You already measured these qualities by enjoying the Pass more and realizing what makes you enjoy the music ! That’s all you need to do.. Now you can listen to the music and not the gear..
Unfair Competition: Orchard Audio Bosc Monoblocks vs. Pass Labs XA30.8
After hearing a friend's Orchard Audio Starkrimson Integrated Amplifier in my system (https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/9074) a few weeks ago (it sounded pretty good!), I arranged to audition a pair of used Bosc $1500 monoblocks (now called Starkrimson) for close listening. Was curious to see just how well this "distortion-free" class D amp (https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/orchard-audio-bosc-pdf.47492/) could replicate my beloved Pass labs class A beast costing >$6000 new. Close listening was done after several days of casual listening/break-in.
Bosc - The Good:
- Wide and tall soundstage
- Convincing central image
- Extremely quiet -- less baseline hiss than the Pass
- Fast transients
- Excellent instrument decay/echo
- Obviously more energy and space efficient
Bosc - The Not as Good
- Lacked soundstage depth/separation
- Less vibrant and engaging, lacking difficult-to-articulate "magic" of the Pass
- Inconsistent bass performance, some tracks sounded firmer and tighter, others weaker than the Pass
- "Flat sounding" with less fleshed-out midrange
After having the Bosc in my system for a few days and listening to nothing but that with a variety of music, I would have been very happy to keep it for the long-term. It was only after A/B with my Pass that I realized what I was missing.
Not a fair comparison dollar-wise, but I was, perhaps naively, prepared to be convinced the Bosc could go head to head. A nice reminder of what I enjoy about the Pass in my system, though. How to measure these qualities, though?
Bosc - The Good:
- Wide and tall soundstage
- Convincing central image
- Extremely quiet -- less baseline hiss than the Pass
- Fast transients
- Excellent instrument decay/echo
- Obviously more energy and space efficient
Bosc - The Not as Good
- Lacked soundstage depth/separation
- Less vibrant and engaging, lacking difficult-to-articulate "magic" of the Pass
- Inconsistent bass performance, some tracks sounded firmer and tighter, others weaker than the Pass
- "Flat sounding" with less fleshed-out midrange
After having the Bosc in my system for a few days and listening to nothing but that with a variety of music, I would have been very happy to keep it for the long-term. It was only after A/B with my Pass that I realized what I was missing.
Not a fair comparison dollar-wise, but I was, perhaps naively, prepared to be convinced the Bosc could go head to head. A nice reminder of what I enjoy about the Pass in my system, though. How to measure these qualities, though?
26 responses Add your response
I agree with @mikem. Given the stated listening impressions I’d find the Pass amplifier to be clearly superior (Based on what I consider to be more important/meaningful criteria). More "vibrant and engaging", less "flat" with a more "fleshed out midrange". This to me means a higher and deeper level of musical -emotional involvement and more as one (Pulled into) with the performance. The Pass is connecting you more to the music and thus increasing listening enjoyment and pleasure. The "magic" referred to by the OP. This would be an easy choice for me based on the above described amplifiers direct comparison. Charles |
I believe that Nelson Pass is acutely aware of the sonic characteristics of every amplifier he designs. Look at his purposeful manipulation of his First Watt amplifiers. Each one distinctly different from its sibbling. Exactly what he wanted to achieve. He has also created definite sonic signatures amongst the various models of the Pass Labs amplifiers. He "understands". Charles |
Nice write up, what did you use to drive the older BOSC amp? You could have had an impedance mismatch between the two devices. The BOSC amps have a 5k input impedance where the Starkrimson amps have a 44k input impedance. So if you were driving the amps with a passive or tube pre you would not have gotten the most of them. |
Very interesting to hear - just based on the data, I'd suspect the Bosc are giving the more 'correct' or 'transparent' presentation (fx. based on my own experience i with some such amps/gear, I suspect that 'inconsistent' bass is something in the tracks, that the Bosc is just showing more clearly) - but that of course doesn't change the fact that the Pass might be more enjoyable to listen to, which is the point at the end of the day... So if you prefer the pass, and have them, then that choice is ease I suppose - Pass certainly has a reputation for being enjoyable :) |
