[guest1632]

The "professional reviewers" would be the last people that I would ask for anything.

I hope to send a -250 ICEpower amp, with conventional supply. As there will be others using the SMPS, it migh be good to have a different genre. However, it might be a more reliable test to use modules with the same power rating. So......if anyone knows what the power rating of the ICEpower amps will be, let me know. I can put a -500 together in short notice.

The only UcD amp around today is a -180 proto. I can send t ...

Hi Pat, Well, having your version of the UCD180 would be interesting sonically speaking. There are things you have done that some other manufacturers haven't done, so that amp might be interesting to listen to as well.

Ray

[guest1632]

Hmmm....strip the input stage and use a shunt regulator...........

If I didn't know better, I would say that you have peaking into our lab at night.

Just joking, Chuck!

Pat

Good engineers can often think alike. We credit Alexander Graham Bell for the invention of the telephone. In fact, minutes later, after he had the patents in for his device, another person showed up with a similar device, that was actually better than the one patented. Off topic I know, but just to prove the point. Sorry Danny, won't do that again.

Ray

[guest1632]

The troll is over at DIY Audio, collecting the facts on shunt regulators.

(Unfortunately, that really isn't a joke, but not something we want to discuss here.)

Pat

Hi Pat, Well, I'd probably send along the UCD180, because you have a transformer on the imput. Would be interesting to hear what the differences are.

Ray

[mrmusic]

Hi Circlers;  A few of you have asked about our prototype UcD based amp.  We sent the only available unit to Danny because we like what we hear, but have other designs under consideration.  If Texas Jammers like it, then we will take the process further.  The unit Danny has is a simple version of the input circuit we will use.  Missing from the proto are the more sophisticated shunt regulators and some crucial buffer circuits.  This one was built to test a concept.  We were (are) trying to remove the last vestiges of phase blur from the soundstage.  We are satisfied that even this simple version goes a long way towards doing that.  The box is plain, the transformer is too small, the power is low (120 watt), and there is a bit too much kludged circuitry in there.  Still, before it left here it beat up some big name amps.  We are delighted the tests will be blind, as right now we need the truth, and only the truth.  Obviously, we wish Nuforce and Channel Islands could be there but we'll be happy to hear the comments and appraisals of the attendees.  So pay attention, listen carefully and tell us what you think.  No opinion is wrong.  We need your feedback.
Good luck this weekend,
Chuck
SUPERPHON

[alotaklipsch]

Hi Circlers;  A few of you have asked about our prototype UcD based amp.  We sent the only available unit to Danny because we like what we hear, but have other designs under consideration.  If Texas Jammers like it, then we will take the process further.  The unit Danny has is a simple version of the input circuit we will use.  Missing from the proto are the more sophisticated shunt regulators and some crucial buffer circuits.  This one was built to test a concept.  We were (are) trying to remove the last v ...

Chuck,

I really appreciate AND admire your attitude, I wish all in the industry had similar.  I hope you get great results at the shootout, with an attitude like yours, you will go far in business.  Right on!!!

Steve

[HumanMedia]

Hey Texan comparitors!

Any results and opinions yet ?

[RuSsMaN]

Yes, there will details and pictures coming.  There was an obvious consensus for the entire group, between 2 almost 'too close to call' amplifiers - and one 'stand out'.

Danny did a GREAT job, setting up the testing scenario - it was blind as a BAT.

Cheers,
Russ

[arthurs]

Cool day.  Danny did a terrific job on the whole deal.  As noted already, results are interesting to say the least, can't wait to see.

Thanks Danny

[guest1632]

Yes, there will details and pictures coming.  There was an obvious consensus for the entire group, between 2 almost 'too close to call' amplifiers - and one 'stand out'.

Danny did a GREAT job, setting up the testing scenario - it was blind as a BAT.

Cheers,
Russ

So to hell with the pics, can't see them anyway, so how about some details. I hate teasers like that.

Ray

[RuSsMaN]

This was Danny's dance, I was just invited.  He's got good and thorough details - I'm going to let him get the ball rolling.

I will say, there are a couple amps you need not even bother with - and that's not just my opinion, but a group consensus.

Cheers,
Russ

[guest1632]

This was Danny's dance, I was just invited.  He's got good and thorough details - I'm going to let him get the ball rolling.

I will say, there are a couple amps you need not even bother with - and that's not just my opinion, but a group consensus.

Cheers,
Russ

Interesting. Well, ... looks like I just have to wait.

Ray

[arthurs]

Yeah, without giving away the results and taking any of Danny's fun....it was surprising to me how easily and quickly differences were heard, and how far apart in caliber some of the amps were....and there was very little argument, it was pretty consistent for all with some minor variations on which were best and worst, but not on where they clustered overall...

