| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
When do we get to read your comparison of the AudioQuest Hurricane (high-current) and Shunyata Research Zi-Tron Sigma HC?
Boulder Amplifiers 2150 monoblock power amplifier Specifications
Sidebar 1: Specifications
Description: Solid-state monoblock power amplifier. Input impedance: 200k ohms balanced, 100k ohms unbalanced. Common-mode rejection (balanced only): 60Hz, 90dB; 10kHz, 70dB. Continuous power output: 1000W into 8, 4, or 2 ohms. Peak power: 1000W into 8 ohms, 2000W into 4 ohms, 4000W into 2 ohms (all equivalent to 30dBW). THD, 8 ohms: 0.0006%, 20Hz–2kHz; 0.0025% at 20kHz. THD, 4 ohms: 0.0008%, 20Hz–2kHz; 0.0030% at 20kHz. THD, 2 ohms: 0.0012%, 20Hz–2kHz; 0.0045% at 20kHz. Frequency response: 0.015Hz–200kHz, –3dB. Voltage gain: 26dB. Equivalent input noise (EIN), 20kHz BW: 1.5µV.
Dimensions: 18" (457.2mm) W by 10.735" (272.7mm) H by 28.925" (734.7mm) D. Weight: 220 lbs (99.8kg) net, 319 lbs (144.7kg) shipping.
Serial number of unit reviewed: 11295 & '6.
Price: $99,000/pair. Approximate number of dealers: 28.
Manufacturer: Boulder Amplifiers, 255 S. Taylor Avenue, Boulder, CO 80027. Tel: (303) 449-8220. Fax: (303) 449-2987. Web: www.boulderamp.com.
NEXT: Associated Equipment »
 | |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
- Log in or register to post comments
COMMENTS
1st paragraph
Submitted by supamark on January 24, 2017 - 6:54pm
'"I'm a recording engineer, so I value accuracy," said a panelist in a discussion—titled "How to Read Between the Lines of Audio Advertising"'
Was your response to this statement deliberate trolling or are you really that unfamiliar w/ what recording engineers do? He meant, and I can't believe I have to explain this to you, that what comes out of the amp should be the same as what went in, but amplified. Jeez.
It's like your silly trolling of people (some of whom are also trolling) who say they prefer digital to analog. The correct answer is neither is better than the other, they each do different things well and really it's a matter of which distortions one prefers.
Note, I worked as a recording engineer in the early 90's - classical, jazz, rock, and pop; I did it all.
1st paragraph
Submitted by mallred on January 27, 2017 - 5:02pm
I've wasted a lot of money in this silly hobby thinking if I moved up to the next level, I'd get better results. Experience and approx. $80k (over the years) I know better... Of course, maybe if I had of pushed up even further to Boulder/etc., I would've finally gotten "there"...
Uh...
Submitted by supamark on February 1, 2017 - 7:52pm
Not sure what this has to do with what I wrote... but if you can't hear the difference between, say, a well designed Class A amp and a well designed class AB or D amp then the problem may simply be that your hearing (or ability to discern fine grain differences in sound) is not up to snuff. Most wine, to me, tastes like grape juice mixed with vodka but I don't doubt that's not the case with most people who actually like wine (I obviously don't), and an experienced wine taster can glean a lot of information from shades of flavor most of us cant discern.
I spent about 5 years where my job was, essentially, to listen carefully (recording engineer). I could hear the distinct differences between two Steinway 9' grands we had my at first job at UT Austin (the Hamburg had more scintillating high harmonics, the NY had fuller low mids) and a Baldwin 9' grand we had (less high end "air" than either Steinway, more pronounced mids than either - no wonder 70's rock bands liked 'em - better at cutting through a mix). I could tell musicians the exact point where they stopped just playing and started thinking about playing (nothing kills feel like thinking about it). Clear differences between different compressors, different EQ's, different reverbs, etc. Audiophiles like to rag on rock/pop recording engineers, but the truth is we pay almost fetishistic attention to the sound but it's the artist and label (the boss) who determine what the final product sounds like (i.e. hard limited, clipped no dynamic range EQ'd to hell and back ear torture of the "loudness wars").
That's something that I like about Stereophile - many of their reviewers have either played or recorded music professionally (or both) so I know they've done a LOT of listening. Also, unlike, say, TAS, they publish measurements of the gear they listen to.
Just Happened to See This
Submitted by Michael Fremer on March 14, 2018 - 9:59am
Not worth a response.
Enduring myths
Submitted by A. Hourst on January 26, 2017 - 2:06pm
“Can you measure "dry"? Probably not—but you can hear it.”
