I'd say it might be more like 2/3 full and 1/3 empty with the Panache for me, maybe even 3/4, 1/4th.
I'm sending the signal from my K1x to a set of Parasound Halos.
I'm sending the signal from my K1x to a set of Parasound Halos.
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
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
80 responses Add your response
Hi Springbock, Here are a couple of references, since I have only a few copies of mags, that correctly defines what an integrated amp is. I didn't make up my own definition as you seem to suggest. Stereophile Magazine, July 2001, 3300 integrated amp: "The preamp section is fully balanced dual-differential with a combination of balanced and single-ended inputs that are converted to balanced,....' Feb 2001 Stereophile, IT-85: "To this end, along with the gainstage of the VTL2.5 preamp Manley shoehorned the guts of the ST-85 into the chassis of the IT-85." Hope this clears things up. ps. By the way, my apologies to the newcomers, for not mentioning my company, but I had to wait till the guys showed their intent. It may seem I just posted out of the blue, but the guys and I have known each other for some time. Just didn't think about the newbie's, which I should have. Sincerely, Steve |
My sympathies to Slate1, who simply wrote a sincere review of a piece of equipment that he liked. Then a torrent of critiscms and invective because an individual, who happens to be in the audio industry, took issue with the marketing strategies and nomenclature of the manufacturer, and who, incidentally, did shed light for the uninitiated, on his definitions for the sine qua nons of an Integrated Amplifier. Then it got ugly, and most of us Audiophiles/music lovers/audio nuts - all interchangeable in this hobby, surely, tune out, because we really don't have the inclination, time or energy to get involved in such cat-fights - we just want to know about the music and the stuff that brings it to us. Not the egos/business/issues that go along with this. I hold Audiogon entirely responsible, and until they establish iron-clad rules about disclosure and any PERCEIVED - note, not even remotely of necessity real, but ONLY perceived - conflict of interest, whether real, intended or purely incidental and innocent, then those of us who are NOT in the industry will continue to have to be subjected to this. Come on Audiogon, clean house once and for all! You wont lose business - industry-affiliates will still support you; we, the unwashed, un-involved business types will cheer, admire and respect you and give you even more of our business, attention and time................. |
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? |
Maybe cloudiness is not the best word, it's hard to describe this exactly as I hear it. Maybe a sort of sterility or deviation from naturalness, it does have a decent sense of space, but not like tubes do. My main system consists of all tubes and they are hands down my favorite. This second system is solid state, mostly so I don't have to turn it on and off. I find it to be very rewarding in different ways than tubes, but I agree completely that no solid state I have ever heard has the dimension of tubes. The Ayre K1x preamp has lifted so much hash and haze from the sound that even my main system has some feeling of grunge to the sound that I didn't notice so much before. The Panache has even a lot more of it, or just plain lack of purity. I had the CJ 17 pre in this sytem before the K1x and I can without reservation say that I gave up nothing going to the all solid state K1x. This goes against my thoughts that it takes tubes to give the stage dimension cuz the Ayre is no slouch in that regard. All in all I think the Panache rocks, and is super fun to listen to, but when I sit down and really listen I personally conclude that it is no giant killer. |
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 |
Yeah I was staying out of it, but since you asked... Well to put is short, the Panache did not better my better gear. I find it super enjoyable and lively to listen to, but when it gets down to it, it just doesn't have the resolution of the higher gear. There is a distinct lack of naturalness that I can clearly hear with both the Creek 4330 and the Panache. To me it has a slightly cloudy perspective in the midrange, good bass and slightly rolled off top, all in the best most musical way. I recently added an Ayre K1-x to my system, about the same time I got the Panache, and that even furthers the distance between the seperates and Panache, and it ought to. I'm keeping my seperates for now I do like the Panache enough that I'm going to try and figure out a way to put together another system with some extra Silverline Sonatas that I have in the closet, it could be enough to lure me into the workout room more often. |
So Marco, that's the spiney black fella you got in your house. Not the Aleph. Smart looking unit. The knobs and faceplate remind me of something geared towards the pro market, kinda like the Benchmark DAC1. I like it! Based on looks alone, I would have never expected tube like virtues from this unit. Damn good price too. |
That is interesting suit me. The reason you guys are angry is because I did Not agree with Slate's and Sam's comment, Not because of the manufactuers listing as an integrated amp. Let's get our facts straight. In fact, I agreed with Portal, that it was an integrated amp. And I see I am accused of hating integrated amps? Well, I was nice enough to give a hint on how to design a superior integrated amp (even though I don't make them), but you guys completely ignored it. I wonder why??? |
