Karan Acoustics Master Collection POWERa Mono power amplifier Page 2

Onward
I thought the POWERa monos sounded mighty fine powered by the Stromtank, sounding best when their power conditioning was turned off, but I was also aware that current limitations imposed by the S 2500 Quantum MKII might squash dynamics. Not that I expected to use anywhere near each monoblocks' 3600W into 4 ohms in my 16' × 20' × 9.25' listening room.

With wall power, the POWERa monoblocks sounded best with their internal power conditioning engaged. It's not that they didn't sound quite good without power conditioning—my wall power provides far smoother sound than it did before the wire upgrade, and bass is tighter. Nonetheless, engaging power conditioning made the sound even smoother, the noisefloor lower, the top-to-bottom focus tighter. The POWERa's internal power conditioning allowed the inner glow of instruments and voices to emerge with no sense of dynamic constraint.

I reserved the double bank of dedicated duplex outlets for the POWERa's, plugged the Stromtank (which continued to feed front-end components) into one of the other outlets, and used the Acoustic Revive RTP-6 to power several other products. This was as close to my usual power setup as I could get.

The discovery
My first listen came within an hour of installation, before power cables had settled in and wiring changes were complete. Setup was less than ideal, with no attention paid to whether the internal power conditioners were on or off. Nonetheless, my first impression proved accurate.

The sound was as natural as I've come to expect from D'Agostino, Audio Research, VTL, and a host of other top-flight companies that specialize in amplification, if perhaps a little closer to neutral than some—but there was something that set them apart. "These amps give me more of everything I value from the D'Agostino Progression M550s," I thought. "There's greater color saturation, more presence, and stronger bass. There's more there there."

As I got my power act together and fine-tuned the system (as I always do, as a matter of course), the POWERa monoblocks surpassed that initial assessment. By a lot. I queued up an old standby, Yello's "Electrified II" from Toy (24/48 MQA, Polydor 0602547879851/Tidal). Whoa! Even more than the soundstage, which covered the width of the room and extended far up, what stood out was the strength and solidity of deep bass—and beyond. Everything from the pounding beat to Dieter Meier's recitation and Malia's vocals seemed to have greater presence. For visceral impact, swiftness of attack, and sheer, apparent accuracy, the POWERa monoblocks top every other monoblock, stereo amp, or integrated I've reviewed (footnote 7). Ditto for color saturation, shading, dynamics, and the ability to portray the most complex passages without a hint of compression.

Another, far more system-trying test of bass is the second movement explosion in Shostakovich's Symphony No.11 as performed by Andris Nelsons and the Boston Symphony Orchestra on their award-winning live recording, Shostakovich: Symphonies Nos. 4 & 11 "The Year 1905" (24/96 MQA, DG/Tidal). I've heard this recording on many systems, including those with speakers far bigger than the Wilson Alexia V's. But never have I heard a huge bass drum portrayed with such convincing realism: The virtually instantaneous transition from the initial sharp attack to the forceful resonance and decay; the size and weight of the sound; and the depth of emotional impact felt true to the source.

I cannot recall when I've heard this 11th's churning conveyed so clearly, so musically, with so much devastation. To repeat descriptors already invoked, the sheer presence and weight of the sounds, along with the degree of resolution, consistently brought me closer to the live symphonic experience than anything else I've heard (footnote 8).

This "presence" was not limited to large-scale works. Listening to the deeply moving second movement of Franz Schubert's Piano Trio No.2, on the recording Schubert: Chamber Works with cellist Tanya Tetzlaff, her violinist brother Christian Tetzlaff, and the late pianist Lars Vogt (24/96 WAV, Ondine 1394), I was struck as much by the cello's rich, haunting eloquence as by the piano's poetry. Dynamics were tremendous, and Schubert's mix of pain, resignation, and affirmation was more shattering than I have heard it (footnote 9).

