My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
ron177" I remember a while back you mentioning not to mix class A or A/B amps with class D amps in a HT setup" That is a silly, unilateral, arbitrary recommendation, guidance, and claim it is based on fantasy, whimsey, and a need by the claimant to appear expert, discriminating, and knowledgeable it makes no sense it is laughable on its face, premise and basis as you have now discovered, learned, and revealed. |
lol...that sounds about right. Maybe that's why they had so many issues and had to be bought out. So have you ever experimented mixing the 2 classes of amps in a HT setting? I first had a Classe CA 5100 (class A/B) amp driving my center and surround channels then switched to their Amp 5 (class D) amp and couldn't tell much difference. When used as a music amp (powering the front L & R channels) there was a big difference (the CA 5100 sounded way better) but for center and surround channels the Amp 5 integrates nicely with my Sim 870a. |
Class d amps are the way to go with home theater. They are as good as any solid state amp unless you’re talking a serious amp like a Plinius Odeon. That’s a different league. One last thing, I do remember someone selling the ati class d to go back to ati signature. He said he didn’t like it with his revel salon 2s. Too bright sounding. Again, this was him using class d for his front speakers in order to listen to music too. That said, I can only imagine what a home theater would sound like if it had Krell 900e Monos for each of the 11 channels. :) the electric bill and the heat would be serious though. |
| Post removed |
WC, a few months ago I spoke to an ATI tech about the difference in sound between the class AB signature and class D Ncore models. He said they were very close, with perhaps the class D sounding brighter. On the other hand, Kalman Rubinson in Stereophile said the ATI 524 class D sounded more mellow and likable to him than his Classe Sigma Monos, which is strange since I personally had the Classe D200 for a long trial period. The D200 is a similar design to the Sigma and sounded warm and reasonably detailed the way you have described Classe house sound. Such disparities in reviews shows why home listening for yourself is a must. It is hard to generalize about class D characteristics, since they vary from warm to sterile, depending on so many other factors in their implementation. |
ricred1, The fact that your ATI523 works well with the mighty Rowland 625 S2 in your whole HT suggests that the ATI may have similar tonal and resolution qualities to the Rowland. Maybe you can try just 2 channels and see how the ATI compares to the Rowland to get a more complete idea of the relative characteristics. That would be a fascinating thing to report here, in view of the vast price difference. |
Kal Rubinson is currently using 3 Monoblock BENCHMARK AHB2's with a Audio Research MP-1 Pre-Amp (And a Stereo Amp) for his 5.1 Multi Channel system. Many people use Multi Channel just for Music since many titles from the 70's have been coming out in their original Quadrophonic Mixes. Lots of great 5.1 still coming out as well. Duttonvocalion.co.uk.store has been putting out tons of Quad Mixes recently for Classic Rock, Classical, R+B titles. |
Whitecamaross, We integrated our stereo into a home theater system, with an emphasis on stereo. We have two Pass XA-200.5's (mains) and three Pass X-250.5's (sides, center/sub, rears) with Meridian 800 digital electronics and Wilson speakers. Regarding the heat - it's nothing our central A/C can't handle. Regarding the sound quality, when I took our family to the movie theater - our 2 children both said wow once the show started. I impulsively asked them if everything was OK - and if they like the gigantic screen? They both said they were amazed on how good our home theater sounds! Me, I enjoy music and reading your reviews. Keep up the good work and thanks for your insights :-) |
RIAA, I had the Benchmark AHB2 at home for a 60 day trial, used as stereo. I loved the sound quality, as it was very close to my Bryston 2.5B SST2. I didn't buy it, because it shut down at surprisingly low volume into my unusual load of 2 parallel stereo electrostatic speakers, which go down to 1 ohm with weird phase angles. I had thought the high power specs of the Benchmark would give me the required power, but the home trial showed otherwise. I asked Benchmark if I could strap them in mono to get much more power, but they said no, because the strapped monos would be even more intolerant of very low impedance loads. For most people with dynamic speakers of much higher efficiency and more comfortable loads than my electrostatics, either a single stereo or strapped mono Benchmark AHB2 would work very well, with fabulous accurate/neutral sound quality. For stereo/mono at retail $3k/6k, a great bargain. Incidentally, my Bryston 2.5B SST2 sounded quite different from the 4B SST2 at home, despite company assertion that all the models of that design sound the same except for power. Another example of the importance of home audition in your own system. |
WC, come to think of it, I believe that strapped mono Benchmark AHB2's at $6k retail would give you just about everything you value--good power, superb accuracy with no HF harshness, superb neutrality with a slight hint of warmth (at least compared to my Bryston 2.5B SST2), the lowest distortion and noise specs in the industry. This is truly a sleeper, but pretty popular among the informed cognoscenti. When you are ready, you could get a 60 day no risk trial through Music Direct, or a 30 day trial through the company direct, or if you got a great deal for used, I don't think you would have any trouble selling them because they are rarely seen on the used market since they are keepers to most people. Also, you could keep them as cheap references for a long time. |
