After reaading a lot of reviews about these amps, i emailed Henry to build me (2) S250 to biamp my speakers, I have an immediate response from him and this is what he say:
Hi Patrick,
The Amps are the Signature Stereo which has an addional Big Toroidal transfomrer which makes it a true dual mono design, for $300 more which makes the amp now $2800. Of course, The amp is improved over the regular stereo across the whole Audio Spectrum. If you want the regular version stereo, let me know.
Thanks for the number and I'll try to give you a call sometime today.
Man, it is good to have some affirmation here of others who have used good tube amps and now are satisfied with the Sig H2o's. I wasn't quite sure I was hearing correct, so I did listen well over 1,000 hours on the H2o Sig Mono's before posting a bit on them (if I recall correct, maybe a bit less) seemed like forever! But after that 500 or 700 hour mark when the vocals just seemed to flesh out and become more organic and liquid, that was it. Definately a keeper to me. Don't get me wrong... I knew what I was hearing was great - to my ears, however it does make you second guess when you are one of the first with a "new" product...
Happy listening... now I am wishing my system was together!
I share your feelings exactly regarding the sound of the H20. My sig stereo250 has replaced my tubed amp. There is simply no going back. The sound of this little amp is truly addicting into my ProAc sprakers. Before theH20, I was never able to listen to any amp that was not tubed as they all tended to bleach out the harmonics too much for my tastes. The H20 breaths life into the music. The H20 is a little gem in my opinion and is worth much more than its list price.
I have not heard the ASL but we have the same genre of music that we prefer or listen to. If you happen to read my review of the stock S-250, I had the opportunity to compared it to several tube amps.
I too have the Supratek (Chenin)and I can assure you that the preamp is a very good match to the ICE H2O amp. Come to think of it, all the amplifiers that spent some time in my stable sounds good with the Supratek. But that is another story.
One of the many strenghts of the Supratek is how good it delivers the bass even as a tube preamp. You know that, and I am pretty sure that you are confident to say that the preamp does everything well. With the ICE H2O being driven by it, it makes the qualities of the preamp shine to the fullest. The sound is so clean (noise floor) but not devoid of the subtleties that makes the voice enticing and warm. With the H2O, you will hear a different presentation of the bass as the amp projects it. For me, it is the best acoustic bass I ever heard my system can reproduced. With my Magnepan 1.6QR, I de-commisioned my two (L and R) Adire Audio Rava designed subwoofers because in two channels, I do not need it anymore.
Another thing is that the ICE does not produced any thump even if you turn it On ahead of the preamp or shutting the preamp Off while the amp is On. Try that with a tube amp and you will probably re-create a mini fourth of July.
ICE have a trial period. I would suggest to take advantage of it and see if it floats your boat.
I know everyone participating in this thread is very excited about the H2O. I have also heard a lot about H2O and other digital amps. How are they compared with the Antique Sound Lab Hurricane / 1009 mono blocks? I loved the ASL and they are presently my upgrade target. But I would like to leave my options open. My humble system: Marantz SA-14 Ver 2 (modified superclock and Blackgate caps), Supratek Chardonnay pre-amp, Mirage M7 speakers, Audience power cable, IC and speaker cables. Listen mostly to vocals, jazz, live music, classicals. Thanks.
Yep, and it'll get even better. Makes a very, very good amp into a great amp. Based upon my listening and the small price difference between the standard and Signature, I bet the the Sig will WAY out-sell the standard so I've been encouraging Henry to skinny down his product line to just two models, the mono and stereo Sigs, and offer upgrades to the existing fleet of standard units.
I still think a really interesting comparison would be between a pair of stereo sigs passively bi-amping and a set of sig mono blocks. The price points are the same.
Jeff- until you get an upgrade PSU in your TCS and do some very basic upgrades to your 2150s, you have have no idea what the TacT units can do. FYI- the best power conditioners I've found for digital equipment are the RSA units.
Jeff - nice detail on both the Tact and H2O regarding power conditioning. Currently my Sig. S250 is plugged straight into the wall socket and powered down after each listening session. I'd like to try out an Ultimate Outlet or even their UPC-200 with the zones running parallel mode. That way, I could leave it powered up, protected from the powerline nasties.
I leave my Tacts and H2O's on all the time. However, this time last year a lightning strike did take out the midrange and tweeter ribbons of my Apogee Divas with a colossal POW. This was prior to me using the Ultimate outlets or P600. The amps were connected directly to the ribbons with no intervening passive x-over components. The H2O's can and will source a butt load of current.
