Review: Portal Panache Integrated Amplifier


Category: Amplifiers

First, let me start by saying I’ve never written a review before and I find it to be quite a daunting task. It scares me to no end that someone might actually base their purchasing decision on what I write here but at the same time I feel compelled to put fingers to keyboard. Who am I to declare if an amplifier is a worthy contender or not for someone’s system though?

Am I an audiophile? Certainly not! Am I a man of much experience with vast amounts of high-end equipment? With a wife, two kids, and a mortgage – you’ve got to be kidding, right?!? Am I a music lover? You bet! I find nothing more pleasurable than sitting for a couple of hours in front of a pair of speakers with a favorite piece of vinyl spinning… I’ve had this passion for decades.

I listen to mostly rock exclusively on vinyl – not the modern stuff, but primarily 70’s and some very early 80’s material. My associated equipment is:

- Rega Planar 25 Turntable

- Dynavector 20xL Moving Coil Cartridge

- Dynavector P-75 Phono-stage in PE-Mode

- Von Schweikert VR-1 Monitors

I started a journey early last fall to replace my aging, but much loved, Musical Fidelity A300 Integrated amplifier. I always enjoyed the A300. I found it to be warm, very involving, with nice frequency extremes.

At the same time, the A300 wasn’t the most detailed amplifier I’d ever heard. I found the bass and mid-bass to get a bit muddy on more dynamic passages, especially if the volume was pushed and I also found that some instruments found in rock music, like crash cymbals, sounded a bit “off”. I wouldn’t call it sibilance, but cymbals sometimes had that “tearing paper” hiss to them that I found somewhat distracting.

After researching a fair amount, I sold the A300 and picked up a Creek 5350SE on Audiogon. The bass on the 5350SE had an incredible amount of definition and detail but lacked any real weight in my system. I ultimately found it to be an incredibly detailed and refined but an exceptionally boring amplifier for rock. It didn’t involve me in the music like the Musical Fidelity had. After living with the 5350SE for a while, off it went on Audiogon too.

Enter the Portal Panache. An integrated I had never heard of, but that was mentioned by a couple of responders to my tale of woe and plea for help on Audio Asylum and, here, on Audiogon. I started researching the Panache and lo and behold, Portal Audio resides not 20 minutes from where I live. All the reviews seemed to indicate that from a performance standpoint the Panache may be just what I’d been looking for.

Portal has a 60-day “in-home trial” policy, so I figured I had nothing to lose. I called Joe Abrams of Portal Audio up and made arrangements to purchase one of his demo units he had listed on Audiogon. I have to interject here that Joe is one of the finest people I’ve ever met in my short time with Audiophile gear. Willing to answer a whole host of mundane and novice questions I threw at him and even went so far as to meet me at a local coffee-shop so he could personally deliver the Panache to me – where he proceeded to buy me a cup of coffee and spent a good half-hour talking audio with me. My only contribution to the whole affair being parting with an embarrassingly small check for such a piece or equipment.

So, “get to how it sounds already!” I hear you cry…

The Portal Panache has, in my opinion, all the warmth of the A300 with all the definition and detail of the 5350SE; with the added necessary “oooomph” to bring out the excitement in more dynamic pieces of music.

The bass is well extended and has a great deal of slam yet I can distinctly pick out minute details that were clearly not there with the Musical Fidelity A300. Every pluck of Geddy Lee’s bass comes through as if he’s right there in the room with me – it’s not one big lump of one-note bass lines, I can hear every detail. The bass extension is deep too. My speakers are a limiting factor here although they are exceptional for a monitor with regard to bass. Kick drums are distinctly heard and “felt” in as much as the VR-1’s will allow.

The midrange is warm and detailed as well without being over-emphasized. One professional reviewer stated that the Panache had a tube-like midrange not unlike the Manley Stingray, and he’s correct. The midrange is where this amp really shines and where many solid-state amps I’ve heard waiver, including the 5350SE.

Treble is well extended but not the least bit harsh or edgy. Cymbals sound correct – they have that wonderful metallic shimmer to them that was missing with the A300 and it’s quite detailed. To be honest, this is the one area, however, that I felt that the 5350SE outshined the Panache. The 5350SE had a bit more detail and extension to the high-end than the Panache but not so much so that I’d call it a deciding factor or that I feel like I’m missing anything.

Soundstaging and imaging are not exactly a top priority for most rock recordings but the Musical Fidelity A300 had a real problem keeping a stable soundstage in more dynamic passages. The 5350SE and Panache both are stellar at setting up a wide and deep soundstage and maintaining it no matter how dynamic or congested the music gets. I hear this especially on certain works like Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon” and it is quite an amazing experience.

So, everything’s wine and roses – right?

