[tonyptony]

I've been like a pig in you-know-what listening to my 550EXR v.5, wondering why I'd want to send it off for a mod. I'm looking to hear from any FetValve Ultra owners out there for the hands on rundown.

[modular747]

I've been like a pig in you-know-what listening to my 550EXR v.5, wondering why I'd want to send it off for a mod. I'm looking to hear from any FetValve Ultra owners out there for the hands on rundown.

I just received my new Ultra 550 power amp and Ultra EC Preamp.  They replaced my 22+ y/o Transcendence II power amp (Dyna 416 chassis) and Transcendence Preamp (Dyna PAT-5 chassis, solid state).  The old stuff was good, but the Ultras provide greater overall detail, better dynamics, seemingly more extended low end and a much more "liquid" midrange.  The Ultra preamp also drives my Grado RS-1 phones magnificently.  I'm using them with an Omega IV DAC and an HK T-60 turntable with Longhorn Grado cartridge, driving Martin Logan Monolith IIIp speakers.  I've never heard the FET-Valve 550EX (or any prior versions), so I can't say how different the Ultra is from them.

[SeekerFFH]

Greetings -
I upgraded my 550EXR to the Ultra, and am most pleased.  It does everything the EXR did, only better.  More detail, definition, transparency, etc.  Not a night & day difference, but I could hear the improvement immediately.  I would recommend it.

Also went for the Ultra preamp, and it too is excellent, but am not yet sure how much a step up it is from my T7ECR.

[tonyptony]

Seeker, that's the key for me. I'm so happy with how the EXR presents itself that I hesitate. The areas of the EXR that I would maybe look to have improved are: a low end that is a bit more articulate and better integrated with the rest of the frequencies (it sometimes sounds juuust a little full), an improvement in overall transparency (although it doesn't need much of that), and maybe a bit of an improvement in the leading transients. I pick, but these are all of a very small order. If the tonal character of the Ultra is the same as the EXR (such that I would not have to question replacing any of the attached equipment) then I'll be more prepared to move ahead with the upgrade.

[modular747]

The areas of the EXR that I would maybe look to have improved are: a low end that is a bit more articulate and better integrated with the rest of the frequencies (it sometimes sounds juuust a little full), an improvement in overall transparency (although it doesn't need much of that), and maybe a bit of an improvement in the leading transients.

What other power amp(s) do you use in your system, in your room, that do these things better?  How do you know these minor deficiencies are from the 550-EXR?

[tonyptony]

Modular, over the last 20 years I've listened to a broad range of amps in my system (some bought, some borrowed). Everything from Krell, Rogue, CJ (tube and FET), Quicksilver, Melos, Rowland, NYAL Moscode (!), White Audio (!), Bryston, to Adcom, APT, VAC, and Bedini, which turned out to be my amp of choice for the last 16 years (even with all these others getting switched in and out). All this through the same preamp and speakers, in the same room. It's only recently that I joined those who own FetValve amps (even though my closest audio friend has been running with a 350HC for the last 10 years). The EXR convinced me to switch out my trusted amp of 16 years; overall it is better than my old Bedini, and all the others  I've listened to over the years. But... it does have very small areas where it might be a bit better. Which amps did what better? The Krell, Bryston, and Bedini had *slightly* better low end articulation; the Quicksilver has better transparency, but none of these did all things comprehensively as well as the FetValve.

But, please note that in this world of audiophile over-differentiation that we are in, my comments relative to the FetValve are MINOR, at best. I wouldn't have switched out to a FetValve if I wasn't overwhelmingly pleased and satisfied with what it does. I bought it planning to keep it unchanged (hopefully) for as long as my old amp. The Ultra is a tempting lure, but my hope is that it does the EXR better without changing its fundamental character. Seeker's comments begin to bear that out.

[SeekerFFH]

Tonyptony -
Y'know, I don't think you mentioned what preamp you're using.  Do you have have a Transcendence 7?  If you don't have that (or, of course, a new Ultra), you might find an upgrade in that direction to be at least as worthwhile as upgrading your 550EXR.  The T7 is one great piece - it should rank as a classic in the audio field if there was any justice.  Yes, I have gone on to an Ultra now and it's better, but I didn't upgrade my T7 - I kept it!  (...for a second system I'm building.)
If cost is a factor, now would probably be a good time to go to the T7, as some folks will probably be trading them in on the Ultra.
Just a thought.






tonyptony wrote:
The areas of the EXR that I would maybe look to have improved are: a low end that is a bit more articulate and better integrated with the rest of the frequencies (it sometimes sounds juuust a little full), an improvement in overall transparency (although it doesn't need much of that), and maybe a bit of an improvement in the leading transients.

[tonyptony]

Nanci, I use a Pass X1. Very happy with it; it's among the best preamps period I've ever heard, and a great match with the EXR. The choice of going to a tube based pre has always been one I was unwilling to take. I know that my tweakers brain would get me into endless tube rolling with so many tubes staring me in the face.  If I were younger I'd probably do it, but now I keep a careful balance between just getting down and listening versus audiophilia nervosa (to which I am prone!).

Having said all that, I will readily admit there is great beauty in a well designed tube preamp. My friend's Quicksilver Full Function preamp has never failed to raise goosebumps, even after almost 18 years.