New Monster Audio Research Amplifier

MylesBAstor · Sep 1, 2012

A.wayne said:
CLS ..?

They are 1.5 in the high frequency , running on the 4 ohm tap may have an interesting result due to the Impedance mismatch , It May just tame that Logan glare most are sensitive to ..

Possibly but that doesn't hold true for all tube amps.

Also, the MLs (in my case currently the Summit-Xs) are like putting a magnifying glass over the rest of the system. The MLs are far from forgiving but with the right equipment produce a sound that rivals more expensive speakers. Often the fault lies with the upstream components--or even oxidation on the connectors and AC plugs that adds a hardness to the sound

dafos · Sep 1, 2012

"Perhaps one important point is that I leave near a power distribution station and the mains in my system is stable +/- 2% every time."

Admittedly, local voltage, which is specified at 220v can go as nigh as 240v. But ARC claims that 220-240v units are the same. I'm also using a 3 KVA voltage regulator that probably limits the maximum current my gear can draw from the power line, but I feel it's a necessary "evil" in my area.

mep · Sep 2, 2012

A.wayne said:
What speakers are you running the KSA 250 on ..?

It's all listed in my profile.

mep · Sep 2, 2012

microstrip said:
Mep,

Happily we have a common reference we have both owned and loved. How would you compare in your own words the soundstage and musical performance of your Krell after four hours playing and thirty seconds after being un-played for two days? Please compare using the same negative order I refer - comparing the cold with the sound of hot.

You have a point that I have not described the big room and ancillaries - but the subject of some mini-monitors performing exceptionally with a particular amplifier system has been addressed several times and I do not consider it a novelty. I see why most people only make vague statements in incognito systems in WBF - every time we refer to direct situations and experiences, specially if we touch a preferred brand the post gets scrutinized by the owners.

Obviously the Krell sounds better after it has been on long enough to come up to temperature, but the difference between the two states isn’t enough to make the soundstage “collapse.” Comparing the ARC VS115 to the KSA-250 makes for an interesting contrast, but I can tell you there is no soundstage “collapse” when switching from one to the other. The fact that I’m trying to sell the VS115 and keeping the KSA-250 tells you which amp I think is better in my system. And I do feel the VS115 is the best sounding ARC amp I have ever owned. I also list all of my gear under my profile because I feel no need to keep it hidden under a bushel.

microstrip · Sep 2, 2012

mep said:
Obviously the Krell sounds better after it has been on long enough to come up to temperature, but the difference between the two states isn’t enough to make the soundstage “collapse.” (...)

Well, it was not my experience. Cold the soundstage was mainly between the speakers with little depth and not very spatious. If you pushed the volume it would sound constricted and loud, nothing else. After a long warmup the music seemed to completely develop in the whole room, the speakers disappeared, sources seemed to have body and size. At the proper volume the soundstage seemed to be in focus, everything much more free. BTW, these memories are linked to the Sonus Faber Extrema and records such as VTL Lois and Cantate Domino - and using digital.

mep · Sep 3, 2012

Micro-Honestly, I don’t sit down and seriously listen to my system when it’s ‘cold.’ I go downstairs, turn on the amp, hit play on Foobar which is set to random, and then I leave the room and return at least 2 hours later to listen. I think the music sounds ‘ok’ as I’m heading out the door of my listening room, but I have never sat down and tried to seriously evaluate the soundstage or lack thereof from a cold amp. Which brings me back to your original point about the soundstage collapsing when switching from the ARC amp to the Krell. Were you just listening to the amp as it was coming up to temperature and it displayed the characteristics you described of a cold amp?

microstrip · Sep 3, 2012

mep said:
Micro-Honestly, I don’t sit down and seriously listen to my system when it’s ‘cold.’ I go downstairs, turn on the amp, hit play on Foobar which is set to random, and then I leave the room and return at least 2 hours later to listen. I think the music sounds ‘ok’ as I’m heading out the door of my listening room, but I have never sat down and tried to seriously evaluate the soundstage or lack thereof from a cold amp. Which brings me back to your original point about the soundstage collapsing when switching from the ARC amp to the Krell. Were you just listening to the amp as it was coming up to temperature and it displayed the characteristics you described of a cold amp?

Recent Krell gear does not need such long warmup times - we waited about 15 minutes before listening. But it is clear that is was not a fair test to the Krell's - the system was optimized for the ARCs.

marty · Sep 3, 2012

mep said:
I actually feel sorry for whoever has to write the marketing ads for ARC. I mean really, how do you keep coming up with new adjectives/superlatives to describe how much better the new amp/preamp/phono section/CD player/DAC sounds than the ARC unit it replaced? The units that were just replaced did so many more wonderful things than the unit that they replaced it just makes you wonder how deep the adjective well is. In reality, I think the well has already run dry. I suspect that if you go back and read the ads for the original Ref 600 that it would read remarkably similar to the current ad.

