Pass Labs .8 Series!

MadFloyd said:

... Heck, even with these new amps broken in, I just so much as swap a power cable and it sounds like mud for a few hours. I am at the point in my system evolution that I can hear any change in the system fairly easily ...My evaluation of the new .8's has been further compromised by me acquiring Shunyata power cords. They are a game changer. I don't think I could ever live without them. ... the Shunyatas are mind blowing.
...That said, I'm often blown away by what my system is doing. The amount of presence in the bass and midrange is uncanny - at least for solid state. It reminds me a lot of my Doshis in terms of image size but much more solidity and power. I can listen to a lot of pop music without any glare and feel like the musicians are in the room (save for the drummer who would normally be a lot louder...). The system does so many things so well that the thought of sending these .8's back just kills me.

... I have avoided going back to my .5's for a while so I could continue to break in the .8's but this weekend I'm going to give them a fair shake (with the Shunyata power cords of course) to truly try and map out the differences between the two amps and I'll report back one final time...

Click to expand...

Interesting feedback and great to hear...sounds like good progress with hopefully more on the way. One note, I have no idea how Pass works, but if you hear mud upon switching power cords, I wonder what happens when you totally power off a Pass. I remember being told that the capacitors can empty after a short while when unplugging them (during a discussion about Gryphon DM100)...and thus the capacitor banks refill upon plugging them back in again. I have no idea about this stuff and certainly not about Pass...but just a thought.

Bruce B said:

So you are blaming the better bass control on the design of the .8 series but blaming the dark sound on break-in and cables? How can you separate the two? You can't. The .8 series may sound darker because of the way it was designed. It may not be a flaw or compromise but the way it was actually designed.

I'll keep saving my money for the XS

Click to expand...

I don't find the .8 darker than the .5.

I went from the x250.5 to the xa60.8 and don't find it to be darker at all.

MadFloyd said:

I am glad that some people appreciate that I am not just blindly singing the praises of the new amps. There is a thread on Audiogon where another new owner of XA160.8's compares them to his XA160.5's and says that right out of the box they were so much more transparent etc. I can't help but raise an eyebrow because I can tell you that out of the box ANY Pass amp has sounded like mud to me. Heck, even with these new amps broken in, I just so much as swap a power cable and it sounds like mud for a few hours.

Click to expand...

I though my xa60.8 sounded great right out of the box. Didn't sound like mud at all. Vocals seemed to cut right through clearer than they did with my x250.5.

(and as a side note, I'm using Sablon Gran Corona power cables. not sure if anyone else here has played with them with their Pass gear...)

I don't think I'm quite clear on the use of the words "warm" and "dark" in the context of this thread.

When I use the word warm I'm talking about a rich, full sound that I associate with tube gear and analog front ends mostly, but to a lesser extent with Class A amplifiers. In the case of the tubes and Class A amps I think of this as due to the particular harmonics they tend to generate, and in the case of the front end I attribute it to the absence of the effects of digital sound reproduction and the presence of the effects of analog sound reproduction. Warm sound can quite pleasant but I think of it as a coloration caused by the equipment.

In this respect, I would definitely call the Pass Labs XP-30 neutral rather than warm (it's certainly not cold) and extremely transparent. I really don't hear any of what I would call warmth from it. What I do notice is that the XP-30 reveals quite a bit more of the subtle cues that indicate (or seem to) the size and characteristics of the room/studio/arena and the harmonics of the instruments and voices. This also tends to give a richer, fuller sound that can be pleasant (though not always) but I don't attribute this to a coloration but to the more revealing nature of the gear.

I own the XP-30 in combination with the XA160.5 amps. I haven't heard the XA160.8s yet but they will be in-home auditioned within the month. I would describe the sound from the XA160.5s as somewhat warm, reasonably transparent, and organic. When I use the term "dark" it's intended as the opposite of "bright", bright meaning an exaggeration of the treble range so dark then meaning a relative lack of treble (as opposed to heaviness, which is an exaggeration of the bass range). In this regard I consider my XA160.5s reasonably neutral. I'm not sayin' my perceptions are more accurate than anyone else's - just trying to define the terms being used and the way I use them for the sake of clarity. I guess my question here is, what is meant by those who are calling the XA160.8 "darker" than the XA 160.5? Less treble? More bass? Something else?