I will soon get the power supply upgrade for the TCS. It's from the same guy that sold me the amps.
I did another round of listening with both OEM's amps (3 Tact and H2O Sigs, tri-amping my Apogee Studio Grands) using various power conditioning configurations. The results were similar to what I got before, that being the Tact 2150 is MUCH more sensitive to power conditioning and cords than the H2O. Plugged straight into the wall I much preferred the H2O, but like I said before, I really need to try a quality digital interconnect to be fair and any recommendations for a 2.5 to 3.0 M interconnect that's reasonable in price would be appreciated. Surprisingly the best bang for the buck by far were the high current Ultimate Outlets. They gave me basically the same improvement as going into the P600 for the H2O (which was a "moderate" improvement) and no or very little further improvement was had when that combination was plugged into the P600. So the H2O's are no longer plugged into the P600,which means I can play load as hell now....if I want to.
I had basically the same experience with plugging the Tact amps into the Ultimate outlets except the improvement was considerable, taking the amp from unacceptable to excellent. There was further improvement by plugging them into the P600 as long as the volume levels were moderate. The overall improvement was rather dramatic.
However, for each comparison the basic differences between each amp remained: While they were tonal clones of each other, the main differences were in openness,boogie and bass control with the H2O S250 Sig coming out on top. However, I DO need to feed the Tact amps a more uptown digital signal and their x-over functions are to die for if you're into bi & triamping like me.
his has been a significant finding for me as I originally prefered the Tact amps overall to the standard S250 when being fed power by the Ultimate Outlet P600 combination. If you have a standard S250, I really, really suggest you get it upgraded to the Signature configuration. This is just a flat out great amp.
According to Harry, the unit was fully broken in. I only had for it for about 5 days which was long enough for me to get a good feel for the sound. And a very fine sound it was! There was some transformer hum though that Harry attributed to either loose transformers from all the shipping and/or DC from my power line. I was wondering if the PS Audio "Humbuster" would cure that problem?
How long have you had the H2O? After break in, there are system changes you can look at to bring the very best out the H2O. I have heard the Butler, but never the two in the same room. The Butler is a fine amp. I'm in California too. The H2O is a green machine, and so is my theater projector.
I just finished a very satisfying audition of the H20 Signature Stereo. It is a wonderful sounding amp and Henry is a true gentleman to deal with! I could easily live with this amp and may yet, but... there is at least one more amp that I would like to audition. The Butler 2250 has me very intrigued and I was wondering if anyone has had any experiences with that amp. I realize that it is a completely different animal and that it sucks up a lot more household power (from the specs) than the ultra efficient ICE power amps. I do environmental work and I live in California, so reducing my energy bills does matter... up to a point. Thanks.
1953/Jeff- first, does your TCS have an upgraded power supply? Next do your 2150s have any modifications? Three get rid of the the PS Audio power conditioner. Four use good quality AES digital cables to connect the TCS to the 2150s.
If the the answer to the first two questions is no, look at at : http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?accstwek&1123985987
He can also help you with power conditioning that works properly with digital amps, and cables.
Actually, I do get a bit of compression using the P600 after a certain volume level is reached. But then I don't listen real loud and my room has concrete walls, floor and ceiling so it's very "efficient". However, the P600 does indeed clean things up a lot and so do the ultimate outlets. When I get the scratch up, I'll start trolling for another P600 to dedicate to the amps.
When I demoed the S250 sig, using the PS Audio P600 held back the dynamics in the h2o. It was MUCH better without. (Dedicated 20 amp circuit.) A friend also demoed the amp and found it much more dynamic without his BPT, much to his surprise!
I just got thru with another set of comparisons of the H2O S250 Sigs and my Tact 2150s. The sigs were, of course, run from the analog outputs of the TCS MK II while the Tact amps were fed from digital outputs. Both were plugged into their own PS audio Ultimate outlets which were then plugged into a single PS Audio P600 regenerator.
First up were the Tact amps. They were very smooth but after a while I felt something was missing...a bit of low level information as well a bit of drive. The sound was pretty and involving but a bit on the, well, boring side. I kept wanting the music to pick up the pace. It took me about a week to get past the pretty sound and start carping along those lines. The S250 Sigs were sitting idle.
