Accustic Arts AMP V power amplifier Page 2

While I usually place equipment supports under components, I decided to skip them in this case to avoid damaging a hand as I struggled to lift a corner of the amp while not tipping over the amp stand. After connecting XLR and speaker cables, I ran two Nordost Odin 2 15-amp power cables from the AMP V to the same AudioQuest Niagara 7000 power conditioner I use with the D'Agostinos and began my journey.

1221amp.igor

Color and richness to the fore
On Igor Levit's On DSCH (24/96 MQA, Sony 714315), which I reviewed for our December issue, the AMP V's ability to convey the emotion behind the keys confirmed its musicality. On the other recording I reviewed for that issue, Florence Price's Symphonies Nos.1 & 3 from the Philadelphia Orchestra under Yannick Nézet-Séguin (24/96 FLAC, DG e-release), the AMP V's way with orchestral color and midrange richness came to the fore. On another Price recording that came out at almost the same time, Naxos's issue of Price's Third Symphony from the ORF Vienna Radio Symphony Orchestra, conducted by John Jeter (24/96 FLAC, Naxos 8559897), the highly resolving AMP V easily revealed that Jeter's recording was set farther back and lacked ultimate clarity.

1221amp.nameless

After a trip to Gig Harbor, Washington, to cover the US unveiling of the new Graham LS8/1 loudspeaker, I returned determined to hear how one of the tracks most frequently played by Philip O'Hanlon during the demo—"Birds" from Nameless (24/88.2 MQA, Ensoul Records/Tidal) by Canadian artist Dominique Fils-Aimé—sounded through the AMP V and bigger speakers. The soundstage was as deep and spacious as could be, double bass sounded strong and fully controlled, and hand claps were believable rather than digitally sharp. On another Fils-Aimé track, "Feeling Good," it was easy to gauge the singer's distance from the microphone. This is an extremely revealing amplifier.

Eager to audition recordings with huge dynamic swings, I asked a few top recording engineers for their favorites. Everything I received was fabulously recorded, but some were far more dynamic than others. (After one engineer warned me of dramatic bursts that could blow out my speakers, my friend Scott and I braced ourselves for the ear-deafening eruption that never came.)

1221amp.patricia

Dynamics or no, I sat stunned as I listened to Tidal's 24/352.8 MQA files of Patricia Barber's album Clique (Impex Records). Barber's triumph was recorded by Jim Anderson in Chicago, mixed by him at Skywalker Sound in Northern California, and mastered by Bob Ludwig in Portland, Maine. What immediately stood out was the pristine silence between the notes. The AMP V is one of the quietest amps I've ever heard. Equally notable was the impressive color saturation, with primary hues and infinite shades of pastel vying for attention with midrange warmth. The first notes I scribbled down were these: "air is tremendous—height cues and depth and soundstage spread super—timbres perfect—huge and spacious—so many subtle soft sounds." What I remember most though was the absolute black silence between notes, which allowed colors and contrasts to shine through (footnote 3).

I reveled in the contrasting timbres of electric guitar and the subtle taps of sticks on the sides of drums. I had never heard the resonance of Barber's piano conveyed so perfectly. Equally impressive—stunning, in fact—was the clarity, weight, and pitch-perfect control of Patrick Mulcahy's bass. I expect that all jazz lovers would take immense pleasure in the way the AMP V differentiates timbres of individual instruments and conveys every subtle variation in color and dynamics. Color and dynamic nuance may be more subtle in jazz than they are on Holst's The Planets, but they're even more crucial.

1221amp.3

One recording that never fails to enthrall with the sheer expanse of its soundstage (in all directions), natural color, and surprising dynamics is Eriks Ešenvalds: Translations from the Portland State Chamber Choir under Ethan Sperry (24/96 WAV, Naxos 8574124). On the John Atkinson–engineered title track, "Translation," and the Doug Tourtelot–engineered "The Heavens' Flock," the silences, the weight of the low male voices, and the dynamic contrasts were the best I'd ever heard from my system. Vocal decay in the exceptionally resonant acoustic of Saint Mary's Catholic Church in Mt. Angel, Oregon, was utterly convincing.

