2. amps-preamps
  3. 126624-10101

My Long List of Amplifiers and My Personal Review of Each!

So I have been in a long journey looking to find the best amplifiers for my martin logan montis. As you know, the match between an amplifier and speakers has to be a good "marriage" and needs to be blend exquisitely. Right now, I think I might have found the best sounding amplifier for martin logan. I have gone through approximately 34-36 amplifiers in the past 12 months. Some of these are:

Bryston ST, SST, SST2 series
NAD M25
PARASOUND HALO
PARASOUND CLASSIC
KRELL TAS
KRELL KAV 500
KRELL CHORUS
ROTEL RMB 1095
CLASSE CT 5300
CLASSE CA 2200
CLASSE CA 5200
MCINTOSH MC 205
CARY AUDIO CINEMA 7
OUTLAW AUDIO 755
LEXICON RX7
PASS LABS XA 30.8
BUTLER AUDIO 5150
ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005

With all that said, the amplifiers I mentioned above are the ones that in my opinion are worth mentioning. To make a long story short, there is NO 5 CHANNEL POWER AMP that sounds as good as a 3ch and 2ch amplifier combination. i have done both experiments and the truth is that YOU DO lose details and more channel separation,etc when you select a 5 channel power amplifier of any manufacturer.
My recollection of what each amp sounded like is as follows:

ATI SIGNATURE SERIES 6005 (great power and amazing soundstage. Very low noise floor, BUT this amplifiers NEEDS TO BE cranked up in order to fully enjoy it. If you like listening at low volume levels or somewhat moderate, you are wasting your time here. This amp won’t sound any different than many other brands out there at this volume. The bass is great, good highs although they are a bit bright for my taste)

NAD M25 (very smooth, powerful, but somewhat thin sounding as far as bass goes)
Bryston sst2(detailed, good soundstage, good power, but can be a little forward with certain speakers which could make them ear fatiguing at loud volumes)

Krell (fast sounding, nice bass attack, nice highs, but some detail does get lost with certain speakers)

rotel (good amp for the money, but too bright in my opinion)

cary audio (good sound overall, very musical, but it didn’t have enough oomph)

parasound halo (good detail, great bass, but it still holds back some background detail that i can hear in others)

lexicon (very laid back and smooth. huge power, but if you like more detail or crisper highs, this amp will disappoint you)

McIntosh mc205 (probably the worst multichannel amp given its price point. it was too thin sounding, had detail but lacked bass.

butler audio (good amplifier. very warm and smooth sweet sounding. i think for the money, this is a better amp than the parasound a51)

pass labs (very VERY musical with excellent bass control. You can listen to this for hours and hours without getting ear fatigue. however, it DOES NOT do well in home theater applications if all you have is a 2 channel set up for movies. The midrange gets somewhat "muddy" or very weak sounding that you find yourself trying to turn it up.

classe audio (best amplifier for multi channel applications. i simply COULDNT FIND a better multi channel amplifier PERIOD. IT has amazing smoothness, amazing power and good bass control although i would say krell has much better bass control)

Update: The reviews above were done in January 2015. Below is my newest update as of October 2016:



PS AUDIO BHK 300 MONOBLOCKS: Amazing amps. Tons of detail and really amazing midrange. the bass is amazing too, but the one thing i will say is that those of you with speakers efficiency of 87db and below you will not have all the "loudness" that you may want from time to time. These amps go into protection mode when using a speaker such as the Salon, but only at very loud levels. Maybe 97db and above. If you don’t listen to extreme crazy levels, these amps will please you in every way.

Plinius Odeon 7 channel amp: This is THE BEST multichannel amp i have ever owned. Far , but FAR SUPERIOR to any other multichannel amp i have owned. In my opinion it destroyed all of the multichannel amps i mentioned above and below. The Odeon is an amp that is in a different tier group and it is in a league of its own. Amazing bass, treble and it made my center channel sound more articulate than ever before. The voices where never scrambled with the action scenes. It just separated everything very nicely.