Never before had recordings of the marvelous mezzo-soprano Marianne Crebassa displayed such convincing warmth, so much fullness in the core of her voice. (I listened to several of her albums.) Never had soprano Julia Bullock sounded so soulful, so rooted in her open heart, as on her performance of "Brown Baby" from her treasurable album Walking in the Dark (24/192 WAV, Nonesuch 695267).

It may seem strange to cite a mono recording from 1952 in a review like this, but I found myself turning to contralto Kathleen Ferrier's recording of Ralph Vaughan Williams's "Silent Noon," made with pianist Frederick Stone at the BBC Broadcasting House on June 5, 1952—one of many high points in the 10-CD remastered Kathleen Ferrier Edition (16/44.1 FLAC, Decca/Qobuz).

Ferrier's performance of this song stands apart from all others. The metronome imposes no restraints on her treatment of Dante Gabriel Rossetti's lyrics. "Your hands lie open in the long fresh grass," she sings with rapt stillness. After intoning the words "'Tis visible silence, still as the hour-glass" as though they were the holiest of revelations, she pauses. Universes of meaning, the wisdom of the ages, the confessions of countless lovers—all resonate in that silence.

She continues. "Oh! Clasp we to our hearts, for deathless dower / This close-companioned inarticulate hour / When twofold silence was the song of love." It is impossible to listen to this great performance without sensing that Ferrier, who was mortally ill, must have realized she had limited time left to share her gifts.

I've listened to this recording countless times, in various remasterings. In every instance, the limitations of the fuzzy transfer, which apparently derives from early pressings with groove noise and occasional high-pitched ticks, left me feeling bereft at what had been lost from the original recording. To my astonishment, the POWERa monos brought newfound clarity to Ferrier's singing and conveyed all of its magic.

As I discovered how much sound and pleasure the Karan Acoustics POWERa monos could deliver, I found myself going back in time to some of the greatest vocal recordings I've been privileged to hear. Some readers may think someone crazy to spend $106,000 to better extract information buried in old mono recordings, but those who value great art will sense the gifts these monoblocks can deliver. They may delight even more when I recount that playing Ferrier's recording of Hubert Parry's "Love is a Bable" from the same broadcast session brought out her restrained, oh-so-English humor to a greater extent than I ever thought possible. The POWERa laughs, cries, longs, and loves with equal honesty.

Other kinds of music? The John Coltrane Quartet's "Nancy (with the Laughing Face)," from Ballads (24/96 MQA, Impulse!/Tidal), sounded gorgeous, Coltrane's tone warm, round, and smooth, even when he moves fast between notes. James Blake's "There's a Limit to Your Love," from his eponymous album (16/44.1, Polydor/Qobuz), may be well known amongst audiophiles—I play it often, and the bass never sounded more convincing than with the POWERa's—but I often treat it as a throwaway cut: Check out the bass and begone. This time, I found the sound so interesting that I listened all the way through.

A shout out to the immersive deep bass on Ryuichi Sakamoto's "20210310," from 12 (24/96 FLAC, Milan Qobuz), which sounds fabulous through the POWERa's. So do the distinct colors of original instruments on the Chiaroscuro Quartet's recent recording Mozart: The Prussian Quartets (24/96 WAV, BIS 7318599925585). I listened to this recording carefully when I reviewed it a few months back, but it never displayed colors as convincing, distinct, and realistic as through the POWERa's.

Returning to voices: If you want to hear how a great singer projects radiant sounds high in their range, go no farther than soprano Elisabeth Schumann's 1934 recording of Josef Strauss's "Sphären-Klänge" (Music of the Spheres), from the invaluable ICON box set, Silver Thread of Song (16/44.1 FLAC, Warner Classics/Qobuz), where the POWERa's convey her infectious joy, glowingly sweet, disembodied high notes, and boundless personality like no other amps I've heard.

