AVA The Absolute Sound Review, issue #162

avahifi · « **on:** 4 May 2006, 11:52 am »

Observations:

Equipment supplied for review a year ago (May, 2005). Amp was pretty obsolute by the time review was written, did not have multiple stage high voltage (275V DC) power supplies and higher capacity power transformers of current production.

Prices shown are for the preamp and DAC equipmennt prior to doing them much better and nicer in the new big chassis. Small chassis versions now out of productiton and obsolete.

Photo is current; stack of Ultra SL preamp, Ultra DAC, and Ultra 550 amp.

We are happy with the reviews in any event.

Frank Van Alstine

tonyptony · « **Reply #1 on:** 4 May 2006, 11:23 pm »

Yay!. I'm off to my local Borders bookstore right now!

Listens2tubes · « **Reply #2 on:** 5 May 2006, 12:05 am »

Ditto!

tonyptony · « **Reply #3 on:** 5 May 2006, 12:37 am »

Quote from: tonyptony

Yay!. I'm off to my local Borders bookstore right now!

Cr@p! Got a bunch of phone calls right after I sent this. I'll have to swing by tomorrow.

Frank, which writer did the review?

Oh, and I'm thinking it would be a good idea to add a "spoilers" space - at least for the next few days - if anyone wants to detail parts of the article. Yep, I think I don't want to spoil my own reading of the review!

NealH · « **Reply #4 on:** 5 May 2006, 01:53 am »

Sue Kraft did the review. She likes the Dac and Preamp. Just not the amp. Well, I probably should not say that. What she said in effect is that it was a bit of a letdown as her expectation was too high. But she encourages an audition.

NealH · « **Reply #5 on:** 5 May 2006, 01:53 am »

Listens2tubes · « **Reply #6 on:** 5 May 2006, 02:08 am »

B&N still have Issue 161 out, tomorrow I'll check the local audio emporium.

warnerwh · « **Reply #7 on:** 5 May 2006, 05:16 am »

Overall I thought the review had been well written but not well detailed, too short for that. The fact she gave the impression the amp isn't nearly as good as the dac or preamp I thought odd. If it were only a marginal difference I'd be more inclined to believe her.

I have recently been using a 550exr Rev 5. This amp is only running the planar/ribbon part of my RM 40's. The sound is so clean and smooth as to make every SS amp I've owned a distant second. Body, timbre and dynamics are superior. There is NO transistor sound at all. No grit, grain or hardness.

The last amp I owned, an Innersound ESL that Harry Pearson of Absolute Sound raved about and named best of the best a few years ago cannot compete with the AVA in the mid/treble region, period. I've not tried the 550 on the bass but would be shocked if it wasn't at least very good. I do believe in system synergy but with most high quality speakers the AVA would win I believe in most audiophiles opinions.

The review Sue wrote conveys at least some inferior qualities of this amp in general and I felt she made it seem less than the great deal it is. This can hardly be the case with what I know first hand.

I don't know how to say this but I am being honest with my opinion here. I've been in this hobby since the early seventies. I've learned alot from magazines, really miss Audio magazine btw. At this point I've experimented with enough audio components to have learned a couple of things that I feel are pretty much carved in stone.

1. Next to your speakers the room is the most important component. Once you have good acoustics most any speaker(our world only) will sound pretty decent with good acoustics even with less than highly expensive gear..Differences between preamps, amps and dacs is significant but if all three are of good quality you'll at least be in the "good" zone.

2.Wire is the least important component. I think even some of the subjectivists will agree at least partially with me here. The way I see it is that if you have to listen very hard for a difference and still wonder if there's a difference then that's the last thing to consider when building a system. Work on what affects the sound quality the most first.

My point of the last two paragraphs is that Sue Kraft admitted several months ago that room acoustics made more of a difference than wire, at least I got that impression in her review of some room treatment. Please don't think I'm putting her down as I realize that job is not easy. I do have respect for some reviewers opinions. Reviews of components should be considered no more than suggestions of gear to try.

The reviewers are supposed to be helping the audiophile world and it's assumed to some degree that they're very experienced and knowledgeable. At this point I have to take exception. How to draw the line though I don't know.

Unfortunately people new in this hobby would know no different and believe what they're reading. I have been in that position myself. Many could think that this amplifier is not worth trying when there's these other amps that all these great things had been proclaimed.

I better stop now, thanks for letting me vent.

Tweaker · « **Reply #8 on:** 5 May 2006, 05:37 am »

warnerwh,
Who knows, maybe she was influenced by the looks of the amp. Not really eye candy you must admit. Those of us who own AVA amps know how good they are.
You've mentioned that you are using the 550 for the planar/ribbons section only. What are you using for the woofers? The 550, if it is a typical AVA amp should produce some of the tightest and deepest bass you could ever hope for.

warnerwh · « **Reply #9 on:** 5 May 2006, 05:55 am »

I'm using a Rotel 991bx. The bass with this amp is truly excellent believe it or not. I tried several and this amp won.

I'm sure the bass is fine with the AVA but I wanted to try biamping with a bit of tube sound on the planar/ribbon section of my speakers. The bass however must be superb.

I put in some Mullard tubes a few hours ago and they are definitely tubier than the JJ's that are stock. This would have to affect the the bass the same way as the mid/highs.