Thanks for the comparison. I'm just about to give the Orchard monos a trial, deciding that 600w idle and an hour warmup is just becoming burdensome with my pair of Aleph 2 monos. I'm unwilling to give up their richness and very deep stage. But being careful to compare different apples (Pass' iterations) with an orange (from a different Orchard!), I wonder how my old Alephs compare with the OP's XA30.8? I'm not lacking for bass slam (Verity Parsifal Encore w/ 4ohm woofs), but maybe they're a little soft up top? |
I think draaglah is spot on. I have in front of me right now an Ayre V-5xe, Ayre AX-5 Twenty, Krell K-300i and a Cherry MEGAschino (crazy powerful). In order of coloring the music from most to least I really believe it's AX-5, V-5xe, MEGAschino, then Krell. The last 2 are close. As far as my enjoyment, I like them all and would choose one over the other depending on mood, time of day and music I'm listening to. As an all arounder I'd choose the AX-5 Twenty HT pass through using my Primaluna EVO400 preamp. I was at a high end dealer yesterday who had Pass monos hooked up to some $23k speakers and an Aesthetix CD player (I believe). I didn't like the sound at all. It's like we pay more for the designer's choice of coloring. I don't believe this is a bad thing I think it just is what it is. |
| Post removed |
@emil, bingo. can't buy some of the needed parts till late February. |
This is getting interesting. After hearing the more open top octave of the Starkrimson monos compared to my old Aleph 2 monos...with NO compromise in harmonic richness nor soundstage depth, I sold the Alephs, their Nordost SPM 8' cables, as well Red Dawn pre/pow ICs, deciding to make my olwn solid pure silver 1' links from the Starks to my Parsifal Encores...as well new ICs and Parsifal jumpers. The reduction in smear and sandiness on brush strokes with the Ag links is real. I remporarily had to use a Stark Stereo Ultra unit, reverting to old AudioQuest speaker cables, and indeed the top octave res dropped. Reinserting the Stark monos with 1' Ag cables restored the improved res. NOT expectation bias, as I've had enough swaps to be not experiencing placebo. The point is that the clearer top octrave res of the modern Starks is simply more revealing of cables and upstream sources...for good or bad. Even though it';; probably be less forgiving of a larger portion of mediocre recordings, I'm willing to live with that to get a "fresher", VERY realistic presentation. I attend many live classical and acoustic performances, and the Starks simply bring me closer than the old Alephs. NOW, that's not to say that Nelson's NEWER designs aren't more resolving...and maybe less "dark" sounding indeed, as so many love his XA25, for example, as well the big boys. Given that the Starks only consume 8w idle means they're on 24/7, without the "juicy" (300w idle each!) i hour warmup the Alephs required. Class D with GaN is indeed a brave new world.... |
The thread-head's comment that the Stark's midrange disn't seem as fleshed out as his Pass amp is intriguing. I wonder if that Class A "magic" or the possibility that because the Starks sound FLATTER that one hears less midrange because there's no top octave perceived droop (or darkness?). Which Pass amp, by the way? Foilks tell me the old Alephs were wonderful...but not as open up top. That's my perspective now too. |
| Post removed |
Spent the weekend shooting out the Orchard Starks against a few amps. It’s an amazing little amp. FYI my room is completely treated and flat as I use it for mastering music and it needs to be. I currently use Sonics Allegra speakers that have a fully rebuilt external crossover consisting of about 9k in parts and direct wires to each driver. (Cardas rhodium posts, silver wire etc…) needless to say my room is accurate and these speakers are very revealing/neutral. I’ve had plenty of class d amps in my space (nad c298, various wired4sound Monos, bel canto ref500m, Merrill Audio thors… a few more… and I never got along with them. I’d always go back to my Magnus Class A 340 amp or… there was always a grain or something that felt off in the sustain/decay that left the music feeling like a science experiment or something…
The Starks are amazing little amps! Non of the grain or distracting artifacts were present in what I’ve experienced with other class d amps. F2 sounded veiled and filtered compared to the Starks. These little guys really seemed like straight wire with gain. I was really impressed how the music presented so clearly, the reverb/space on orchestral music decay and air felt so open and endless… downside was the bass lacked a little impact compared to the Magnus 340. I’m hoping to demo the Ultra soon or just buy one… if you like an accurate sound these amps really out class any other class D I’ve heard. Hoping the Ultra gives me that bass energy… if everything else is there along with the bass I imagine they are awesome. I also heard the Starks on my friends Zu Def supremes and they really reveal the sound of those speakers… cool little amps!
|
@dweaton I'm glad you enjoyed the monoblocks. The ultra amps will have better bass just from the nature of them having more power, otherwise, they will sound identical to the monoblocks. |