Howard said:

I don't think I'm quite clear on the use of the words "warm" and "dark" in the context of this thread.

When I use the word warm I'm talking about a rich, full sound that I associate with tube gear and analog front ends mostly, but to a lesser extent with Class A amplifiers. In the case of the tubes and Class A amps I think of this as due to the particular harmonics they tend to generate, and in the case of the front end I attribute it to the absence of the effects of digital sound reproduction and the presence of the effects of analog sound reproduction. Warm sound can quite pleasant but I think of it as a coloration caused by the equipment.

In this respect, I would definitely call the Pass Labs XP-30 neutral rather than warm (it's certainly not cold) and extremely transparent. I really don't hear any of what I would call warmth from it. What I do notice is that the XP-30 reveals quite a bit more of the subtle cues that indicate (or seem to) the size and characteristics of the room/studio/arena and the harmonics of the instruments and voices. This also tends to give a richer, fuller sound that can be pleasant (though not always) but I don't attribute this to a coloration but to the more revealing nature of the gear.

I own the XP-30 in combination with the XA160.5 amps. I haven't heard the XA160.8s yet but they will be in-home auditioned within the month. I would describe the sound from the XA160.5s as somewhat warm, reasonably transparent, and organic. When I use the term "dark" it's intended as the opposite of "bright", bright meaning an exaggeration of the treble range so dark then meaning a relative lack of treble (as opposed to heaviness, which is an exaggeration of the bass range). In this regard I consider my XA160.5s reasonably neutral. I'm not sayin' my perceptions are more accurate than anyone else's - just trying to define the terms being used and the way I use them for the sake of clarity. I guess my question here is, what is meant by those who are calling the XA160.8 "darker" than the XA 160.5? Less treble? More bass? Something else?

Click to expand...

I agree with your definitions of 'warm' vs 'dark'.

I also agree that the XA160.5's are fairly neutral. Perhaps the XP-30 is as well but if so then the XP-10 is 'cooler'. The first time I auditioned the XP-30, I owned the XP-10 and Lamm M1.2 monoblocks. With the XP-30 going into the Lamms it was much warmer sounding than the XP-10, but the bass was also muddy sounding. I also auditioned the Ayre KX-R preamp at the same time and compared it to the two Pass preamps and the KX-R was very lean in comparison to the XP-30 and more like the XP-10 (although much better). This is the only reason I have the perception that the XP-30 is warm. I don't think it is dark as that implies rolled off treble.

As for how the XA160.8 sounds compared to the XA160.5, here is what I think after comparing the two today:
- There is more bass with the .8. It is deeper, punchier and thicker.
- The scale of the .8 is much bigger than the .5, especially at lower volumes. At about 90db the scale starts to get similar.
- It may be that the .8's don't have any less energy in the upper frequencies than the .5's and my impression is because of the extra warmth/bloom of the .8's (giving the impression of less treble). Today I noticed that by boosting the tweeter resistors on the Alexias by .5db it sounded more similar to the .5's.
- In my room, with my gear, the .5's sound more open on top and the presentation is leaner. This allows me to hear the texture of bass instruments more clearly. That said, switching from the .8's to the .5's the upper midrange of the .5's sound thinner and depending on the content I may miss the .8's.
- The .8's may have better 'deep' bass control than the .5's, but since I switched from MIT power cords to the Shunyatas I have no complaints in that area with either amp.

For rock music, I LOVE the .8's. The rich, meaty midrange presence and bloom makes it sound like a tube amp and is great for feeling like you're in a club. It makes me feel like I have much larger speakers and not want for Maxx's or XLF's.

For jazz, I prefer the .5's. I haven't listened to enough classical yet.

Both are great amps and I have a tough decision to make on Monday!

MadFloyd said:

I- In my room, with my gear, the .5's sound more open on top and the presentation is leaner. This allows me to hear the texture of bass instruments more clearly.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you've made great progress the last 24 hours...but in respect of this comment...wonder what would happen if you put the Ultra 5s under your Alexias now?

MadFloyd said:

For rock music, I LOVE the .8's. The rich, meaty midrange presence and bloom makes it sound like a tube amp and is great for feeling like you're in a club. It makes me feel like I have much larger speakers and not want for Maxx's or XLF's.

