Fern & Roby Amp No. 2 integrated amplifier Associated Equipment

Sidebar 2: Associated Equipment

Analog sources: Dr. Feickert Analogue Blackbird turntable with EMT 912-HI tonearm and EMT JSD 6 moving coil cartridge, Sorane SA-1.2 tonearm with a Dynavector XX2 moving coil and Ortofon 2M Black moving magnet cartridges; Lenco L75 turntable with Denon DL-103 moving coil cartridge; MoFi MasterPhono and Prima Luna EVO 100 phono stages; Sutherland Engineering SUTZ transimpedance MC headamp and Hagerman Zero transimpedance MC headamp.
Digital sources: Denafrips Terminator Plus, HoloAudio Spring 3, dCS Lina (with Master Clock) DACs; Onkyo C-7030 CD player.
Preamplifier: HoloAudio Serene.
Power amplifiers: Parasound Halo A 21+, Elekit TU-8900.
Integrated amplifier: Pass Labs INT-25.
Loudspeakers: Falcon Acoustics Gold Badge LS3/5a, DeVore Fidelity O/93, GoldenEar BRX.
Cables: Digital: AudioQuest Diamond USB (with Denafrips and HoloAudio DACs). Tonearm: Cardas Clear Beyond, Grado Labs. Interconnect: Cardas Clear Beyond, Triode Wire Spirit II. Speaker: Cardas Clear Beyond, Triode Wire American Series. AC: AudioQuest Tornado.
Accessories: AudioQuest Niagara 1000 power conditioner; Harmonic Resolution Systems M3X-1719-AMG isolation platform (for Parasound Halo A 21+), Musical Surroundings Fozgometer V2, Riverstone Audio VTF gauge, Sound Anchor Reference speaker stands.—Herb Reichert

COMPANY INFO
Fern & Roby/Tektonics Design Group
702 E 4th St.
Richmond
VA 23224
(804) 233-5030
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
Archimago's picture

Wow. For a device >$8000 with relatively low output power, there are quite a few issues!

Knowing JA's standard tests over the years, I would have thought that all audiophile companies by now would have tried to ensure quality over obvious concerns like hum, channel imbalances, phono compensation errors, etc. which could be quite audible in certain systems before submission for reviews! (That the subjective reviewer was unable to notice some of these concerns is unfortunate but perhaps not surprising.)

So when the manufacturer comments that "All the items in the technical review have already been addressed in our production units.", is it normal for the reviewers to test prototypes/non-production units? Maybe they're saying that early units like the one being reviewed has problems - if so are they recalling these early units with issues?

For potential consumers, hopefully an actual "production" unit might be tested to confirm the claim that things have been improved.

Jim Austin's picture

The unit reviewed was a production unit or was presented as such--and I believe it was; certainly it had a serial number. I talked to the proprietor (Hildebrand) at AXPONA; the electronic design was outsourced, and the designer didn't know what he had. In some respects--particularly the RIAA correction--this seems like a misfire, a product we should not have reviewed--except that it has some special qualities, as Herb's listening notes make clear. And I trust Herb's ears completely--not as a proxy for measurements (we've got that covered) but as someone who knows and can vividly describe good sound.

So when Hildebrand writes, "There is always something valuable to be learned, and an opportunity to improve a design, when someone else runs your product through a rigorous independent analysis. All the items in the technical review have already been addressed in our production units," I believe he means all production units "from now on." And I believe he is sincere.

Best Wishes,
Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

David Harper's picture

So if I understand you correctly you're saying that in spite of the obvious technical flaws and inferiority of this amp your faith in Herb's golden ears convinces you that the amp must have some sound quality that is inexplicable and therefore unfalsifiable. The perfect audiophile argument.

teched58's picture

One must applaud Jim's forthrightness in confirming that this is a production unit, esp since the reader takeaway from this is that this company needs to work on its QC.

Jim Austin's picture

So if I understand you correctly you're saying that in spite of the obvious technical flaws and inferiority of this amp your faith in Herb's golden ears convinces you that the amp must have some sound quality that is inexplicable and therefore unfalsifiable.

That is indeed pretty close to what I'm saying. Your choice of words in characterizing it, though, betrays a profound naiveté--specifically a measurements-first hierarchy: If you can't measure it, it isn't real. That's an attitude that has, fortunately, been rejected by most of those in our industry who make things. Real quantitative chops and deep knowledge of theory and best practice are essential for a skilled engineer, but almost all will tell you that that gets you only part of the way there. I can think of only a few exceptions. There's no need to attribute good sound to anything mystical, but often it is inexplicable. But even if it isn't explicable, it is audible, and all hearing it requires is experience and ears that are open--not golden.

I saw the amp in question at AXPONA, but it wasn't playing music, so I can't comment on the sound. But I'll take Herb's many decades of deep-dive experience over any half-assed skeptic. If he says it sounds good, and it measures poorly, then it sounds good in spite of measuring poorly.