[guest1632]

Yeah, without giving away the results and taking any of Danny's fun....it was surprising to me how easily and quickly differences were heard, and how far apart in caliber some of the amps were....and there was very little argument, it was pretty consistent for all with some
Hi Arthurs, Well, hopefully Danny will have the complete details. Did Channel Islands finally come through with an amp?

Ray minor variations on which were best and worst, but not on where they clustered overall...

[arthurs]

CI did not have amps there....

[arthurs]

and yes, Danny will have all the results, there were multiple pages of notes and votes though, may take him a day or two to sort it all out and format it...not really sure what his timetable is...

[brj]

A couple of points before Danny kicks off the real discussion...

First, I'd really like to thank Danny for hosting!  We had a good time, and Danny's approach took some real work.  Thanks for making the effort and taking the time, Danny!

Second, I'd really like to thank all of the manufacturers that chose to send their amps.  Sending amps to an event such as this is really rather a risky proposition for a manufacturer.  They aren't just sending an amp out on a demo tour where people are going to compare it to their current amp - they are sending it off knowing that it is going to be compared to several other amps, including those that play at entirely different price levels.  Offering to send their amps to such an event really displays great confidence in their products and should be applauded.

For reference, there were amps that people tended to prefer (sometimes for a specific type of music, which I found surprising), but there were no bad amps.  Many audiophiles tend to get rather emphatic in their comments, often expousing the absolute superiority of a given component based on differences so small that they cause any normal person look at us like we were nuts.  No manufacturer sent gear to this event that could be called low-fi or mid-fi gear.  In addition, it should be mentioned that some amps were prototypes, some were the basic version of an amp that also has a premium version, and a wide range of product pricing was in evidence.  Please keep all of this in mind when reading any ensuing discussion, and continue to support those manufacturers whose generosity made this event possible in the first place - not to mention our general insanity in pursuing this hobby!

Finally, a quick thank you to everyone that showed up, especially those that did the driving (thanks Art!).  Many people drove in from a couple of hours away, and we had one visitor from Chicago!  I have a new appreciation for Danny, who usually drives gear down to our Dallas-Fort Worth based get-togethers at the drop of a hat.  We had a lot of fun, and I look forward to similar events in the future!

[RuSsMaN]

Hey, don't take what I said in the wrong way.  If we all liked the same thing, life would be pretty boring.  I applaud all the manufacturers that sent product in, they stepped up to plate and put their amps on the line.  

I for one, won't ever sugar coat anything.  If something didn't sound good, it just didn't sound good.  Actually, I would think that if there was negative feedback (no pun intended) posted, that a manufacturer would PREFER to hear such, so they can continue to improve and develop thier offerings, no?

[brj]

No worries, RuSsMaN.  My comments were intended to provide background for my own evaluations, rather than comment on others.  You have my apology if that didn't come across clearly.  I'm glad to see you back posting on AC again!

I'm happy to provide both praise and constructive feedback to those that desire it as well.  I'm just in the habit of stating my own personal preferances, assumptions and understanding of the testing conditions up front, because they all affect my view of any given component.  None of that changes my view of things, but it helps others put it in perspective.  By the same token, the first thing I do when I read a review is look for the details of the person's system, what else they have auditioned, what type of music they auditioned with, and what sonic properties they value most.

For example, I'd trade some of the "lushness" that many others value for clarity, imaging and detail.  I'll also trade some absolute performance for a cheaper price (although I won't like it! ).  Some components may increase the demands on other parts of a system.  Everyone's thresholds, priorities and system goals are different, and I'm having enough trouble figuring out my own!


(By the way, my natural style of communication tends toward the blunt, but I've been trying more and more to restrain that tendancy when posting online - I've too often had my comments misinterpreted.  I read a study recently stating that people believe they correctly interpret the tone of electronic communications 90% of the time, while the actual success rate was only about 50%.  I'm curious as to what my own success rate is...)

[HumanMedia]

Im squirmin' for the results!

[guest1632]

No worries, RuSsMaN.  My comments were intended to provide background for my own evaluations, rather than comment on others.  You have my apology if that didn't come across clearly.  I'm glad to see you back posting on AC again!

I'm happy to provide both praise and constructive feedback to those that desire it as well.  I'm just in the habit of stating my own personal preferances, assumptions and understanding of the testing conditions up front, because they all affect my view of any given component.  No ...

Hi I took your comments with the exactness they were intended. I do agree with your general philosophy, that best to just lay it all out on the table, and then the companies that did not come in first place can either justify how or why they should be first, or take a hard look to see how they can improve. It's to bad CI was not there, would have liked to see where his amps fall in to the scheme of things. Now, will have to see if someone can compare the winner with his amp.  Everything I've heard about the 200Watter, has been positive. Probably the 100Watter, especially the new one would be pretty close.

Now a possible subjective question, how do these amps sound versus the standard SS amps? There are some pretty good SS amps out there.

Ray

Ray