Page 1
WWW.HIFICRITIC.COM ISSN 1759-7919
HIFICRITIC
AUDIO REVIEW JOURNAL £13.50 Vol6/No1 JANUARY - MARCH 2012
REVIEWED THIS ISSUE:
AUDIO RESEARCH REFERENCE 5 SE
AUDIO RESEARCH REFERENCE 150
CAMBRIDGE AUDIO NP30
AUDIOFLAT RUBIKON
NAIM UNITISERVE
NAIM UNITISERVE SSD
WALLS OF SOUND
MSB GALAXY CLOCK
PARTINGTON HEAVI1
GENELEC 8050A
SONIC SOLUTIONS AMARRA
REGA RP3
HANSS T-10
PRO-JECT XPERIENCE V PACK
PROTEUS DIAMOND MKII
ALTO EXTREMO NEO-FLEX
ALTO EXTREMO LYD II
ALTO EXTREMO FAT-BOY MKII
ALTO EXTREMO LYD I
ALTO EXTREMO EXACT
BOWERS & WILKINS P5
The latest Audio Research Reference pre- and
power amps establish new standards
New fi
Detailed assessments of thr
A radical appr
sound from speakers that simply disappear
The joy of hunting for high end bar
ndings on the Naim UnitiServe
and other network audio findings
NEW VALVE REFERENCES
NETWORK AUDIO UPDATE
WHAT PRICE TURNTABLES?
ee turntables
at very different prices
WALLS OF SOUND
oach can deliver high end
SECONDHAND NIRVANA
gains
from hi-fi’s history
HIFICRITIC JAN | FEB | MARCH 2012
PROAUDIO MONITORING
Active
ProAudio monitor speakers look excellent
value, but does this Genelec cut it musically?
MUSIC & MUCH MORE
1
Page 2
Editor | Paul Messenger
Writers
olin Anderson
C
Stephen Ansell
Chris Bryant
Martin Colloms
Peter Comeau
Stan Curtis
Nigel Finn
Andrew Harrison
Jason Kennedy
P
aul Messenger
Richard Stevenson
Rafael Todes
Publisher | Martin Colloms
Design | Philippa Steward
P
ublished by
HIFICRITIC Ltd
P O Box 59214
London NW3 9EZ
info@hificritic.com
www.hificritic.com
Printed in the UK by
Premier Print, London
HIFICRITIC is a printed publication available
by subscription only.
© HIFICRITIC Ltd 2012. All rights reserved.
Any unauthorised editing, copying, reselling
or distribution of the whole or part of
this publication is prohibited. The views
expressed in any articles in this magazine
should be taken as those of the author or
the person quoted unless indicated to the
contrary. While HIFICRITIC endeavours to
ensure the accuracy of the information
contained in this publication, its accuracy
cannot be guaranteed and HIFICRITIC.COM
accepts no liability for any use of, reliance
on or the accuracy of such information.
HIFICRITIC
Vol6 | No1 Jan | Feb | March 2012
must first apologise for the late appearance of your magazine. Ironically, the
same thing happened exactly a year ago. Next year maybe I’ll have the good
I
sense not to upgrade my computer halfway through the schedule. I could
come up with more excuses, but that’s boring, so I’ll just apologise, promise to
try and do better next time, and set myself a proper deadline to do just that.
It ought not to be too difficult, as my close association with Hi-Fi Choice
magazine (co
magazine’s recent purchase by an organisation with the unlikely name of My
Hobby Store (which also now owns Hi-Fi News).
Although the previous owners hadn’t seemed in the least concerned, the new
management was unhappy that HIFICRITIC was promoted on the basis that
its freedom from advertising ensured superior independence from commercial
pressures. I was effectively given an ultimatum that if I wanted to continue to
work for Choice, I would have to give up editing CRITIC.