When running stereo amps in bridged mono mode (like the Benchmark AHB2 amps) the load impedance seen by the amplifier is effectively halved. So for example if you're running an extremely low 1 ohm load as Viber6 is, bridged AHB2 amps would effectively be driving a 0.5 ohm load. So while the higher power may be an advantage in some setups it should be taken into account with the lower effective impedance and the requisite higher current demands. |
Viber6: I haven't heard the Krell and DAG amps side by side. That, really is the only true way (matching levels of course) to make a determination realistically. However, I can say that the newer Krells are more open and not nearly as bright as the older Krells I've heard. That was always my complaint about Krells in the past. However, the D'Agostino amps, to me, are very open, clean, detailed and not at all sounding "solid state". What ever that means. They are some of the best amps I have heard. along with Audio Research REF 250SE, REF 750, VTL, Jeff Rowland, and some others. As I wrote in another post here, the D'Agostino/Martin Logan Neolith combination at the 2018 RMAF was one of the very best sounding rooms there. There were a few rooms that were just outstanding. I have to take WhiteCamaross' evaluations with a grain of salt also, because as he mentioned, he is limited by the ability or perceived ability to resale certain equipment. Therefore, he is reluctant to purchase certain equipment for that reason. So, no D'Agostino amps, no Audio Research REF250SE (yet). and no, the Audio Research amp he did listen to, wasn't close to the REF250SE amp. With a REF 10 pre-amp and the REF250SE, that was one of the very best sounding systems I have every heard. The good thing is that some people are letting him "borrow" their equipment for evaluation purposes. That is nice. Anyway, sorry for digressing. It is difficult to find stores that carry Krell. I don't know why. So, it is difficult to hear them much less take them home for an in-home demo. But, the newer Krells I have heard are quite nice, but the D'Agostino is in another world. In my opinion. I would grab them in an instant if the money was right. enjoy |
minorl, Thanks for your honest description of the sound character of the Dag, which is consistent with a well-established NY dealer's observations. It seems that you have heard the Dag at shows or dealers, but not at home. Correct me if I am wrong. The best opportunity to audition current Krells at home risk free would be through Music Direct or Audio Advisor. The Music Room in Colorado always has used Krells for sale, with a 45 day free trial. The last big one was the top of the line Solo 575 monos for under $10K (retail $22K)--they were snatched up in only a few weeks after listing. I learned about Music Room from A-gon. Their buy direct prices are a little lower than the asking prices here on A-gon. They are classy people to deal with. |
Hahahah thanks Ron. Send me the link. I Haven’t ventured into more tube amps because of the heat and maintenance. I do love tubes. I can’t deny I love they make music. Ron, I may have you ship me the 870a and I’ll ship you a 900u when I get one. This way we both don’t have to pay any money to demo them. Don’t be shocked if you love the 900u lol. |
| Post removed |
viber6 said : mrdecibel, thanks for relating your experience. Because of that, your views have clout and command respect, notably your integration of "objectivity, subjectivity, participant, experience."....."For the record, minorl and grey9hound had the only intelligent and worthwhile responses to my last admittedly long post ". These are both on page 67 of this thread.......What does this tell you about viber6 ? Oh, and his Rane EQ. I have one, it is ok. It has horrible input level controls. It’s chassis is the most resonant I have encountered ( all pro eqs are ), and it certainly does not have the cleanliness of my Luminous Audio Axiom II Walker Mod unit ( yes, I compared it ). But, in no way do I feel he is spoiling the party here, as WC is fine with it, so am I. Enjoy ! MrD. |
bill_k; do you recall which Boulder amp WC used? and also the speakers. I know (in my opinion) that Boulder (although quite nice) are very overpriced, so it is a wonder that WC managed to off-load the Boulder amp and recover his costs. If you can't remember, no worries, I will go back and re-read the several thousand posts. Laugh. enjoy |
@minorl - After some advanced searches of this thread, I found that it was the Boulder 2060 and related discussion started on this page. Initial impressions were very favorable as I recalled, stating it had the best bass, control, midrange, etc. along with incredible speed and dynamics. Then it seems WC considered getting a Boulder 2010 preamp to best match with it but apparently that never came to be. Later on he did some group comparisons of various preamp/amp combos and reported "Anyhow, we all agreed that the boulder 2060 just sounds lifeless, clinical, analytical and it is probably in need of either its matching preamp or just a pair of Rockport speakers which we all know has synergy with it." Later on he spoke with a Boulder dealer who claimed that the magic would be with the 2050 mono amps, and then I didn't see much continued interest in Boulder from that point forward. Hope this helps... I know trying to find specific references in such a lengthy thread can be frustrating and very time consuming! |
