|Click title to read one, or click date to read all below it.|
A guy i work was a part of that company. according to him t ... Wireless200
Someone bought them out and they became Spittin' Image for a while
Tarsando (Threads | Answers | This Thread)
I bought it from used dealer last year. A rare find in Asia. Great amp but heard the company wind up long ago. What a shame. My .2P pre doesn't come with XLR input. Is this norm for Mirror Image ?
Bc156 (Answers | This Thread)
I never owned any mirror image audio products, but the best audio system I have personally ever heard (at the now defunct Excaliber audio shop in Alexandria, VA circa 1990) consisted of a Quicksilver preamplifier, Mirror Image monoblock amplifiers, and MartinLogan CLS electrostatic speakers. (I don't remember the turn table or cd player that was used.)
This system presented audio images that were beyond holographic in their nearly tangible, palpable reality, without being over-etched. The reality of the audio images was not only in the spatial domain, but also in the temporal domain including exquisite transient response and frequency extension without harshness, glare, or graininess.
Unfortunately, being a graduate student at the time, I could not afford any of the components, much less that whole system.
Bredman (Answers | This Thread)
Wireless200 says that Mirror Image Audio never got reviewed in Stereophile.
This may not be true. J. Gordon Holt states in a another review dated Sep 3, 1987, available at www.stereophile "As I mention in my report on the Mirror Image 1.1S power amp (also in this issue), the problem with a power amplifier is that you can't listen to it without using a loudspeaker." However, I cannot find the review referred to in this article on the Stereophile website.
Mirror Image also got a mention in a comparison with the Audio Research Corporation's (ARC's) M300 monoblock amps in Stereophile by J. Gordon Holt, Vol.10 No.9, Dec 26, 1987 (www.stereophile).
In this article Holt states "Since a pair of M300s costs more than any other stereo amp (or pair) I have ever encountered, I cannot really compare them with "the competition." I can, however, compare them with some other costly units I've heard in recent months... The Krell KSA-100 is a trifle warm and rich, while the Mirror Image is somewhat laid-back, and the original Rowland Research Model Seven a bit more so. On bass performance, ... The Mirror Image 1.1S is slightly leaner and tighter than any of these three, the Rowland 7 just a trifle more so. Of the three, the M300 has the least sonic texturing, being about as liquidly transparent as any amp I have heard. It is followed very closely here by the Krell, Mirror Image, and Rowlands, while the Threshold, by comparison, is a bit dry.
At the high end, the M300 just doesn't warrant comment; it is, for all intents and purposes, perfect in that area. Of the others, the Krell, Rowland, and Mirror Image are all gorgeously sweet and open at the top, but by comparison with the M300, they sound more as if they have an extremely fine grain up there than being completely texture-free. (Until now, they had the best top of any amps I had heard.) ... All of the other amplifiers I mentioned cost substantially less than a pair of M300s. Is it really worth the difference? I would love to be able to say "No way!," but since I can't think of another amplifier that sounds better in so many areas, or even as good, regardless of cost, I can hardly argue with that cost."
Although buried in the article, J. Gordon Holt's comments in Stereophile indicating that a Mirror Image Audio amplifier was among the top four or five amplifiers he has heard, should have put Mirror Image on the map, so to speak. It would be interesting to know what J. Gordon Holt wrote in his review of the Mirror Image 1.1s mentioned above.
Interestingly, the Mirror Image 1.1s gets an unflattering mention in Stereophile by Lewis Lipnick (Dec 3, 1987) where he states in a review of B&W matrix 801 speakers "The Mirror Image was not even in the running, sounding unrefined, raw, and congested. Although I heard all of the above before through my Martin-Logan Monoliths, the differences between these three amplifiers became much more pronounced with the 801s." (www.stereophile)
Lipnick fails to state in the article the preamp used with the Mirror Image amp. In another article on the Klyne SK-5A preamp, published Sep 3, 1987, J. Gordon Holt points out the importance of component matching stating "My point is that the Klyne SK-5A will almost certainly produce more musical naturalness from other systems (brighter in the upper mids and softer at the extreme top) than it did from mine, without any loss of the preamp's remarkable definition and soundstaging performance. (On the other hand, it meshed so poorly with my system when I substituted the Mirror Image 1.1 amplifier for the Thresholds that I didn't care to listen to that combination for more than a few minutes. The sound was thin, dead, and uninvolving.)" (www.stereophile).
Perhaps it was not the lack of a review in Stereophile, but the mixed messages about Mirror Image amplifiers in Stereophile that contributed to Mirror Image Audio's downfall.
Bredman (Answers | This Thread)