benchmark into the Rane EQ with its crude dual mono volume controls all the way up, then into my amp. Volume is adjustable via the Benchmark DAC. As an aside, I am worried about the coming 5G. I don't want wifi at home, and am studying which meters to buy to assess my bedroom, which probably must be shielded from EMF pollution.
WC, wonderful to get a good taste of reality for a small (gulp?) fortune. Try the Rane ME60 for a few hundred bucks, or the suggestions of robc33 and grey9hound for other EQ systems. If you love tubes, the Manley tube EQ mentioned by robc33 may be the best way to go. You might be able to do without the ARC preamp, and wind up with fully flexible sound that will do EVERYTHING you like EVEN BETTER. I am very confident about all this.
I'll quote you here. "Maybe I can't do a sex change operation and convert the SS amp into a tube amp, but how about creating a 55%male/45% female or 30% tube/70% SS type of sound? No problem, completely legal, and no audiophile social stigma attached to that! As RIAA says, who cares what other people think, as long as you satisfy yourself..... Just EQ the whole thing for yourself. Tremendous empowerment is yours."
Totally agreed. I really is about how you want to hear the music. For crying out loud, this is why we do this thing, because of the pleasure we receive. Thanks for sharing all the EQ comments.
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.