Even ignoring the fact that I react badly when someone tries to push me
around, this was really no contest. I’ve always enjoyed editing as much as
writing, so I like an arrangement that means I can edit HIFICRITIC while also
contributing to it and other titles. Furthermore, I hoped that giving up Choice
would giv
I should add that getting off the Hi-Fi Choice treadmill after all these years
has actually proved rather welcome. However, this change and the reason
that lies behind it has also focused my attention on some of the less welcome
politicking that goes on amongst the hi-fi media. It’s almost as though we
were actually important parts of the industry, rather than merely parasitic
commentators!
It’s part of my job as editor to choose and chase equipment for review.
Unfortunately as HIFICRITIC is the newest magazine around with the smallest
culation, we’re inevitably low down the pecking order when it comes to
cir
receiving review product.
I don’t particularly mind that, as I’m not the least interested in trying to
‘scoop’ other magazines with ‘first reviews’. Indeed, I’d much rather run a review
conducted after due consideration by an expert, than rush into print in order to
be first. What does rather alarm me is the rumour that some magazines refuse to
review a product at all unless given first dibs.
e advertising and editorial departments had very little communication
when I was working in publishing houses back in the 1970s and 1980s,
but today the links between them do seem to have become an area of some
sensitivity.
Maybe times have changed, but as far as I’m concerned an editor’s sole
responsibility should be to search out the very best possible content to suit
his readership. We might be the new kids on the hi-fi magazine block, but I
believe we’re producing an interesting, varied and authoritative read for all
hi-fi enthusiasts, and have managed to create a magazine that has its own
distinctive identity.
Paul Messenger
Editor
vering some 30 of the past 34 years) was terminated following the
e me more time to write for CRITIC.
2
HIFICRITIC JAN | FEB | MARCH 2012
Page 3
Contents
4 STAN’S SAFARI No17
Are analogue and digital distortion
mechanisms qualitatively different?
6 LETTER FROM SHENZHEN
Peter Comeau examines the thorny issue of
outsourcing
8 WALLS OF SOUND
“Look, no speakers!” An intriguingly
different approach to getting quality sound in
your lounge
12 AUDIO RESEARCH REF5 SE
MC tries the souped up SE version of the
Reference 5 pre-amp
15 AUDIOPHILE RECORDING
DIY recording for audiophiles, by a serious
musician
16 KEF BEFORE KEF
A chance meeting leads to some interesting
deep background
25 STANDING OUT
e new luxury stand-mounts put extra
emphasis on the speaker stands
27 GENELEC 8050A
Studio monitors seem excellent value, but do
they deliver interesting music?
29 SONIC STUDIO AMARRA
A high end music player for Mac computers
32 AUDIO RESEARCH REF150
POWER AMP
How good is Audio Research’s latest valve
power amp?
36 THREE DISPARATE TURNTABLES
Turntables from Rega, Pro-Ject and Hanss
come under scrutiny
42 SEARCHING FOR SLEEPERS
e secondhand sector is full of interesting
items
45 THE HDMI FARRAGO
HDMI seemed a fine concept, but the
practicalities aren’t so straightforward
48 HIFICRITIC ‘AWARDS’
A rundown of the hardware that we’ve come
to respect
50 BITS & PIECES 2
Short items on the latest Proteus amplifier,
B&W’s P5 headphones and Alto Extremo
supports
Genelec 8050A, page 27
Turntables from Rega, Pro-Ject and Hanss
come under scrutiny on page 36
17 BUDGET STREAMING
Getting Cambridge Audio’s NP30 streamer
working well took some effort but was
ultimately worthwhile
19 TWEAKING THE SONDEK
e Audioflat RubiKon is only half the price
of Linn’s Keel, and it can be used with Rega
arms
20 AUDIO NETWORKING
More on the Naim UnitiServe and other
computer network audio matters
24 CLOCKING ON
Assessing MSB’s new femtosecond clock
HIFICRITIC JAN | FEB | MARCH 2012
52 RIPPING YARNS
Jason Kennedy makes a case for computers
and USB sockets
53 THE BEST OF CLASSICAL
Colin Anderson selects some recent classical
music releases
56 ROCK, POP AND OTHER NICE
MUSIC
Nigel Finn picks half a dozen new rock &
pop releases
58 2011 INDEX
An Index to the four issues of Vol5
60 SUBJECTIVE SOUNDS
It seems like you really can’t have it all….
