VAC 452 iQ review in Stereophile

[bonzo75]

Yes indeed, Cesar. Which is why you have people using different amps with Wilson speakers. I was responding to Bonzo’s comment that Wilson speakers require solid-state electronics. That does not seem to be the case and it is not as obvious as he states.

My statement was very clear, You have misinterpreted it in the above post

 

[bonzo75]

Situation is that today there are amazing SS
Like CH,Dartzeel,Technical Brain,GrYphon,Soulution,Constellation ecc

I used top tube for 35 years,Arc,Hal Amp,Jadis,Yamamura,AudioTekne,Mactone,Shindo,ANJ,Kondo but when I brought CH at home I enter in a new world
My 2 Kondo Souga,absolutely best Kondo amp,in biamp with a 97 dB speaker lost on every parameter with CH
My friend with Viva New Aurora when
Listen at home Ch sold immediately Viva
Priator with Nola and tube amp when listen at home M1 bought immediately

Kondo souga on a 97 db speaker is probably a wrong combination, just a guess as I heard neither, but viva on Alexandria, for sure, a SS will be better suited for the speaker.

 

[PeterA]

My statement was very clear, You have misinterpreted it in the above post

Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you wrote that you respect Michael Fremer’s ears and that with Wilson solid state is obvious. Could you please clarify? I thought you meant that with Wilson speakers one should use SS amps in you opinion.

 

[microstrip]

the 458's are manufacturer rated as 800 watts into 4 ohms.

Atkinson's measurements;
Defining the clipping point as the power when the THD+N reaches 1%, the NHB-458 clips at 530W into 8 ohms (27.2dBW), 900W into 4 ohms (26.5dBW), and 1025W into 2 ohms (24.1dBW).

IMHO, considering that the harmonic distortion spectra of SS amplifiers is very different from tube amplifiers, we can not compare a SS clipping point at THD of 1% with a tube clipping point.

Anyaway the "better" sounding NHB 468 measures very differently:

With that caution in mind and with "clipping" defined as when the THD+noise reaches 1%, I found that the NHB-468 clipped at 216W into 16 ohms (26.2dBW, fig.4), 398W into 8 ohms (26.0dBW, fig.5), 205W into 4 ohms (201.1dBW, fig.6), and 101W into 2 ohms (140dBW, fig.7).

Another interesting comment from the Stereophile review:
Hervé had also predicted that, as the NHB-468 has no global negative feedback, there would be "plenty of THD for John."

 

[microstrip]

(...) It also puts in perspective the outrageous and largely pointless achievements of the best dacs today. A dac should really have 60db less noise than a poweramp? For what? (...)

Although I would not risk a technical explanation about it the Vivaldi DAC with its astonishing signal to noise ration sounds much "cleaner" and informative in detail and soundstage than any other DAC I have tried, even with noisy tube amplifiers.

 

[microstrip]

It seems like linearity is no longer the emphasis in boutique designers’ design goals and that they are now “voicing” their equipment for a desired sound. They appear to have also learned a lesson from Halcro, who designed equipment with almost unmeasurable THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) but that not many found musical; and they have now embraced principles of psychoacoustics, where distortion improves detail retrieval and perciveability. This is part of the tools of the trade in the mastering studio world and an unspoken practice in high-end audio, where gullible deep pocket audiophiles are swindled with promises of precision and high-fidelity, while being sold distortion.

I think you miss the objective of high-end manufacturers - to create great sounding amplifier that create great audio experiences when coupled to adequate systems. Even F. Toole in his book acknowledges that professionals and audio customers have different preferences. Nelson Pass has a great sentence in his manuals - "Our real customers care most about the experience they get when they sit down to listen to their music. We create amplifiers that we like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste. "

Have a read at the following article and see how it reflects the current state of high-end audio:

Analogue Warmth

Some of these much heralded “trophy” gear and designers are cooking the books.

Unfortunately it is does not reflect the current state of high-end audio. An informative article, but a childish analysis of tube distortion, ignoring the efforts and improvements of audio designers along decades. The tittle is just a way of attracting readers attention. Since long we know that plots of THD versus power or frequency are not enough to seriously analyze sound quality.

IMHO we should analyze the high-end considering the best of it, not the garbage minority.

BTW, most deep pocket audiophiles I know about are extremely careful and hard to please, demanding and critical. However audio forums love stereotypes and focus on the gullible consumers.

 

[PeterA]

I think you miss the objective of high-end manufacturers - to create great sounding amplifier that create great audio experiences when coupled to adequate systems. Even F. Toole in his book acknowledges that professionals and audio customers have different preferences. Nelson Pass has a great sentence in his manuals - "Our real customers care most about the experience they get when they sit down to listen to their music. We create amplifiers that we like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste[/B

This sums it up pretty well.