Well, yes – actually! For me that is, but the Panache is a bit of a quirky beast and not for everyone. Many people will find the spartan cosmetic design of the amplifier not to their liking. It’s basically a big black box with three knobs and a power switch on it – the only light is on the switch itself. It’s truly built like a tank though – weighing in at around 35 pounds and everything, while simple, looks, feels, and screams quality. I love it – it’s exactly what it needs to be and no more.

As Sam Tellig pointed out in Stereophile, it’s a bit of a misnomer to call the Panache an integrated amplifier. The pre-amp section is passive so it’s basically an amplifier with a volume pot, a balance control, and a 4-point selector switch on it. No remote, 4-inputs, one output, “whumps” when you power it up.

It appears the designer, Joe Abrams, wanted the guts of the amp to be much like the aesthetics of the amp – for it to be as “pure” and simple as possible. That means not including much of the circuitry found in many modern amplifier designs. Such “jewelry” as a remote control, soft-start circuitry, etc. are nowhere to be found.

My understanding is that when Joe had the amplifier engineered he wanted there to be as little as possible between the source and the speakers. All the less to impart sonic-signatures along the signal path would be the mantra of the design philosophy. By all accounts that philosophy has paid off in spades to my ears!

There are some oddities that the spartan design philosophy yields though. For example, due to the passive pre-amp design, if you have a recording device attached to the outputs that device has to be powered on while listening or you have to disconnect the device from the output of the Panache. Otherwise sound quality is severely diminished.

The Panache also is also more sensitive to ground-loop hum than the A300 and 5350SE were. Something I found out while spending an entire Saturday hunting down the rogue device in my home that was imparting a low-level buzz through the speakers that wasn’t present with prior amps. The lack of remote control is going to be a deal-breaker for some too. For me, though, these were all minor nuances that the sound this amplifier emits more than outweighs.

If you’re looking for a simple, detailed, musical, slightly warm integrated with fantastic extremes and rock solid soundstaging you can’t possibly go wrong with the Portal Panache at $1,795. If you’re lucky enough to snag a demo at $1,295 consider yourself a thief and I seriously doubt anyone will be taking advantage of Joe’s 60-day return policy - I know I’m not!

Associated gear
Click to view my Virtual System

Similar products
Musical Fidelity A300
Creek 5350SE
slate1

Showing 14 responses by jax2

Hey Slate - Take a deep breath and exhale...you did a fine job! I've got a Panache in house in my home system now for over a month and it has really surprised me. I am not by any means a fan of solid state, and even some of the best SS components have not swayed me. This one I find extraordinary simply for two qualities that I've always found lacking in SS: Midrange magic, and depth and airiness of the soundstage. Combining those qualities with the detail and and slam that only a SS amp could bring to the table and you have a winning combination. The closest SS midrange I've heard to these have been with the lower power class A SS amps (Pass Aleph and Bedini 25/25), but those amps lacked the low end slam and the hyper-detail of the Panache (both amps I mentioned, the Aleph more than the Bedini, tended to 'round off the edges' more akin to tubes than SS). I also don't feel the midrange is an equal to a great tube sytem, especially SET, but in fact it is a wonderful compromise imparting those SS qualities you'll not likely find in even the best tube designs. I definitely am hearing more detail than ever in many recordings on the Panache. From the better SS systems I've listened to extensively (Levinson & Krell among others), the midrange just didn't have that believable palpability that I hear with tubes, and now, to a great extent, with the Panache.

A correction to your review; I don't think Joe Abrams actually designed the amp. The rumors allude to the idea that the amp was designed by Nelson Pass for Joe with the caveat of annonymity. At least that is what I gleaned from various reviews. I've been using mine with Silverline SR17 monitors, TaraRSC Prime biwire cables, and varying between a Muse front end as well as running .WAV files from my hard drive through the Muse DAC. The combination of Panache and SR17's is quite wonderful making the SR17's disappear entirely and taking full advantage of their ability to produce some very low and articulate bass from such a small enclosure.

One other notable detail is that the amp comes with a very nice headphone section. Not the equal of my Berning, but very nice indeed...not your typical add-on to an integrated.

Good review Slate. Enjoy.

Marco
Ejlif - I took a listen to the Parasound (I'm sorry, but I didn't take note of the preamp) along with some Gallo Reference 3's and found that particular combination to be rather sterile and non-engaging. It's weird as it was so squeeky clean I find it difficult to put to words just why I didnt' click with it, but I know I didn't. It's like a person who is so good looking, in a very generic and overall way, that it is boring. Could have been the system synergy, and I only listened for about an hour so not really a fair amount of time to judge, but there's my knee-jerk reaction. It did have some of the cleanest bass I've heard in a while though. What is driving you to replace the JC-1's...is it just the convenience issues you mentioned? I'll be quite curious to hear what you think of the two amps compared.