Then I switched over to the S250s. Well the difference was immediate and obvious even without warm up. My right foot started tapping immediately. The sound was pretty as well but very, very open. And the bass, wow, the bass was like you read about, very tight, focused but well integrated with the music, providing a rather thrilling underpinning to everything.
This was a surprise as before when I sent my standard S250s back to Henry for updating I slightly preferred the Tact's using the exact same setup. Now the table were turned quite noticeably.
This tells me a couple of things. First, the DACs in the TCS are quite good and second, the Signature upgrade has turned a really good amp into a great amp.
I've not given up on the Tact amps yet as I've been feeding their digital inputs with a cheap set of Radio Shack digital interconnects because they were the only ones with the right length to reach the amps. I really need to try something a little bit more uptown. Also, several people have suggested that I do the upsampling just after the transport, then feed the TCS with that, and finally, put a Monarchy jitter reducer just before the input of each amp. Great! Just what I want, more boxes and wires. But I'm going to give it a try.
I understand your experiences are different than my own. I put my H2O Signature on 4 0hm Studio Grands, and they kicked ass. The owner of the SGs likes percussion. He has an amazing drum run that will stress any speaker and amp to their limits. Those bass drums, kettles, bells, rim whacks, and cymbal crashes were hair raising, and in the room.
The S-H2O would be appreciated by people used to class A Alephs. Those who want the big bang, need to get the Signatures. The two differ considerably.
The Anti-Cables might be great. After almost two weeks of listening to odd sound via the Transparent fed H20 (till I got the Anti-Cables,) I had headaches.
I agree completely - someone will jacket them and bump the price.
I hope to have another listen to the H2O with different cable and am wheeling and dealing to make it so.
A few comments and clarifications to answer some comments on my previous posting here:
Muralman1: As a long time owner of Magnepan 3.3 and then 3.5 speakers, as much as I loved them, they were far more the challenging speaker to play their magic than the Sound-Lab. When a speaker has such incredible 3-dimensional cpabilities as the Magnepan, but also has very clear dynamic limitations, it is tough to get such a speaker do it all. And throwing 1000w amps at them is not going to do it even remotely to the level of a far less "powerful" amp with the Sound-Lab.
I have not heard a big Apogee speaker for nearly 20 years. And this was never in my home. So I have no idea how a speaker like the Scintilla would compare sonically to the A1. But I do understand the H20 was designed with the Apogee speaker so I would expect it to perform its best with that speaker line. I wish we were closeby as I'd be willing to lug over the CAT amps to try with your Scintillas. I would have to call Ken Stevens first to make sure they could handle the 1-ohm load but I believe they can be configured to drive such speakers. I understand them to handle a load under 2 ohms with ease. And I suspect with some modifications, they could be turned into welding torches! 8-)
Concerning me going with the H20 signature, the CAT amps were so far ahead of the std H20 that I do not see me letting go of the CATs anytime soon. They do dynamic contrasts and the leading edge attack of the notes that you simply need to hear to believe. And they portray volume of space that the H20 does not even begin to do. One local audiophile who visited me said he had never before heard a tube amp with such speed as this. And he is much more detail oriented and particular to perfection in a music reproduction system than I am. With all the tube amps I have owned and have heard before, I could not have said it better. It was this attribute that caused me to purchase this amp.
I don't want to go into a count-by-count comparison between the amps because that was no my intent of my report here. The dramatic difference in cost alone makes this kinda silly. But I wanted to hear the H20 as I suspect it could be an ideal match for my home theatre system which I want to be fully ss based.
My initial report here was to state the areas where I felt the H20 was lacking relative to a "reference" product but also conclude that for its price point, it performed remarkably well. I also wanted to point out that an older "low-cost" model like the Counterpoint holds its own to today's great solid state amps in that it still does a 3-dimensional presentation like no ss amp I have tried in my home.
Audiofankj: I can so very much relate to trying cables in my system that just did not work at all. One immediately comes to mind: the highly raved Audioquest Diamond. It completely obliterated all the harmonic richness, bloom and decays in the music that I had worked so hard to achieve. That is a cable I too will never consider at least in the context of a tube-based system.
My MIT cable experience is strictly from line stage to amp. Again, I have no experience with MIT speaker cables. A few years ago I tried the MIT ICs as they are rather affordable in longer lengths. And I was mightily surprised at their performance relative to the NBS. And with 5 different tube amps and 3 different line stages, I did not at all have tonality problems with the MIT 350 when compared to the NBS Statement. The NBS has been my reference cable for the last 5 years since replacing Cardas Golden Cross, Harmonic Tech One and SilverAudio Passionata.....all of which are excellent cables for the price.