For jazz, I prefer the .5's. I haven't listened to enough classical yet!

Click to expand...

I'm intrigued by this. I'm currently breaking in a pair of Magico S5s (maybe 1000 hours so far) and I'm very happy with the sound of jazz, male and female vocals, and small scale classical music but less so large scale classical and even less so with rock music. I haven't been able to put my finger on why this is - my thought was that the system was "too highly resolving" - it looked to closely into the recordings - much like when you see the scars and zits under the makeup on a news anchor's face in high def that you never noticed on regular TV. But perhaps it's something else - something the Point 5s are lacking that the Point 8s have, however subtle.

You used the word "lean" in your post. Much like my use of "organic" in my previous post, this strikes me as a very tricky word because we really don't know what other people mean when they say it. The "better" descriptive words we use tend to indicate a probable cause for their presence (heaviness = bass heavy, bright = treble exaggeration for example). Organic (to me) means natural sounding but it's purely subjective - I can't tell you what I heard exactly that made me say "organic". Thin strikes me as a similar concept. It's not the same as cold (opposite of warm) for example though I often hear them used together. I suppose it could mean lacking in bass and/or midrange weight but that doesn't seem quite right to me either. What did you mean by lean in your description?

Howard said:

I'm intrigued by this. I'm currently breaking in a pair of Magico S5s (maybe 1000 hours so far) and I'm very happy with the sound of jazz, male and female vocals, and small scale classical music but less so large scale classical and even less so with rock music. I haven't been able to put my finger on why this is - my thought was that the system was "too highly resolving" - it looked to closely into the recordings - much like when you see the scars and zits under the makeup on a news anchor's face in high def that you never noticed on regular TV. But perhaps it's something else - something the Point 5s are lacking that the Point 8s have, however subtle.

You used the word "lean" in your post. Much like my use of "organic" in my previous post, this strikes me as a very tricky word because we really don't know what other people mean when they say it. The "better" descriptive words we use tend to indicate a probable cause for their presence (heaviness = bass heavy, bright = treble exaggeration for example). Organic (to me) means natural sounding but it's purely subjective - I can't tell you what I heard exactly that made me say "organic". Thin strikes me as a similar concept. It's not the same as cold (opposite of warm) for example though I often hear them used together. I suppose it could mean lacking in bass and/or midrange weight but that doesn't seem quite right to me either. What did you mean by lean in your description?

Click to expand...

Howard, 'lean' to me means that there isn't an over abundance of bass to obscure other instruments and and as a result you hear a lot more of what's included in the recording. Obviously too lean and you're at risk for an analytical presentation, over pronounced treble and perhaps an absence of adequate weight for lower frequency instruments.

From what you describe of the combination of the S5's and the XA160.5's, I'm guessing that the .8's will be an improvement. I look forward to your thoughts once you get them in (and break them in). I've heard the S5's and liked them very much - especially on classical music. Maybe the .8's will add some 'slam' and punch to make rock more natural sounding?

I'm expecting my pair of XA160.8s late next week. My turn to put them through their paces.

My XP-30 and S5s are very excited... My XA160.5s not so much.

Howard said:

I'm expecting my pair of XA160.8s late next week. My turn to put them through their paces.

My XP-30 and S5s are very excited... My XA160.5s not so much.

Click to expand...

Congrats. What kind of music do you listen to? I love the S5's but have never heard them with Pass gear. Can't wait to hear what you think!

Here's the first pair of XA-100.8s on Audiogon.
30 hours of use!

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/so...nce-series-as-new-2014-04-22-amplifiers-75070

danielk141 said:

Here's the first pair of XA-100.8s on Audiogon.
30 hours of use!

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/so...nce-series-as-new-2014-04-22-amplifiers-75070

Click to expand...

Is it my imagination or do these always seem to come from Texas?

danielk141 said:

Here's the first pair of XA-100.8s on Audiogon.
30 hours of use!

http://app.audiogon.com/listings/so...nce-series-as-new-2014-04-22-amplifiers-75070

Click to expand...

30 hours is not nearly enough time to form a proper opinion of these amplifiers. Good be a nice opportunity to buy these amps at a lower price.

