[rmihai0]

I have done some research and indeed I believe that Van Alstine products are great value. Before ordering them (an amp and a pre-amp), I have a question: does anyone compared any of the Van Alstine products with any of the amps from my shortlist? What are the conclusions?

Thank you very much

[David Ellis]

The only amp on this list that I have directly compared with anything in my system is a Marantz PM-17.  I did this years ago.  At the time, my Bryston 3B-ST had better dynamics and was queter than the PM-17.  Subsequently, the 3B-ST was bettered by the AVA-550ex (not the most current version).  All of these amps sounded inferior to my modified Jolida 302b, and in-turn slightly inferior to Steve Harrison's 55wpc AKSA Nirvana +++.

As with speakers, the quality of parts under the hood has a VERY significant impact.  Frank VanAlstine uses very good parts under the hood.  After mods, my Jolida 302 had very good parts under the hood in many areas.  Steve Harrison's amps... have every good part possible installed/upgraded.

With all of these purely power amps, I used a Creek passive preamp.

If you can solder, I highly recommend you build the AKSA.

In a few weeks, I'll likely know something more solid about a fully modified SE40SE.  The unmodified amp is nothing special, but the bass is surprisingly good.

[rmihai0]

Thank you very much David.

Believe me - I would love to get a moddified Jolida 302b from you. But I don't think that I can afford it. My budget is $1060, and in stock form already is at least $915.
And for $145 I don't think there are to many mods that can be implemented. (or maybe I am wrong)

[Al Garay]

Your budget is more than enough to recruit someone to build you an AKSA 55 watt with the Nirvana Plus upgrade. Go to the AKSA forum and ask for takers. This has been done successfully by others before and they're very happy with the outcome.

Al

[fajimr]

Dave:  I've been on the fence a while about ordering the 1801's because of my concern over their efficiency.  

richny,

I don't have a tube amp but my Musical Fidelity XA-1 SS amp rated at 50 watts seems to drive the 1801bs just fine.   I haven't tried a more powerful amp but haven't felt the need to.

[rmihai0]

I am looking for a NEW power amp to drive my beautifull Ellis 1801b.
My budget: limited to about $1100

After doing thorough research I decided that I need your opinion to confirm or not my findings. It seems to me that there 4 companies that are offering fair value for money: Monarchy Audio, AKSA Aspen, Audio Van Alstine and Odyssey Audio. I am pretty sure that if I will chose any of their products I won't go wrong.

Now, within my budget, I am trying to maximaze the value that I will get, having in mind that I won't need tones of power to drive my Ellis. So, after another month of reading and research I can conclude that the best value for money within a limited budget are (in order):

1. AKSA Aspen 55 with Nirvana Plus Upgrade
2. Monarchy Audio ST-70 PRO
3. OmegaStar 260 EX (AVA)

Unfortunatelly the Stratos seems to be a litlle overpriced compared with the others (in value/price terms).

Now, my question for those of you who had the chance to listen to at least 2 of the 3 from my list: Can you confirm my findings? Can you let me know your opinions?

Thank you very much

[David Ellis]

Well,

I can vouch for #1 fully and #3 partially.  I managed to listen to one of Franks FET-Valve units.  Comparing this #1 to the FET Valve is, well, easy.  If you want high quality, #1 is the ticket.  If you want high spl the FET Valve is the ticket.  Either will outperform the other in its respective category IMO.

I cannot comment on option #2.  I don't know anything about this amplifier.

Given your $1100, I suggest you purchase and AKSA or build one.  Then use a Creek OBH-12 passive crossover.  This one has a remote.  It'll bring a smile to your face  

Or... you could score a Dynaco ST-70, and install Frank VanAlstine's latest mod.  It appears to be a winner.