 

[Carlos269]

I think you miss the objective of high-end manufacturers - to create great sounding amplifier that create great audio experiences when coupled to adequate systems. Even F. Toole in his book acknowledges that professionals and audio customers have different preferences. Nelson Pass has a great sentence in his manuals - "Our real customers care most about the experience they get when they sit down to listen to their music. We create amplifiers that we like to listen to, on the assumption that we share similar taste. "



Unfortunately it is does not reflect the current state of high-end audio. An informative article, but a childish analysis of tube distortion, ignoring the efforts and improvements of audio designers along decades. The tittle is just a way of attracting readers attention. Since long we know that plots of THD versus power or frequency are not enough to seriously analyze sound quality.

IMHO we should analyze the high-end considering the best of it, not the garbage minority.

BTW, most deep pocket audiophiles I know about are extremely careful and hard to please, demanding and critical. However audio forums love stereotypes and focus on the gullible consumers.

If none of the known standards for quality are relevant or matter, then what criteria is one to use to asses a components performance? The ability to “create great audio experiences when coupled to adequate systems“????? Now that is vague, uninformed and imbecile.

 

[Ron Resnick]

If none of the known standards for quality are relevant or matter, then what criteria is one to use to asses a components performance? . . .

You simply are not accepting our standard of subjective proximity of reproduced sound to the sound of acoustic music performed live.

 

[Carlos269]

You simply are not accepting our standard of subjective proximity of reproduced sound to the sound of acoustic music performed live.

I accept that standard for a system but not for a component. A component should be evaluated against its published specifications. Ironically enough, go back and read Francisco’s original post to start this thread. He makes a good observation and then appears to argue against its validity.

 

[KeithR]

I don't see how a big push pull amp from AR, VTL, or VAC, can sound better than a good SS amp in an all out system (i have never heard VAC outside a show, just my assumption it is on the lines of, but different from AR, VTL, or CJ). In all the latter 3 cases I would prefer them to a not so good SS, but not to a good SS. In a system like Mike's, I see no chance for the other 3 to compete with the Dartzeel. Now if such a system gets set around another high quality SS amp like dagostino, boulder or audionet Heisenberg, that is different and would be a good competition

Agreed. And when I've heard the Vac 450s on Magico several times, there is no grunt or shove which just happens to be the big flaw in the measurements at 4 ohms. Wimpy "big" amps.,

 

[microstrip]

If none of the known standards for quality are relevant or matter, then what criteria is one to use to asses a components performance? The ability to “create great audio experiences when coupled to adequate systems“????? Now that is vague, uninformed and imbecile.

Yes, taken out of the high-end context it can seem vague, uninformed and imbecile. However, considering that the correlation between the "known standards for quality " and subjective sound quality is very poor, it is still the more reliable source of information we have.

 

[KeithR]

Like I said, I haven't heard the VAC. I compared the VTL S400 to spectral 400 on XLF and VTL were outclassed on all aspects.

I compared the 750 to the MSB 204 and though I preferred the VTL there, on the top TAD floorstander, I will take a dagostino, gryphon, boulder, etc any day. For those that don't need such drive, there is Dartzeel, then Berning quadratures (which has tubes).

Even with Martin Logan which does well with tubes I prefer SS amp and the tubes should be upstream.

The tube amp that sounds better than all these push pull amps (AR, VTL, CJ) to me is the KR VA 200.

Honestly, I believe most don't know what real "shove" is.

 

[BruceD]

Much more, see my point on dynamic range and seeing the note through, that Mike too made. Also with VTL compared to spectral, the soprano wasn't opening her mouth wide enough, so I lost out on the midrange, and midbass was all muddied out, just thick

I sometimes do not agree with the observations of our esteemed "time traveller" and resident Audio scribe Ked but I'm tempted to state my
point as he quotes above-after all calling a spade a spade has made him a character on the Site and a seemingly knowledgable and
combined with his inquisitive nature makes for interesting posts if he occasionally comes across a tad pedantic!
Shades of Moi 40 years ago!

Enough of the frivolity--yes the VTL sound he witnessed--sadly I have to agree with that

Harking back to 93/94(?) the Stereophile show at LAX --the VTL Source tape demo with Klipschorns--well it was rather bad
I mentioned this to Eva Anna--she agreed with me-- Since then I've always taken the opportunity to hear VTL's both at shows and private houses but
I'm afraid I've never got to grips with the sonics -- VTL have always sounded slow and thickish to me too.

This was exemplified in the Wilson demo pictured where try as I may I could not feel the music coming out of the boxes-it seemed strained on the crescendos and yes it was being played loud--but not an emotive feel--just as I wrote above--sad but true.

So I have to agree with Ked's quote and to a similar point made by MikeL -based on what I've heard.