Mastering engineer Tom Fine sent me a few excerpts of 24/192 WAV files from the digital remasters he has prepared for the Mercury Living Presence Vinyl Series 1 issues (footnote 4). Of Antal Dorati's famed rendition of Stravinsky's The Firebird with the London Symphony Orchestra, Fine wrote in an email, "This is an example of the dynamic range present in the master tapes. The music goes from a level so low [that it was] just above the threshold of tape hiss to full digital zero"—that is, maximum digital loudness. The AMP V didn't break a sweat. Rather, it left me wishing that I had a larger listening room and even bigger speakers, with sufficient cabinet volume and big enough woofers to begin to convey the full measure of this recording's bass (footnote 5).

What about Holst's The Planets? On Zubin Mehta's 1971 recording with the Los Angeles Philharmonic (24/176.4 FLAC, Decca/Qobuz), I found the sound brash but convincing. The Alexia 2s can produce only so much bass in my room when everything is thrown at them at once. Bass weight is more convincing when a bass drum pounds alone, as on the stunning Reference Recordings version of Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man from Eiji Oue and the Minnesota Orchestra (16/44.1 FLAC, Reference Recordings/Qobuz). Taking those limitations into account, the recording's soundstage expanse and visceral impact were tremendous.

1221amp.brom

Damped if you do, damped if you don't
I first experimented with the AMP V's damping-factor linearization feature while playing electric bassist Brian Bromberg's "The Saga of Harrison Crabfeathers" from his 2002 album, Wood (24/96, Qobuz, footnote 6). With it engaged, the sound grew warmer, which was not what I expected or desired.

On Clique, I found sound most transparent without damping-factor linearization. With it, the ticks of sticks tapping the edge of drums were a bit toned down, air lessened, and a slight bass halo was added around sounds in the treble range. Barber's voice warmed as the midrange became more prominent and highs toned down a bit; if percussion seemed more impactful, it was only because the highs were softer. I experienced similar bass-and-treble changes on Andris Nelsons and the Boston Symphony Orchestra's superb recording of Shostakovich Symphonies Nos. 4 & 11 (24/96 WAV, Deutsche Grammophon 002859502). On The Planets, I experienced more clarity, albeit with increased sharpness, without damping linearization.

In my system, Damping Control was a mixed bag.

Comparison
For some audiophiles, the D'Agostino Progression M550 monoblocks ($44,900/pair, 1100Wpc into 4 ohms, 115lb each) and the Accustic Arts AMP V ($50,000, 1360Wpc into 4 ohms, 176lb) are in the same price range. The Progressions, though, are D'Agostino's entry-level monoblocks, while the AMP V is Accustic Arts's reference stereo amp.

1221amp.4

In my system, the two amplifiers certainly sounded different, to a surprising extent. Before listening, I used the "1kHz at –20dB reference tone" from the Stereophile Editor's Choice CD and a Fluke meter to match levels at the speaker terminals as closely as possible. Then I chose the Brian Bromberg aforementioned track and Anna Thorvaldsdóttir's orchestral blockbuster, Metacosmos, performed by the Iceland Symphony Orchestra on Concurrence (24/352.8 WAV, Sono Luminus DSL-92237). The sound was so different with the two amplifiers that if I hadn't matched levels, I would have thought the volume levels were different (footnote 7). Along with more saturated colors (as in a richer-sounding piano), increased image weight, and superbly controlled bass, the AMP V sounded brighter and brasher than the mellower, warmer Progression M550s. I'm not certain whether the AMP V was truly quieter and more transparent or just seemed so because its more pronounced and etched highs stood out more from the instrumental fabric. It was equally hard to tell if the bass was really stronger or just seemed stronger because every sound on the AMP V was so distinct.