Dave

[hubert]

Hey all,
goldmund sra is my last 2x40w SS amp, air-tight atm4 is a 2x28w push-pull 6L6 tube amp, owned by Raoul, a friend who ordered a 1801 kit a few days ago. This two gears were wired on my pre-amp goldmund srp2. Although prices are very different (6600usd for the air-tight, 1900usd for the goldmund in france), they represent a fully different approach of the amp technical views.
My listen review:
1  this tube gives a "stronger, consistanter" sound than this SS. This is obvious on piano, human voices and most instruments. All the music is weaky with the SS, at low or high listening level.
2  tube has very lower subjective "hardness"; bad cds are more confortable to listen to: i.e., string's attacks have same speed but are less raw.
3  on the tube, dynamic is equal on the total frequency range; on the SS, dynamic is concentrated through upper-mid and high frequencys: instrument's timbers are much more homogeneous with the tube.
4  SS is a little more detailed.
5  SS has little deeper sub-bass and goes a little far away in very high frequencys.
6  soundstage and image are a little more accurate on the SS; greater on tube, but not excessive.
7  bass and uperbass are a little "boomy" on SS.

In conclusion, because of the lack of homogeneity from this SS, i enjoy music much more on this tube;
Since this test, I was looking for an amp with a similar sound than this air-tight, but enhanced on all criteriums:
I founded it: the Rodgers e40a, a double push-pull 6L6, pure "a" class,designed by Audio-Note UK: enhancement is obvious, sound is really giant, never heared such a sound coming from an electronic.
I'm a happy guy.

[Al Garay]

Read Clint's review of the AKSA 100N+ with his Ellis 1801b. And take note that he is comparing it to his Bryston 4BST which is highly regarded.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=14552&start=40

The 100+N will give you plenty of transperancy and high SPL out of the 1801s. I also appreciate that they dissipate very little heat, stay cool to the touch. So, I leave them on allways.

Al

[David Ellis]

I posted some comments in that string too.

In short... my 3B-ST was/is not in the same league as the 55wpc Nirvana + AKSA that I currently use.  The AKSA amp is much better.

Dave

[MemphisJim]

I thought I would post some experiences I've had with running several different types of amps with the 1801's. The amps I'll describe are:

Yahama R-V703: A standard off the shelf be$t buy receiver that probably cost all of $150 when it was new. It's rated at 70W/ chnl, but I'd bet that was just one channel driven, see dicussion below.

Sony DA4-ES: Sony's last high end analog amp released in 2003. It's rated at 100W / channel

NAD 2155: 1980's vintage 2 channel amp rated at 55W / chn. The power cord is not very big (18 ga?). The power cord on my 30W soldering iron is bigger. One transformer for the entire amp.

Adcom 535: Late 80's vintage 2 channel amp rated at 60W / chn. This would seem to have a beefier power supply than the NAD. It has one transformer per channel. This amp is recommended on ...

Parasound 2200 MkII: Mid 90's vintage 2 channel amp rated at 290W / chnl. Highly rated at the time by stereophile. I use it in mono (1000W) for my diy sub and this thing ROCKS.

Golden Tube SE40-SE: Mid 90's vintage tube amp that is highly thought of in certain communities. It is in stock form and the tubes were just biased.

Preamp for separates: Adcom 565. Mid 90's vintage pre-amp that was highly rated at the time by stereophile.  I'm not so sure this preamp is very good, but it's the best I have at the moment. I'm working on this

Source: Marantz DV-8400. CD/ SACD/ DVD-A player.

Cables: Parts Express OFC 12Ga.

Musical Selection: Natalie Merchant - Live (CD). I'll report more musical selections within each amp review, but this is the only cd that is consistent among all amps.

The 1801's were run semi-flat with respect to the tweeter level. This is to say, the series resistor was 7 ohms and the parallel resistor was 12.5 ohms.

A moderate volume level is around 85 dB sustained. Loud is over 90 dB sustained.