mrdecibel, Thanks for mentioning the Luminous Audio Passive Preamp. I hope many here will try this or other passive preamps. Did you try any of the units from Music First? The MF was very transparent and I couldn't hear any difference in repeated bypass tests after an hour of trial at someone else's place. Most people will say that an active line stage with gain delivers more dynamics, but along with that comes electronic veiling of details and other distortions. But I find the Rane ME 60 EQ a must for tastefully tailoring sound to your preferences. As you know as a musician, all speakers, electronics and recordings suck in different ways, so the typical audiophile sanctimonious shunning of EQ is not a pragmatic approach to getting the most out of your music the way you want it. I agree that the Rane input level control knobs are crude, so I keep them untouched at maximum clockwise, where the gain is about unity for RCA and 6 dB for XLR. I use my decent volume control on the Benchmark Pre 1 DAC. You could try inserting your Rane between your Luminous preamp and the power amp. This way you use the excellent switching function and volume control of the Luminous. And whatever electronic artifacts are introduced by the Rane, they are less than probably all but very expensive line stages, and the benefits of EQ vastly outweigh any artifacts introduced. Ever notice how some 1940 vocal recordings can sound wonderful? That comes from skillful close miking and EQ. Mercury Living Presence recordings from the late 1950's sound immediate and exciting due to HF boost in EQ, which is obvious but the whole effect is great if you can forgive the manipulation. If you don't like the results, just EQ to undo the effect to your taste. |
Boulder 2060: incredible construction and unmatched in that regard. Huge power and control but it lacks a wow factor. I think of their amps as the same effect a boiled chicken Breast has on your taste buds without any condiments.... I prefer condiments in my food, whether it be tomatoes, onions, salsa etc. Boulder simply didn’t make me want to keep researching for its matching preamp. I can’t see myself going back to boulder and with Magico it probably is awful sounding. I prefer 2 Luxman 900u over the boulder 2060. |
WC, You have a nice thread here, and most folks are trying to enjoy it and discuss equipment. I think the only unfortunate thing is when folks make judgments on others, i.e. saying whether their posts are qualified or not, etc, as well as name calling, like snowflake, etc - all of which leads to arguments. I saw that you mentioned "...the thread has derailed" and "turned into arguments" on the previous page and that you put some of the blame on yourself. My recommendation, since you are the OP, is to let folks know if there’s discussion you would prefer for them to take elsewhere. I know you are super nice though and probably do not want to get into it with anyone. Looking forward to your next step in the journey, as well as the equipment discussions in the meantime. Dave |
thezaks, Dave, I am glad you had positive experiences with your Rane EQ. In my view, it is essential for any type or quality of music or music system. It gives you the utmost in tailoring the sound to your tastes, as I have said. In my case it has eliminated the need for a preamp, with big benefits in eliminating the electronic veiling of preamps as well as the cost. When I want another source, I just unplug. Whatever slight distortions of the Rane ME 60 electronics are vastly outweighed by the utility of the EQ capability. I like the original model of the ME 60 better for its transparency, even though the EQ curves in the later model are more advanced. So what, because you can use the 30 band 1/3 octave adjustments to your taste anyway. For 5 channel HT, you could get 3 stereo Rane units, or get 1-2 units for the front L+R or L+center+R, respectively, and not bother with the 2 rear channels. Any way will give you so much benefit. I paid $600 retail for my unit 22 years ago. Reverb.com is a source for used pro equipment. Enjoy! |
WC, I understand and respect your preference for flavoring your music the way you want. I do the same with my EQ, but I want an amp that is colorless and reveals the most info. The Boulder is an example of that, which I have never heard but take your word for it. I am also open to discovering another EQ whose electronics are as revealing as possible. That is not boring but instead is exciting if you love your music revealed in all its glory. I'm not sure your analogy of the plain boiled chicken is apt. If the music has the naturally delicious colors and mild or pungent spices, the accurate amp will reveal it all, so it won't be an unflavored chicken. What you might be doing is flavoring the music on top of what has been already flavored by the chef. Taste the chef's dish first, then add your own flavor if you think you can do better. In most cases, a great chef knows best. Experience the music the way the artist/engineers intended it, first. |
I just googled it, and Guitar Center has a used Rane ME 60 for $89.99. Honestly, I think it would be cool for WC to pick that up and give it a shot. I know the Audiophile thinking is often that less electronics in the signal path is better, but for that price, WC could experiment while waiting for the next leg of the journey. All up to WC, of course, but there's really not any risk here. Dave |