When I had balanced amps I ran with a 20' MIT 350 Ref Proline XLR cable with the same results, no tonal coherency problems nor fatigue issues at all. Unfortunately I have these loaned to a friend or I would have tried them with the H20 to once and for all put the "to MIT or not to MIT" or "single-ended vs. balanced" issues with the H20 to bed.
So it is NOT a global issue of MIT incompatibility with tube amps. Some other factor is going on out there but I have not heard it here. And the implementation between the NBS and MIT is about as different as two cables can be. How these two cables can both sound so exceptional and remarkably similar with the wide range of electronics and with Talon Khorus, Magnepan 3.5 and now Sound-Lab A1 speakers causes me to believe it is at least, a non-issue for me.
I might add that not every MIT cable sounded the same for me. I had a 30' M1 IC on loan for a month and I could not get it to perform like the MIT 350. The M1 was very sterile whereas the 350 brought on dimensionality that was right behind the NBS.
Woodburger brings up a concern that I share: maybe another cable will resolve the interactions with the H20 but if it takes away the magic elsewhere that we had before, then it's a "this for that" issue. And giving up many attributes in my system just to correct an interaction problem is not acceptable.
Bob: Thank you for pointing out the input impedance issue. I had no idea the H20 was so low in single-ended. This could very well have been the problem running the H20 singl-ended from the Callisto and not an MIT cable issue at all. I do not know if the Callisto has the same "requirement" as the Calypso in terms of needing to see a higher impedance load.
Only a month or so ago did I move my equipment rack from a side wall to the wear wall. Up to this time, I was using the NBS XLR cable to the CAT amps with adaptors. With the greater distance, I now use the 25' MIT cable and run from the SE outputs of the Callisto. Phono and DAC inputs to the Callisto are both through balanced NBS Statement XLRs.
I might add that switching configurations with the CATs and the Counterpoint during this amp evaluation did not cause dramatic changes as was clearly the case with the H20. So it was definitely not an issue of connectors or cables not being burned in.....except for the possibility with the H20's circuits/connectors themselves. Still, there is absolutely no way the problems described in the initial run with the H20 could be attributed entirely to this.
Woodburger, I hear you on the looks of Anti-Cables. Speaker cables that look like they were just stretched out wire hangers, do not encourage confidence. I figure, someday, someone will fit the wire into hoses, and sell them at 10 times the price.
I don't know how resolving MIT cables are on some amps, but the Anti Cable has replaced similar box cables, improving the resolution. I was there.
The sixth entry in this thread describes my problems with the 250sig and my Transparent ref speaker cables. Jafox put it so much better and I find most of his description about turning it up to try to get the mix better on MITs was exactly MY problem (and again, Henry Ho said his amp doesn't perform well with network boxed speakers.) I subsequently tried Anti-Cables and the harmonics and volumes felt much better, but I thought the Anti-Cables weren't up to the quality I had been used to in the Transparents on the end of my ARC VT100MKII. YMMV.
1) I don't know how similar the Callisto is to the Calypso, but the July Stereophile reviewed the Calypso and discussed impendance behavior. The significant point for the H20 is that John Atkinson recommended that the amp have an input impedance of at least 30K ohms if used single ended. The H20 has an 8K ohm input impedance.
2) You do not mention if the XLR cables and XLR preamp outputs were thoroughly burned in. In my experience XLR connectors can take a long time to burn in - longer than RCAs. Adaptors and binding posts can take a long time as well. Until fully burned in, the treble suffers. There can be an issue of component burn-in if there are parts in the preamp that are only exercised through the balanced path.
I have no experience with the MIT & H2o together. However, in the past I had used the MIT 750 Series 2 biwire with Theil 3.6's and McCormack DNA-Deluxe. As you state, there was no loss of low level detail... It was there and fine. I ended up making and audiophile "adjustment" and ended up with Martin Logan SL3's, same amp, same MIT cabling. Still sounded alright. Looking to make a swap to tubes, friends came over with Sonic Frontiers SFS-80, Music Reference RM-9, as well as a Conrad Johnson model I can't recall. I can tell you after swapping all of them in and OUT, everyone was scratching their heads. Two friends *swore* it had to be those damn MIT boxes and one drove home and brought back a pair of Synergistic Research speaker cables (No. 2 or No. 3 if I recall) and it was amazing, every single ONE of the tube amps there sounded MUCH better than the big McCormack DNA-2 Deluxe with the MIT... actually we then tried the DNA-2 Deluxe with the Synergistic as well, and it was much better. All we could come up with is the box must have caps and such that "adjust" or "tune" the highs and lows to affect the sound for SS amps that may be bright in some systems. It was definately affecting the sonics in my system.