I think you just identified the entire scope of the problem for describing high end componentry for about the past 40 years. It's like saying that each time someone tries to leave the room, they will only get half way towards the exit door. Here we are years later, yet only incrementally closer to the door descriptively. Look at the descriptors in Stereophile and TAS from 30+ years ago. You can essentially lift them and put them into today's publications with nary any differences to today's writings. It's a fascinating problem. If every new piece of gear "blows away" its predecessor, one might assume we started somewhere with 2 Dixie-cups and a string. In fact we started with such venerable pieces as the Marantz Model 7 and 9's, ARC SP-3's, KLH-9s, JBLs, Bozak, etc. Of course our gear today is better, but how much better? Is the amount "better" consistent with the modern descriptors and writings, or is it mostly hyperbole and exaggeration to a great degree? One can't help but wonder. Writing about products with such liberal use of lofty superlatives is certainly all part of the game I suppose. It is also one that as consumer's we a partly responsible for (because we enjoy reading about gear written in this way). That, too has entertainment value. But perspective is also important. Perhaps we should have a new descriptor for all newly described sensational gear? It could be something that describes, say, a "merit/hype" factor? This should be a number that easily conveys in a glance how much of the new product is substantive improvement and how much is hype? A number of about 0.2 strikes me as about the right balance to start. By using such a merit factor, one might also more easily compare the writings of the various journalists in some way that normalizes their opinions. For example, a "merit" factor of 0.2 given by somebody such as Robert Greene could be the rough equivalent of a "merit factor" of 0.9 by Jon Valin, who more often than not thinks the latest of whatever he heard, is the best he ever heard (talk about getting half way to the door each time!). That's not to say what Jon writes is not worth reading. It generally always is! But now we'll have a way of putting his "superlatives" in line with the ramblings of far more conservative writers. It won't take long before we come to appreciate that a "MF" (merit factor) of 0.9 by Valin is roughly the equivalent of a MF of say, 0.4, by John Atkinson or a 0.6 (?) by the venerable HP and a 0.7 (?) by Fremer. Anyway, you get the idea. Besides, it's pretty much what we do unconsciously anyway when we read our favorite reviewers. It's one of the saner approaches to dealing with the ever grander descriptors of the latest gear which in and of itself is frequently hindered by the self-fulfilling prophecy of inappropriate aggrandizement.

microstrip · Sep 3, 2012

While we wait for reviews of the "monsters" we can enjoy the just published review by Peter Roth of the "mini-monsters" - the REF250s - at the Soundstage site.

http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=281:audio-research-reference-250-mono-amplifiers&catid=37:full-length-reviews&Itemid=2

It is plenty of superlatives ...

Bill Hart · Sep 3, 2012

marty said:
I think you just identified the entire scope of the problem for describing high end componentry for about the past 40 years. It's like saying that each time someone tries to leave the room, they will only get half way towards the exit door. Here we are years later, yet only incrementally closer to the door descriptively. Look at the descriptors in Stereophile and TAS from 30+ years ago. You can essentially lift them and put them into today's publications with nary any differences to today's writings. It's a fascinating problem. If every new piece of gear "blows away" its predecessor, one might assume we started somewhere with 2 Dixie-cups and a string. In fact we started with such venerable pieces as the Marantz Model 7 and 9's, ARC SP-3's, KLH-9s, JBLs, Bozak, etc. Of course our gear today is better, but how much better? Is the amount "better" consistent with the modern descriptors and writings, or is it mostly hyperbole and exaggeration to a great degree? One can't help but wonder. Writing about products with such liberal use of lofty superlatives is certainly all part of the game I suppose. It is also one that as consumer's we a partly responsible for (because we enjoy reading about gear written in this way). That, too has entertainment value. But perspective is also important. Perhaps we should have a new descriptor for all newly described sensational gear? It could be something that describes, say, a "merit/hype" factor? This should be a number that easily conveys in a glance how much of the new product is substantive improvement and how much is hype? A number of about 0.2 strikes me as about the right balance to start. By using such a merit factor, one might also more easily compare the writings of the various journalists in some way that normalizes their opinions. For example, a "merit" factor of 0.2 given by somebody such as Robert Greene could be the rough equivalent of a "merit factor" of 0.9 by Jon Valin, who more often than not thinks the latest of whatever he heard, is the best he ever heard (talk about getting half way to the door each time!). That's not to say what Jon writes is not worth reading. It generally always is! But now we'll have a way of putting his "superlatives" in line with the ramblings of far more conservative writers. It won't take long before we come to appreciate that a "MF" (merit factor) of 0.9 by Valin is roughly the equivalent of a MF of say, 0.4, by John Atkinson or a 0.6 (?) by the venerable HP and a 0.7 (?) by Fremer. Anyway, you get the idea. Besides, it's pretty much what we do unconsciously anyway when we read our favorite reviewers. It's one of the saner approaches to dealing with the ever grander descriptors of the latest gear which in and of itself is frequently hindered by the self-fBulfilling prophecy of inappropriate aggrandizement.