Well, the good news is that anyone opening this thread for the first time will be likely to read the first post - the review. People quickly let their eyes skim over things that don't interest them, so I don't see a problem with this long thread. I remember when Roy Johnson first showed up on audiogon with his posts. He spent a lot of time educating us all on some aspects of first order crossover design I, for one, had never considered. (I'm not a designer, but I've been in and around the industry for decades.) He was never rude, he was understandable, and everyone understood what product he was making and that he was implicitly defending his design choices. And I think he created enormous goodwill for his company. The current thread stands in contrast to that. If I were sas, at this point I'd be one of the ones arguing for the thread to be edited - out of self interest.... |
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 |
| Post removed |
I agree, SAS should have been more forthcoming of his place in the audio industry before criticizing the marketing tactics of other companies as a whole. This is another example of an audio manufacturer not understanding the public relations aspect of their business or what constitutes proper conduct in a chat forum. Whether it was intentional or not, it's unfortunate, and seems to be a recent trend on Audiogon. |
I agree with you slate, stop the thread. Maybe Slate can do a new review from a clean slate? The comment about "music lover" didn't seem to go far as it wasn't a big deal, at least to me. I wish I would have never answered any questions posed after my first post. The questions got deeper and deeper, and more information was presented to try to explain the differences. I should have just let the questions hang, then the differences in topology wouldn't have surfaced. Take care. Steve |
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... |
Sounds to me like you are trying to justify yourself, Jax. >>"Review: Portal Panache Integrated Amplifier 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."> Read my first post again Jax. Try to get it right this time. I never put down, or even commented on the Panche or manufactuer. >>"What you have done is to put down the manufacturer as having used "marketing hype" to deliberately mislead the general public."> You just caught yourself Jax. My first post says nothing about the product or the manufactuer. In fact the manufactuerer was telling the truth. I only commented on being a music lover and Sams comments as hype. Get your facts straight. Any other comments I made after that were in reply to the questions, negative attacks, and the information you guys posed AFTER I made my first comment. Try to tell the whole story Jax, instead of misrepresenting. >>"You have posted here at length to prove and reiterate your point ad nauseum,"> Read the posts after my first post Jax. They had questions, didn't understand, and wanted answers, (look at suits me, he just demanded an answer.) Stop twisting and fudging on the truth, Jax. You guys wanted answers which I gave. By the way, what would you do if you were attacked? >>"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."> And I have three posts, from yesterday afternoon, that were never put up. Where are they Jax? And it takes 4-8 hours for them to be posted anyway. I was not attacking any product or manufacturer Jax. I made a simple first comment, and would have glad to leave then. And you could have just as easily have let my comment go, if you didn't like it, if you wanted too, couldn't you? But YOU guys wouldn't. You asked more questions, and I answered them. So why don't you stop misrepresenting. Only after the attacks did I ask if you guys are receiving any compensation. Interestingly, looking back, none has ever replied and said no. But you guys had to keep asking questions because you couldn't understand. I didn't push it on you. Go back and get your facts straight, Jax. Jax, you have left out or misrepresented 1) what my first post accurately says, and doesn't say. Nothing was even mentioned about the manufacturer. In fact Portal and I agree. So you misreprented that. 2) Questions, further information, comments, attacks posted time after time, AFTER my initial post, which you conviently left out to justify yourself. So I had to post the same thing over and over. So you misreprensated again. 3) So after misrepresenting me at least twice, you call me a hypocrit and conflict of interest? That is three times Jax. I feel your actions are deceitful, sly, and outright lying, Jax. I would say you owe me a public apology. Steve |
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 |
SAS first post> "I don't understand a couple of comments. Since when do audiophiles not love music? Don't we all love music or am I missing something? "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....." 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. So one could also say, which is standard, that the amp has an active preamp stage incorporated in the amp. sasaudio@bwsys.net 04-12-05"> Interesting Jax, I didn't make one comment against the Panache. In fact Portal told the truth, it is an integrated. The comments only concerned being music lovers and Sam's comments. So their was no conflict of interest nor being a hypocrit. I think Jax owes all of us an apology for completely misrepresenting my position. |