As when I compared the D'Agostino Momentum HD preamplifier ($40,000) to the Esoteric Grandioso C1X preamp ($45,000), I felt here that the Accustic Arts amp was more single-mindedly yang in character and the D'Agostino mono more successful in tempering yin with yang.

1221amp.holst

After I'd packed up the AMP V and the Progression M550s had fully settled back in, I spent an hour listening to Holst's The Planets, Barber's Clique, and voice and piano recitals by soprano Renée Fleming, mezzo-soprano Susan Graham, and tenor Jonas Kaufmann. I was in heaven. I could happily spend the rest of my life with either amplifier.

Conclusion
Can any single review of audio equipment be definitive, given the differences in listening rooms, equipment configurations, and human sensibility? Perhaps not. Nonetheless, a few things about the AMP V are incontrovertible. It's not just a powerhouse; it's a musical instrument that produces bright colors, huge images, and seat-shaking bass. Nor does it skimp on detail. While I didn't journey into heavy metal during my time with the AMP V—Bromberg, Holst, and Shostakovich on steroids were as close as I got—the AMP V sailed through numerous ultradynamic tracks whose cumulative percussion and brass would leave many a rock fan diving for cover.

The AMP V is one of the finest and most musically satisfying amplifiers ever to enter my audio system. Anyone with a spare $50,000 (and who doesn't require easy portability) would be foolish not to give it a serious audition.


Footnote 3: An equally striking DXD recording for color and space, recorded and mixed by Anderson and mastered and edited by Ulrike Schwarz, is Min Xiao-Fen's White Lotus.

Footnote 4: Sorry, friends old and new, I can't send you copies.

Footnote 5: With this very hope in mind, I recently bought a Powerball Quick Pick. I missed the winning numbers by five.

Footnote 6: Thank you, Steve Zettel, for this one.

Footnote 7: I double checked. They weren't.

COMPANY INFO
Accustic Arts Audio GmbH
US distributor: Rutherford Audio
14 Inverness Drive East, Unit G-108
Englewood CO 80112
(303) 872-6285
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
Gavinspen's picture

We have a dish in Ireland, Google it
It's called champ.i guess
You guys are going all Michelin star on us.What a load of crap,oh I know I will get berated so what my bottle of wine cost more than yours
Although my cellar ain't the best and the ambience is lacking.
Old farts!!
Shoot me now!
Sorry for trolling but I
Felt a movement....

georgehifi's picture

"I felt here that the Accustic Arts amp was more single-mindedly yang in character and the D'Agostino mono more successful in tempering yin with yang"

This statement to me is typical of an A/B between 2 big quality linear push/pull Class-A/B amps, one being Mosfet the other being Bi-Polar (BJT) output stages

Cheers George

Jack L's picture

Hi

Yin & yang always co-exist, being complementary each other instead of competition. This is how the nature works per the oriental philosophy.

But both Accustic V & D'Agostino in fact compete against each other in the marketplace within arm's length (same price range) !!!! So Yin & yang are not appliable to them, IMO.

I've not had the chance to read the power O/P stage schematics of both power amps. Reviews said Accustic V used MosFet devices. But what output devices used in A'Agostino M550 were never mentioned. How did you find out what power devices used in M550 ? BPJ ??

All roads lead to Rome. I don't believe mega-weighted mega powers should sound "more musical"(per Voss) than light-weighted lower powered amps given proper loudspeake matching.

Listening is believing

Jack L

Gavinspen's picture

As aspected subtle
Sublime esoteric and
Clever....

tonykaz's picture

Well, you are probably right, people with disposable funds in the $50,000 range considering this kind of purchase are probably dilettante inheritors.

Isn't this Amp being marketed specifically to the Status/Ego customer ?

It's amplification performance needs to impress the dealer/salesman so that they can promise significant greatness and exclusivity.