Disclaimer: This was well into the past... about 8 years or so ago, perhaps 7. However, after that weekend - I listed every MIT interconnect and speaker cable for sale, and will never consider another again.
Don't get me wrong, I have heard them sound quite decent on a Krell or Spectral / Avalon or Thiel / MIT system, however detailed, sterile, analytical doesn't appeal to my musical tastes... at least not anymore (that is what got me hooked initially).
All in all I guess I am just trying to relay almost all cables have strengths and weaknesses. Some more than others, I assume. In this case, I know there were "major" sonic landscape shifts with the comparison of the MIT cabling with tube gear compared to Synergistic Research.
Perhaps the MIT boxes adversely affect the H2o. Like I said, I don't know personally. I know the MIT boxes did adversely affect the SFS-80, Music Reference RM-9, and those Conrad Johnsons...
At the summit, it usually does depend on overall synergy of equipment to bring out the best in each component.
Vince, Are you using the Speltz anti cable speaker cables? Do you a biwire configuration and how does the anti cable work with the H2o's? I don't agree with your statement that'network cables mess with low level detail.' My past set of MIT 750 shotgun was very resolving of low level info. Thanks, Bill
Wow! Nobody would argue the big Soundlabs are a challenge. I laud you for sticking with the H2O for the time being. It is evident a lot of systems are well evolved along the path to better solid state listening. All dissatisfied listening I've seen has been when the H2O is set in place of a well hued solid state system. Some items could very well be incompatable.
MIT, and similar cables don't work with the H2O. Come to think of it, I wonder of any tube lovers use MIT? The H2O excels in low level info, and network box cables mess with that. Some line conditioners choke the high current H2O. The amps can not reach their optimum without well shielded power cables, on all components. They are ultra sensitive to speaker cables, digital cables, and ICs.
There is nothing remaining in my H2O system that was in use during my system's solid state days. I have incrementally improved the H2O's success with carefully chosen changes. I have opted for a modified non-upsampling DAC. The preamp has to be extra clean. I have a custom class A. There is still more to do.
I have the H2O Sig, which is worth the extra dough. I don't experience any placement, size, or stage width abnormalities with my Scintilla system. I have an old Vollenweider disc, "Book of the Roses." People who have his discs know there are lots comings and goings of very deep images. It comes as something of a shock when Vollenweider lays into a foreground electric harp. The strings of that harp extend from speaker to speaker.
I guess what I am saying, you have not heard the H2O amp at it's best yet. For the Big Soundlab, I think you should go with the Signature.
But then, what do I know? I use Speltz Anti-Cable.
Oh yeah, I like piano too. My piano is what size it would be in the recording. Clara Monty in her Uberoth recording, is on stage, some distance away. Jim Brickman's "No Words," the piano is close-miced, and fills the room. I fool people all the time. It has all the bloom, and decay of the real thing.
With the interest of a local audiophile who had an H20 (non-sig stereo) model on loan, I had the opportunity to audition this in my home system. As a Sound-Lab A1 owner with CAT JL-3 Signature amps and a 10-year old Counterpoint NPS400 hybrid amp, I was eager to hear how the H20 amp would compare to both a reference amp and a more affordable ($1500-2000 on the used market) amp. All amps were powered on for at least an hour before listening, and were only powered down for the brief periods of swapping IC and spkr cables and then powered back on.
There is much issue on MIT cables with the H20 amps in the Audiogon forums and from Mr. Ho when he wrote to me after my initial impression of his amp. But because I use a 25' MIT 350 EVO single-ended cable from an Aesthetix Callisto Signature line stage to the CAT amps, this cable was what I initially used to compare the amps. The CAT amps do not support balanced connections.