Ever read 'Bad, or the Dumbing of America' by Paul Fussell? It was published in the early 1990's but focused on certain businesses, including the airlines and banks, and pointed to the 'delta' between the hype and the reality. Although the book is obviously out of date, what has changed is that this 'delta' is now pretty much the norm for everything, from organic food to journalism, and virtually all consumer products.

LL21 · Sep 3, 2012

marty said:
It won't take long before we come to appreciate that a "MF" (merit factor) of 0.9 by Valin is roughly the equivalent of a MF of say, 0.4, by John Atkinson or a 0.6 (?) by the venerable HP and a 0.7 (?) by Fremer. Anyway, you get the idea. Besides, it's pretty much what we do unconsciously anyway when we read our favorite reviewers. It's one of the saner approaches to dealing with the ever grander descriptors of the latest gear which in and of itself is frequently hindered by the self-fulfilling prophecy of inappropriate aggrandizement.

When i read reviews, i try to focus on highly detailed comments/observations and ignore the sweeping statements. I also particularly like reviews which seek to compare products within a system...everyone's got a different system, but its a start to set a component in the context of other components which perhaps i know well...before I ultimately have to audition it myself. There are many times when a seemingly innocuous statement about detail comes back to me quickly upon hearing a piece of equipment.

And when serious, i usually pick up the phone or email the author directly to get more detailed insight...in several cases i have received surprisingly candid comments and advice which has proven very helpful.

Finally, I also like seeing a reviewer who keeps his reference components for a long time...i have seen a couple reviewers keep certain references for 3-5 years worth of articles.

MylesBAstor · Sep 3, 2012

lloydelee21 said:
When i read reviews, i try to focus on highly detailed comments/observations and ignore the sweeping statements. I also particularly reviews which seek to compare products within a system...everyone's got a different system, but its a start before you ultimately have to audition it yourself with your own system. There are many times when a seemingly innocuous statement comes back to me quickly upon hearing a piece of equipment.

And when serious, i usually pick up the phone or email the author directly to get more detailed insight...in several cases i have received surprisingly candid comments and advice which has proven very helpful.

Finally, I also like seeing a reviewer who keeps his reference components for a long time...i have seen a couple reviewers keep certain references for 3-5 years worth of articles.

I think you hit on several good points Lloyd. Another is a reviewer (like HP did) using the same software so readers (and the reviewer) have a basis of comparison. While it's nauseating to listen to the same album over and over, it does allow one to become intimately familiar with the music and hear the nuances.

Andre Marc · Sep 3, 2012

MylesBAstor said:
I think you hit on several good points Lloyd. Another is a reviewer (like HP did) using the same software so readers (and the reviewer) have a basis of comparison. While it's nauseating to listen to the same album over and over, it does allow one to become intimately familiar with the music and hear the nuances.

Actually nothing nauseates me more than when reviewers use audiophile drivel like Chesky or some other crap that you would never
listen to for pleasure. Once I see that in a review I lose interest real quick. I believe "real world" music should be used.

LL21 · Sep 3, 2012

MylesBAstor said:
I think you hit on several good points Lloyd. Another is a reviewer (like HP did) using the same software so readers (and the reviewer) have a basis of comparison. While it's nauseating to listen to the same album over and over, it does allow one to become intimately familiar with the music and hear the nuances.

Yes, for sure. When I read a review and feel like I've got a good grounding in what the Reviewer's base/reference standard is...I feel better grounded in my understanding of the component under review...once the reviewer's standard/reference is 'floating' or inconsistent...it becomes incredibly difficult to get a real measure of the component.