I said goodbye to the Karan Acoustics POWERa monoblocks with two selections: Julia Bullock's heart-opening rendition of Connie Converse's "One by One" and the Chiaroscuro Quartet's performance of the sublime Larghetto from Mozart's String Quartet No.22 in B flat major, K. 589. Both were heavenly. I sat, transfixed.

The not-really rival
In recent amplifier reviews, I've often omitted direct comparisons due to major price discrepancies. Here, such discrepancies are unavoidable, but I'll make a comparison anyway. My reference D'Agostino Progression M550 mono—the least expensive monoblock in the D'Agostino line—cost less than half the Karan POWERa monoblock's considerable price. Nothing in the D'Agostino line, short of the top-level Relentless Epic 1600 Mono Amplifier (even more expensive at $349,500/pair, rated at 3000W into 4 ohms), can come close to matching the POWERa's output (footnote 10).

Power for its own sake means little, however; what matters is the ability to harness power to achieve higher musical ends. Here is where the POWERa excels. Even without amp stands or a silent battery power source, the POWERa outperformed the Progression M550 in my system. More transparency, more resolution, more midrange and low-end weight and substance, more color saturation—the ability to harness power to reach deeper into the musical fabric and extract emotional truth—more and better are the bywords of the POWERa.

The clincher
The Karan Acoustics POWERa monoblocks are big, heavy, extremely powerful, and extremely expensive. Yet, thanks to their sliding-bias class-A design, they will likely not tax your power grid every time you turn them on.

What they give you in return for your investment, in the context of a similarly high-achieving system—I should say, what they've given me—is sound that has taken me closer to the transformative visceral, emotional, mental, and spiritual impact of great artists performing great music than anything I've heard in my system previously. The Karan is a phenomenal achievement, a benchmark for what can be achieved, at least in my modestly sized listening room. If you treasure greatness in audio reproduction and have the means to purchase a pair, seek them out. If you do not have the means, be careful: I, for one, do not wish to get their sound out of my head.


Footnote 7: To the naysayers and cynics who think, "Oh sure. Serinus sees the POWERa price tag and how much it weighs and immediately proclaims it 'the best,' I respond: If you have the means to visit a Karan dealer or audition these monoblocks at a show at which setup constraints do not compromise sound quality, please go and listen for yourself. I fully expect you to discover that the POWERa deserves the accolades.

Footnote 8: I've heard the BSO under Nelsons perform Shostakovich live at Philharmonie de Paris.

Footnote 9: Admittedly this is a new recording, so I haven't heard it on very many systems—but I did hear it with the very different sounding Esoteric Grandioso M1X monos, which I reviewed in the April issue.

Footnote 10: I have not heard any D'Agostino Relentless product in my system.

COMMENTS
georgehifi's picture

"Quote: each contains two 2700VA toroidal transformers Each monoblock requires two 15A power cables, one for each amplifier stage."

Can JA or JVS confirm if these are bridged amps?

Cheers George

georgehifi's picture

Looks like the Monoblocks are just bridged stereo.
I found the internals are the same as the stereo amp they have.
Karan Acoustics Master Collection POWERa Stereo.

https://ibb.co/9GmQqDL

And if they are bridged stereos, they would not double wattage into 2ohms as claimed from measured 4ohms (JA measured 2500w), if anything it maybe less than that 4ohm 2500 wattage into 2ohm, or worse become unstable also. Pity JA couldn't measure that 2ohm wattage.

Cheers George

a.wayne's picture

Current limit , yes , unstable into 2 ohm doubt that very much....

HighEndOne's picture

To begin with, spending $100K on any product made in a far-away land gives me the jitters. It's not like a BMW or M-B that have local dealers to support it. If it fails, shipping this amplifier anywhere will be a project in itself (not to mention Serbia).

Next, I thought that a product needed some kind of deeper representation before a review would be published, but I could be incorrect. Just 5 dealers for such an esoteric, imported and expensive product seems like a gamble to me. I'll spend my money on a USA built and supported product first.