The H20 has outstanding extension and resolution at the frequency extremes. There was however, a huge dip in the midrange. On two different LP recordings, the singers, guitar and keyboard players were very much recessed on the stage relative to the other members of the band. I tried turning up the volume to bring the performers together, but this only caused the bass player and drummer to overpower the performance. In all the ARC, Counterpoint, Wolcott and CAT amps I have owned, my system has never had a tonal imbalance like this.
Another concern with the H20 had to do with image widths. Singers, guitar players and pianos all had a very narrow field. Piano image size was only a couple feet wide. The H20's image compression was very evident after hearing the same music minutes before with the CATs which brought the pianoÂ’s presence to realism. The Counterpoint was not all that far behind the CATs in this regard.
The other problem with the H20 was its lack of dynamic contrasts. I could not get the loud peaks in the music to really come out into the room. With the CATs and less so with the Counterpoint, segments in the music would build up and briefly become quite loud and then return to a softer level. There was very much a defined volume range for which the H20 played the music and the brief loud peaks reached by the other amps were just not to be achieved with the H20.
The whole issue of decays and harmonic richness was not to be an expected strength here and indeed, the H20 was very much like any other solid state amp I have heard in my system and elsewhere.
Upon sharing my findings with Mr. Ho, he told me of the incompatibility with his amps and the MIT cables. With all the praise I have read here on these amps, I wanted to do anything I could to get out of them what others have written. The only option I had was to use a 14Â’ NBS Statement XLR cable and run it across the room to hear this setup. This required me to bring the component rack a few feet into the room vs. being at the back wall, but the effort was well worth it. I used adaptors to run the NBS into the CATs.
Huge difference with the NBS balanced cable!!! Now the H20 had very good tonal coherency. Images were still a bit narrow, but a definite improvement here. I was very pleased with these changes.
The now far more accurate tonality brought on great musical enjoyment but at the same time, it made clear the subtle deficiencies that were masked before due to the recessed midrange. With piano now having more accurate presence, the notes were more clearly connected rather than being distinct from one to the next; intricate guitar work was a bit slurred from one note to the next as well. The Counterpoint did not fair very well here either, but with the CATs, the space between each of the notes was very clear. Without the CATs on hand to hear this capability, the H20's resolving power fairs quite well.
With the H20, there was still a definite reduction of each performer occupying a realistic volume of space on the stage. However, with the improvements brought on with the balanced NBS cable, overall, the result here was most impressive for an amp of this cost....and a solid state amp at that. Still this was one area where the Counterpoint clearly excelled over the H20. The 3-dimensionality, bloom, decays, etc., are very significant characterizations I listen for when evaluating audio components. To the H20's credit, it does have a more refined and resolving top-end than the Counterpoint.
The H20's dynamic compression issue with the single-ended MIT cable was now much less an issue with the balanced NBS. This was one area I was pleased to hear an improvement as I would have little tolerance for an amp of such dynamic compression.
One new problem with the balanced cable was that there was now a fatigue in the upper trebles. If anything, the NBS is more soft and a little less resolving on the top than the MIT, and yet there was now an annoying ringing in not the attack but the trailing (decay) of primarily percussion notes. I suspect this issue would make the H20 very system critical to find a balance elsewhere in the system to tame this characteristic. And perhaps this fatigue could be partly resolved with adjusting the Sound-Lab brilliance controls. Trying other cables could very well resolve this problem as well. Since I had this amp just for a couple days, I did not have the time to investigate these opportunities.
So what is the reason for the dramatic change between the two listening sessions? 1) is the H20 indeed incompatible with the MIT 350 EVO? OR 2) does the H20 simply need to be run with a balanced signal to achieve its potential? My gut feeling is the latter as the NBS and MIT cables used here have very subtle differences in my system and this has been true when I've run them with the Counterpoint as well as previously, the Wolcott monos. And the same was true when I had the BAT 31SE line stage before the Aesthetix Callisto.
I have found the line-stage-to-amp link to be by far the most critical of cable differences. And I have found only a few products capable of retaining the 3-dimensionality in the music; the NBS Statement and MIT 350 EVO & Reference Proline cables are among this group.
So yes, the H20 can perform incredibly well with the Sound-Lab speakers. When run with the "appropriate" cable(s) with the balanced inputs, this amp can be very impressive. The simple fact that it does not have listener fatigue, that I often associate with many solid state amps, speaks well for this amplifier. And that it faired so well to amps of the caliber of the CATs says a lot about the H20's potential and what I suspect exists to a higher degree in the Signature and mono amplifiers developed by Mr. Ho.
