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
>If it doesn't need a gainstage preamp, then it is already an integrated amp. Clear so far.

This is where I'm confused, Steve. Let's say my CD player has attenuation and I run it directly into my basic amplifier. Where's the gainstage preamp? Your reasoning seems to say that the under this scenario, my basic amplifier has become an integrated.

A light bulb did go off for me a few posts back. If the premap gain stage typically is placed after the attenuation, then you have this:

Preamp = attenuation + gainstage
Amp = gainstage + gainstage (two at least, right?)

Now, an integrated could be the combination of the two above, i.e.,:

=>attenuation + gainstage + gainstage + gainstage

If I describe my intgegrated as having a "passive pre", then I probably have:

=>attenuation + gainstage + gainstage

So what I am really describing is an amplifier with fewer gainstages, a la the Pass Aleph series and some others. But to call the integrated's pre "passive" is a bit of a misnomer, I suppose, because how can you really say that the gainstage is part of the preamp and not simply the first of the gainstages in the power amp. Is this what you are saying?
I will try to answer each comment in order.

>>"This is where I'm confused, Steve. Let's say my CD player has attenuation and I run it directly into my basic amplifier.">

Then your amp is not a Basic amp, but an integrated amp with the extra gainstage already incorporated into it. If it was a Basic amp, then you wouldn't be running a CD player directly into it and getting full power output.

>>"Where's the gainstage preamp? Your reasoning seems to say that the under this scenario, my basic amplifier has become an integrated.">

See above. If you can directly connect a CD player into an amplifier, it has that extra gainstage built into it. The amp is Not a Basic amplifier.

>>"A light bulb did go off for me a few posts back. If the premap gain stage typically is placed after the attenuation, then you have this:

Preamp = attenuation + gainstage">
Correct.

>>"Amp = gainstage + gainstage (two at least, right?)">

Nope. Not unless you use something like a 300b or some larger tube types (very low gain type of tubes). Then two stages may be in order. An external preamp has gain, so a good Basic amp only needs one gainstage.

>>"Now, an integrated could be the combination of the two above, i.e.,:

=>attenuation + gainstage + gainstage + gainstage">

An integrated only needs two gainstages (unless a 300b or some larger tube types). The Basic amp, with its one gainstage and the preamp gainstage installed.

>>"If I describe my intgegrated as having a "passive pre", then I probably have:

=>attenuation + gainstage + gainstage">

Nope. Remember, only two gainstages are needed. The first gainstage was taken from the external preamp, when it was installed in the Basic amp, which only had one gainstage to begin with.

>>"But to call the integrated's pre "passive" is a bit of a misnomer, I suppose,">

Yes. But remember, Drubin, this is what you have been taught. Some out there will try to teach anything to get an advantage in selling product.

One still has the same Total number of gainstages, whether basic amp and active preamp or integrated amp.
One simply moved the preamp gainstage from outside the Basic amp to inside the Basic amp (now called an integrated amp).

>>"because how can you really say that the gainstage is part of the preamp and not simply the first of the gainstages in the power amp. Is this what you are saying?">

Because the gainstage that was added to make the Basic amp an integrated amp performs the same function as the gainstage in the active preamp. The gainstage was simply moved from one chassis to another.

Following your line of reasoning, you can simply change definitions by location while the function of the gainstage remains the same?
By changing definitions, the door opens where definitions can be changed at will. If everyone changes definitions whenever they want, all chaos breaks loose. There needs to be some standards, or no one will understand what is being sold. And some will take advantage by deception, as many know. Bound for Sound has published several articles concerning shills, the press, and manipulators. Interesting reads and very informative.

Integrated amp means a putting together/combining of Basic amplifier and active gainstage preamplifier. It has some nice features, and some sound pretty good. In fact, I don't doubt the Panache is pretty darn good.

Take care.
Steve
I give up, but not before I making one more comment:

I have driven variable output CD players into a host of power amplfiers from Pass, ARC, CJ, and others. No one would ever describe any of these as an "integrated" amplifier because they had no preamp functionality, but each has at least two gain stages in them, as I understand it. If you are arguing that these are not "basic amplfiers", well, fine, then I don't know what you would call them. But no one would call them "integrated amps".
I know Drubin. Things have gotten so confused because of all the crap/hype that has been bantied about over the years. I could tell you some real duzies.

And the internet and the instant so called gurus have just made it worse. I could tell you some stories that you just wouldn't believe could happen.
---------------------------
The only thing I can figure out is that none have a selector switch or volume control attached. Read my next comment but you better be sitting down.

"but each has at least two gain stages in them"

And you know what is really weird? I bet most could have had a Basic amp by using only one gainstage. Just as bad is all the extra feedback loops in the designs with two gainstages. And we haven't even counted the nongain stages and the feedback loops they add.

I wonder if they suggest an active preamp besides? How about that for throwing away fidelity Drubin.

The audio industry is in such disarray, I don't know if it will ever get cleaned up.

Take care and let's end this string. Call me if you ever want to find out more.
Steve