Finally, when I read that any reviewer has AC power issues in the home where the critical listening is performed, I have to discount the opinion on the sound produced. Has this power problem influenced all the prior reviews somewhat?

jimtavegia's picture

I had 2 dedicated 20 amp duplex receptacles installed for under $150 over 10 years ago, and I bought the cable and supplies. I don't have anywhere the need for such, but thought if one is serious about performance, a small price to pay for knowing there is no current limiting.

The other comments here are right on to me. Spending this kind of money and then maybe needing repair would be a nightmare. I am also concerned that the appropriate sound source material be the best one could get, and not streaming, regardless of popularity. Would you put 87 octane in your Porche or Corvette? I read about this being done for a $150K loud speaker and seems inappropriate for the quality of the speakers. Who does this for such high quality products??

I have had Tidal HiFi and I can tell you that the sound quality of it compared to the same CD disc, the stream is not the same. I have an over 4GHZ machine with a nearly 900MB download speed, and it was easy to pick out the CD.

It is sad that there is trouble in streaming and MQA land, but not surprised. The question we all ask is: How far does one need to go when most music engineering is only 4 out of 5 stars or less? Luckily many releases are better than that which helps.

jimtavegia's picture

I forgot to add that in heavy rotation is the Eva Cassiday/LSO engineering marvel that is great fun and sounds very good to me. In my DAW a nearly -70db noise floor, little or no compression and no peak limiting. Marvelous. A great system should love this. Mine now is a Schiit Asgard headphone amp; Project S2 DAC, and a pair of AKG K701 cans.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

I always respect your comments, Jim. Nonetheless, in my system, the sound of files, whether stored on a NAS, internal SSD, or streamed from Tidal and Qobuz is virtually the same. It also tops CD. I haven't even listened to my dCS Rossini transport in over a year. And it is no slouch. No slouch at all.

Be well,
jason

jimtavegia's picture

You enjoy a very revealing system and I'm sure you are very happy with what you hear. Who couldn't be with the Wilson's at the base of it all. But, as we learned in the follow up with the MoJo Audio Mystique, there may be issues that are just hard to pin-point flaws in the sound. Some may even prefer it. THAT I WOULD NEVER ARGUE WITH. Maybe a system too revealing could be a curse?

I remember a decade old review of a respected engineer's CD player that was loved by a reviewer, but then found to be broken in the "Measurements Section". Did the reviewer's system or speakers cover up hearing the flaw?

I always now view any files in my DAW which not only has the wave form, but an EQ display out to at least 20khz, further for 24/192 files. It also has a spectral display and I can see what has been done in terms of compression and peak limiting. I don't master any of my work, but the clients and my wife who cares little about audio, can tell me if she hears a difference or not. Which one sounds better she can tell.

I can only report about what my tired, nearly 76 year old ears hear, but I can see, and hear some differences through my Spectrum high speed connections. I have also heard other reviewers say that some switches have added coloration to the sound of streaming. That determination might be beyond me. Maybe these new stand alone Music Servers are much better than a good computer?

Since various DACs sound different I remain unconvinced that streaming sounds the same as physical media from what I see. If material is transferred to a HD/server/NAS and the same DAC is used, THAT I can believe should be the same. I have no knowledge of what the streaming services "DO" to the files they store, and then, present to us, anymore that what the mastering engineer does to the mixed files that he chooses to "adjust" to make it "better?". I don't have his/her ears or audio systems to know what "better" really means today.

Now that I am recording again I am paying more attention to what I do and being retired, I have the time to take the time. Some of the recordings I do are audition tapes for music students to enter Grad school so there is some pressure for me to do the best I can with the gear I own, I do these recordings for free and love doing it for them.