Theta Dreadnaught D: Good detailed amp. Looks very elegant, has a pleasant sound, but i found it a tad too bright for my taste. I thought it was also somewhat "thin" sounding lacking body to the music. could be that it is because it is class d?

Krell Duo 300: Good amp. Nice and detailed with enough power to handle most speakers out there. I found that it does have a very nice "3d" sound through my electrostatics. Nothing to fault here on this amp.
Mark Levinson 532H: Great 2 channel amp. Lots of detail, amazing midrange which is what Mark Levinson is known for. It sounds very holographic and will please those of you looking for more detail and a better midrange. As far as bass, it is there, but it is not going to give you the slam of a pass labs 350.5 or JC1s for example. It is great for those that appreciate classical music, instrumental, etc, but not those of you who love tons of deep bass.

 It is articulate sounding too
Krell 7200: Plenty of detail and enough power for most people. i found that my rear speakers contained more information after installed this amp. One thing that i hated is that you must use xlr cables with this amp or else you lose most of its sound performance when using RCA’s.

Krell 402e: Great amp. Very powerful and will handle any speaker you wish. Power is incredible and with great detail. That said, i didn’t get all the bass that most reviewers mentioned. I thought it was "ok" in regards to bass. It was there, but it didn’t slam me to my listening chair.

Bryston 4B3: Good amp with a complete sound. I think this amp is more laid back than the SST2 version. I think those of you who found the SST2 version of this amp a little too forward with your speakers will definitely benefit from this amp’s warmth. Bryston has gone towards the "warm" side in my opinion with their new SST3 series. As always, they are built like tanks. I wouldn’t call this amp tube-like, but rather closer to what the classe audio delta 2 series sound like which is on the warm side of things.

Parasound JC1s: Good powerful amps. Amazing low end punch (far superior bass than the 402e). This amp is the amp that i consider complete from top to bottom in regards to sound. Nothing is lacking other than perhaps a nicer chassis. Parasound needs to rework their external appearance when they introduce new amps. This amp would sell much more if it had a revised external appearance because the sound is a great bang for the money. It made my 800 Nautilus scream and slam. Again, amazing low end punch.

Simaudio W7: Good detailed amp. This amp reminds me a lot of the Mark Levinson 532h. Great detail and very articulate. I think this amp will go well with bookshelves that are ported in order to compensate for what it lacks when it comes to the bass. That doesn’t mean it has no bass, but when it is no Parasound JC1 either.
Pass labs 350.5: Wow, where do i begin? maybe my first time around with the xa30.8 wasn’t as special as it was with this monster 350.5. It is just SPECTACULAR sounding with my electrostatics. The bass was THE BEST BASS i have ever heard from ANY amp period. The only amp that comes close would be the jC1s. It made me check my settings to make sure the bass was not boosted and kept making my jaw drop each time i heard it. It totally destroyed the krell 402e in every regard. The krell sounded too "flat" when compared to this amp. This amp had amazing mirange with great detail up top. In my opinion, this amp is the best bang for the money. i loved this amp so much that i ended up buying the amp that follows below.

Pass labs 250.8: What can i say here. This is THE BEST STEREO AMP i have ever heard. This amp destroys all the amps i have listed above today to include the pass labs 350.5. It is a refined 350.5 amp. It has more 3d sound which is something the 350.5 lacked. It has a level of detail that i really have never experienced before and the bass was amazing as well. I really thought it was the most complete power amplifier i have ever heard HANDS DOWN. To me, this is a benchmark of an amplifier. This is the amp that others should be judged by. NOTHING is lacking and right now it is the #1 amplifier that i have ever owned.

