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
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
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 - 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?
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.................
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