3
Page 4
Audio Research REF150
MARTIN COLLOMS EXAMINES THE LATEST HIGH POWER VALVE AMP FROM AUDIO RESEARCH
their best in about 15 minutes, though critical users
will hear further improvements during the next 15
- 30 minutes.
While the fascia conforms to the standard
19in/48cm width, the unit is nearly 19in high and
19.8in (50cm) deep, and may also benefit from
a vibration controlling platform or floor stand. It
may be ordered in variations and combinations of
both silver and black anodised alloy. Described as
‘cosmetically improved’, this would merely appear to
involve moving two legends to a neater location near
the lower edge of the fascia!
We reviewed its REF110 predecessor very
fav
ourably back in 2007 (Vol1 No4), and it has
held up very well in the market over the past five
years. At the time it achieved the historically highest
HIFICRITIC sound quality score of 135, so it would
decade or more ago it would have been
difficult to predict that valve amplifier
specialist Audio Research would still be
A
innovating, making clear advances in engineering
and the resulting sound quality. e company’s
established two-channel high-end REF110 valve
po
wer amplifier has had a great run, following a
distinguished series of designs, and it has now been
replaced by this £12,000 REF150. Considerable
ballyhoo surr
better sound, more power and better valves. As usual
the deciding factor will be how good it actually
sounds, and to some extent how consistent it is in
driving different speaker loads.
Its substantial frame comprises a 150W/channel
stereo power amplifier, which at 34kg, 75lb (90lb
boxed) constitutes a fair two-man lift. In the
Audio Research tradition, the valves are standard
types, recognising that a maintenance factor is
inevitably involved in valve technology and both
valve replacement and power consumption aspects
need to be considered in a purchase decision. Valve
replacement costs here are more sensible than with
some designs.
e amplifier actually idles at a considerable
425W, though will not consume much more on
typical music program, since the design has a
generous Class A operating region. However, when
driven to its limit with continuous tones on the test
bench it will haul some 840W out of the wall socket.
For reasons of both valve life and power draw, this
amplifier should not be left powered up. Once runin, the valves audibly warm up to around 80% of
ounded the launch, with claims for
be fun to disco
push this further.
Boasting better sound (why would it not?)
REF150 also claims a significant increase in power
output thr
v
alves with the KT120s. e latter is a more powerful
r
edesign of the KT88, here branded TungSol and
made b
Group’; it necessarily draws more heater current to
provide denser space charge for the greater anode
current swing required. Now a pair of KT120s driven
flat out on lo
Research is not being that ambitious in asking for a
nominal 150W from two paralleled KT120 sets per
channel. (e 6550 valves in the 110 may gain some
impr
ovement if upgraded with KT120s, but this will
not turn it into a REF150.)
at’s a big power rating for a stereo chassis such
as this; compared with REF110, the power supply
r
eservoir (the ‘watt seconds’ storage rating) has been
doubled to 1040joules, and all the transformers
hav
e been uprated. e patented output stage
configuration, which wraps the multiple windings
of the output transformer, primary and secondary,
around the anode and cathode circuits of the
output valves, establishes powerful local negative
feedback and helps increase the clean power delivery.
Measured distortion, and more particularly power
bandwidth – the bane of many valve designs – is
greatly improved by this means, thus easing the
design of the whole project and allowing good load
matching combined with a traditionally low 14dB
of overall negative feedback. From one viewpoint
it could be considered partly DC coupled, since
the output valve cathodes do return their current
through the secondary or loudspeaker winding of
ver whether Audio Research could
ough replacing the previous 6550 output
y Expo-Pul for the Russian ‘New Sensor
w bias will deliver 130W, so Audio
32
HIFICRITIC JAN | FEB | MARCH 2012
Page 5
the output transformer; potentially a small associated
offset voltage could exist, depending on the balance
of the bias current. (See Test Results.)
is fully balanced design has no normal
single-ended (SE) inputs at all. While the circuitry
has some internal balancing and common mode
rejection action, it works at its best with balanced
drive. To optimise the sound quality of valve sources,
the input impedance is set to a high 300kohm, thus
minimising loading on a pre-amp output. For Audio
Research and similar pre-amps this constitutes a
small bonus which known to increase both clarity
and dynamics.
