My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!
thezaks, Great find on the used Rane. Yes, I agree with the audiophile thinking is that less electronics is best, which is why I value the elimination of the preamp in my system. The EQ is a separate issue which I think is most useful. I look forward to hearing how it works out in your HT--you can eliminate the preamp. |
I was about to sell my Magico speakers and pick up alexias or another pair of Martin Logan 15a until I turned on my music today after not listening for a few days and I said “nah I can’t do it. Not ready for it “ could I use more bass? Sure but THAT is WHY I’m going to be trying more amplification with these. My take is that if all of a sudden my bass got deeper and tighter with a new set of amps, this means the amp is great at controlling the woofers of the Magico S5 mk2. It will be easy to hear these changes with these speakers. You’ll hear bass that they never gave you before and that’s going to be easy to perceive. As far as boulder, incredible looks and construction but the sound is just weird to me. It’s like watching a 4K movie with your colors all the way down and with no wow factor either. I can promise that if we had a shoot out of a boulder 2060 vs a pair of Luxman 900u, 9 out of 10 would choose the Luxman. By the way, the ref6 and Luxman 900u are both awesome but the Luxman always sounded best with its own amps. The ref6 will sound better with more systems than the 900u preamp. |
WC, I have not heard all the Wilsons or Magicos or Martin Logans, but I have heard examples of each. There is little doubt that for dynamic speakers, your Magico is hard to beat. Sure, its bass may be quantitatively less than other speakers like the Focal Sopra or several Wilsons, but its quality/accuracy is probably closer to the natural truth, according to your descriptions. Just appreciate its virtues and tolerate its deficiencies, although if I heard it I would probably say the accurate bass is one of its assets. I would be careful in trying to get more bass from amps that emphasize that, because there will likely be losses in midrange/HF accuracy and information retrieval from those amps. And more bass may be accompanied by looser, not tighter, bass. The Martin Logan 15a or the CLX may give you more midrange accuracy and naturalness, although they will probably have flaws in other areas in which the Magico excels. |
@viber6 My last post regarding the Rane ME 60 for $89.99 on Guitar Center's site was not for my benefit, but as a suggestion for something that WC could try - really no risk involved with this purchase - no reason not to try it. Plus, considering WC's recent post about bass, he just might be able to tailor the bass more with this unit than with trying different amplifiers. Dave |
Magico: needs premium fuel to shine. You won’t get away with 87 octane here. Race gas is even better for these speakers. If you can’t afford 93 octane, then don’t even try. Lots of engine knock and hesitation. Wilson: easy to drive with 87 octane. They do sound better with premium fuel. This speaker will drive just fine with 87 octane and will sound better than Magico with this type of gas. More wow factor than Magico aesthetically speaking. Every guest who came to my home was always drawn to my Sasha 2s. They always took pictures of these speakers. With the Magico s5, not so much. They look like any other speaker. |
thezaks, Yes, the Rane can be used to tailor bass, but also everything else with much more flexibility than trying different amps. That said, it is mainly used to alter tonal balance to your liking. EQ can yield more quantity of bass, but it won't tighten it. My electrostatics have a bass boost in the interface transformer which I don't like, because the bass is loose. I cut the deep bass, which has an approximate effect of tightening it, but it is really a reduction in the bass bloat, which is not the same or as truthful as getting more accurate, taut bass, the true goal. To get true deep and accurate bass, there is nothing like power and control from big transformers, caps and power supplies, but the Rane helps a little for this. Dave, I encourage you to try a few Ranes in your HT. As you say, little risk. The quality of its electronics may not equal mrdecibel's Luminous, but it is probably very competitive with that of your active preamp (it killed my Spectral DMC10 gamma of 35 years ago). Just by substituting the Ranes for your HT preamp in the flat setting (no EQ), you may come out ahead in accuracy. Then using the EQ to tailor your system according to program material and your taste should provide tremendous benefit. |
WC, I gather from your descriptions that "wow" means more dynamic and more bass. That's what Wilsons and plenty of other dynamic speakers are about. But the Magico and ML electrostats are about accuracy and honest naturalness. This is true when using any amplifier to drive these or similar types of speaker. Accuracy/naturalness are not immediately obvious to the casual visitor, so there is less "wow." I recall that it took you some time to appreciate the Magico, as you were transitioning away from the "wow" type of speaker. The more advanced driver and cabinet R&D of the Magico compared to these other dynamic speakers is consistent with the sonic results. |