Should we readership be asking if Stereophile now caters to the Elites or Blue collars ?

Auditioning this Amplifier ( for the not-foolish ) should include a brief description of the flight on the New Gulfstream Personal Jet with juicy descriptives of the Prime Steaks at Ruth Crists ( or Fins ) .

Maybe with Audiophile population numbers diminishing, like they seem to be, our Tent may needs to include gaudy packaged extravagances like this.

or perhaps instead:

A phono cartridge transducer review specialist to do full line evaluations of the Grado series, Audioquest series, Dynavector Series and all the other Phono Cartridges commonly available to mail order buyers .

Tony in Florida

ps. the word "foolish" making it to print shows that hubris is creeping into the Editorial Standards of this Magazine

MatthewT's picture

To do what is says on the tin: "Stereophile covers everything high-end and audiophile audio." You do love to throw that word around.

tonykaz's picture

The reviewer identifies buyers as "foolish" if they don't consider this multi thousand dollar device. Shouldn't we consider that sort of talking-down as hubris ?

Home Audio is a DIY hobby, isn't it ?

Don't we all build our own systems with carefully selected components that help our recorded music sound better ?

Should we enjoy our Editorial Staff chiding us for being foolish ?

Shouldn't High-End be considered on a Value for money basis, isn't that why we look for authoritative consultation ?

I've been in Pro-Audio Recording Studios that use gear that isn't flashy, pricy, gaudy but performs to established standards beyond Home Audio's.

The best of the Home Audio gear looks better and seems to make music sound better, isn't that why folks pay high prices for gorgeous sculptured Show-off pieces like what Stereophile puts on it's Front Covers.?

Super pricy gear does have an established social purpose: to show everyone who has the highest Status and to enhance Ego structures.

Tony in Florida

MatthewT's picture

To read the magazine?

tonykaz's picture

Mr.JA and a few others are continually raising standards.

I've been a JA fan since the 1980s. when I imported HFN&RR !

Mr. HR, Mr.KM, Mr.RS and a few others are brilliant.

The new girl seems insightful.

Stereophile is still worthwhile plus interesting people like you are part of the insightful readership.

Tony in Florida

Jazzlistener's picture

you must have a lot of time on your hands as you are constantly clogging up the comment sections of this and Analog Planet’s comment sections with your unwelcome, irrelevant blather. Here’s an idea, how about trying the senior bingo nights a few times a week where you will no doubt find many other old men shouting at clouds.

tonykaz's picture

My point of view is representative of close to 85% of the earth's population.

Analog Planet and Jazz both are niche in the real world & old-school like the Bingo you mention.

So, Sir, you may be the irrelevant one. ( in a philosophical sense )

Thank you for writhing, it's what this comment section is all about, isn't it?

Generalised sarcasm like your bingo comment is anger or is it just late nite Booze?

We have another great decade of scientific development unfolding, right here at Stereophile is a wonderful vantage point to see some of it happen.

Tony in Florida

Jim Austin's picture

Here's the actual quote:

Anyone with a spare $50,000 (and who doesn't require easy portability) would be foolish not to give it a serious audition.

We review gear at all prices, Tony, except perhaps the "blue-collar" box-store stuff. (Do box stores still exist?) Not all the products we review will be in your sweet spot. There's no need to be offended, or to take it as some sort of moral offense: Stereophile has other readers who have interests different from yours. I welcome your interest, but Stereophile does not exist for you alone. Misquoting, or mischaracterizing, a reviewer to make some point is not welcome.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

Anton's picture

I tried to write a reply but they all leaned toward the profane.

I really don't know the price sweet spot.

Don't know if there is a direct reader price/interest correlation, or if it the inverse.