Marco
This seems interesting. A certain amount of gain is necessary for full output of any amplifier. Whether it is in a separate encloser, as a preamp, or is the first stage of the amp, in the amp cabinet itself, is irrevelant.

The line output from a CD or DAC has more than enough gain already, at least that's how I understand it. A passive pre is just regulating that gain while putting a minimum amount of circuitry in the signal path. Someone correct me here if I'm wrong. If you hook up your average CD player or DAC straight into an amplifier you would be getting rather uncomfortably loud volumes with nothing in the path to regulate the signal.

On the other hand, an analog front end (turntable/cartridge) does not have nearly enough gain to do the same thing, and does require an active preamp stage to boost the signal.

The preamp stage in the Panache is passive as far as I know. It is only a line stage amp with no provision for phono. Further clarification can be had on the Portal Audio Website, or using one of the several links there to reviews of that amp.

Marco
Audiophiles love sound as well as music. Some love sound more than music and strive to assemble systems that excel at sonics even if this may come at the expense of what others consider good music reproduction.

Judging by some posts in these forums and others, I'm sure you're right. My knee-jerk reaction, being a music-lover first (that is what drew me to 'sound' I suppose), is, if sound is your only interest "why bother?!" Or perhaps you could spend all your money on creating an amazing acoustic space instead...what do you need music for if you don't love it, you can just stand there and talk, or clap your hands, or fart.

It does remind me of folks who say they're into phography (my profession), but instead are just into the gear; the resolution and fall-off of lenses, and the latest and greatest film or CCD, the finest printing technologies....and then they go and use this technology to take photos of pretty flowers that are sharp and in focus and have the most accurate rendering of their "real" color that money can buy. Just like sound "real" is relative as to who is judging it, and in the case of color, what light is falling on it, from what angle, and which part of the spectrum you are interested in recording. Why bother using the tools if you don't have something to say with them, or something profound to experience? To me, and this is of course my jaded opinion, focusing on the gear as and end in itself is a waste of time. But I guess I can see your point, what makes it any better than focusing on the music. Whatever moves you and makes you happy. It's just hard to understand...and perhaps vice versa?!

Marco
Tedious indeed! My qualifications are very modest in comparison as well: I
am in posession of two ears and a wee brain. They may be defective, but the
Portal sounds great to me! I have had seperates for most of twenty years
now, mostly tube gear. My system of choice is currently 300B SET + horns.
Got friends too with great very expensive systems of all shapes and sizes,
some of whom are also proud owners of two ears and brains (some larger
than others). That's it. We all like music, of course. I could live with the
Panache for a long time the way it is set up at my home. That, in the opinion
formulated by my wee brain, is saying a whole lot. I can't really explain it in
terms of the pre-amp/amp/power supply interface, as distinct from
separates. Nor can I wax rhetorical on the merits of active vs. passive
preamplification, or proprietary designs vs. the crapshoot of separates,
synergy, etc. Nor can I point you to sine waves and various graphs and
curves that will support my preferences. It just sounds damn good to me,
and I really don't like many SS amps I hear (all of which, by the way, have
been separates).

Newbee, I bet you could take an expressive photograph with a Holga, with
your Minolta, or a Nikon or Hasselblad. I bet you know that well too! Hang
on to that Minolta...it's already an antique! A fine camera at that. It ain't the
meat, it's the motion!

Marco
Steve- It occurs to me that you have an agenda in your relentless harping on
this particular detail. If you go to the Portal Website you would see that Portal does, in
fact, refer to the Panache as an "Integrated Amplifier". In fact, that
title is emblazened across its black face plate.

Marco
I would think you and some others posting here would welcome learning about the recognized standards instead of fighting them tooth and toenail. Sounds like you have a vested interest or agenda. Do you?

No vested interest or agenda that I'm aware of. It's one of three very different amps I currently listen to and I'm quite impressed with it. I've never been as taken with an SS amp, so it came as quite a surprise to me. I still prefer both tube amps I own, but I enjoy the Panache for a unique combination of qualities it offers.

As far as my interest in "learning about recognized standards" my response, which I recognize as being quite personal, is this: Initially I was making a simple statement based upon what I understood, and wanted to make it clear I was no expert, which is why I left it open to correction. To the ends you have taken to debating this particular detail, I have about as much interest in this subject as I would about the learning about similar standards regarding the manufacture and marketing of a hammer. I'd rather just heft the hammer, pound a few nails with it if I could, compare it to other hammers, and see how it suits me. Whatever debatable "marketing hype" the hammer manufacturer uses or doesn't use to sell their tools goes is soon forgotten once the hammer is in hand...it's part of the game everybody plays trying to get others to buy stuff they don't need anyway. Each of us is inundated with it every day on so many levels. IMO you have a snowball's chance in hell of changing that. You will note I never took issue with any of your rhetoric about passive vs. active vs. moderately interested gain stages. I initially pointed it out because you seemed to be asking a question or to be confused about it, when in fact, you now seem to have all the answers you need so I'm not really sure why you initially were confused. In the end I don't care if they used a wad of Play-Dough™ in the output stage to make it sound good. If it works for me and my purposes I don't really spend much time questioning why, I simply enjoy it while I'm still breathing.