On to the review and I want to apologize at the outset because I can't really write using the same flowery language that the stereophile guys write with:

Yamaha - In a word, "ugggghhhh". This wasn't very pretty and I couldn't listen to it for long. I don't think it had anywhere near enough power to drive the 1801's, as this thing was meant to drive those tiny speakers that come with it. There was absolutely no soundstage depth at all, everything was on one level, right out front. Width was almost as bad. I'm guessing there was alot of distortion because the vocals just didn't sound good. The bass was heavily artifacted, I'm guessing this was also distortion. The mix of the music was also incorrect, as it was very boomy in the bass and in the vocals. Just yuck, I turned it off. If one was looking to build the 1801's and all one had was a cheap japanese receiver, I'd say use your budget elsewhere. Build a Dennis Murphy MB20 or Plop-in-the-Box and buy a used, low power NAD reciever. You'll be much happier.

Sony - Now we are getting closer. This will drive the speakers and would work in a pinch. I'd rather have this reciever and the 1801's than almost anything else I've ever heard.  This isn't to say that the Sony is great, it's not. It works and if I had never heard anything else, I'd be happy (maybe). The sound is sterile and dry. I think the 1801's make the amp sound just like it was designed to sound. There is nothing very magical about it, it's just there. Soundstage depth is ok, not great. Width is fairly narrow. Bass was ok, but I could tell that this amp also didn't deal well with the heavier, punchier bass. The bass wasn't articulated well, it came across as hollow. Maybe distorted? Midrange was ok and tolerable. Highs were not very detailed and there wasn't much "air" around cymbals, etc.

Adcom - Better. Bass is better than the Sony reciever, it is more coherant. Midrange was ok to ok+. High's were slightly raspy and it is a tad too bright. Again, nothing special, but it's definitely the best so far. Sound depth is better than the Sony and so is the width. I had the cover off of this amp and was able to monitor the voltages in the power supply during some loud vocal passages. With no load, the PS puts out about 51.6 DC. My Fluke tells me the minimum voltage during a loud passage was 47.8 DC for a voltage drop of close to 4 volts. I don't believe this is good, as it leads to distortion. During these loud passages, the vocals didn't sound very good either.

NAD - Better still. The midrange and treble sound the best of all amps so far. Soundstage depth and width is also the best. Bass isn't as tight as with the Adcom. I was able to use a speaker line relay switcher to switch between this amp and the Sony reciever from my listening position at will. The NAD's soundstage was wider and deeper. There was more detail (or is this grit?) around cymbals. It was more musical and is much more enjoyable to listen to than any amp so far, One drawback, the bass wasn't as tight. I think it's underdesigned power supply really hurts it here. If I want to listen to rock on the 1801's and turn it up, well this amp really doesn't cut, it runs out of steam.

Parasound - Things start to get interesting here. This amp definitely has the balls to deliver bass. The bass is tight and not distorted, even at higher volume levels. The 1801's are very impressive paired with this amp from a low frequency standpoint. Midrange and highs are a different story. The amp doesn't do high frequencies very well, there is a lack of air around cymbals and such. It definitely isn't as bright as the Adcom. Midrange is ok, probably on par with the Adcom. The Parasound seems to do a good job with classical, such as one of the new Living Stereo SACD's, Scheherazade. WOW, the dynamics really shine as the music changes from a soloist to the full orchestra. None of the other amps I've mentioned can play with the Parasound when it comes to reproducing the large dynamic range at loud volume levels of a full orchestra. Trouble is, when listening at lower volume levels, the NAD is a better sounding amp. More musical. This may have something to do with the menagerie of electrical components within the Parasound. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of resistors, caps and transistors and the signals goes through three different circuit boards before it's done. I'm thinking less is better from a pure sonic standpoint.