@viber6 Two thoughts I came away with from your post: 1) You don’t seem to agree with me that WC should try the Rane - there’s . 2) For my application, I’m not sure how I would substitute the Rane for my Theta Casablanca IV? The Rane does not have hdmi inputs, nor does it have the processing of the CBIV. Perhaps I’m not understanding what you are trying to convey? Dave |
thezaks, OK, you're right--I didn't understand the hdmi/processing functions. Therefore, the preamp/processor is essential for HT, but an active preamp is NOT essential in a regular stereo. Assuming the stereo speakers are reasonably efficient and the power amp has enough gain, an active preamp can be replaced with an excellent passive preamp such as the Luminous (thanks to mrdecibel for mentioning this) or the Music First. One of the Music First models has a +6 dB switch if more gain is needed. But I didn't hear any loss of transparency with the +6 dB switch in a bypass test. Either the Luminous or Music First will be more transparent than any active preamp. If coloration is sought, an active preamp will be preferred. You know my view on that. I believe everyone, including WC should try the Rane for the many benefits. For getting more bass, the Rane has some benefit, but for the goal of getting very deep AND tighter bass with more power, the Rane won't replace a better power amp that will deliver these qualities. For most room correction purposes which usually involve reducing bass resonances at certain room mode frequencies, the Rane would be very useful at a far lower cost than room correction software. I don't know the software products, but using your ears with the Rane is really the best way to go. You should be adjusting your system based on your perceptions, not blinding relying on objective measurements. Measurements can give a useful starting point, but they should not be used to override perceptions. Your system should please yourself according to your perceptions. For best results in everything, get the best power amp AND the Rane or another quality EQ, for stereo. |
I’ve owned the 803d3. They are good speakers and pretty. I was actually offered a great deal on a pair of 800d3 last night. I almost took the deal but right now if I went to another speaker it would be electrostatics. Other than the bass, I don’t have any complaints about the Magico. It’s just that they are expensive :) I am also not a believer in using subs with full range speakers. I feel like if a full range speaker lacks bottom end then that’s just how the speaker is. I refuse to buy huge speakers and still have to buy two subs to get more bass unless we are talking about home theater. For example, the 800d3. If I bought them and I still needed more bass, then to me that’s a failure of a speaker. There’s no excuse for a ported speaker to not have enough bass. I’ve seen people buying large ported speakers and still using subs. That’s just not me. |
WCSS, " I feel like if a full range speaker lacks bottom end then that’s just how the speaker is. I refuse to buy huge speakers and still have to buy two subs to get more bass unless we are talking about home theater. " It's your choice.... but (other than space considerations) why would you not want to listen to full range music? Some of the bigger speakers that I see out there for ridulous money, are actually too big for many rooms. Compromise is what is needed in many rooms. I have a very strict opinion myself.... I hate ported speakers. Those expensive Magicos are just begging for some help. Seems like all I do is rant about 2 subs (REL) right next to the speakers. Last night I had a party night again with EDM (electronic dance music). With just my ML Montis... eeew. With the REL S3s added, the dance club came to my livingroom. Just love the synergy. I would love to hear about the SimAudio 870A in your system. Keep on rockin'. So cool your travels are. I ran out my retirement money buying just too many cars and stereo equipment. Nice to see the craziness thru your eyes. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
stringreen, Did you hear the Merrill Veritas at home, or in what system? What amp did you compare it to? Thanks for your observations. My Mytek Brooklyn amp, an inexpensive class D at $2k, is neutral with slight warmth, detailed with no SS artifacts. It is competitive with amps costing many times more. |
wym2, All speakers have trade-offs, none does everything well. I heard the YUGE Sound Lab Ultimate in my friend's average sized room, and it was awful--bloated, etc. This speaker is only suitable for very large rooms. The much smaller but still fairly large Sound Lab A3 sounded great in another friend's similar average sized room. To get big bass out of an electrostatic, they need lots of panel area. Then the midrange gets bloated, except in a YUGE room. For WC's average size room, I believe the best approach would be the Martin Logan CLX for midrange/HF purity and focus, and a dynamic woofer for bass. The ML Neolith is an attempt to have it all, but I have already discussed why I believe the CLX is a better approach, as well as being much cheaper. |