Looking at how reviews catch my eye, I can remember in detail the review of the Golden Ear Triton reference, but couldn't tell you squat about the Göbel Divin Marquis, the Tidal Audio Akira, or the Wilson Audio Specialties Chronosonic XVX. I mean, I am sure I read the reviews, but had to click into "Recommended Components" list to take another peak beyond the price event horizon to be reminded they exist.

Maybe there is a section of readership that dwells in the thin air up there! I like aspirational reviews, but then I hit the ones that no amount of work and pain could deliver them unto me, and my attention does drift sometimes.

Our hobby has a very wide range! Honestly, nobody does it better than Stereophile, for me.

Anybody with a spare 12.99 would be foolish not to subscribe.

tonykaz's picture

I've owned and sold gear like this Amplifier.

I'm objecting to using "foolish" as a descriptive term.

I'm not saying it's foolish to use a term like that but you probably should.

Tony in Florida

noamgeller's picture

Dear Editors of Stereophile

I saw yesterday an interesting documentary on NYC Billionaire Row.
https://youtu.be/Wehsz38P74g
It seems like High-End suffers from the same fate... More and more Luxury Firms are building for the 0.1pecent... and I don't blame them. Either you charge more or you're out of the game. Why should a potential buyer should settle for the seconed highest when the next building blocks your Central Park view? Here we are the rest 99Percent looking high in the sky at those skescrapers and shaking are heads... knowing that high up there no one really lives.

tonykaz's picture

Our entire Social World is changing yet again. It isn't just Billionaires in NY.

Last Decade the iPhone changed everyone's life.

The 1st Decade was dominated by our Computerisation.

The 1990s had growth of Income stop, forcing Mom into the workplace. The children became Computer Game people.

The 1980s brought technology to Everyman.

The 1970s brought never ending War, Suburban Life , Boeing 707 Vacation Travel and Super High Inflation.

The 1960s brought Interstate Highways, Camping, National Parks and a hope filled future .

The 1950s were rather simple : Red Bikes under the Christmas Trees, Baseball on the AC/DC tubed Bakelite table Radios, canning garden tomatoes in the pressure cooker

As of now:
Our Recorded Music world has already powerfulllllllly changed -- for the better! :
1.) RtoR DACs have replaced Koetsu Phono Cartridges
2.) Streaming has replaced our Linn LP12 record Players
3.). Class D Amplification has supplanted the Big Beautiful Sculptured Amplifiers
4.). Loudspeaker Transducer design implementations have come down in actual cost bringing increased availability.
5.). Shirt pocket Audiophile Systems are everywhere on the Planet
6.). Skilled Individuals have become Publishers with wider circulations that traditional Print Media.

Looking over the Horizon,
a.) what audio gear will we be listening to in 2030 ?
b.) what will our latest Audio music format be ??
c.) what will StereoExchange be pricing a used 10 year old $50,000 Amplifier at ???
d.) will we all be having wireless Active loudspeakers ????

Tony in Florida

ps. seems like the only thing that hasn't changed is change

Jack L's picture

Hi

It is not too expensive to buy 2x900W for $50,000 = $27.7 per watt considering the sound quality were not in the equation.

How about a USD125,000 17W+17W stereo tube power amp = $3,676.5 per watt !! I auditioned it in depth & I love the sound. NO way I found it could not deliver the music right !!

So its the sound qualifies for its price fairness, right ?

Output power rating is only a number which never tells how good would be the sound.

Listenig is believing

Jack L

tonykaz's picture

Can you reveal your method for establishing a Purchase of one of these pricy Amplification Systems ?

How long of an auditiion in your music system would it take to convince you that this device is worthy of owning ?

How many cabling variations would be involved ( and time commitments required ) to finally reveal the magic combinations ?

How much break-in time will you allow to finally conclude the device has burned in properly ?

Are you committed to take the time and expense of a project like this

or

Are you simply taking the word of our reviewer and Dealer after being dazzled by a Showroom presentation ?