I have an album by an artist I admire and the album was engineered by 5 different people and each track by them sounds different and one can see they are different in my DAW. There were recorded in respected studios, yet one track with orchestra and strings sounds more like a synth/string patch than real strings; where others sound as real as I have ever heard. I go back to some '60s Sinatra albums with great orchestrations, Ronstadt/Riddle's 3 big band albums; and the late Al Schmitt's work with big bands and Diana Krall. The Ronstadt albums have great HF energy, more than the Krall's done at Capitol. Mixing and mastering choices someone made.

I am now onto a new to-me artists where tracks 5-9 have much more HF energy than tracks 1-5. I can see that in my DAW. I can hear it as well as added clarity. No mastering credit is given so could it be two different people mastered their part of the tracks?

I also took a writer's advice on an old recording of a European concert by Oscar Peterson. It was for a radio broadcast so I was not expecting superb engineering. The acoustic bass sounded OK. The Drums sounded OK, but then Mr. Peterson on the piano came in the piano sound was nearly the worst I've heard on a commercial disc. Just about anyone with a pair of Shure SM57s over the felts could have done better than this. A tragedy as a potential great concert capture ruined for lack of better attention.

I am convinced that the sound we all seek is always going to be a mixed bag, that some in charge prefer a sound scape different than mine, much of it I do really like, but choices are made in all of this from recording, to streaming, to pressing, to mastering. Many hands in the soup.

All I am after is "real" as much as anyone can achieve it. With Mr. Atkinson's recordings I have studied them, re-read his liner notes over and over to learn, followed his issues with venues and gear placement with great interest to learn. I follow any video I can to see and hear the recording sessions and mic placements, including AL Schmitt's Big Band DVD, and Krall's Live in Paris DVD. There is always something for me to learn as to why things sound like they do. I especially learned much from the Michaelson's K622, JA, and the great Tony Faulkner. It all matters.

I would even bet that the sound differences from streamer brands is as different as the sounds from various DACs, and the improvements there in the last 10 years is remarkable. What I have enjoyed from streaming is to get to preview a reviewer's recommendation before I buy the physical copy, and now with the price of LPs that is a pretty important thing to do these days.

ejlif's picture

CDs played back on my Rossini are easily better than streaming and files played from the drive are better than those. I bought into streaming hook line and sinker a long time ago and wondered why I wasn't connecting with music.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

You mean files played back from an external drive you've connected to the Rossini? I ask because the Rossini has no internal storage.

I don't know how you've implemented streaming. In my case, I convert ethernet to optical and then back to ethernet using a Sonore / Small Green Computer optical converter and an Uptone Audio etherRegen. Both contain the best-sounding Finisar SPFs that I could fine. (Andrew at Small Green Computer can help with this.) Both of those optical/ethernet converters receive power from linear power supplies. There is also an external clock on the etherRegen. That may be far more complex and costly than you or anyone wishes to do and/or is able to afford. (The least expensive part of the set-up is the optical cable.) But the end result is streaming sound that is virtually indistinguishable from files stored on a music server's SSD or on a SSD USB stick.

ejlif's picture

I am running directly from Nucleus Plus to the Rossini via Audioquest diamond. yes files on HD USB stick in the Rossini also sounds better. Streaming is complex and maybe this isn't the best way but honestly my CDs played back in my transport are vastly superior to streams or HD playback. Nucleus plus is out of the equation so maybe that whole unit is the weakness. I don't know but I actually just enjoy playing and owning the CD. I'd rather get one thing I like and learn it than jumping all over all the time. With streaming I don't think I sat and listened to a whole album in years. Now I look forward to buying the product and holding it in my hands. I feel like we have lost our way with the pride of ownership with streaming. Mine sounds way better so I'm pretty content but I have to think something is wrong. It's a thinner sound and just less life to the music. Vinyl is even at a whole other level above CD but that is another topic.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

A few points that may have relevance:

1. The Nucleus + will sound much better if you use an LPS. Not all LPSs sound alike. For example, LPSs from Sonore and Nordost sound much better than the HDPlex. They're more transparent and convey more color. Which is not to say that good dedicated music servers from Innuos, Aurender, and Antipodes may ultimately give you better sound than a tweaked out Nucleus +. I'm using an Innuos Statement Next Gen right now.