whitecamaross for Multi Channel amps, how did you like the Krell TAS amp compared to the Plinius Odeon and Classe Amp you had? |
I said it a million times, the Plinius Odeon is the best multi channel amp there is. Period. Krell tas is good but runs too hot. It was a good unit back in the day but there are far better options today. No need to get a tas and having to send it in to get recapped etc. Too much money and no real benefit when you have good amps today. Try those class d amps. They do a great job in home theater. However, don’t expect the 2 channel experience to be out of this planet. There’s a reason why they are affordable amps with plenty of power. |
I just want to give my support of the Boulder 2060. I have a Boulder 2060 and I think it is an amazing amplifier. To my ears it is neutral, revealing, and I get tons of signal. What is not, is forgiving. I think it may have to do with the rest of my system, Analysis Plus cables, Vitus Dac/Preamp, Wilson speakers, and a class A stereo amplifier (the 2060). To my ears the Boulder is the quietest amplifier I have ever used, while it is solid state, I find that it is warmer and more musical than the 1060, and has allowed me to hear deeply into the music, and with well recorded music, transports me to the music hall. Depending on the music, my system renders a sound that is extremely lifelike, from drums that sound real, to a sense of space that is three dimensional and authentic. I have had other amplifiers before the 2060, including Boulder. I had an 865 for a long time and it actually sounded pretty good. The 1060 was quieter and in some ways better and in other ways I preferred the 800 series. The 2060 is another story. I found it to be the perfect amplifier for my needs, properly combining the best of solid state, with the benefits of class A. The bass is tight, the sound of the instruments could fool me into thinking the band was in my room, and it just sounded right. In my second system I had a Viva Solista which was nice, but in the end I decided to sell it to focus on my main set up. Prior to Boulder I had a Naim system. In some ways that system was excellent, but my wife hated the number of black boxes and when I heard the 865 sound better than the Naim my wife was sold. I liked the Naim and it offered a lot of fun sounds, it had PRaT and energy that few other amplifier designs could match. but when I moved on, it was the right time. Before that I had my first proper hi-fi system, a tube system that Andy Singer sold me. I loved it. My now wife hated it. And when we moved from NYC to Chicago I moved to Naim. I will never forget the musicality of this system. When I had a chance to hear those components again, they were not as good as I remembered, but I chose to remember the system fondly because it got me into this hobby-- a way to share in my dad and brother's god given musicality-- and appreciate great artists. |
jlaz, Thanks for your observations on Boulder. If the 2060 is warmer than the 1060, is the 1060 even more detailed and revealing, even though many might describe it as sterile? Maybe like the clearest possible black and white picture, which I would prefer to a blurry color picture? Isn't Boulder out of business? Where do you get them serviced? Would a competent local tech be able to service them? |
Quoted from Michael Fremer, on the Boulder 2150 monoblocks : The remaining variable is probably the biggest: the sound quality of the recordings played. With the right associated gear, the best recordings will be allowed to express themselves as well as or better than you’ve ever heard them. The worst ones won’t be able to hide in the shadows, because these amps cast none. Owners of 2150s must also be willing to accept the fact that some, or even many, of their favorite recordings don’t sound so great............................ ... There is a level of equipment ( designs ), that are so neutral and revealing, that since we are listening to recordings ( some better than others ), seem not to be pleasant to listen to. I have heard Boulder amplifiers ( not these 2150s ), and thought they were excellent ( and this was with B&W 801 series 3, not my favorite ). Enjoy ! MrD. |
In response to viber6 questioning Boulder’s status, not sure where you might have heard that they're out of business but don’t believe that to be true. They've recently introduced a new phono stage and have been participating in audio shows as documented on their News & Events page. |
Boulder warning...another way of saying our amps are made so colorlessly neutral that most recordings will sound like crap... WC, again your input is very appreciated. I thought so about electrostatics imaging and separating the best. Would you say your Magicos are the best cone speakers at imaging and putting air between the instruments? Or you eard better separation elsewhere , maybe Focal or Wilson are better at this. I’ve read Sonus Faber and Focal are very good at imaging. |
