Passlabs Aleph 1.2 with CJ Tube 17LS/16LS Preamp

I agree that the 200w aleph 1.2's probably have considerably better bass. I have only used the 100w aleph 2's. They have the same power rating as the 100w stereo aleph 4. My point, and I do have one, is that compared to other 100w amps, the aleph's seemed weak in the bass. Somewhat related, I found the 185w mccormack dna1/reva was much much stronger. This was into a 4 ohm load audio physic virgo and 4 ohm magnepan 1.6. At his impedence, the aleph 2 is putting out 160w, and the mccormack 375w so the difference in bass is not surprising.

I do like the aleph 2's quite a bit. Strong bass just doesn't seem to be one of their characteristics.

I had a long discussion over phone with Passlabs people and they reckon and strongly suggest that even a 1,000 ohms output impedance out of any preamp will not upset the Aleph 1.2 whose input impedance is only 10,000 ohms provided, a quality interconnect like Cardas "golden ref" is used. Yes - the extra warmth of the cj might be too much. I was speaking to another ultra highend specialist who suggested the FM Acoustics new resolution series 155 preamp to go with the Aleph 1.2s. I do know that FMA gear is very neutral, typical of the swiss and they practically thrive on 'neutrality'. Wonder, how this would match? The FMA 155 also have quite low output impedance, typically around 100 ohms.

Also, may I clarify that the Aleph 1.2s I am talking about are 200 watt monoblocks at 8 ohms. These are the flagship ones of the entire Aleph range of amps.

John_l,
Restating what I said previously, I agree that if you are looking for bass slam there are many better choices other than the Pass Aleph amps. A good example would be a Plinius amp. They have such an iron-fisted quality that is almost shocking in their impact. But, having owned a Plinius, I know that, even when just considering the quality of these two amps in the bass alone, the Aleph will give you far less slam, but much more extended, much more tuneful bass than will a Plinius. Considering the McCormack DNA 1: Yes, it has much more bass slam than the Aleph series, but if you audition both side-by-side with speakers and electronics which do a good job of reproducing the entire frequency range, I think you will find that there are few amps if any which exceed the Pass Alephs, particularly the larger ones, in bass extension. Then, when you look at these amps in their entirety, versus the McCormack DNA 1, for example, with regard to high frequency extension and detail, soundstage and neutrality, I don't believe you could rate the McCormack in the same league with the Pass Aleph. I am not disparaging the McCormack. It is a very good amp and an excellent buy when you take into account its price point. But as good as it is, it is an amp built to a price point. IMO, the Alephs are built to compete with the best available, even if they don't offer the best bass slam in the business.

Hey Rayhall,

I think we are in complete agreement on the mccormack verses the alephs. I have owned both alephs and the mccormack. My Mccormack was a hotrodded dna reva/partial gold. It was a great amp. I would take it over any amp on the market except for the alephs. The alephs are the best solid state I have heard. They just have a greater purity if sound than anything I have heard. Every other solid state amp I have listened to has a little 'haze', or worse, a 'processed' sound to it (you know, like an emmylous harris album). The alephs are just pure undistorted sound with walt-disney class holography. I've heard krells, s
pectral, levinson and all. I prefer the alephs to any of them. Just my taste !

On the topic of matching a warm tube pre to these amps. I hooked up my aleph 2's to my avanti centuries last night. I first listened with the aleph P mk2 preamp for a little while. Unbelievable detail but still liquid sounding. If you told me it was a super accurate tube amp playing, I would have believed you.

I swapped in my pre-warmed NOS tubed BAT vk-5i (New sovtec 5881gxc w/ rca nos tubes). The sound was dramatically different. A little smoother, but at a fairly sizable loss of transparency. It seemed that the high frequencies were quite a bit more rounded. It was very easy to prefer the aleph P with the aleph preamps. I felt that the soundstage became quite a bit more rounded. It definitely wasn't a great match. The BAT sounds wonderful with the vt100, but 'just ok' with the alephs. The aleph P was much much better.

Cabling was nordost quattro-fil, spm speaker cable and sony SCD-1 SACD player. It didn't surprise me that this is the setup that Sony used to demo SACD. (with their own crappy speakers of course)

To eat my own words, the bass was quite spectacular. For some reason the avanti-centuries DO display greater bass authority with the aleph 2's than the vt100. I am using different cabling, a different cd player. The vt100 also has svet kt88s in it now instead of 6550's. If I recall, the major difference in bass could be heard with my old mg 1.6QR's moreso than the virgo's. The alephs have unbelievable speed. The tube equipment seems to be swimming in molasses by comparison.

Very interesting Rayhall & John_1:
No, I'm not looking for the last word in bass slam etc. What I'm looking for is overall completeness, i.r. attack, growth of the tone, and decay, all of which are plenty in abundance of a SET(tube)amp. But, the SET doesn't have the extended bandwidth of the Alephs. I'm also looking for holographic imaging, and am a soundstaging freak. I was told my people from KimberKable that using their Kimber Select KS3033 cable instead of the much touted BifocalXL would give me more body, bigger soundstage etc. Is this a fact? I was thinking of considering either the Cardas "Golden cross" or "golden Ref" as speaker cables with my B&W 801/802s. Appreciate your inputs.