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 9 responses by slate1

Hi Marco and Speedball - thanks for the responses!

Speedball - I think you'll find the Panache to be a great addition to your system.

Marco - I guess I should have better defined my distinction between "designed" and "engineered" in the review.

My understanding from Joe is that he designed the amp in the sense that he dictated what it was to include and not include and what the general design philosophy was to be. I guess, "less is more" would be the best way to describe it.

This was then turned over to a well known anonymous audio equipment engineer who then built the amp - which was then tweaked by Joe's ear to his liking. So – I guess what I meant by “designed” was that Joe was instrumental in dictating that the amp have as little as possible in the signal path. It was his "keep it simple" design philosophy from a cosmetic and electronic standpoint that the engineer built upon. At least that's my understanding!

As for the headphone section – thanks for pointing that out as it’s a vitally important element of the amp. Unfortunately I am not in possession of a better set of headphones – but hopefully will be purchasing some in the near future to take advantage of the headphone section of the amp. One interesting thing I am doing is inserting a miniplug-to-.25” headphone adapter in the headphone jack to avoid the power-on “thump” at startup. Not that it’s really anything to be concerned about…
Ejlif - really! That's excellent - please post your thoughts once you've had a chance to spend some time with it. What is your associated gear?
Ejlif - that's some heavy competition. I'm really curious to hear your honest opinion of how the Panache holds up against the Parasound/CJ combo.

BTW - I'm jealous as hell of your VR-4Jr's! They are an amazing pair of speakers and something I hope to own in the hopefully not too distant future. Do you find that you have to place them several feet from the wall? That's something I've read concerning them and something that could be a potential issue in the room I'd like to place them in.
Sorry for the delay in getting back online at Audiogon - been out of town for a couple of days.

All I meant is that I don't consider myself an "audiophile" because I have neither the equipment nor the experience to consider myself one. I don't have an obsession with the equipment itself - I have an obsession with the music the equipment produces. Like everything else in the review it's just my opinion.

As for the passive line stage. Marco (jax2) hit it on the head as I understand it. The Creek 5350SE also sports a passive line stage and I can say that both of these integrateds have a level of detail to their sound that I can only attribute to the passive design.
One more thing - there is a difference, both from an engineering and sonic standpoint, between a passive and active line stage in an integrated amp - it's not a marketing trick.

Most pre-amp sections in integrateds add about 6db of gain to the incoming signal before routing the signal through the volume pot to further adjust gain. That's an active pre-amp section.

The Panache and the 5350SE don't apply that additional gain before routing the signal through the volume pot - that's a passive line stage. Interestingly, the 5350SE offers an optional 6db gain card that can be added by the user to convert the passive line-stage to an active pre-amp.

Both the 5350SE and the Panache have provided more than enough gain for my system when listening to either CD or Phono via my Dynavector Phono-stage.
Okay – this is getting a bit tedious….

I won’t even pretend to have the experience you’ve got with regard to electronics nor do I wish to get into a back and forth exchange regarding semantics.

Here’s the thing I don’t understand – if the volume pot is a passive means of adjusting gain and the “integrated” amplifier has nothing between the incoming signal and amplifier section other than the volume pot HOW can this not be different from there being an additional gain stage prior to routing the signal to the amplifier section?

In other words:

Passive Integrated amp:

CD -> Volume Pot -> Amp Section -> Speakers

Active Integrated amp:

CD -> Line Stage -> Volume Pot -> Amp Section -> Speakers

How can eliminating the line stage section be a bad thing???

It seems all your arguments are in regards to Integrated Amplifiers in general, which you obviously are not a fan of, as compared to separates. I understand your arguments with regards to that all though I guess my other equipment isn’t resolving enough to hear the differences you describe.
Steve - I understand what you're saying, I just don't see how it applies to what I had to say about the Panache. I only as to how it applies to separates -vs- integrateds.

Which is fine, I guess - but I'm not sure this was the place to bring it up and attempt to flesh it out.

I still think the Panache is unique in its design and sound and I'll stand by that.

"Putting down audiophiles, in general, is ridiculous. The vast majority are true music lovers."

Ahhhhhh - I think I've located the root of the issue that sparked you to respond....

I wasn't "putting down" audiophiles, Steve - if anything I was elevating them to a level which I have not attained... sorry if I unintentionally offended your delicate nature.
Okay - I swear this is my last post (he says for the 20th time...)

I've read your posts over and over Steve and here's my final conclusion and, granted, I seem to have had the order of some things wrong...

Like you said (I'll even quote...) "Virtually all active external preamps have the source connected to the selector switch, then to the attenuator, then to the active gainstage, and then output to the amp."

"Now, take the selector switch, attentuator, and gainstage and install it in an amplifier. Now we have an integrated amp, the preamp is incorporated with the amp on the same chassis"

Right, got it - this is 99% of the integrateds out there. MY understanding, and everything I can find research wise fleshes this out, is that the Portal and Creek 5350SE take a selector switch, attentuator, and install it in the amplifier - NO GAINSTAGE in the pre-amp SECTION of the integrated amp - and that's it.

So these are DIFFERENT in that they eliminate the gainstage in the pre-amp section of the integrated amp.

I presume there are some separate pre-amps out there too that are passive in design as well, so that there would be a selector switch and attentuator in the preamp that would connect to the amp. I dare not go down that road of debate though and am officially done.

My final word - the Panache beats anything I've ever heard, but, hey - I'm no audiophile....
This is getting ridiculous…. MODERATOR - HELP!! I hate that this thread has grown to something that has nothing to do with the piece of equipment I set out to review. I would hope that after 63 posts, of which only a handful actually have to do with the Panache, everyone would agree to end this charade.

We get it Steve – you think Sam Tellig’s comment concerning not calling the Panache a conventional “integrated amplifier” is wrong and you were somehow offended by your misunderstanding of my “I’m not an audiophile but a music lover” comment. You find fault with the whole integrated concept – further bolstered by the fact that you are designing and selling separates. Fine.

I wish that this discussion had been moved out to the regular forum so that people interested in the Panache could come here, to the REVIEW section and find informative opinions on the Panache rather than finding an ongoing discussion surrounded around comments made by Sam and myself. Prompted by a designer and seller of competing equipment none the less.

As it stands right now, short of my review, someone would have to filter through 62 rants to find 3 or 4 actual comments on the piece of equipment. What a shame since my intent was to introduce a piece of equipment I found so satisfying that it prompted me to write my first review…

But, what the hell do I know - I'm no audiophile...