Of course you can measure dryness. It’s the lack of harmonic distortion or reverberation in space to which our ears are continually exposed and become accustomed to. You feel something is missing, and you call that dryness. You can say the same of a music hall which absorb an unusually high level of reflections. We call that “dry” because we don’t hear the multiple layers of sound that we hear otherwise.
Anyway, I just wanted to correct this unfounded belief that you can’t measure everything you can hear. Sean Olive even demonstrated that you can measure “good sound”, despite the very subjective nature of this concept. There is consistency in nature. A very few things are arbitrary, even if you’ll find some aberrant data and some people who have developed a dislike for accuracy (and will advance the hypothesis that it doesn’t even exist).
You should be hired by Stereophile.
Submitted by kevon27 on January 27, 2017 - 12:22pm
Mr. A. Hourst, you should be employed by Stereophile as a reviewer.
Reviewers use words like cold, warm, dry, laid-back, etc, etc. No one ever explains what those words mean or in terms describing sound.
I always believe if you can hear sound, you can measure it.
Seriously?
Submitted by Michael Fremer on March 14, 2018 - 10:00am
Do you really think everything that can be measured has been discovered? I don't.
Please explain what the following terms mean when it comes to au
Submitted by kevon27 on March 14, 2018 - 3:31pm
What does: warm, cold, dry, analytical, laid back, forward, aggressive all mean.
Are these terms objective or subjective? If a reviewer says and amplifier sounds cold, does that mean the samething as someone saying they feel cold when the temperature drops?
Re: Please explain what the following terms mean...
Submitted by John Atkinson on March 14, 2018 - 3:35pm
What does: warm, cold, dry, analytical, laid back, forward, aggressive all mean.
Check out J. Gordon Holt's subjective audio glossary at https://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Thank you JA!
Submitted by Michael Fremer on March 14, 2018 - 4:15pm
I would guess this reader does not drink wine or coffee both of which are described with equally useful descriptors.
I have big issues with Sean Olive
Submitted by Michael Fremer on January 2, 2018 - 12:00pm
He participated in a fraudulent radio show about vinyl vs. CDs.
And
Submitted by Michael Fremer on January 2, 2018 - 12:03pm
I still don't believe we can measure everything that can be heard. And I don't buy your definition. Of course you can measure "good sound" versus bad sound but that doesn't mean everything can now be measured, or even that what can be measured is done with complete accuracy. I still believe the human system is superior to what's been devised by man.
Measurements
Submitted by mrkaic on January 27, 2017 - 4:53pm
I buy and read Stereophile because they publish measurements; I would not buy/read it otherwise. I read the measurements section almost exclusively, since I think that everything else in Stereophile (and especially subjective reviews) has very little value.
But the measurements are worth the price of subscription!
Good approach
Submitted by A. Hourst on January 30, 2017 - 9:26am
"everything else in Stereophile (and especially subjective reviews) has very little value"
I can't agree more. For example, Mr Fremer, in this review, avoid saying that there exist some "good enough" amplifiers that will sound exactly the same for a fraction of the price. Once you're below a certain threshold of distortion and output impedance, and have enough power, the differences become imperceptible.
Boulder still has a lot of merit for engineering such a stellar measuring amplifier.
"Good enough" sounds the same?
Submitted by Michael Fremer on January 2, 2018 - 12:04pm
I avoided saying what you write because I don't believe it.
I Avoided Saying That
Submitted by Michael Fremer on March 14, 2018 - 10:01am
Because it's simply not true.
imperceptible? . . . .really?
Submitted by Herb Reichert on January 31, 2017 - 11:30am
"Once you're below a certain threshold of distortion and output impedance, and have enough power, the differences become imperceptible"
Imperceptible ? to whom? Sir, I have been listening critically to amplifiers driving loudspeakers since 1966. Many of my best friends (even back then) were (and still are) brilliant amp designers. Not one of them, nor I, would make that statement. Have you personally experienced this phenomenon ? Also....Neither they nor I believe a quality amplifer is easy or inexpensive to make.
I am certain MF is one of the most experienced audio listener/observers on the planet, and I personally, place great trust in his observations. (Perhaps we should compare an vintage Hafler DH-500 to this obviously well-engineered Boulder? Do you think you could hear the difference?)