Golden Tube - Very interesting. Overall, not as good sounding as the NAD. However, this amp does have a pleasing midrange and female vocals though this amp and into the 1801's are heavenly. Mary Black - No Frontiers sounds the best I've ever heard it or her sound. Lots of musicality. The new Living Stereo SACD of Rubenstein Chopin's piano solo is gorgeous through this amp. It just sounds good. Very Good. Is it being faithfulling reproduced? I don't know. The problem with this amp is that the bass is not as tight as the NAD. It's not bad, it's just not tight. I'm guessing this may be because of a lack of power. In addition, I've been unable to reproduce a sharp, fast attack with a stringed instrument (guitar) at moderate volume levels. I'd really like to hear a pair of these amps, one for each speaker. Back to the flaws. The highs seemed to be rolled off, as there really seems to be a lack of air around all high frequency sounds. But again, oh that midrange. I love it. If this amp didn't roll off the upper end like it does, it would be marvelous. Finally, this amp by itself lacks power and won't play very loud. It'll play loud enough to give one a headache over a long period of time, but it won't blast you out of the room.

What have I learned from all this hard work (heh)? Well, the 1801's like power if you want to play them loud like you might with rock or a full orchestra.  Decent electronics are a must. If a reciever is used, then it should be as good a quality as possible. Stick with Rotel or NAD. Lesser power seems to give a better sonic signature at the expense of woofer control when one turns up the volume. If you never listen to music very loud, then the lower power amps I'm using are fine.

I'm going to build an AKSA 55W amp, but after listening to all of these amps, I'm a little concerned that the AKSA 100W amp might be a tad bit better for me.

This has obviously been my opinion and in some cases it differs from what Dave (along with others) has heard and written about.  My observations about power and bass may just be the fact that I'm using older, low power amps. I'd like to hear how the AKSA 55W stacks up against the Parasound in regards to woofer control during a full orchestral passage at a moderate to loud volume levels. I'll get to do that later this year when I build it

Jim

[David Ellis]

Ahhh, refreshing... something other than discussion about active crossovers and bi-amping.

Thanks very much for your post.

[bryanb]

I plan to try both an Adcom 545 and a Hafler DH-500, both of which may be too much power, but would probably offer extended dynamics. I'll post results once I get built and tested.

[David Ellis]

I plan to try both an Adcom 545 and a Hafler DH-500, both of which may be too much power,

Hmmm,

Having too much power isn't automatically bad, but all things exist in the realm of compromise.  Getting QUALITY parts and quality design in a bigger amplifier simply requires more cost $$$.  Also, there are extremely valid arguments about bigger amps with more parts (even good quality parts) simply being inferior to smaller amps that are more simple.  There is also some discussion on power supply inductors that are figured into the impedance of the circuit, but I don't fully comprehend this.  I have read that smaller inductors have less impedance and will sound... faster.?

but would probably offer extended dynamics

Yes, there are also valid issues about bigger amps and "headroom", but until reaching any clipping, this is not audible.   In my very humble opinion, this "wives tale" about the need for excessive headroom comes from mediocre amplifiers with quickly fading electrolytic capacitors that spent too much time on the shelf before arriving in customers audio systems.  The capacitors dry, the ESR rises, and they will not filter power-line trash.  These amplifiers simply will not meet their advertised ratings.   There are probably other explanations too, but... I don't know any other explanations.  Also, I must admit this arena is not my forte'.  

I feel somewhat comfortable with my @1988 125wpc Kendwood 2 channel receiver cleanly driving about 40wpc.  I don't have a good explanation for this, and cannot back this scientifically.  I do know that my old Bryston 3b-ST pushed SIGNIFICANTLY more power through the speakers, yet had the same power rating.  With GOOD quality amplifiers, about 60wpc SS or 35wpc tube is all that's needed for the 1801b.  A guy could probably manage with about 25wpc SET tube, but I haven't tried this yet.

I really have no "chip on my shoulder" for higher powered amplifiers.  I am simply oriented towards value in these issues.  Given the hard-earned $ in my wallet, I'd much rather spend it on 60wpc SS than 120wpc SS.