This could be another trade-in for speakers or something. That happened a while back with an XA30.8 after a few weeks. The seller looks like a dealer. It's all very curious. Why not just audition it through Reno HIFI and return it if you don't like it?

For me the Pass XA series sound great. My issue is living in the Phoenix area.
It's going to be 95 here, today.
My Rowland 625 is in it's box, my Pass XA-30.5 is on loan to a friend.
I'm listening to one of my NewClear amps. Class D is a gift, when the temp is >90 degrees.
My goal is to get XA-100.8s or keep my 625.
Having class A to me is like having a high performance car. It's much easier when you have another car that's a daily driver.
In amps that is something Class A/B or D, you can use June through August.

I'm trying to say Class A rules, but when the AC is constantly cycling on and off, it's great to have alternatives.

The point 8 series use much more electricity than the point 5.

For example the XA60.5 uses 200 watts per mono block and the XA60.8 uses 375 watts per mono block.

I leave my 60.5's on 24/7 for best sound, and do not notice a rise in temperature in my room. It is like four 100 watt light bulbs. I am leary of temperature cycling adding stress.

A near doubling of heat casts doubts about long term reliability, with the necessary turning off and on, resulting in temperature cycling the power transistors.

Also, the point 8's do not appear to be a huge jump in sound quality from the early reports.

I may just keep the 60.5's.

When Pass Labs went from Aleph's to XA's many felt that was a step back in sound quality. I hope history is not repeating.

Don C said:

The point 8 series use much more electricity than the point 5.

For example the XA60.5 uses 200 watts per mono block and the XA60.8 uses 375 watts per mono block.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting these figures? The specs on the Pass Labs site says the 60.5 and 60.8 both burn 200 watts per side, while the 160.8 burns 100 less watts per side than the 160.5.

Alan

Don C said:

The point 8 series use much more electricity than the point 5.

For example the XA60.5 uses 200 watts per mono block and the XA60.8 uses 375 watts per mono block.

I leave my 60.5's on 24/7 for best sound, and do not notice a rise in temperature in my room. It is like four 100 watt light bulbs. I am leary of temperature cycling adding stress.

A near doubling of heat casts doubts about long term reliability, with the necessary turning off and on, resulting in temperature cycling the power transistors.

Also, the point 8's do not appear to be a huge jump in sound quality from the early reports.

I may just keep the 60.5's.

When Pass Labs went from Aleph's to XA's many felt that was a step back in sound quality. I hope history is not repeating.

Click to expand...

Yeah, just a heads up - listen to the Point 8s before making any decisions. As much as I loved my XA160.5s, my XA160.8s are much better in virtually every way. I was quite surprised at the improvement TBH - I expected it to be subtle... but it ain't.

Don C said:

Also, the point 8's do not appear to be a huge jump in sound quality from the early reports.

I may just keep the 60.5's.

When Pass Labs went from Aleph's to XA's many felt that was a step back in sound quality. I hope history is not repeating.

Click to expand...

I've read reports on AudioShark and WBF and it seems that people do prefer the new .8 over the .5. I have directly compared the XA160.5 to the XA160.8. The .8 is considerably better. Perhaps not a "huge jump" as you write, but a huge improvement in sound quality at this level is extremely rare, given the modest price increase. I have written elsewhere that I think for a new buyer, it would be worth paying the additional 20-25% for the .8. The .8 is cleaner sounding with added overall clarity and better spacial information and drive/control in the bass. Given the price difference between a used .5 and a new .8, the cost to upgrade from one to the other presents a different value calculation. Some will find it worth the price difference and others may not.

I upgraded from the Aleph 2 to the original XA160. The XA160 was considerably better. It had a lower noise floor and much better control of the lower frequencies. It also had a better overall balance while the Aleph was only really superb in the midrange as I remember. You can read a review I wrote on the XA100.5 which describes in some detail what my impressions were between the Aleph 3, 5, 2, and XA160 to the XA100.5. It is under the review section on WBF.

aljordan said:

Where are you getting these figures? The specs on the Pass Labs site says the 60.5 and 60.8 both burn 200 watts per side, while the 160.8 burns 100 less watts per side than the 160.5.

Alan

Click to expand...

The specifications come from the Pass Labs site. Point8_specs.pdf in the manuals section (XA60.8) - comparison chart (pdf down load).