A couple of low noise internal fans blow cool air
over the output valves, significantly increasing their
operating life. ree fan speeds are provided, the
switch accessible under the top cover; the highest
is for warm ambient conditions, particularly if
located in a confined space. In free space and cooler
surroundings, slower, quieter settings may be used; in
any case, better airflow design means this new model
is substantially quieter than its predecessor. I found
both transformer and fan noise very quiet on the
lowest setting.
Audio Research claims a remarkably wide
frequency response at full power, 150W/ch
continuous from 20Hz to 20kHz (though distortion
is not specified), plus 160W flat-out at 1kHz in the
midband. An amazing -3dB power bandwidth of
5Hz to 80kHz is another indicator of high quality.
Many valve amplifiers require allowance for both
power limit and matching issues when auditioning,
which can make it difficult to separate these factors
from their intrinsic sound, but there’s hardly any
such concern with the REF150. As with previous
incarnations, A
matching to suit various loudspeaker loads; these
are nominally 4, 8 and 16ohm, and may provide
some fine tuning in a given installation, but nominal
recommendations do not always apply, and it’s better
to try the alternatives in practice.
It needs 2V via those XLR inputs, and provides
an o
verall gain of 24dB (about 16x) for full output.
Low and high voltage supplies are solid state, and
solid state regulation is also used for the earlier
amplification stages, the whole powered from a
single, central, laminated core, low noise transformer.
Mains is supplied via a horizontal three-pin 20A IEC
connector. Valve life is monitored by an elapsed time
meter accessible under the cover (and viewable from
the outside with a torch).
Audio Research’s limited edition Anniversary
Reference two-box line pre-amplifier showed a
significant sound quality improvement over the
REF5 pre-amp, in part due to a new design of
udio Research includes flexible output
T
eflon film coupling capacitor in the differential
valve circuits. at component is now used in this
REF150 (and also the REF5 SE) for power supply
decoupling. As befor
amp uses matched 6H30 double triodes (two per
channel), while the differ
stages use FETs, with FET constant current sources
for improved common mode rejection (ie better
differ
ential common mode precision).
Sound Quality
e REF150 was initially placed on a Finite
E
lemente Pagode MR stand, on my woodblock over
concrete floor, which is a quite inert support. e
result was full of promise, elements of the sound
clearly showing its impressive pedigree, but it was
also somehow light in texture: elegant, distinguished,
but not quite rocking. Had further work not been
done on the amplifier support, the review would still
have been very favourable: indeed, it could well have
stopped there, with the usual justification for the
particular qualities and inner poise of valve power
amplification.
However, prompted by another’s experience with
Audio Research power amps, the FE floor frame was
hauled out and the REF150 dumped (sorry; placed!)
dir
ectly on the floor. e sound quality changed,
and all for the better. is floor location reinforced
the sense of grip and stability, added dynamic
foundation to the bass, seemed to increase the power
output with no change in volume setting, and better
rhythm and timing. If this was not enough there
were improvements in image focus, front to back
perspectives and overall scale; treble sounds were
more natural, pure, vibrant and expressive. It kicked
up a storm of a beat, raising much enthusiasm
amongst the listeners.
So how good is this amplifier? Very very good
indeed. In no way can it be seen as a classic zero
feedback single-ended triode (SET) model: it is too
powerful, and too ‘connected’ for that comparison. It
is also sufficiently accurate that many desirable solid
state virtues are readily apparent: grip, load control,
and a consistency of performance with level and
loading, assisted by the output matching options.