I see advantages in your apparent worldview. It is nice to think that things are so explicable, so easy to trace every effect back to some obvious cause. But the world doesn't work like that, or not as often as we wish it did.

I have no time to continue this conversation. Go ahead, do your best, I won't respond. And don't forget to tell the folks over at ASR about it.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

David Harper's picture

My choice of words was unnecessarily antagonistic. I can agree with most of what you say.

Jim Austin's picture

I appreciate your generosity.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile

teched58's picture

JA2 wrote:

: If you can't measure it, it isn't real. That's an attitude that has, fortunately, been rejected by most of those in our industry who make things. Real quantitative chops and deep knowledge of theory and best practice are essential for a skilled engineer, but almost all will tell you that that gets you only part of the way there.

Mysticism may perhaps sometimes be helpful to explain phenomena which are refractory to the human brain and/or experience.

But to think such nonsense is operative when you're measuring frequency reponse or noise or the many other well-characterized things we do when we seek to characterize the performance of electronic equipment, that's just laughable.

DH's picture

Is that he should have heard something amiss in the sound with those measurements. If he didn’t, that indicates that his golden ears aren’t so golden. Maybe only silver….
And yes, there needs to be a follow up measurement of a production unit to see if the faults have been corrected.
That would only help the manufacturer.

MatthewT's picture

over at ASR you remind me why I don't.

Steeler's picture

On a pedantic, non-hifi note, Bonaparte was repelled from Russia in 1812, hence the 1812 Overture, which celebrated the event. 1815 marked his final defeat at Waterloo.

ok's picture

it's a bit strange (and consumer unsettling) that the last three amplifiers tested at stereophile arrived all damaged.

Anton's picture

If a manufacturer can't get an unbroken "production" model to Stereophile, then I'm out.

Glotz's picture

Small boutique manufacturers are great until they're not...

supamark's picture

but when I was reviewing stuff I was occassionally like the 3rd or 4th person to review it and the boxes I got were beat to hell. I don't think many mfg's bring the items back to the shop between reviews either.

Not lying, when I saw the picture then JA's comments about the volume control I pictured in my head that the knob turned a twig inside the amp.

MatthewT's picture

Fred Flintstone probably had one of these.

Axiom05's picture

JA should be charging for his lab service to measure these unfinished products. Clearly these companies aren't investing in the proper equipment to evaluate their own prototypes. Why should they? Just send it to Stereophile and get free data.

georgehifi's picture

Anton: "If a manufacturer can't get an unbroken "production" model to Stereophile, then I'm out."

Yeah, this happens all too often for my liking also, go back over the years there are way way too many of these "faulty" ones showing up for testing/review.
You would think the one the manufacturer sends to Stereophile is even better spec'd and adjusted than a retail one, and wrapped up in bed mattress for delivery so it makes it safely.

Cheers George

Anton's picture

“Close enough for a subjectivist!”

100% pure joking: trying to bridge the divide between Ashla and Bogan!

John David Spoon's picture

This review and the manufacturer's response present quite a dilemma to me as someone in the market for precisely this integrated amp's feature offerings and for whom the price point fits neatly within the scope of what I'm looking to build. On the one hand, I'm quite willing to grant the esteemed Herb Reichert the benefit of the doubt and concede that his experience in evaluating systems significantly exceeds mine. He variously offers that the system sounds "crisp," "pristinely focused," and "transparent" among numerous positive descriptors across the breadth of supporting electronics and speakers. These are all things a potential consumer would want to hear from someone knowledgeable and experienced in evaluating these things.

But at the same time, few people I know would be intrinsically happy purchasing something that was known to be notably flawed. If the sampled unit sounded that way with the issues identified in the changes, should we be reassured that the shortcomings have indeed been addressed in a unit we purchased? Moreover, if those attributes and descriptors are a function of the unit functioning as-is, is it not reasonable to expect that making whatever corrections are necessary to remediate those issues will, at least to some extent, change the fundamental perceived performance it delivers? Would it be unreasonable to expect to see this model revisited soon with a revised listening and measurement re-evaluation? I have to say, I'd be extremely reluctant to pull the trigger on this, as it stands.

David Harper's picture

My only problem here is that $8K for this particular component, given the reported performance of it, seems more than a little unjustified. Consider that a Schiit Vidar amp can be had for about $800. If one reads and compares the specs of these two amps there can only be one conclusion.

funambulistic's picture

... the one conclusion being the Amp No. 2 is an integrated and the Vidar is strictly a power amp. That is what you were going for, correct?

helomech's picture

of an underserving boutique brand attempting to exploit the naïveté of audiophiles and their proclivity to of correlating aesthetics and price with performance. With exception of the faceplate, knobs and milled remote, this product likely cost less to manufacture than any $400 mass market AVR.

Hopefully the out-sourced electrical designer made off like a bandit too.

Turnerman1103's picture

..

X