Well, you didn't answer either question. Why do these people say they have passive preamps sections in their integrateds if they don't according to your strict defintion? It would be to their marketing advantage to deny the preamps sections are passive, yet they do not. Please give a couple examples of integrateds or of amps which would not work with a (gain controllable) CD player going straight into them. Because I think, allowing for relatively correct impedance and gain matching, any amp or integrated can do this. |
Hi Speedball, Yes, an integrated is a very good way to get good audio at a sensible price. I have seen many separates that could easily be beaten by a good integrated. I would go for it Speedball. >>"Since you seem to have a bit of knowledge in this field why not spread some of it around helping others instead of running this one issue into the ground?"> Well, I just thought of posting one time, correcting a bad situation, but the negative responses just to keep coming. Take care. Steve |
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 |
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. |
Sorry, the link to Steve's company is http://www.sasaudiolabs.com I know I listed it in an earlier thread. I should say that I'm not out to get Steve. Actually, I'm very much interested in hearing the Panache, and reading what owners have to say about the amp. It is simply my opinion that it would have been useful to know from the beginning who Steve was, particularly with the bulk of the discussion having turned into a challenge of marketing claims from a direct competitor of his. Perhaps I'm the only one here who has no previous familiarity with SAS Audio, I don't know. Howard |
First off, I wanted to give my credentials. I have an electronics engineering degree, about 45 years in tubes, and decades, off and on, with audio design. Trust me Slate, you are being suckered with marketing hype.But there are more to your credentials, Steve. Steve, May I ask, what is SAS Audio? Steve, it is not just A company. It is in fact an audio company, Steve. Your audio company. http://www.sasaudio.com And you build amplifiers that are obviously in competition with the one being reviewed here. This is the sort of information that you want to give in the beginning, Steve. Because it appears as though your goal in participating in this discussion was not necessarily to enlighten a duped public, but to poke holes in the competition. Why? Only you can say, Steve, but full disclosure of your role in the audio marketplace is a must, in my view. Take care, Howard |
Steve, Since you seem to have a bit of knowledge in this field why not spread some of it around helping others instead of running this one issue into the ground? There are lots of people everyday looking for answers or a little help here at Audiogon. You just seem to be putting an extrordinary amount of effort into analyzing just a small part of the "big picture". I bet 99% of all people who find this thread will not read through to the end or can not understand the detailed electronic talk that is being said. The only reason I am/was interested in this thread is because I have been considering an integrated. For the "money" an integrated seems like a decent way to get the power without all the xtras of a reciever and still cheaper than seperates. And for your information I know you as well as anyone else around here. |
See above. And look around. 2>>"Why, if these integrateds (or amps) actually have an extra gainstage don't the manufacturers take the advantageous route of advertising the integrateds (or amps) as having active preamps?"> Everybody knows what integrated means, except it seems you. And just looking at the sensitivity shows what is inside. See above posts about weaknesses of integrateds. And that is just one problem. Look at CJ. They tell what gainstages are in their amps. But notice how they do it. They make it clear so all can understand, not play word games. Very intelligent of them. Take care. Steve |
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 |
sas > 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. 1. How many standalone amps by whatever name cannot be driven by a line level source such as a CD player with sufficient output voltage and adequately matched impedance? What are some examples of amps which do and do not contain this extra gainstage, which actually makes these amps integrateds (or not)? 2. Integrateds which are advertised as having passive preamps usually indicate the passive preamp is a cost savings measure. This is true for Portal and for Jolida, for example. Why, if these integrateds (or amps) actually have an extra gainstage don't the manufacturers take the advantageous route of advertising the integrateds (or amps) as having active preamps? |