Yet it does also sound like valve technology, in
that there’s a turn of speed, a sense of agility when
rendering the more subtle details, which seem
to follow a musician’s playing more precisely. In
addition more notes and instruments somehow
seem to be found, revealing detail lying below the
familiar main themes. e stereo image is first rate:
very deep, wide, fully spacious and well focused,
with particularly strong, somewhat ‘forward’ central
solidity. e bass is so good one often forgets this
e the driver stage of the power
ential lower level input
◆ REVIEW
MARTIN COLLOMS
“e REF150 was
initially placed on
a Finite Elemente
Pagode MR stand, on
my woodblock over
concrete floor, which is
a quite inert support.
e result was full of
promise, elements of the
sound clearly showing its
impressive pedigree”
HIFICRITIC JAN | FEB | MARCH 2012
33
Page 6
◆ REVIEW
THE SYSTEM
Meridian 200 and Marantz
CD7 were used as CD drives,
while most material, including
hi-r
es up to 24/192kHz
sampling, emanated from a
Naim UnitiServe HDD, QNap
419 II (ARM uP) NAS with
4x 2T ECO Seagate HDD,
via a Netgear local router and
Cat6e UTP snagless Belkin net
cable.
Vinyl replay involved a
Linn LP12/Keel/Radikal with
N
aim ARO, Koetsu Urushi
Blue and Naim Superline/
Supercap. Selected mains,
S/PDIF and signal cables,
including
w
ere used in a high end audio
Transparent MM2,
system that used an Audio
Research Reference 5, Krell Evo
402e and Wilson Audio
Sophia3.
amplifier uses valve technology: it’s well timed,
fluent, fast and has good impact, the emphasis (if
you can call it that) leaning just slightly towards
percussion rather than muscularity. If really fussy,
just move the speakers a few inches back towards the
wall to add a smidgeon of extra weight.
It does have some character. I found brass,
cymbals and similarly lively treble sounds step
forward somewhat in the soundstage. And while
sibilants avoid grain or smear, they are a tad crisper
than usual, while the midrange is a little leaner
and sharper than the finely poised timbre of the
Robert Koda Takumi, or for that matter the Krell
402e, and more so on the 8ohm than the 4ohm tap.
ese characterisations will be par
tly due to speaker
matching, and may vary subtly with speaker choice.
In its context, once again defining the well used
Audio Research slogan ‘high resolution’, this power
amplifier is completely comfortable in company with
some of the best up to £20,000 in its exceptional
ability to dig deep and retrieve musical information.
To put some flesh on that basic description, each
one of a collection of different drums from bass to
tabla seemed to have a clearer signature, with better
differentiation about how they were struck and how
the instruments were constructed. is amplifier
captures the more subtle nuances of percussive
dynamic attack and also that elusive and brief pitch
or note that much percussion has, yet which is so
often reproduced as the ‘whack’ but without the
following ‘ring’.
Similarly the more delicate and musically telling
vibrato of voice or instrument is clearly read, adding
POWER AMPLFIER TEST RESULTS
Make Audio Research Date: 10/2/2012
__________________________________________________________________________________
M
odel REFERENCE 150 Ser. No. 71306002
__________________________________________________________________________________
POWER OUTPUT 20Hz 1kHz 20kHz
__________________________________________________________________________________
Continuous 8 ohm 2 channel 133 W 145 W 135 W
__________________________________________________________________________________
Continuous 4 ohm 1 channel (4 ohm tap) 112 W 153 W 131 W
__________________________________________________________________________________
Output impedance (ohms) 8ohm tap 0.68 ohms 0.79 ohms 1.2 ohms
__________________________________________________________________________________
Peak Current/Power 8ohm tap 7.5A 175W
__________________________________________________________________________________
Distortion, THD inc. noise (1W) -74 dB -80 dB -64 dB
__________________________________________________________________________________
Distortion, THD inc. noise (rated power) -68 dB -70 dB -60 dB
__________________________________________________________________________________
Channel separation 113 dB 91 dB 78 dB
__________________________________________________________________________________
Intermodulation Distortion 19.5kHz/20.5kHz 1:1 rated power, 8 ohms -58 dB
__________________________________________________________________________________
Intermodulation Distortion 19.5kHz/20.5kHz 1:1 1W, 8 ohms -85 dB
__________________________________________________________________________________
Signal to noise ratio (ref. 1W output) CCIR Weighted Unweighted A-weighted
(22Hz-22kHz)
__________________________________________________________________________________
ef 1W Aux 84 dB 80.5 dB 89.4 dB
R
__________________________________________________________________________________
Ref full power 106 dB 106 dB 110 dB
__________________________________________________________________________________
Frequency Response 8ohm tap +0.1 dB 0 dB -0.34 dB
__________________________________________________________________________________
Channel Balance 0.033dB 0.033dB 0.025dB
__________________________________________________________________________________
Absolute Phase correct
__________________________________________________________________________________
Input Data Socket Sensitivity Loading
Full Power XLR BAL 2.07 V 300 kohms
1W 178 mV
__________________________________________________________________________________
set Left 3.5 mV Right 3.8 mV 8 ohm taps
DC off
__________________________________________________________________________________
Size (W, H, D, mm) 483 220 495
__________________________________________________________________________________
Weight 34kg, 75lb
__________________________________________________________________________________
Price £ 12,000, various black and silver finish options
to the listening pleasure. Cymbals sound almost
holographic: metallic, shimmering, complex, focused
and full of varied character. e overall character is
just a shade brilliant in the treble, but could not be
described as metallic.