I hope to learn more from Mr. Ho on whether or not the H20 amp really needs to be driven by a balanced signal to work at its best.
Well, if anyone has doubts about Henry and H2O Audio, I can say that my experience has been first class. Placed my order last weekend, amp arrived today. Removed my prior amp, placed the Signature S250 and listened. What an incredible improvement and I'm no where near the break-in that other folks have reached. Henry did burn it in for 2 days on his Apogee's. In my experience, it is like comparing an unbloomed rose to one in full bloom. The S250 is that rose in full bloom. It is letting so many more musical events through that have gone unheard. It is detailed, but not analytical, great PRAT, dynamics, wide soundstage and great imaging. I could go on and on.... But as always, YMMV.
I heard my H20 stereo unit in a highly evolved Tact system and the unit maintained its basic sound signature relative to other amps I heard in that system.
The preamp used is very important and should be of high quality as well as impedance compatible to hear the H20 at its best.
Warning to all who have an interest in hearing the H2O:
The H2O will spotlight any system deficiencies you probably were never aware of before.
For instance, occasionally we hear from MIT cable users complaining about harsh highs, and recessed mids they get from the H2O.
The H2O gets mixed into a lot of systems highly evolved along the intention of coaxing a favorable sound out of digital, and solid state. Some of those fixes severely interfere with the pure signal. They may change things for the positive in that system. The H2O, just doing what it does so well, will only magnify the actual wounds inflicted on the music by those "fixes."
The H2O will demand just as rigorous a search for the best system. It will encourage simple circuits, clean cabling, rich power sources, and revealing speakers.
Mrcaspence1 - thanks for the info. My original intent was to use the 390S direct to the Sig S250. However, in another thread, I believe someone was going to use the AA player direct and was advised not to. Might work out provided the ICs are low capacitance.
Icepower does not recommend capacitive load > 470nF, or Quote Icepower data sheet: 'Higher capacitive loads may compromise stability and thus damage the device."
I too have taken the plunge on a Signature S250 this weekend and placed an order with Henry. All the dialog in this thread has been a compelling testament to give this amp a try. Question I have is what preamp? Currently I run a Levinson 390S directly into my present amp and most recommendations indicate a good pre is required. I have a Proceed PRE sitting on the side that could be used but I gather that will just get me by until I can pick up something better. Requirements are the pre must be truly balanced, doesn't need to have lots of inputs as CD is my only source and must have a remote. I'd like price not to exceed the cost of the amp, if possible :>) Thanks!
Tvad...You have a good point that digital amps make it possible to have half a dozen or so without dimming the lights or draining the bank account. Great for HT.
However, I am one who believes that, at least for music, every channel, amp and speaker, should be of the same high quality one would use for a 2-channel rig. When this is not done, which is often the case, audiophiles don't like multichannel. My "main" system is multichannel using the same stuff, eg: Maggie MG1.6, that I would use for a 2-channel system, but it has no video screen. Just a little 13" TV in the equipment rack for setup. In another room I have a plasma screen with a minimal multichannel audio rig (Panasonic SA-XR25 and inwall speakers) which is just fine for movies and TV.
Denf...When I made inquiry about the eAR amp I got an EMail from Red Dragon suggesting that I consider their unit. It appears to be virtually identical to the eAR 1000 watt amp, without the hassle of overseas shipment. Red Dragon is supposedly working on a multichannel version that I could configure for three channels, which is what I want.
Jeff: great "mini" review. I too, have had the pleasure of hearing Larry's system a couple times. Last time was prior to his Sound Lab "extreme make-over", so I can only imagine how good they sound now!
OK..., I have heard the H2o, and mostly agree it is quite an amp -- especially for the price (and also owned JC-1's for about a year), but has anyone seen, or more importantly heard, the Red Dragon ICE module amp? Listed here @ 'Gon for around $1700, and the guy's confident enought to let you audition for 45 DAYS, and wll pay the shipping BOTH WAYS. Interesting, eh?
There is one other, that I can think of, ICE amp with an analog power supply. That would be the bigger eAR amps. They have a relatively small one. All the other ICE amp builders use the digital ASP modules. Size counts. With the smaller analog supply, it doesn't exude body, like the H2O.
I have never heard of someone burning out a speaker with more than sufficient current.