@dan6054 I had the Plinius Odeon amp - Ultimate Upgrade edition. I did not like it at all. I then had the McIntosh MC8207 - nice sounding, not harsh, and fairly dynamic. I wanted to try the Krell Chorus 7200, because a reviewer had mentioned to me that it was better than the ATI signature and the ATI class D amps. I was then told that the newer Krell Theater 7 had much better sonics than the Chorus 7200. I was concerned about the lower wattage ratings of the Theater 7, however, I was assured that the Theater 7 would provide about the same amount of current as the Chorus 7200. I now have the Theater 7, and it is the best amp I have had in a very long time. Definitely a keeper - I can now just concentrate on cabling. By the way, I really like the Audioquest Hurricane 20 amp power cord with the Theater 7. I've also tried the WW Silver Electra (with and without the upgraded silver plugs), the Krell Vector HC, and the Cardas Clear Beyond, but the Hurricane is the best in my system. Dave |
Boulder is most definitely NOT out of business. I get it serviced a great my dealer. I cannot really explain the difference between the 1060 and 2060. What I remember of the 1060 is that it was outstanding but I could get listening fatigue. I remember an extended in home test with an all Boulder set up and it was detailed but I was able to get fatigued. I do not have that issue with the 2060. It’s smooth and something I can listen to for an extended period. Perhaps some of that has to do with the Vitus Dac/preamp adding a touch of warmth to signal. If I inserted the 2110 or 1010 perhaps it may be different. Does that address your concern? The 1060 is excellent and had a good deal not come my way I’d probably have the 1060 or 1160. But the 2000 series really is a different amplifier. |
WC, There is nothing as natural and truthful as a well-designed electrostatic such as ML CLX, possibly the best of breed. The larger Magico models will probably have more of the bass you want, but that doesn't mean they are superior to your medium size S2 for midrange/HF accuracy. The flagship series are super expensive, but they are still dynamic speakers which won't compete with the ML CLX in what electrostatics inherently do best, which is the all important midrange. Years ago I heard a large Magico, just ho hum compared to the Wisdom Audio ribbons in the same room. Even the ML Neolith would be much cheaper than the flagship Magicos (I am not even referring to the ridiculous big horn which approaches $1 million). As much as I think the CLX would beat the Neolith for mid/HF performance, even the Neo would probably beat the big Magico for performance and value. I suggest keeping your budget relatively modest at this point, saving up for the probably ultimate commercially available speaker, the ML CLX. You could use your decent BAT amp. Just put the biggest sum of money into the best speaker you can get, such as the CLX which isn't all that expensive, plus the best woofer that is compatible. |
jlaz, Thanks. Have you heard the Boulder 850 monos? Boulder says they use technology trickled down from the 1000 and 2000 series. The Music Room has the 850 monos for $6500 (original retail $11k). Nice 45 day trial, and each mono only weighs 30 lbs. These amps have been sitting at The Music Room for some time, so it seems that resale may be an issue. bill_k, Thanks for correcting me. Somewhere I read that Boulder was briefly out of business. They might have been bought with a nice cash infusion to get back on their feet. |
grey9hound, Thanks for refreshing our memories about the Lyngdorf room correction. I'll study it, but for now I think you are correct. Probably this would work for large dynamic speakers whose drivers are still much narrower than YUGE 3 foot wide curved electrostatic panels like the biggest Sound Labs or Neolith. These create lots of mutlipath effects with sonically confusing wave launches, as I have explained in my posts. Large dynamic drivers still create more focused sound, even if the nature of the electrostatic principle is lower distortion, but it has to be done with a proper panel concept. I don't see anything that can correct for these problems of big panels in small rooms, even though I am sure the Lyngdorf would help some aspects of the sound such as tonal balance. |
I have no idea where this rumor about Boulder could have come from, they just built a new factory and i think the founder still owns it. I do know the 850, as my father in law owns a pair. They are in a different system than mine so it’s not fair comparison. Regardless I went with my father in law Tom pick out his system and I believe he made a great choice in regards to the amplifiers. He uses a Mcintosh front end and a b&w 802d speakers. His cables are so so at best and he mostly listens to records. My system differs significantly. So when testing the 850s, against the Mac amps he want the Boulder had more range, better control over the base, and just resolved the music better. When I hear it in his current system, they sound good, though I do not know what effect the speakers have on the overall sound. But they throw a wide soundstage, great control over the bass, wonderful ability to capture the high notes. It isn’t not as refined and detailed as a 2060 or detailed as a 1060. If you are looking for great amps at that price, the 850 is very good. I think they are a great opportunity for a buyer. I wouldn’t worry too much about resale value, unless you plan to change them out quickly. I’m done on the amplifier end, no need to upgrade the amp, the dac or preamp, or even speakers, sure! The 865 was really pretty spectacular for the price. Boulder told me that the 1000 series is half of a 2000 series and the 800 series is half of a 1000 series. So that is pretty good, I’d say! What preamp are you using? |