Marco
Howdy boy's and girls. Today's word is "Hypocrite". Say it with me now; hypocrite. That's right boys and girls. Now can you say, "conflict of interest"?! VERY GOOD!

Marco

PS Thanks Howard - I also had no idea that Steve was a manufacture of amps and preamps. I missed that in your previous post of his url, since his posts had me less than interested in who he was. I agree with Howard, Steve, your position as a manufacturer should be disclosed when making criticisms of other manufacturers products or marketing. A simple statement would have sufficed. Again, I did not understand why in your initial post you seemed so confused by the term "passive" when you already had your own very opinionated answers. Incidentally, Joe Abrams, of Portal Audio also contributes to these forums on occasion. In every post in which I've seen him comment on a product he does include the disclaimer of his status.
Howard- If you ever try the Panache, I would not recommend combining it with the high-efficiency horn speakers that I know you like/own, as I do. Stick to tubes there (IMO, of course). With the Panache I would try listening on conventional speakers of average efficiency. That's where my observations are coming from anyway.

Marco
Hey, we never did hear back from Ejlif, who was expecting delivery on a Panache. He probably is (wisely) staying clear. I'd be interested to hear your comments if you're still out there Ejlif.

Marco
I beg your pardon, but your "position", as I have understood it,
was not at all in putting down the product itself, and I never accused you of
doing so. Obviously you have no place to do so having never heard the piece
of gear in question. What you have done is to put down the manufacturer as
having used "marketing hype" to deliberately mislead the general
public. You have posted here at length to prove and reiterate your point ad
nauseum, and it was not until someone actually asked you, did you ever
reveal you make your living manufacturing amps and preamps and other
audio gear. Actually, they had to ask you twice in order for you to be so
specific. Actually, now that I look back at Howard's query, you did not
respond with your URL to him at all, nor to his question as to what you
manufacture. You did post well after he'd asked his question, but did not
address his query at all. It was actually
Howard who posted your URL and revealed that you manufacture amps and
preamps. So, as it stands, I see no need for any apologies Steve. I don't think
I've misrepresented your position.

Marco
I agree, a great review has become muddled with BS. Once again, great job
Slate1. Sorry to have been acerbic in my former banter...needless to say, I
thought certain comments made here to be inappropriate, and my opinion
remains that they are. Y'all must excuse me now while I go on practicing my
sly deceptions on some other poor unwitting souls! By god I think I'll even do
some conniving while I'm at it!!

Marco
Ejlif - thanks for chiming in again! I'd have to say that I concur that I do prefer my SET system at work, which is indeed separates, but probably for very different reasons, of which resolution is not one. I was really surprised to hear your assessment of the midrange as having some "cloudiness" as I don't feel that way at all (but then we are used to different systems). I think for me the Panache delves deeply into the realms of some of the SS qualities that I'm not used to, and you may take for granted (are your primary amps SS or am I mistaken?) that I really enjoy the combination of those virtues along with the tube-like ones I am used too. I'm speaking of at least one of the qualities that you mentioned; the resolving power of SS...the ability to bring forth all the details with an almost crystaline clarity. I've also heard that done better on my good friend's $30K Levinson (SS) system, but then I always find his system to be a bit flat (lacking dimension), whereas the Portal gives the best sense of dimension I've heard from an SS amp. I have to say though, the detail and sheer impact of that detail brought out by his system is quite remarkable. Regardless of my preference for what is perhaps a more expensive and esoteric system, I find the Panache very rewarding as a second system and I'm sure I could live with it as an only system and be quite satisfied. IMO that's a whole lot to be delivered by a $1700 integrated ($1295 demo). Haven't heard any of the Creek gear to comment there. I have listened a bit to my friends Unison Unico (the standard edition). I had mixed feeling about it: I enjoyed it very much in his space with his system, but when we did a shootout in my room I didn't like it nearly as much. I could only compare the two strictly from memory, but I don't think that would be a fair comparison. Good to get the discussion back on track!

Marco
Ejlif - I'm pretty sure we're on the same page regarding the Panache. I think perhaps it's seeing the glass as half empty or half full. Or perhaps 2/3 empty and 1/3 full in your case, and vice versa in mine. Regardless, I'd agree, not a "giant-killer", but most rewarding and enjoyable for me. I'll have to seek out an Ayre someday to take a listen to, as I've heard only good things about them (all of their gear seems to be getting strong support in the community). Which SS amp are you pushing with the K1X?