Is trying to teach and keep the standards consistent an agenda? Is using varifyable facts a form of agenda, or is it teaching and helping the audio community? 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? Also makes me wonder if you are receiving ANY form of compensation by anyone, any kind what so ever guys? I brought only the facts to the table. Here is another one. Bound for Sound, in issue 163, "Components of Merit" #5, "Power Amplifiers and Integrateds" Knows that there are differences. But you guys have fought it all the way. I mean, if you don't understand, why are you fighting the information tooth and toenail? >>" In fact, that title is emblazened across its black face plate." (refering to integrated) No kidding. Are you trying to change the subject? It is about unfounded claims made in the review, and the quoted comment from Sam. Want to see a good review? See the review by Scotty of the VAC. It is excellent without bringing up weird comments or changing definitions. |
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 |
Good idea Speedball. But before leaving, I looked up ARC, CJ, and Pass, as Drubin has listed. ARC's site is down. Both CJ and Pass do not mention (from what I read on their website) saving a gainstage by eliminating the external gainstage preamp. This supports my position as the gainstage is added to the amp. Why they don't call it an integrated is unknown. In my opinion it should be. In any case, that does not excuse others from marketing hype. |
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 |
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 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 |
>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? |
http://www.sasaudiolabs.com Found it, Steve. |
Again it is quite basic Drubin. I will lead you through it step by step. OK, you have a CD source. We start out with a Basic amp and it needs an external active gainstage preamp to drive it. All Basic amps do. If it doesn't need a gainstage preamp, then it is already an integrated amp. Clear so far. Now you dissasemble the active preamp and install it, the selector switch, volume control, and active stage(s), especially the gainstage, in the Basic amplifier. Afterall the Basic amp needs the gain from that stage. Is it clear so far? Now you have converted the Basic amp to an integrated amp. The volume control is before the preamp gainstage added. The total gain is now enough for a CD player to drive the newly made integrated amp. But wait, some are saying the newly installed active preamp gainstage, after the vol control, is now only a simple amp stage. They renamed it. And, since we can rename the preamp gainstage a simple amp stage, well, then we can also rename the selector switch/volume control a passive preamp. How clever. Real slick marketing. Do you grasp this so far? Yet, the circuitry, looking at the integrated schematic, is the same as if we had separates. So why rename? Ok, we just split the active preamp in two. The preamp gainstage is now just a simple amp stage. The selector/volume control is now a passive preamp. How convenient to then claim only a passive preamp is used, and is very simple. Remember, the preamp gainstage had to be installed to make the Basic amp an integrated amp. So the amp is not as simple as even a Basic amp. The preamp gainstage, after the vol control, was just relabeled so the volume control could be called a passive, and seem simpler. Slick marketing. Do you still understand? Now I hope you are honest and want to learn and improve on the integrated amp. Here is one basic problem for you to work on. Hope you don't want to hide the problem but will try to solve it. Integrated amps have feedback loops. (How many call their amps "no global feedback" amps when they aren't? Not by a long shot.) With each new stage, all the other stages of the amp feed back to it, and visa versa, through the power supply (see RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, 1940's, so over 50 years known). So if we have two stages and add a 3rd stage, the first two feedback to the third and visa versa. The first stage also loops to the second and visa versa. If we add a 4th stage, then we have three feedback loops to the 4th stage, and visa versa back to the 3. Remember, we still have the feedback loops when we added the 3rd stage, and the first two stages. This also includes output and interstage transformers connected, signal wise to the B+. Wow, that is alot of feedback loops, which are frequency dependent, and each has a different and large phase shift. If you are truly interested in music, start identifying problems and solving them, instead of just insulting people. We need to build and help audiophiles with knowledge so they will be informed, not get scammed. Take care. Steve |
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.... |
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. So now, some don't want the active gainstage of the incorporated preamp to be called a preamp stage? Interesting. And now they call the volume control a passive preamp/stage? Interesting marketing technique/hype. >>"Other than a phono pre-amp stage, I'm not aware of any other gain stages in a pre-amp that occur before the attenuator."> Like you refer too, there is a phono section that uses a "head amp", sometimes called a "pre-preamp". Like you stated, preamp active stages are virtually always after the volume control. If there is a source/cathode follower between the volume control and active gainstage in an external preamp, both are part of the preamp. When installed in an integrated, both active stages are still part of the preamp. Look, it has already confused you into thinking you got away from a preamp gainstage. But you haven't. Wonder how many others have been taken in by this marketing technique. Steve |