I gather that the big selling point for the H2O amp is its analog power supply, capable of supplying lots of current for a long time. However, it is not obvious to me why this is important. Since we are powering a digital amp that has high efficiency the delivery of high amperage would be directly into the speaker, which would get fried! It would seem to me that a relatively small power supply with fast recovery would do the job just fine.
Well I took one of my S250 Sigs and a Tact S2150 over to my buddy Larry's place yesterday for a listen thru his, yet again, newly refurbished Sound Lab M-1s. The upgrades included a new membrane & stators (26 vs 20 per cell), new floor coupling structure and reworked/wired interface.
First off the M-1s are FABOULOUS. Period. This is one panel speaker that kicks ass dynamically with bass slamm like you read about. They don't need a sub. Nothing phases them. Peaks are scaled effortlessly and they don't just stop on a dime but can hit light speed before reaching the dimes edge. Larry's done a great job of setting them up too.
Front end was the latest Meitner DSD transport and DAC, followed by his two box tubed pre (forgot the name)all plugged into a PS Audio P300.
First listening thru the Parasound JC-1 all of the above characteristics were quite apparent. These are exceptional amps. The overall tonal balance, however, seemed a bit lean and forward to me with a slight nasal quality on certain material. I suspect there is a mild peak in the 1 Khz region. The soundstage was spectacular! A biiiiig panel that can image precisely. Wow!
Next we took my S250 Sig, plugged it into a PS Audio Ultimate Outlet which was them plugged into the P300. We used the single ended inputs with the Reference Line DSL cabling and Bybee filters that I brought with me. As the S250 had been sitting idle for about 4 hours and has a SERIOUS power supply (dual mono in fact with dual transformers)the in rush of power, promptly shut down the P300 which was already pushing 120 watts into the front end. After repowering everything back up there were no further power up problems as the S250s caps were now fully charged. At idle it drew only 20 watts.
The differences were immediately apparent and, to my ears and sonic priorities, better. Larry was a bit lukewarm at first as the amp needed some time to warm up sounding a bit constipated and dark until about 1/2 hours into the session. More serious was the fact that we just could not get the gain we needed to match our previous listening levels. The S250 has about 3-4 db less gain than the JC-1 and the single ended output of the pre drops the gain a further 6 db (we were using the pre's balanced output with the JC-1). So we had to listen thru the volume difference. What we did agree on was that everything was exceptionally CLEAN,open and detailed. That darkness was really the background blackness brought on by that cleanliness. Not so careful listening showed that there was actually more treble information but greater "liquidity". Though the volume was considerably lower, I though the overall presentation was less forward. Soundstaging was at first cramped but as the S250 warmed up it became huge, transparent and very well focused. A very musically involving presentation. However, we just could not really crank it so we tried the balanced inputs with his cables. Yup, much greater volume level but as this guy can deliver current, we shut down the P300 after only about another 3 db of volume. Rats! During that time however, it was pretty obvious to me that the balance inputs and their silver wiring needed breaking in with things sounding a bit thin and flat..but still pretty good.
To get around the input power limitations we then plugged the S250 into the conditioner that power the JC-1s (still using the balanced inputs). This is where things got interesting as yeah, there was more volume capability, but to my ears things took a good couple of steps backwards. Again, thinner and flatter. Then we tried plugging the Ultimate outlet into the chain. Wow! At first we thought things were darker again but not so, just cleaner. These things work for these type of amps and should be considered mandatory!!! I had noticed this effect before and much more dramatically with the Tact amps but was very pleasantly surprised to hear how much it did for the S250.
However, this does cloud a direct comparison of the S250 to the JC-1. As a system, I found the S250 (thru the well broken in single ended inputs), Ultimate Outlet, P300 combo superior to the JC-1. In fact, I think I preferred the S250 thru the balanced inputs and Ultimate outlet to the JC-1. Unfortunately, we did not have time to try the Ultimate outlet on the JC-1 or thru their never used, single ended inputs. My conclusion is that they will probably sound very similar to each other on an absolute basis. However the S250 Sig IS a whole lot cheaper and can, for an equivalent system price point, be taken up to a level that's noticeably superior to the JC-1 (IMHO) thru the use of an Ultimate outlet and Power Plant style device.
As this posting has gotten rather long winded, the bottom line is that the S250 Sig and the Soundlab M-1 are a great combination.
I'll save the long winded discourse concerning the Tact amp comparison for another posting but only say now that Larry like it and yes, they too can drive the big SLs.
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.