Just be careful to ensure that, with an LPS, you use the right voltage and connector with the Nucleus +. Otherwise, you may kill the thing.

2. I expect you know that ethernet is the better-sounding input on the Rossini, and that, as a consequence, you're using AQ Diamond ethernet. Not all music servers allow you to choose between USB and ethernet outputs, but the Nucleus + does.

3. Are you using the same software in all cases? Mosaic has a different sound than Roon.

4. Have you upgraded to Rossini Apex? The sonic change will be far greater than any other change you can make to your network.

5. How you get your signal from your modem and router to the Rossini is critical. A dedicated ethernet switch, especially when powered by an external power supply, is vastly superior-sounding to the ports on a router. I use Nordost's and have not tried others. The Nordost Ethernet Switch is powered by their LPS. I also use ethernet to optical to ethernet to eliminate noise. Every one of these upgrades improves the sound of streaming.

6. The "feel it in your hands" reality is a different one than sound per se. If holding a CD or LP speaks to you, then it speaks to you. It speaks to me far, far less than it once did. Different strokes for different folks.

Deadlines prevent me from continuing. I hope I've been helpful.

jason

ejlif's picture

I might try an LPS for the Nucleus. I had good results getting one for my CD transport.

I was told to use the ethernet input so I never questioned it. I lived for quite a time with the Rossini streaming and only bought a lower cost CD transport to play a few CDs I could not play anywhere or stream them even. I was completely shocked by the sound compared to streaming. I was really missing out on a lot with streaming compared to playing the CD

I haven't messed around a lot with Mosaic, even playing a USB stick sounds pretty good but the interface to play it is very clunky and not a joy to use like Roon. I like the Roon program I mean you pretty much have to have it if you are going to be serious about keeping your music collection all together and it's mostly a joy to use though it sometimes develops a sickness and runs slow or acts up and then magically gets better

No I have not upgraded to Apex. In fact I had the clock and it's useless for my CD playback and I didn't hear much with it for streaming so I got rid of it. I'm a little skeptical of 9K for an upgrade seems pretty steep but I'll look into it more. I think your idea of a nice streamer might be a good way to go and just go AES into the Rossini then I don't have to even deal with any of the ethernet stuff. The switching and router interface is likely the cause of the lesser sound I get via streaming.

Thanks for all the advice.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

If you have the $ for the Apex upgrade, do not pass it up. You will be astounded.

If the Rossini clock did not make an appreciable difference to your sound, then I'd look to your cables. Why? Because the Rossini clock is many times better than the Rossini's internal clock.

The Rossini's ethernet input is highly optimized. I do recommend it. Again, ethernet cables make an appreciable difference.

It's all a matter of time, money, and discrimination. In no particular order, unless money is a major concern. If it is, the order is clear. Rossini Apex will not shelter you from the cold.

jason

ejlif's picture

I should state that the Rossini clock is of no use with the SPDIF input I use for my CD transport and the CD transport sound so much better than streaming with or without the clock I figured I would put 7K back in my pocket. I kept having to go in and change a filter or I was getting digital artifacts with the clock in the circuit. You can't use SPDIF with it.

I was using Audioquest Diamond BNC cables for the clock so pretty good. I use a Synergistic Research Galileo SX on the output from my transport and that cable is definitely better than the AQ diamond, but diamond is still pretty good middle of the road cable.

I think maybe if I want to up my streaming game it's a PSU for the Nucleus first and foremost then look at the ethernet switch

I have heard other mixed reviews of the clock. some say huge upgrade others say they like it better without the clock. Rossini is a complicated beast when you look into all the filters and settings it can do. Makes my head spin. I like the CDs I have a stack sitting here and one thing for sure is, when I stream an album rarely do I make it through. When I get a CD I play it, learn it and enjoy the art and whole package as a statement as the artist intends. I add to my collection on Discogs, I put it on the shelf. I look at my shelves of LPs and CDs and makes me feel like I've really got something. I guess kind of like having a ton of books on kindle and none on the shelf, good comparison. I'll take the books on the shelf all day. A small hard drive just isn't the same.