e bass quality was better than many of the top
solid state designs, with firm depth and attack, and
very good note playing that clearly illuminated the
character of different bass instruments. Recordings
I knew well genuinely sounded more detailed
and informative. For example, where a particular
orchestrated piano note had a subtle bright halo,
thought hitherto to be a local reflection or perhaps
imperfect instrument tuning, the REF150 readily
resolved it as a very quiet triangle played exactly on
that piano note: high resolution indeed.
e overall sound is lively, upbeat, transparent,
infectiously involving, and always entertaining. It
catches the leading edges well, and the percussive
attack of sounds adds speed and drama, providing
a lively effect that’s somehow less compressed than
previously experienced. e quality is undeniably
high, and after much comparison and consideration
we found it had hit a sound quality jackpot at 185
marks, the highest power amplifier mark yet set by
HIFICRITIC.
Lab Report
e picture here is complicated by the three
output taps, for 4, 8 and 16ohm load matching,
the amplifier having the same power but different
voltage, current, and impedance matching for
each. e headline power figure (for 244V mains)
is a maximum 178W per channel (1% THD,
8ohm into 8ohm), so this is certainly a powerful
amplifier. Furthermore it has solid state like power
bandwidth, contradicting preconceptions about
output transformer and valve circuit limitations
at the frequency extremes, so great is the control
exerted by this closely coupled circuit. Pre-clipping
it could provide two channels of 125W from 20Hz
to 20kHz, as if the traditional output transformer
bugbears of core saturation, leakage inductance and
stray capacitance had been banished; this rises to
152W with one channel driven.
Music signals are rendered with considerable
accuracy: at 1W the frequency response is +0.1 dB,
-0.5dB from a very low 0.5Hz to 50kHz , though the
moderate 0.6ohm typical output impedance means
that the impedance characteristic of the particular
loudspeaker used will be faintly reflected in the
practical ‘connected’ frequency response. For example
a ‘6ohm’ nominal speaker with inherent impedance
variations from 3.5 to 15ohms over the whole
frequency range, and used on the 4ohm amplifier
34
HIFICRITIC JAN | FEB | MARCH 2012
Page 7
◆ REVIEW
tap, will then show small +0.5/-1dB variations over
frequency, enough to alter the tonal balance mildly.
Output impedance via the 4ohm tap is abut 0.6ohms,
comparable with a medium length of speaker cable.
ere was no significant ultrasonic ringing and the
transient damping was excellent for 0.1uF and 2uF
simulated electrostatic speaker loads. (2uF resulted
in a response error of less than 0.6dB by 20kHz.)
A small distortion imbalance between channels was
found (1W 20kHz, 0.08% left and 0.03% right), but
both results are very good in any case. High frequency
intermodulation was exceptionally good 0.12% at
rated power and just 0.008% at 1W. e resulting
spectrum also showed little ‘hash’ and very little mains
frequency breakthrough.