Dave

[Al Garay]

If anyone is looking for really good amplification to drive their 1801s, I'm selling my AKSA amps.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=18847

If you are on a budget , you should consider the Panasonic XR series of receivers using digital input. I've heard them with the 1801s and they sound very good. This is about $250-400.

Better still are the AKSAs but you have to build them or buy mine.

Al

[David Ellis]

Why... would you be selling these amps?  What could you replace them with that could sound better for that $$?

Dave

[Al Garay]

This weekend I listened to a 5 channel UcD180 amplifier that Kevin Haskins from diycable.com built. Tried it out with Adires' new line of speakers and Andy's (awm) 1801.

mac, Andy and I commented that we had not heard the 1801's with better SLAM on the low end. The digital amps puts out much more output  from the Excel woofer. What also surprised us was the better imaging which was already very good with the AKSA N. With the Hypex, it was wider. No fancy caps, just TSU Panasonics and one large single toroidal transformer using a VCA preamp, no signal through the pots. The NuForce amp that is getting alot of press uses similar design as the Hypex UcD, according to Bruno who designed the modules while at Philips and now works for Hypex.

Again, I have not applied the Nirvana Plus upgrade which Hugh says is significant. And the top-end with the Hypex is probably better with the AKSA, more extended and tube-like.

Hope that helps,

Al

[David Ellis]

I can't comment on the digital amps because I have not hear them.  I can comment that I have a new favorite amp, and that my list of sonic priority has been re-ordered.  This list has been confirmed by my wife and one other audiphile/musician.

1.  Dynaco ST70 modified by Frank VanAlstine - Ultimate 70

Additional comments:  My amp has Sonicaps in the coupling circuit and the smaller .47uf sonicaps bypassing some of the other electrolytic capacitors.  I have accomplished this effort personally on few pieces of source gear with very positive results verified by several folks.  Frank found the sonicaps had some impact, but is undecided about any BENEFIT from the Sonicaps.  Mr. Vanalstine marginally preferred the standard version without Sonicaps, but  Mrs. VanAlstine preferred the Sonicap version.  My vast experience in this arena leads me to believe the family member with the title "Mrs." is always correct    .

I purchased my amplifier on ebay and mailed it directly to Frank.  Upon arrival at my home it appeared in much better condition than when purchased via ebay.  Frank did a dandy job on this amplifier and it appears nearly new.  The binding posts are new, the rca's are new, the rusty spots are gone.  The amp looks very nice!  

I really don't know what Frank did to this amplifier to make is sound so good and so detailed.  The resultion is exemplary throughout the range - even the bass.  I suppose the overall quality could be the from the tube rectifier, or the choke, but... there must be something else happening here.  I really don't know what he did, but it works very well.

Also, I don't think the mods for the AVA modified ST70 are very difficult, and could easily be performed by anyone with modest ability and a soldering iron.  I will likely be building another one of these for another system.

I use a Creek OBH-12 passive preamp with this amp. The AVA modified ST70  input impedance is fairly high, so an active preamp is not necessary IMO.

2.  AKSA fully modified Nirvana+ 55wpc amp.  

This amp will push more juice than the AVA modified ST70, but doesn't quite have the resolution.  It's an extremely capable amp with the 1801, and might be the best SS amp I have experienced.

3.  Jolida 302b with my mods.

I did not fully implement ALL of the mods ala Response Audio, and this could be the "difference" between the AVA modified ST70 and the Jolida 302b.  I cannot be sure, and I haven't a/b tested this.  I do know there is a fairly significant gap in performance between the Jolida 302b (my mods) and the AVA modified ST70.

[sica]

Dave, is this the new Ultimate 70 from AVA, or an older model?

[avahifi]

Dave's amp is our new Ultimate 70 amplifier, not the older Super 70i version.

We were really glad to hear that Dave's response to it is identical to every single customer's so far.

Frank Van Alstine