Jason Victor Serinus's picture

I think I've adopted you.

There's only one thing I don't understand. If by SPDIF you mean RCA, there are RCA to BNC adapters. Nordost uses them regularly because they find a BNC cable with an adapter still sounds better than a cable with RCA terminations. Besides, if memory serves me correctly, you can just connect the clock to the Rossini if necessary. So I don't see the problem.

Anyway, yes, a good LPS or, if it sounds as you, Hybrid Power Supply for the Nucleus. Then use the $7000 for Apex. As for the filters, the suggestions in the Rossini manual work pretty well.

Hope to meet you at a show sometime. Munich, Santa Ana (T.H.E.), and Seattle (P
AF) coming up.

ejlif's picture

I mean when you use the spdif input on the Rossini the clock is of no use in fact you have to put the Rossini in a mode that takes the clock out of the loop to make it work without adding digital nasties. The BNC inputs for the clock are something else. So the clock is of no use when using my CD transport via the SPDIF input. CDs sounded so much better, I rarely stream for anything other than convenience so I got rid of the clock.

Thanks for all the advice, I'm going to be on the lookout for a LPS, or as you say maybe even a streamer from Aurilic might be better and get me away from the ethernet hub, just go wireless. seems like a waste because you are paying for a good streamer in the Rossini

ok's picture

I used to be a tidal hifi plus subscriber for two years but after my initial enthusiasm about mqa I now find sound quality seriously lacking compared to redbook cd or locally stored hi-res files (especially of the 24/192 pcm and 128+ dsd kind) let alone vinyl. Reportedly tidal is moving to lossless after mqa's bankruptcy so I'll be checking their progress sometime later.

jimtavegia's picture

I have used JRiver for DSD and found it very good, but here is my problem. I have had a number of USB playback devices with mic inputs for making videos and audio playback. None of them supported DSD, just PCM up to 24/192. DoP has never appealed to me as I love SACDs, but with no players under $1k now it is no wonder the market is slow for SACD except for high end audiophiles. Maybe Schitt will come to the rescue????

Luckily my 2007 Yamaha S1800 still plays like a champ. All of my Sony's have died the SACD playback death (4 of them), but still play 2496 pcm DVD-Vs. I had no interest in MQA regardless of the hype.

I am not about to jump into $2k plus streamer land at 75. It will be nice to see what else comes from the show.

MatthewT's picture

To be more than 300k into a system only to have the next best thing come along. FOMO must be an expensive part of living (and selling point) at that level.

DVA's picture

hello .. can i know the method by which the output impedance of the amplifier is measured and calculated? for amplifiers from this manufacturer, the advertising usually claims a damping factor of more than 10,000 in the audio frequency band, and this somehow does not compare with the measured output impedance of the amplifier

John Atkinson's picture
DVA wrote:
can i know the method by which the output impedance of the amplifier is measured and calculated?

I examine how the open-circuit voltage reduces when the output is loaded with 8 ohms or 4 ohms. As I write in the measurements text, the output impedance that is calculated from the voltage drop includes the series resistance of 6' of spaced-pair cable. (This is approximately 0.015 ohms.)

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

DVA's picture

Thank you... And at what voltage and frequency is the measurement made at idle
?

John Atkinson's picture
DVA wrote:
And at what voltage and frequency is the measurement made at idle?

I estimate an amplifier's output impedance at 3 frequencies - 20Hz, 1kHz, and 20kHz - with an open-circuit voltage just below 1V. This is because the Audio Precision's voltage reading is 4 digits, so with an open-circuit voltage of, for example, 999.9mV, this minimizes the experimental error in the calculated impedance.

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

X