Signal-to-noise, hiss and hum were close to the
best solid state levels: relative to full power, hum
and noise was -106dB, the A weighted figure 110dB
and the CCIR (1kHz) result 106dB; the 89.4dB
A-weighted 1W result was first class. It has a very
light 300kohm input loading per phase, and requires
just over 2V for full power – a dream for balanced
pre-amps. is amplifier cruises at 0.04% total
harmonic distortion, with a low order harmonic
spectrum. Although push pull designs like this
usually favour odd-order harmonics only, inherent
to the symmetrical topology, second harmonic just
dominates (and with a desirably monotonically
decrementing spectrum where present at higher
powers, eg above 10W). Channel balance (often a
little ‘
out’ with the matching requirements of valve
designs) was a near perfect 0.03dB, 20Hz to 20kHz,
while channel separation was also outstanding for the
genre, measuring 113dB at 20Hz, 91dB at 1kHz and
78dB for 20kHz. e DC offset has been optimised
for the 4ohm output and measures just 3.5/3.8mV,
but is a little higher (up to 25mV) on the other taps,
though still considered harmless.
Scoring top marks, it somehow shines a bright
light on the musical scene, illuminating the darker
and more distant corners of the soundstage. It has
depth width and focus in spades, is very detailed, and
dynamic, upbeat and rhythmically involving to boot.
Louder, clearer and more musical than before, the
REF150 is a significant step forward in amplification
in this price sector
. Fun to be with, it is quite a
music maker, is strongly recommended, and to my
knowledge at least is the new leader of the pack.
ARC150 1W I-M distortion spectrum 8 ohm load
ARC150 10W 1kHz distortion spectrum 8 ohm load
ARC150 L,R frequency response 20W 8ohm and distortion
(400-15k filtered)
Conclusions
Reviewing very good equipment is so easy, as it
inspires enthusiastic copy; ‘also rans’ are much harder
to write up, as one attempts to damn them with
fair but faint praise. is one was easy: the Audio
Research REF150 is simply very, very good, no ifs or
buts. I
t must be driven in balanced mode of course,
though many high end control units have balanced
outputs these days. It sailed through the lab tests,
showing one of the most powerful, load tolerant and
current capable outputs seen from a valve product,
with very low noise and low distortion as well. High
accuracy on measurement means that you largely
see what you get with no unexpected interactions
with more difficult loads, or when working at the
frequency extremes.
HIFICRITIC JAN | FEB | MARCH 2012
Contact: Absolute Sounds
Tel: 0208 971 3909
www.absolutesounds.com
35
Page 8
Subjective Sounds
aving regularly reviewed loudspeakers in Hi-Fi Choice for more than
HIFICRITIC
AUDIO AND MUSIC JOURNAL
BECAUSE HIFICRITIC IS FUNDED BY
ITS READERS THE SUBSCRIPTION
COST IS NECESSARILY HIGHER THAN
FOR MAGAZINES SUBSIDISED BY
ADVERTISING REVENUE, THOUGH
CERTAINLY NOT AS HIGH AS
PROFESSIONAL SPECIALIST JOURNALS.
ur budget is directed towards obtaining the
O
very best research and writing from the very
best freelance authors, whom we encourage to
ess themselves fully in print, an opportunity not
expr
always available via established publishing regimes.
rough the use o
to be exceptionally cost effective. Subscription
anagement, production, printing, editorial,
m
design, laboratory measurement a
scattered around the world, yet are also efficiently
and almost instantaneously l
an e-mail send b
ur independence from product advertising
O
allows us to criticise and comment without fear or
favour. e HIFICRITIC team scrutinises interesting
and internationally impor
in depth and detail, technically and subjectiv
provides comprehensive investigations into the key
issues facing high quality stereo music recording and
reproduction today.
artin Colloms, Publisher
M
S
UBSCRIPTION DETAILS: Full details are provided
on the WWW.HIFICRITIC.COM website,
including for
payment. If you prefer to pay direct for the UK
please copy this page and send the filled in form,
including a cheque payable to HIFICRITIC Ltd and
send it to: HIFICRITIC Ltd., PO BO
LONDON, NW3 9EZ.
