Interesting build quality...

[KeithR]

http://dagogo.com/wells-audio-innamorata-signature-stereo-amplifier-review

I'm sure this Wells Audio amps sounds great, but its awful threadbare inside and the transformer looks tiny. It looks like a blinged out Odyssey Stratos for $15k. What am I missing?

 

[slcaudiophile]

um ... you do see they use duelund cast pios (those giant round things in the front) and wbt ng (those pretty shiny things on the back) and bybee stuff on the ps throughout yes? this honestly looks like one of the better sounding amps around. if slc had any dang dealers i would love to hear this thing.

 

[Don Hills]

... this honestly looks like one of the better sounding amps around. ...

"It has shiny things, so it sounds good"? I'll assume that wasn't a Freudian slip, and you didn't mean to say it like that.
I share KeithR's reservations about its specs - apart from the transformer size, when you look at the published specifications, they don't add up. Literally.

 

[amirm]

While I have seen far emptier boxes, it hasn't been in the high-end market. And it is not just the transformer that could have been upsized with almost no impact to gross margin. But also the output stage:

Just four transistors mounted on that heatsink? For a 100 watt high-end amplifier? Retailing at $15,000? Surely they could have put in boatload more for better handling of difficult loads. Or just for looks .

As a way of comparison, here the guts of my Proceed 5 channel amp that is rated at 125 watts/ch and retailed for $6,000 for all of those channels:

Now that is how you pack a box! There are 8 output devices/channel plus a ton of high-power drivers (smaller transistors to the left of them).

Even the big box is not utilized well. That large heatsink is effectively half the size since the heat generating transistors are bunched up in such a small area. The thermal impedance of the fins way away from the transistors is so high that they won't dissipate much heat. So there, they oversized the component (heat sink) since it is visible. But the gets are akin to mass market products.

 

[amirm]

On second thought maybe it has transistors down below that are not visible in that picture....

 

[audio.bill]

I agree that the appearance of the interior of this amp is not as impressive or heavily populated as some others, but I've actually heard it at a couple of shows and its performance level is truly exceptional. I'm not sure how they accomplished it but they have made one of the best sounding solid state amplifiers that I have ever experienced! I heard it with a United Home Audio reel to reel deck as the source and the reproduced sound was absolutely stunning driving TAD monitors. That system had a realistic presence that is rarely achieved at shows. So maybe it depends how you want to spend your money and what you expect to get in return, a lot of hardware or amazing sound. Of course it would be preferred if they could offer that level of performance at a much lower price point, I'd be all for that!

 

[asiufy]

It's not the number of output transistors that matter, it's how you use them

Seriously, some of my favourite amps have less transistors at the output than most...


alexandre

 

[slcaudiophile]

"It has shiny things, so it sounds good"? I'll assume that wasn't a Freudian slip, and you didn't mean to say it like that.
I share KeithR's reservations about its specs - apart from the transformer size, when you look at the published specifications, they don't add up. Literally.

i have not heard the amp. but you are right, just because it has duelund cast caps and wbt rca and binding posts nor the fact they they use some new designs to handle ps noise does not necessarily = a good sounding amp. but ... if you read the review he does have some favorable things to say. but yes, just because there are "pretty shiny" things does not mean it will sound good, so you got me!

but look at some of the first watt designs, etc. lots of designs out there that are extremely simple and sound fantastic. its an amp after all.

while i clearly think there is a use for specs i do not think just because something may not measure well (which i am not sure if it does or does not) does not mean it cannot sound fantastic, or vice versa.

regardless, i would love to hear the amp!

 

[Don Hills]

I won't comment on the sound because I haven't heard it. I just wonder how they claim 150/200 w per channel with a transformer that small and a maximum draw of only 350 watts. Remember it's a class AB amp, it's only 50% to 70% efficient. (Unless it is Class D...)

@Amir, those power amp boards look symmetrical. I agree, there could be a second set of transistors at the bottom of the heatsink.

 

[slowGEEZR]

While I can't comment on the sound of their $15k amplifier, the $6000 Innamorata sounds like a much more expensive amplifier. It replaced two monobloc 200wpc amps in a friend's system and took his system to another level in sound quality. I was absolutely amazed at the quality of sound put out by that relatively inexpensive amplifier. IMHO, counting parts inside a piece of audio gear is not a good way to determine the sound quality. If you look inside any popular receiver from the 1970's forward, you will find a plethora of parts. In my experience, fewer parts result in better sounding gear, if the design is correct. Many of the parts seen in some audio gear are there to try to remove distortion added by many other parts!

 

[KeithR]

but look at some of the first watt designs, etc. lots of designs out there that are extremely simple and sound fantastic. its an amp after all.

I'm generally in the simple is better as well. I read one review which says this has 6 devices/channel, so not particularly simple. But this looks like a basic case with a small transformer and some magic ByBee stuff that all of sudden becomes a $15k amp. The dueland caps are a nice feature- thanks for pointing that out.

FirstWatt amps cost < 5k, so aren't really comparable. In fact, if Pass ever PSET the SIT chips that is probably what I would own- but 10 watts just isn't powerful enough for my speakers.