But before we go and throw the baby out with the bathwater--even top end SS can prove to show its undoing--

Fact- in 96 Myself and Troy Koslovich(RIP) were setting a up a pair of X-I Slamms I insisted we used Cello Performance II monos--
Joe Cali agreed to let me "borrow" a set with the Palette /etc--well after two days of warmup/ burning in teeth gnashing( the Client )
the esteemed Cellos couldn't deliver --no drive, restrained and "choked" on heavy transients( apologies to the Power Supply)
I had to return them--Troy had some monster Krells delivered and up went the needles--power to burn and the Speakers became lease Breakers
Client happy!-Moi ate humble pie-- and lived to fight another day!

Moral-not all SS with amazing specs like the Cello's in this instance will deliver as required also.

However back on the track -- not ALL tubes are to be written off as well--listen ( I have)to the XLFs in Steve's wonderful sound with tubes!
This is the object definitive that the humble Vacuum that can still pass musical information has its place--just choose carefully

BruceD

 

[microstrip]

I accept that standard for a system but not for a component. A component should be evaluated against its published specifications. Ironically enough, go back and read Francisco’s original post to start this thread. He makes a good observation and then appears to argue against its validity.

I reported facts taken from Stereophile reviews. However as I have direct experience with both versions of the Momentum preamplifier and the second version really sounds much better than the first one, I am forced to acknowledge that until better types of measurement are presented and become norm the subjective ability to sound great in a system is a better and more useful information to consumers.

 

[KeithR]

Situation is that today there are amazing SS
Like CH,Dartzeel,Technical Brain,GrYphon,Soulution,Constellation ecc

I used top tube for 35 years,Arc,Hal Amp,Jadis,Yamamura,AudioTekne,Mactone,Shindo,ANJ,Kondo but when I brought CH at home I enter in a new world
My 2 Kondo Souga,absolutely best Kondo amp,in biamp with a 97 dB speaker lost on every parameter with CH
My friend with Viva New Aurora when
Listen at home Ch sold immediately Viva
Priator with Nola and tube amp when listen at home M1 bought immediately

I'm old enough to remember when the whole tube world went Halcro, too. How did that end up.

Audiophiles are fickle.

 

[microstrip]

BTW, I am currently listening to the XLFs with the Siegfried II's - fabulous sound in pentode mode, mid set damping. IMHO much better sound than any solid state that I have owned or hosted, although I never tried the late Momentums, just the original models.

As far as I remember, in my system, only the ARC REF750s surpassed the Siegfried it in its instantaneous delivery of power, tracery and presence, but the 40 expensive tubes and 1600W at idle were not acceptable for me.

 

[KeithR]

the problem with measurements is context. if Fremer likes what he hears, but Atkinson has concerns, then the truth is with Fremer. it's worth working out what might be happening. and each reader is clearly weapons free to point their fingers. but at the end of the day Fremer liked it. and so did other buyers. and pot shots at the product come with the territory of a magazine doing the measuring. it's always interesting how the haters simply ignore the manufacturers explanations, since it weakens their arguments. which speaks to agendas by the haters.

it will always be thus. amen.

looking at your system thread it appears that you have assembled an impressive wide variety of mostly semi-vintage gear, and seem to really view current build higher level gear with great skepticism. if i have missed the mark there please correct me.

i wonder did you acquire most or all of that gear by listening or by measurements? i guess i'm curious about your decision tree and what you required to satisfy yourself?

it's a balance, Mike. there doesn't have to be a 100% objectivist vs 100% subjectivist POV.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . .

A component should be evaluated against its published specifications. . .

Respectfully, I think you got off at the wrong train stop. This is the WhatsBestForum Subjective Review stop. You want the old Stereo Review station, I think.

 

[the sound of Tao]

If none of the known standards for quality are relevant or matter, then what criteria is one to use to asses a components performance? The ability to “create great audio experiences when coupled to adequate systems“????? Now that is vague, uninformed and imbecile.

Carlos, you obviously don’t get it... likely not one person here takes your position at all seriously, they’re just being polite because they love this debate indeed more than any other.

Everyone here has been down the little objectivist rabbit hole and back again more than a few times and I’d suggest all have left the naive basic measurements position in the lost and unfound box of overly simplistic notions on understanding how people hear and how they perceive.

It’s an achingly familiar ground hog day of tired old chestnuts and cheap grist for the mill.

I’d genuinely humbly submit that only an imbecile would actually use the word imbecile in a forum and think that made them anything other than an imbecile... having used the word three times now in brief succession I certainly rest my case lol.

There are few actively in this thread that can’t demonstrate considerable experience or would likely feel at all threatened by your position here at all. The arguments are all familiar and I’d doubt you’ll get many buying into these after years of most simply having tried and learned better.

To be honest I’d rather someone cough on me at the moment than go another round on this carousel again so I’m happily out but I’d also agree that if your looking to a fundamentalist objectivist platform here I’d suggest that you’ve signed onto the wrong roadshow.

Batter away, there’ll always be someone here who wants to take their wordsmithing ways out for a quick predictable spin or even some for another Quixotic marathon of most excellent windmill fighting.