Our website supports the day-to-day activities, reports,
archive and download material, while the Journal contains
the primary contemporary output of our editorial team.
The HIFICRITIC audio journal is a full colour print magazine
with about 40,000 words of original editorial content
per issue. To see what is in our most recent issue, see our
current issue page.
Name ...........................................................................................................................
A
ddress .......................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
own ..............................................................................................................................
T
Post Code ..................................................................................................................
Country .......................................................................................................................
Email .............................................................................................................................
lease give your choice of issue
P
number for start of subscription (see above) Issue no. ...........
UK SUBSCRIPTION PRICES: (mail included)
1 Year £63, expanded quarterly issues
With a further, 5th issue free (25% discount)
f a virtual office, we aim
nd journalism are
inked at the touch of
utton.
tant issues and equipment
ely, and
eign rates and secure electronic
X 59214,
H
I keep around as a reference, but which often find themselves sitting in the
cupboard (it’s a large cupboard!) while I’m spending time with some newcomer.
I’ve somehow managed to accumulate a number of pairs of speakers over the
years, but two pairs of large, current models serve as worthwhile references for
whatever else arrives. Why two pairs? Simply because, as I’ve written too many
times, there’s no such thing as the perfect loudspeaker.
ese two favourites are the PMC IB2i and the Bowers & Wilkins 800
Diamond. Both are excellent loudspeakers that do nearly everything very well,
but I’
it alongside the bass and top end of the B&W.
Both these may be regarded as mainstream ‘high end’ models, and indeed in
room measurement terms both show rather too much bass output in relation to
mid and top. at doesn’t seem to be a problem in practice, however, because in
both cases the bass quality is very good indeed, albeit for quite different reasons.
If I had to choose just one, it would probably be the B&W, but whether it can
justify costing more than twice the price of the PMC is certainly debatable
e other issue occupying much of my attention this past quarter concerns
connecting cables, and specifically those from a new company called Vertere
founded by Touraj Moghaddam. He’s best known in the industry as co-founder
and engineer at Roksan, but left recently to pursue his interests in pushing the
high end envelope.
I’ve been trying out a number of his various Pulse cables for some months
now, with results that vary from the merely good to the downright revelatory.
I’ll put together a more comprehensive report in the next edition, but the short
version is that the basic approach is to choose the cable to suit the type of signal
it’s carrying; to use a range of different diameter conductors in parallel in order
to cover the full audio bandwidth; and to treat the earth/return/shield quite
differently from the signal cable.
e biggest surprise came when I substituted the regular Naim cable used
between the power supply of my NAC552 pre-amp and the NAP500 power
amp. is cable doesn’t often get substituted because it has a 4-pin DIN at one
end and an XLR at the other. Obviously, the Pulse cables are much more costly
than Naim’s regular fare (around £1,300 and £2,100 for the two types I tried),
but that seems some
with a combined retail price just shy of £34,000.
upmarket Pulse R.
improvement over the standard cable, making one conscious of substantial extra
coherent detail like instrumental textures, and helping make one aware of more
individual strands and even individual performers in the music. It was impossible
to avoid thinking: “Why didn’t I try something like this years ago?”
e difference wasn’t as great when moving from Pulse B
still quite obvious nonetheless, and essentially amounted to rather more of the
same, in terms of adding more texture and fine detail.
I’ve tried a number of Pulse cables for other applications, again mostly with
very positive results, but these will have to wait for the next issue. I’m also waiting
to receive a Chord Sarum pre-to-power link, which should provide a supporting
context. In the meantime, Vertere Pulse cables are clearly welcome newcomers.
twenty years, it’s quite a relief to take a bit of a break, sit back and just
enjoy my hi-fi. It also gives me time to listen to the serious loudspeakers
d actually like to take that magical midrange dome from the PMC and use
In fact I tried two different Pulse grades – first Pulse B
e initial move to Pulse B brought an immediate and obvious
PAUL MESSENGER
what irrelevant in the context of linking two components
and later the more
to Pulse R, but it was
60
HIFICRITIC JAN | FEB | MARCH 2012
Loading...