jlaz, Thanks. I can't tell if you actually A/B'd the 850 against the 1060 or 2060, but it would be simple to move your father in law's 850 to your place for a brief listen. That would be more interesting than the Mac/Boulder comparison, since I would expect the 850 to be far superior to the Mac in resolution, etc. I am not clear on what you mean by saying the 800 series is half of a 1000, or the 1000 is half of a 2000. The same circuits but just half power from half the number of transistors? If that is true, then the sound quality at most volume levels should be identical, although my small Bryston 2.5B SST2 is far superior in resolution to the larger 4B SST2. I use no preamp, since I use the Rane ME 60 equalizer as a volume control, as I have explained before. |
jlaz, Thanks. I can't tell if you actually A/B'd the 850 against the 1060 or 2060, but it would be simple to move your father in law's 850 to your place for a brief listen. That would be more interesting than the Mac/Boulder comparison, since I would expect the 850 to be far superior to the Mac in resolution, etc. I am not clear on what you mean by saying the 800 series is half of a 1000, or the 1000 is half of a 2000. The same circuits but just half power from half the number of transistors? If that is true, then the sound quality at most volume levels should be identical, although my small Bryston 2.5B SST2 is far superior in resolution to the larger 4B SST2. I use no preamp, since I use the Rane ME 60 equalizer as a volume control, as I have explained before. |
grey9hound, Of course, audition is a must to really know the truth, but have you personally heard the effect on large panel speakers (electrostatics or Maggies) in small rooms? These large panels have deficient bass anyway, so room correction yields less benefit than when applied to large dynamic speakers with much more bass. The problem with large panels is lousy imaging and bloating effects, in all except huge rooms. |
@viber6 I have Lyngdorf and Large speakers . Have you heard Lyngdorf ? Don’t say that Lyngdorf room correction yields less benefit with large arrays unless you have heard it. That is a silly statement when you have Zero evidence of it . Lyngdorf can and will correct these problems . Please do not assume something until you have heard it and know for sure. If you have ever heard Lyngdorf , you would not say this ! I have huge speakers in a 10x11.5 room that is open n one side. And i have Lyngdorf . What makes you so sure that the large panels won’t work right with Lyngdorf , when you have never used it or heard it ? |
Viber: I am not sure how was unclear. I cannot take my father in law's amplifier and test it against mine. I live in southern Virginia and he lives in Chicago. I have never directly tested the units, except that I own a 2060 and my father in law has the 850. I did own the 865 and did compare it to the 2060. The 2060 is a better amplifier, there is no question. With the 2060 the bass is tightened up quite a bit, the mid range and treble were improved as well. The sound stage was wider, much wider, and the depth to the music was considerably better. There were a few things that I liked from the 865, firstly the volume control is better than that on the Vitus. I am not saying the preamp section is better, per se, but just that the .5 db 200 step range was just amazing. I was able to use my networked cables. I am happy with the cables I settled on, but the 2060 does not react well to certain networked cables. And the 865 really was impressive. the 2060 is another beast, especially when the volume is turned up and the speakers can really sing (or work). I clearly did not explain the difference between the circuits. They are NOT the same. The 2000 series is fully balanced from input to output, full differential. The best would be to ask Boulder directly. This is a direct quote I received from Boulder: "... All of our products use the same quality parts. Where the series are different is in the circuitry that we choose for each series. In very simple terms, the higher the series, the more complex the circuit design. The 800 Series is the simplest we build and all of the products have balanced inputs and unbalanced outputs. When we move up to 1000 level products, the gain stages are now built discretely instead of using monolithic parts, output sections are now balanced, and the output power doubles (all of which increase the parts count). Moving up to 2000 level, gain stages are completely monolithic and built in modules, amps run Class A, power doubles again, and so on. The changes we make from series to series improve sound quality, but in all Series, we use the best parts we can." I hope the above quote helps. Boulder is an extremely amazing company. I really love working with them. |
