2. amps-preamps
  3. 133419-26

Benchmark AHB2 amplifier - what to expect?

My current amplifier, driven by Benchmark DAC3 HGC, is Rowland model 102.  It is basically couple of Icepower 200ASC modules packed into resonance free heavy case, with additional input differential amp THAT1200.  These modules were used in many small class D amps, including Bel Canto S300 and M300.  I feel that Benchmark AHB2 might be a good choice for few reasons:

- It matches my Benchmark DAC3 (electrically and physically) 
- It has neutral sound, that I like, with very low noise floor (according to reviews)
- It could possibly extend trebles a little more  (trebles are slightly veiled now).

My speakers are Hyperion Sound HPS-938, (a giant killer), but not too many people are familiar with them since company went bankrupt few years ago.  They tend to sound warm (soft dome tweeter), with wonderful midrange.

I'm looking for anyone familiar with AHB2 and class D amps.  I found favorable review of AHB2 vs NAD M22, but it might not apply to my situation since M22 is based on different modules (Hypex).  My birthday is coming in a month and I could buy myself a present.  I will be grateful for any comments.


128x128kijanki

Showing 2 responses by douglas_schroeder

douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
I just finished my review of the Benchmark DAC3 DX and AHB2. They were extremely good with the hybrid horn PureAudioProject Trio15 Horn 1 Speaker (also reviewed). I wasn't sure how well the class AAA technology would work with the horn, but it was exemplary. 
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
I would like to add to the discussion regarding the strong reactions to the AHB2 and other amps. I find that audiophiles  (but never reviewers! LOL) present strong, hyperbolic statements in regards to components or systems that represent emotional reactions, rather than absolute conclusions to the value/sound of the gear. Readers should realize that and not react overly to someone's strong description, as it may not reflect the experience of every user. 

There is such a huge variance in listener preferences that one is bound to encounter strong negative and positive reactions to any given product. John Siau is cordial and correct in his analysis; the Benchmark products would be categorized imo more as "studio sound" rather than smoke-filled club sound. They do not editorialize, but neither did I find them to assault the ears. Many audiophiles seek what is imo a dullish, bloated, euphonic, but distorted sound and they consider that "real". Well, that depends on how much accuracy you want and how much tonal coloration/warmth. Of course, that varies with listener and system. 

Anyway, in my testing in the review I agree that the Benchmark products are neutral in a good way, not sterile. Are there more warm sounding components? Of course. But, often you have an expense associated with obtaining that warmth. I do not wish to give up either extreme definition or tonal richness, and obtaining both can be like balancing on a razor's edge. 

Finally�, don't forget, the speaker system has an overwhelming impact on the final result. It's not terribly convincing to declare a component warm, thin, tube-like or not, based on a listen with one speaker system. One may say, "... in my rig it sounded..." and be accurate, but this in no way captures the span of results possible. Try a product with dynamic, ESL and high efficiency speakers, a few amps and cables, then conclude. Most cannot, so any declaration based on one setup should be taken with a caveat, spoken or not.  

More to discover