When Krell arrived ( the 1980s ) with their wonderful Amplification we were all probably loving our cherished ARC & Conrad Johnson Tube Amps. The Big Powerful Solid State Krells ( with gorgeous gold screws ) could drive our big dynamic drivers and Ribbon Planers.

So, I wonder, is this $50,000 Amp a device that reaches out further that Mr.D'Agustino has gone? This seems like a Bigness Race.

Our little DIY Audio Hobby seems to have folks that have no financial limits on purchase considerations, they can indulge pricy gear. I wonder how many of them read Stereophile ? ( if any )

Tony in Florida

Jack L's picture

Hi

Yes. I did quite a few times spent time to find out which amps & loudspeakers sound closest to live performance (my yardstick to gauge any audios) out of 'curiosity'. Like the USD125.000 17W+17W tube power amp I mentioned above.

But No, I would never want to spend such monies to acquire any of them.
Why I should spend my money (even with some easy monies I earned from the money markets) to finance the vendors?

I am not that HELPLESS being an engineering DIYer !! Haha!

Jack

JHL's picture

...we readership be asking if Stereophile now caters to the Elites or Blue collars ?"

Only if we need audio woke. Knowing, like we do, how that kind of inevitable projection - which is just the pseudo-virtue of envy - goes...

Jack L's picture

Hi

Audio magazines are for readers of all walks worldwide, "Elites or Blue collars". Therefore reviews of products to suit different "classes" accordingly.

Jack L

Archimago's picture

"Only if we need audio woke. Knowing, like we do, how that kind of inevitable projection - which is just the pseudo-virtue of envy - goes...

Fascinating that when folks criticize extremely expensive and questionably performing devices like these, the defense is often that of "envy".

Envy is only true if one actually has a desire to own these things. I think many times, audiophiles simply critique these products because clearly the objective performance is not good and it's unlikely that claims of remarkable sound quality are true.

JHL's picture

...it conflates well with materialism and we live in enormously materialistic times.

tonykaz's picture

I've owned and sold amplifiers like this.

Owning gear like this is more burdensome than pleasurable .

Imaging the cleaning lady scratching the top of this thing.

Tony in Florida

noamgeller's picture

I should go to the beach and look at the Ocean to get some Perspective.
So I went to Ebay and got the same. Stuff you could buy with 50K (in Germany)
https://www.ebay-kleinanzeigen.de/s-autos/preis:45000:50000/seite:2/auto/k0c216

Have Fun!

Archimago's picture

Sounds like your dad is/was a wise man.

Nothing wrong with anyone buying very expensive devices like these of course. I'm sure there are audiophiles who have enough cash to grab something like this many times over but would still look at the performance and wonder why this is worth more than those precision engineered automobiles.

Again that's not "envy". Just an honest question about performance, actual sound quality achievable, and what's reasonable value.

bhkat's picture

Nothing wrong with it. A much better deal than a degree in gender studies for 1/5 the price.

sw23's picture

You are a product design engineer. You are given orders to produce a state of the art stereo product. You make a list of all the components. Get first class stuff. Two of everything. What possible advantage is attained by cramming it all into one box that can't be lifted and has be positioned between the speakers? Are you sparing the consumer the price of a second box at your $50K price point?

David Harper's picture

oops

David Harper's picture

My first thought was to post here some boring self-righteous blather about the obscene self-indulgence of a purchase like this. But in a country where billionaires capable of solving world hunger instead play with space rockets it would be pointless. But I must respectfully disagree with "anyone with a spare 50K would be foolish not to give it a serious audition". Even if I had Jeff Bezos' money I would not consider myself foolish to "not give it a serious audition". A simple matter of price/value. Or cost/benefit. Or something to that effect. But that's just me.

ejlif's picture

JVS reviews about as useless as tits on a boar. I have read a number of these reviews of high end products by JVS and I always come away knowing basically nothing. I wish Stereophile would get rid of this guy and get someone in there who has the sack to say what he actually thinks.

X