viber6, my Rane ME60, as I used it years ago, was for room acoustics ( single ended only ). The newer version did away with single ended, making the need for using xlr / rca adapters. I do not like the sound of adapters. I use them, sadly, with all my pro amps ( male 1/4 inch to female rca. I never though of using the eq instead of a preamp, until I read about it through your posts. I tried it, as a preamp, and found it to be just ok, and this was with all of the controls centered. I no longer have the high end ss preamp I had, so cannot compare to it ( a few system changes ). The Luminous unit is awesome. I will do my resonance control mods to the the Rane ( I do them to most of my equipment ), but never did it with the eq. I will try it, after my mods, as a preamp, but I am sure it will still not be clean enough for me. Because of that, it is not likely I will connect it after the passive, with yet another inter connect. I am quite happy with my system, and, feel the recording and mastering quality of my recordings have been well done. Listening to Jethro Tull recently, I know eq could have helped, but what I listen for is " the musicianship ", more than anything else; ie. the tightness of the band. I know, you know what I am talking about. It amazes me the work, and ears, of all the studio engineers getting this right. I do feel bad posting this on WCs's thread, but I believe it is all related. Anyway, that is it, for now. WC, continue on your journey. My hope, is you find the system that stops you from looking at other pieces of gear, and allows you to listen, happily. Always, and Enjoy ! MrD. |
I'll chime in to provide some additional perspective on (WC's) statements throughout this thread on the importance of selecting/auditioning new components that have synergy with the rest of your system as well that the audition include a selection of corresponding high quality cables. I auditioned the Luxman C900 pre. to try to take my system forward competing with an ARC 5SE. I did not change any cables and the 5SE clearly bested the C900 where WC reported that the C900 bested the Ref 6 in his findings. I made another pass with three HQ cables and two other amps and the differences were clear when items were changed, however, the 5SE still was the clear winner in my set-up. If you dont have the right combo of components it is likely you won't get the results you are seeking. |
gtaphile, " the importance of selecting/auditioning new components that have synergy with the rest of your system as well that the audition include a selection of corresponding high quality cables." It took me a long time to get to that point and understand "we" put too much emphasis on individual components. Ultimately the sound is a combination of all of the components in the system; therefore a "preamp", "speaker", or any other component can be preferred in one system and not another. |
mrdecibel, We agree on most points. I would say that your Luminous or any other high quality passive preamp such as Music First is a better conduit than the electronics of our Rane. I just want to emphasize the importance of EQ for music reproduction optimization. Done right, using your ears, EQ enhances the musical tightness of a group, etc. Studio engineers often do a great job, but any audiophile who disagrees with their choices can do the EQ for a particular recording, electronics or speaker that they could improve. Personally, I think speakers show the most deviations from natural instruments, so EQ is most important for that. EQ can be used for room correction, but the full flexible use of EQ goes way beyond room correction. I also don't like the peculiar inputs of the later Rane which require adapters. The sound of the later Rane electronics is more colored than the original I bought, so it is in my closet. Our little discussion of this topic is certainly directly relevant to this thread, because many people have spent big money changing amps, etc., when simple and judicious EQ would enable many more preferences than the differences between amps. It is about the net/total end result of all the components, not just individual things like amps, etc. |
WC, I think I've got a better food analogy that I hope you find useful. People do comparative wine tasting, but if this is done after adding sugar to each wine, they all taste like sugar, or the ability to discriminate is lessened. Another analogy would be the chef who is creating many types of flavorings from sweet to sour/bitter. I don't know much about culinary arts, but I would think he would start with a neutral sauce and then modify the flavor according to the concept of the dish. He doesn't start with a sweet sauce, because then the ability to modify it is limited. Back to music--we like a variety of tonalities, ranging from the sweet sound of a soft female singer to the trumpet which can sound soft and mellow but nasty and strident when blasted. It is best to start with a neutral sauce or system, and then see how much variety of tone colors you can get from different music. Guido may be right that the Boulder is a poor example of accuracy and neutrality. I have never heard it and certainly am not advocating it, but the goal should be to start with accurate, neutral, well balanced electronics. You already have such a speaker, the Magico. You have your best chances of long term success if all the components are that way, because then the variety of tonal qualities will be most appreciated. |