...To a human ear
Submitted by A. Hourst on February 1, 2017 - 10:46am
Mr Reichert,
Distortion and frequency response variations (which are typically very low in any well-conceived amplifier), are the only factors that can alter the sound of an amplifier. There’s no dispersion pattern like in loudspeakers, so it’s pretty much a straightforward 2-D signal very simple to measure. All your typical audiophile discourse about “bright” or “dark”, “rich” or “dry”, “musical” or “analytical” is embedded in those two parameters. Each one of them represents either an alteration of the frequency response or the signal integrity. I mean, how else could it be? People who have problems with this assertion invariably fail to 1) measure, 2) match the level within 0.1 dB or 3) listen blind. Usually, they even reach their conclusions based on memory. The problem is you can’t free your mind from its numerous prejudices (a 100 000$ amplifier will surely sound better than a 1000$ one) and aural memory is very fragile, since we tend to listen to something different every time music is played.
I do not question your or your friend’s experience or human qualities. I question the methodology, or lack of, that usually goes into the evaluation of most electronic devices.
And since you make this very personal, no I don’t place Mr Framer as an audio authority.
lol
Submitted by supamark on February 1, 2017 - 6:58pm
You're completely ignoring that the amplifier and speaker(s) are a system that interact quite a lot... and a lot of other things. I'm sorry you don't have the ability to hear a lot of these things, maybe spend more time listening - it's a fact that the more time you spend doing something, the more neurons your brain will devote to it. Just as an experienced wine taster can discern shadings of flavor you can't, so can an experienced listener.
There is a lot of sillyness in high end audio (like claiming a power cord coming directly from a wall outlet having an effect on the sound ignores 100 feet of Romex upstream in the wall - assuming both cords are of the same gauge of pure copper wire there won't be a difference) but this isn't one of those things.
Fun story - I once was auditioning a Tandberg preamp (used) to replace my old NAD preamp circa 1990. The sound was significantly different (it sounded like George Massenberg gear - he invented parametric EQ btw) and excellent but I ended up not buying because the RCA jack was poorly designed and the sleeve came off when removing an interconnect. That was just a preamp... if only the build quality had been better I'd have bought it - Tandberg gear was top notch.
There are real differences in wine...
Submitted by A. Hourst on February 2, 2017 - 4:59am
Did you match the level to 0.1 dB?
That's a major "difference maker".
Those interactions you're talking about are the result of high output impedance.
My experience is that the sound of electronics is extremely overrated.
So, you have no experience then...
Submitted by supamark on February 2, 2017 - 2:23pm
good to know that you're just talking out your ass. If you want to know what George Massenburg's equipment sounds like, compare 2 Flim & the BB's albums, anything from DMP (Tom Jung engineered) vs "New Pants" on Warner Bros. If you cannot hear the difference (no level matching required), you are not qualified to comment on audio, at all.
The word "only" is often a precaution to BS
Submitted by Johan Bottema on August 3, 2017 - 2:33pm
Amp Voltage output capabilty as a function of signal phase change and through changing impedance is measured by other Audio mags. The power cube as the Germans call it, Yes there are "Music" signal loads that test the ability of the amp dealing with the speaker. So your story is a bit shortsighted. It just is not that simple and the amp should be tested with several speakers with different drivers and filters.
You
Submitted by Michael Fremer on January 2, 2018 - 12:07pm
Can't even correctly spell my name. I have participated in blind amplifier tests and disproved all of your ridiculous assertions.
However, because my results at an AES of all places (based upon decades of experience) fell outside of the 'average', it was TOSSED.
So guess what? i no longer participate in these wank fests.
But if you believe what you've written, enjoy! Knock yourself out. Say negative things about me too. I could give a shit!
You Can't Spell My Name Correctly
Submitted by Michael Fremer on March 14, 2018 - 10:02am
And your comment is idiotic. Every amplifier I've reviewed sounded different. You live within the narrow walls of your foolish comfort zone. Good for you. Mr. Hourst.
"Stereophile...has very little value"
Submitted by ChrisS on February 1, 2017 - 2:38pm
Why are you here?
(A)musical Cooling Fins
Submitted by IgAK on February 11, 2017 - 3:22pm
Interesting mention of Boulder's avoiding resonating fins, a legitimate concern if a fine point. That is why one of my amps with large fins has dampers inserted between every fin. Running a hand across the fins before that produced obvious ringing, yes. Even after the dampers they try to a little but I did not want to compromise the cooling too much so I stopped where I did.
Did I hear much difference after the dampers? Not a lot but enough to say that there was an improvement and the cost-free tweak was worth spending a few minutes on and something anyone can take care of themselves. The amp is not overtaxed so it does not run super hot, still, after many years the foam dampers are still in fine shape. It should be noted that that amp was being used on only the woofers in a triamped system so additional harmonics would have been cut off by that factor or I may have heard even more of a change. But that this matters became provably true and Boulder's attention to that detail is appropriate to a product costing that much and admirable.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
