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
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
Your photography analogy is excellent, Marco. My point, which you clearly get, would be that if someone gets off on that "most accurate rendering of their 'real' color, who are we to say that is not a worthwhile pursuit.
I think both make interesting points worth commenting on. I didn't know for sure there were some who were more interested in what was purchased than how the music sounded. I always thought it was just rhetoric. But it really is true?

I think we agree that if we were to sit in front of a sax, it is involving, emotional, and likeable. In otherwards, it is neutral/accurate and involving since it is live. I like that too. I think we agree on that.

But the problems I will describe below may make you think about the whole audio industry. The whole business of audio seems to be to sell product, not necessarily make bettter music, which we all like.

The next point:

"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.....

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."

I can understand the confusion. It seems that definitions are changing right before my eyes and confusing the public.

Actually, what you describe above is an amp with a gain stage that is normally in an outboarded preamp, but it is now installed in the amp itself to give the gain necessary to accept a CD signal. It is normally called an integrated amp, meaning the active preamp gainstage is incorporated in the amp.

It used to be that a typical system was described as a source, a preamp (phono stage plus a line stage), and then an amp. But the gainstage/linestage from the preamp is now installed in the amp to do away with extra power supply the outboarded preamp needed.

So the external preamp power supply, ICs etc are not needed in an integrated amp. But read on.

Now, for the first time I have seen, with this post, the public being told (by Sam Tellig?) that the 1st stage of an integrated amp (actually what used to be the active stage of a preamp) is actually part of the amp. What a change.

And not only that, the integrated amp is now called an amplifier, not integrated amp? And now the volume/selector are incorporated and is called a pasive preamp?

That is a real change in definitions.

So, amps are now incorporating increased gain (in order to accept the signal from a CD player) in order to eliminate the conventional active preamp, being called integrated amps. And now the definition of integrated amps is changing to be called a regular amp. The push will continue.

Unfortunately, integrated amps and "amps with increased gain" with passive volume controls have major sonic problems, which are never discussed.

For instance, did you know that these amps have feedback from the output to the input, even though some, if not many state there is no feedback?

This feedback, actually multiple feedback loops, is actually thru the power supply, and is frequency dependent, and is frequently only 20db down or so from the fundamental music, like tem times higher than typical tube distortion figures.

This problem has been known for over 50 years and occurs in nearly all amp designs! If you can get a copy of the 4th edition of the RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, look it up.

The ramifications by changing the definition only seems to help those who sell this type of equipment. Unfortunately, the minuses of this topology aren't discussed.

Take care.
Steve
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.