My current amps are Mcintosh MC601s: i decided to give these 601s a try and they don’t disappoint. They have great detail, HUGE soundstage, MASSIVE power and great midrange/highs. The bass is great, but it is no pass labs 250.8 or 350.5. As far as looks, these are the best looking amps i have ever owned. No contest there. i gotta be honest with you all, i never bought mcintosh monos before because i wasn’t really "wowed" by the mc452, but it could have been also because at that time i was using a processor as a preamp which i no longer do. Today, i own the Mcintosh C1100 2 chassis tube preamp which sounds unbelievable. All the amps i just described above have been amps that i auditioned with the C1100 as a preamp. The MC601s sound great without a doubt, but i will say that if you are looking for THE BEST sound for the money, these would not be it. However, Mcintosh remains UNMATCHED when it comes to looks and also resale value. Every other amp above depreciates much faster than Mcintosh.

That said, my future purchase (when i can find a steal of a deal) will be the Pass labs 350.8. I am tempted to make a preliminary statement which is that i feel this amp could be THE BEST stereo amp under 30k dollars. Again, i will be able to say more and confirm once i own it. I hope this update can help you all in your buying decisions!


128x128jays_audio_lab
ron17
607 posts
 
@viber6

I was introduced to digital EQ 15 years ago by a company called TacT Audio. This is a Stereophile review of the digital equalizer/preamp I bought and used for several years.
https://www.stereophile.com/roomtreatments/437/index.html

After that unit I bought and used a Classe Sigma SSP mk2 pre/pro. Classe has implemented digital EQ for more than a decade in their home theater processor/preamps with great success. I became friends with a tech at Classe who taught me how to measure my room then implement the filters (frequency, gain and Q width). He was a fellow musician who had built his own SOTA recording studio. He also suggested when using digital EQ in a high-end 2 channel music system to (1) only use it @ 300hz and below. (2) only attenuate never boost.  I used their digital EQ in conjunction with ASC tube traps to greatly improve the excessive bass problem I had in my room. A couple of years ago I wanted to upgrade my preamp but still wanted to be able to use EQ (in the digital domain). I bought a Mola Mola Makua (preamp/DAC) from Bill Parish with GTT Audio. Bill is one of the most knowledgeable up to date hi-end retailers I've had the pleasure of dealing with. He told me he had used Roon's digital EQ and found it to be completely transparent and non-degrading to the music signal. I have an Innous Zenith mk2 SE music server that I use with Roon and their digital EQ and absolutely love it. I use it sparingly in conjunction with ASC tube traps.  

bigddesign3 sounds like an expert in the car stereo field and prefers analog EQ. I have no experience with car/stereo systems and would totally trust his judgement on that one.

I really think hi-end audio is heading to an all digital format....like it or not! I'm not ready to go all digital yet but know people who swear by it.
mrdecibel
3,063 posts
 
ron17. I agree, from the flat position, attenuate, not boost. A good buddy of mine, who is a fine musician with a recording set up, does just that with his eq. I believe it keeps the noise down as well. I did try this with my Rane, and although I found it to better attenuating, I still decided on not using the eq ( as mentioned prior ). Enjoy MrD.
mrdecibel
3,063 posts
 
WC, as many of us here, awaiting your reports on biwiring the Neos ( it might take more listening ), if you had a chance to reconfigure ? Enjoy ! MrD.
minorl
1,016 posts
 

I'm interested as well to read WC's views on biwiring.  I am an advocate of bi-amping which takes load/strain away from one amp for the lows/highs.  However, the benefit of biwring allude me.

I am interesting in this.

Since the Neoliths have internal crossovers, you can't bypass the internal crossover and use external crossovers.  However, the Neoliths probably have very good internal crossovers.  I believe that Wilson speakers also have internal crossovers.  Actually, I'm not even sure you can bi-amp Wilsons.

But if you take identical amps and bi-amp then the difference would be that one amp powers the lows and one amp powers the highs, thereby removing strain from the amps and a benefit in sound in reached.