I do have another AC member coming by Sunday to audition the 550. He's got some Salk HT3's on order and is looking for a good amp.

My RM 40's though will let him know what the AVA can do well enough for him to judge. I'll hook up each amp on it's own for him to hear. As transparent as the Salk's are reputed to be I bet the 550 would be about as good of an amp as he could want. I know my RM 40's are ruthless and this amp has no downside I've detected. It's truly impressive. One more thing to convince me that most of the info in the mags and online is just crap.

aln · « **Reply #10 on:** 5 May 2006, 01:13 pm »

If the ultra 550 had poor bass extension, then my 550 exr series 5 must be in real bad shape!

Tyson · « **Reply #11 on:** 5 May 2006, 05:58 pm »

Best thing I can say is that after I bought the 550, I've stoped buying new components every 3 to 6 months.

avahifi · « **Reply #12 on:** 5 May 2006, 08:57 pm »

One question: How did this page become page 2 of 1 and separated from the rest of the thread?

One observation: To the best of my knowledge we have never ever had a Fet Valve 350 or 550 series amplifier returned under our satisfaction guarantee for poor bass resposnse.

One further observation: When I heard our equipment set up at Sue Kraft's as I mentioned in AC much earlier (but without naming names then), driving the new B&W800D speakers, both Lisa and I thought the 800Ds were pretty bass shy in comparison to what we were used to at home (highly modified B&W 801s) and now in comparison to the Salk Veracity HT3s. I think I mentioned this in my "loudspeaker search" thread feeling that the speakers (800Ds) were not worth $20,000 a pair to me because the bass did not do it for me, that was true also with the high buck Meradian equipment she had playing on them first. The top end and midrange was great and so was the workmanship on the 800Ds (but not any better than the HT3s for a quarter the price). I suspect that the 800Ds need an underdamped almost wooly bass amplifier to sound well balanced, not our cuppa tea, but of course it might be yours. Wooly amplifiers abound if you want one.

Frank Van Alstine

tonyptony · « **Reply #13 on:** 5 May 2006, 09:48 pm »

H-e-double hockey sticks! My Borders still has the last issue on the shelves. Don't have any high end audio stores around as an alternate. Have to wait a few more days I guess.

I'm not going to read this thread until I've read the article!

Bill Baker · « **Reply #14 on:** 5 May 2006, 09:54 pm »

I received my issue in the mail yesterday and read through it last night in bed as I was excited about this one due to the fact that an hour before the mailman dropped this mag in my box, I had ordered my pair of Acoustic Zen Adagio speakers and there they are in this issue.

The first thing I read was the AVA pages. I think you might be taking this too hard and not looking at the plus side. She was so impressed with the DAC and preamp that it raised the bar on the rest of the review. You must also consider how her ears have been trained by the rest of her reference gear. I wouldn't say it's betterrather much "different". It was also interesting to see the Anti-Cables being used in such a high $$ rig. Not that I don't think they belong there but ussualy find reviewers using big-buck cables.

Frank, I think once this mag hit all its suscribers and news stands, you will be busier than you can handle.

tonyptony · « **Reply #15 on:** 10 May 2006, 11:06 pm »

Okay. I finally got my copy of issue 162. Went right to Sue Kraft's reviews. Could not come to grips with her comments regarding the Ultra 550 when I know full well how the EXR rev.5 sounds. I then went right to Frank's response. Certainly began to understand when I read Frank's words regarding this Ultra as being an earlier design version. So, Frank, if I may ask. Could you explain the nature of the capabilities of that amp versus the current version of the Ultra 550 from the POV of how the circuit changes affected the final sonic outcome? And, if it's not asking too much, could you give us your sense of how the new Ultra presents the lower end of the spectrum in comparison to the later EXRs?

bhobba · « **Reply #16 on:** 10 May 2006, 11:46 pm »

Quote from: warnerwh

.Wire is the least important component. I think even some of the subjectivists will agree at least partially with me here. The way I see it is that if you have to listen very hard for a difference and still wonder if there's a difference then that's the last thing to consider when building a system. Work on what affects the sound quality the most first.

Could not agree more. While I blevie there is ample evidence from double blind studies from people like Jon Risch to prove they do make an auduble difference it is subtle. Spending $3000.00 on cables? Get a DEQX and address room correction - you will be better off IMHO.

Thanks
Bill

EclecticSeeker · « **Reply #17 on:** 14 May 2006, 02:20 am »

I think Frank can indeed be happy about the AS review, and I think we all wish him the huge increase in business that he and his gear so justly deserve. Of course, a flat-out rave would have been nice, but it was certainly favorable on the whole.

That said, Sue Kraft’s concerns re disappointing bass performance of the Ultra 550 are… puzzling. As the happy owner of one, I can only say that – in my perception – lack of bass is absolutely no problem! I have compared it to at least a couple other high-end (and far more expensive!) amps, and its bass was noticeably tighter and cleaner. A friend of mine has one in a smaller room than I have, and frets a little about it being possibly too strong in the bass. (I’m not sure how that’s possible…)

Kraft also doesn’t think so much of the 550’s “level of clarity and openness.” I disagree, but might be willing to at least debate that point. I have heard other amps that do certain things better, and there are probably a very few out there that will out-perform the U550 across the board. However, you are going to need a second mortgage to get into that ballpark!