LL21 · Sep 3, 2012

Andre Marc said:
Actually nothing nauseates me more than when reviewers use audiophile drivel like Chesky or some other crap that you would never
listen to for pleasure. Once I see that in a review I lose interest real quick. I believe "real world" music should be used.

the only audiophile recordings i have are FIM, Analogue Productions, MFSL...and always of stuff i want to listen to. I cannot tell you how many times i have listened via headphones to a superb remastering of some version of classical music or some other music i really want to buy...because of the cool remastering job...and i just dont like the version (at all). i leave it in my Wish List...and inevitably delete because i know i wont listen to it.

In fact, i just went hunting for one such version...and ended up getting something i think is probably an audiophile recording...without being labeled as such. I hope i am right...because i loved the version from the little snippits i could hear: Handel: Messiah -- Polyphony, Stephen Layton | Hyperion. I wont mention it...but i looked hard at an audiophile version...and just could not be convinced to buy it after much re-listening just because of its mastering job.

I own the Christopher Hogg one and really enjoy it.

Bill Hart · Sep 3, 2012

MylesBAstor said:
I think you hit on several good points Lloyd. Another is a reviewer (like HP did) using the same software so readers (and the reviewer) have a basis of comparison. While it's nauseating to listen to the same album over and over, it does allow one to become intimately familiar with the music and hear the nuances.

I don't know how a reviewer can do an adequate job without having a piece of equipment on hand for some period of time. Often, by the time the reviewer is listening to preamp B, preamp A is long gone (not talking about the reviewer's own reference equipment, but other equipment he (not many she's) has reviewed). That's what drives me bonkers about those compilations of ratings, like Class 'A' etc. qua Stereophile. Some of the reviews, and thus the 'blurbs' taken from them are long out of date, and I suspect that if the piece was brought back into play, it wouldn't show up as well against the [current] competition. Of course, this is the exact opposite of what Marty said in an earlier post about how much equipment has (or has not) really improved.
I think reviewers themselves must 'improve' over time too, no? Their perspective must change after long experience and there is a continued learning curve in listening and evaluating equipment, and that has to play a role too.

Bill Hart · Sep 3, 2012

Andre Marc said:
Actually nothing nauseates me more than when reviewers use audiophile drivel like Chesky or some other crap that you would never
listen to for pleasure. Once I see that in a review I lose interest real quick. I believe "real world" music should be used.

My personal favorite is a direct to disc of flamenco dancing. The cover art shows the dancer on a table top; the microphones have to be situated directly beneath the table. If it sounds like a hammer hitting you in the head, you know the system is spot on.

MylesBAstor · Sep 3, 2012

Andre Marc said:
Actually nothing nauseates me more than when reviewers use audiophile drivel like Chesky or some other crap that you would never
listen to for pleasure. Once I see that in a review I lose interest real quick. I believe "real world" music should be used.

Well there's lots of well recorded and great music out there.

But if much of this "real world" music sounds good on a system, I'd run the other way.

MylesBAstor · Sep 3, 2012

whart said:
I don't know how a reviewer can do an adequate job without having a piece of equipment on hand for some period of time. Often, by the time the reviewer is listening to preamp B, preamp A is long gone (not talking about the reviewer's own reference equipment, but other equipment he (not many she's) has reviewed).

Good point but that's the nature of the industry. With all the magazines out there, manufacturers can't afford to have tons of gear floating around. That said, I do yearn for the days where HP compared five or more cartridges, amplifiers, preamplifiers, etc in a given review.

That's what drives me bonkers about those compilations of ratings, like Class 'A' etc. qua Stereophile. Some of the reviews, and thus the 'blurbs' taken from them are long out of date, and I suspect that if the piece was brought back into play, it wouldn't show up as well against the [current] competition. Of course, this is the exact opposite of what Marty said in an earlier post about how much equipment has (or has not) really improved.

My experience is that I'm always shocked by how colored the previous gen of gear was! Not only that, but I think if Marty (and I know he has read and/or may have them) goes back to TAS 1-15, the equipment was severely lacking. Most of the gear had one or two good attributes but some severe shortcomings. I think that much of the mid-priced gear today would put to shame some SOTA from the recent history.

I think reviewers themselves must 'improve' over time too, no? Their perspective must change after long experience and there is a continued learning curve in listening and evaluating equipment, and that has to play a role too.

Absolutely through hours and hours of listening and trying to hear as many components in their systems as well as hearing other systems. I also found the most helpful was when friends and I got together every week years ago and had listening sessions and would compare notes on the gear and/or music.

asiufy · Sep 3, 2012

Myles,

Care to elaborate?
Do you really think if a system plays "real world" music well, it's not a good system? I guess mine is a POS then, as it plays my 70s prog brilliantly

alexandre

New Monster Audio Research Amplifier

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Industry Expert/VIP Donor

Similar threads