Are you going to use different gauge wiring for bi-wiring?  The theory I remember was that high frequency go on the lower gauge wires and low frequency on the higher gauge wire.  I've seen no real evidence of this and personally would just use the same type of wire.  But, what do I know.

I use Audio Research REF 250 mono amps for the upper panel of my Martin Logan Monolith III Speakers and a Mark Levinson 23.5 for the bass woofers through a Krell KBX  balanced electronic crossover.

So, after playing with bi-wiring, WC can try bi-amping.  The amps on the upper panels  must be the same.  But, the woofer amp does not have  to be the same. As long as you can adjust the gain on the amp, or if the power output is the same.  My Krell KBX crossover has adjustable high and low controls. so I'm good.

In response to Viber6's inquiry, I can't really see any reason why bass response on digital  should be lacking, except if the digital recording itself is  bad or if the compression/decompression is done poorly. If the mike's and recording medium can't handle low frequencies, (in otherwords, crappy recording equipment), then the lows won't be there in the first place.  But, this is true for analog recording as well.  With high enough sample rate, the low frequency response should be there if the recording is done correctly and the playback equipment can handle low frequencies.

But, as I suggested to WC, sometimes, it is the room.  it is an eye opener when one uses the stereophile test cd and play white noise through their system and use an app like audiotools and look at the response in your room.  There may be low frequency valleys that explain where the low frequency weakness lie.

anyway, my thoughts.

enjoy


viber6
2,448 posts
 

ron17,

Thanks for your info on digital EQ.  This requires further study, but at the moment with my non computer based old fashioned CD, DAC, EQ, amp system, I don't see how the Roon can be utilized.  I am certainly interested in digital EQ.  I met with Bill Parish at his home a few years ago when I was considering the Mola Mola Kaluga amps.  He didn't know of a digital EQ for my purposes back then.  Bill is a wonderful guy with great knowledge.  The Mola Mola Kaluga is a great amp with my neutral tonal preference, so it is still under consideration.

I agree that for EQ, attenuation is useful, although my overall use of EQ goes far beyond what many people are doing with room correction for limited freq in the lower freq.  For example, I was able to make my Mytek amp sound more neutral (less sweet) by attenuating 200-600 Hz a little.  I use my ears to suit my preferences, and would not care what microphones measured as some kind of "ideal" to be imposed on the system.  Such software systems might create improvements in some ways, and I am not claiming that my adjustments are the theoretical correct way, they are just what I want to achieve musically to my standards/preferences.  I am still interested in digital EQ to tailor the tonal balance to my needs, but the end result is still obtained by listening.  Perhaps electronics involved in the digital process is superior to my Rane with its analog electronics, so I have an open mind.  Unlike others, I like to boost HF above 10 Khz significantly to offer much more brilliance in recordings that are laid back (which is most of them), which has the effect of extending down to the midrange to a lesser degree.  The midrange is affected in a reasonably subtle manner, always consistent with musicality, not a hifi disco type of distortion.

I also realize that rock/pop/jazz recordings in general are hotter than classical recordings, which is why many people here who like rock, etc. are puzzled why I am really out on the fringe by boosting the HF the way I do.  Many classical listeners sit far back in the concert hall and prefer the sound they are used to, which is laid back sound.  But listeners to jazz are usually closer, and the music is more upfront and exciting, so they find EQ is not needed.  For jazz, the mike is often right at the bell of the saxophone, much closer than for brass instruments in classical pieces.  I am just one of those unusual classical listeners who listens at close distances in an attempt to get the close perspective of the performer when I am wearing my other hat.

Also, do any of your acquaintances have digital preamps/amps that are truly superior to analog?  Can you name the equipment that they have?  If so, this is another reason not to spend too much money on today's dinosaur electronics.  Progress often happens faster than most of us can stay solvent.  (RIAA will recognize my paraphrase of an investment strategy to take reasonable losses in order to survive in the game.)

More to discover