 

[amirm]

I agree that the appearance of the interior of this amp is not as impressive or heavily populated as some others, but I've actually heard it at a couple of shows and its performance level is truly exceptional. I'm not sure how they accomplished it but they have made one of the best sounding solid state amplifiers that I have ever experienced! I heard it with a United Home Audio reel to reel deck as the source and the reproduced sound was absolutely stunning driving TAD monitors. That system had a realistic presence that is rarely achieved at shows. So maybe it depends how you want to spend your money and what you expect to get in return, a lot of hardware or amazing sound. Of course it would be preferred if they could offer that level of performance at a much lower price point, I'd be all for that!

It takes a handful of watts to produce music as evidenced by many low power tube amps. What the beefier power supply and output stage allow is handling more difficult loads. Inversely, one can select speakers that don't present such a difficult load in which case even amplifiers with less guts than this one can produce good fidelity.

The question here is putting a very large box around relatively few bits inside. In the high-end, the large box usually goes with lots of goodies inside.

 

[sbo6]

While I have seen far emptier boxes, it hasn't been in the high-end market. And it is not just the transformer that could have been upsized with almost no impact to gross margin. But also the output stage:

Just four transistors mounted on that heatsink? For a 100 watt high-end amplifier? Retailing at $15,000? Surely they could have put in boatload more for better handling of difficult loads. Or just for looks .

As a way of comparison, here the guts of my Proceed 5 channel amp that is rated at 125 watts/ch and retailed for $6,000 for all of those channels:

Now that is how you pack a box! There are 8 output devices/channel plus a ton of high-power drivers (smaller transistors to the left of them).

Even the big box is not utilized well. That large heatsink is effectively half the size since the heat generating transistors are bunched up in such a small area. The thermal impedance of the fins way away from the transistors is so high that they won't dissipate much heat. So there, they oversized the component (heat sink) since it is visible. But the gets are akin to mass market products.

Let me offer some advice - take the time to listen more and type less; set an example as an (ex) admin.

 

[Mr Rickz]

The old SAE amps I worked on had two output transistors per side, large heat sinks on the rear. Inside were two small pcbs and two humongous transformers. Good for 120wpc. I forget the price. That was about fifty years ago.

 

[DonH50]

Dredging up a thread almost five years old just to chastise Amir (who can no longer post here) seems petty and spiteful.

 

[sbo6]

Dredging up a thread almost five years old just to chastise Amir (who can no longer post here) seems petty and spiteful.

First, time doesn't diminsh the reality of ignorant statements and second, how would I even remotely know Amir can't post here; was he banished?

 

[treitz3]

Yes, Amir is no longer with this forum.

Tom

 

[Wesleyharrell45]

Can you guys suggest me a good quality of wire?

 

[sbo6]

Yes, Amir is no longer with this forum.

Tom

Thanks for letting me know. Also, "no longer with this forum" = he's banned from the site and posting or simply no longer participates because he's busy with his, measurements = the only metric for good sound forum?

Also, for those above who've never heard the amp but have plenty of negative opinions I can tell you having heard many SS amps the Wells are fabulous. I've heard the integrated Majestic and own the Innamorata and both punch far above their price point. For a comparison, years ago I purchased the $16K Pass Labs XA100.5s assuming they'd better the Wells. The Pass had better dynamics and mids and highs sounded almost identical (I'd have to say the Pass Labs mids were ever so slightly more organic). However, bass control was much better with the Wells and as such, I sold the $16K Pass mono blocks and kept the $7K Wells. After the fact I learned via Pass Labs XA100.5 previous owners and via careful scrutiny of reviews that the PL XA100.5 doesn't have the best bass control and most recommended moving to the $24K XA160.5s or the $20K XA100.8s. I stuck with the excellent bass of the $7K Wells.

Lesson to be learned - price, # of output transistors, chassis design and brand recognition don't necessarily = great overall sound.

Also, WRT the transformer, it's 2 stacked toroidals, not 1.

 

[slowGEEZR]

Thanks for letting me know. Also, "no longer with this forum" = he's banned from the site and posting or simply no longer participates because he's busy with his, measurements = the only metric for good sound forum?

Also, for those above who've never heard the amp but have plenty of negative opinions I can tell you having heard many SS amps the Wells are fabulous. I've heard the integrated Majestic and own the Innamorata and both punch far above their price point. For a comparison, years ago I purchased the $16K Pass Labs XA100.5s assuming they'd better the Wells. The Pass had better dynamics and mids and highs sounded almost identical (I'd have to say the Pass Labs mids were ever so slightly more organic). However, bass control was much better with the Wells and as such, I sold the $16K Pass mono blocks and kept the $7K Wells. After the fact I learned via Pass Labs XA100.5 previous owners and via careful scrutiny of reviews that the PL XA100.5 doesn't have the best bass control and most recommended moving to the $24K XA160.5s or the $20K XA100.8s. I stuck with the excellent bass of the $7K Wells.

Lesson to be learned - price, # of output transistors, chassis design and brand recognition don't necessarily = great overall sound.

Also, WRT the transformer, it's 2 stacked toroidals, not 1.

I agree. The Innamorata is a great amp, one I would be pleased to own. I would say, with regards to the Pass XA100.5's, that the bass control is dependent upon the speakers being driven. I feel they control the bass in my Wilson WP8's with ease, while acknowledging that it may not control the bass in other speakers as well. It may have to do with the crossover design, phase at certain frequencies, or impedences at bass frequencies.