Hi All,
This is a follow up on my listening impressions of the UL in comparison to David Berning Quadrature Z mono blocks (200W). I got through this testing a while back, but just never got around to posting my observations. Just to refresh, I plopped in the UL (single unit, stereo) in lieu of my QZ's (no other change to front end or speakers). The rest of my setup consists of the following chain: HQPlayer (USB PCM) -> Aqua La Scala mk2 -> MZ2 -> Amp -> Nola Baby Grand ref 2.
I believe I let the UL sufficiently burn-in before forming my final opinions, although I did not notice very much change over burn-in (there was a little more ease and space after many hours of use, but not as much as I was expecting).
Long story short, the UL falls short of the QZ, but not necessarily in the ways that one might imagine (related to high SPL and dynamic range). In fact, for my listening comparison, I would say I kept the listening levels low (<80dB SPL) to be fair. The volume was well below the maximum for the UL (I used the direct volume input on the UL to bypass the high quality relay based stepped attenuator and used the MZ2 volume control instead, same as I do normally in my setup).
Here are some details. The UL excels in the bass department. I think a number of people on this thread will note the nice bass response of the UL. Surprisingly, bass wakes up nicely with the UL compared to my QZ. Go figure. Its not about the power! Bass is tight and powerful, well defined. Leaves me lacking more from the QZ..
The mids on the UL have a bit more tonal weight than with my QZ. This is a nice plus. I guess this could be flavored by some tube rolling (either amp). I did not tube roll any of the stock tubes in the UL, whereas my QZs have some nice NOS Siemens tubes in them (known to be a little "thin" on the mids). I give the UL a plus here.
UL is a lot more quiet in the background (a lot less hiss with volume at max). Better SNR is a plus.
I personally did not like how the UL was a lot more forward in its presentation than the QZ. I found this irritating, and for me, detracted from the overall positive attributes I previously mentioned. In addition to being more forward, the stage size was markedly reduced in both width, and depth. I lost the "immersion" and "holographic" feel of the music. The UL's presentation, although nice for vocals, was just not up to the task of convincing me of a real 3D performance like the QZ could (especially at night with the lights out). Big difference for me. Because of the lack of space in the sound stage with the UL, I could better localize the sound coming from my speakers with my eyes closed (bad). I cannot do this with the QZ. Overall, there is a lack of spaciousness and "air" in the body of the sound stage (nothing to do with the treble, for which the UL does just fine). This is difficult to describe because the UL appears to have slightly more subtle details available in the treble (probably due to the blacker backgrounds), yet details (layers) that would normally fill a 3D sound stage are just not there with the UL. My personal feeling is overall, the sound is lacking emotional connection compared to my QZ, although there is nothing that is "off" (tone is right, lows, highs, its all there). The QZ, although its a "muscle" amp, plays with supreme finesse down through the first watt. It seemingly outclasses the UL in this first watt of output power, adding more realism to the performance, and then continues to pull away beyond the first watt. The QZ layers music so well. This aspect is tough to beat.
Overall, the sound felt a bit more "stuffy" and congested with the UL. It felt like listening to a more dynamic range compressed CD than when played through the QZ. Things got worse when I cheated and turned up the volume a lot more. The UL's congestion became a lot more apparent (harsher mids/treble). I can't get the UL to play loud comfortably (for me). But then again, I wasn't expecting this. The UL is fast (dynamic), and it performs admirably when pressed (much better than I expected). Both amps share a lot of the same DNA, so it is more like comparing the two amps, rather than contrasting. I believe it is unfair to compare the UL to the QZ at higher SPLs.
I think a little bit of tube rolling in the UL can yield some very tangible improvements (although I have yet to try). From personal experience with tube rolling other gear, I know tube swaps can sometimes yield more spacious presentations. I think the UL can only get better from here. My comparisons were in no way made to detract from the overall enthusiasm of the UL. In fact, writing such a comparison to an amp that is multiples of the UL's price actually is a testament to how great of an audio value the UL is. It can hold its own. For paying a lot more with the QZ, there are tangible benefits, but those benefits may not be worth the price difference for some. I'm very happy with both amps! Please also consider, that my audio priorities may be different than yours, which is why I tried to list positives and negatives. Only the reader can discern if what I like or dislike is important to their ears. In conclusion, even though my write up appears critical, please take it as an endorsement for the UL.
This is a follow up on my listening impressions of the UL in comparison to David Berning Quadrature Z mono blocks (200W). I got through this testing a while back, but just never got around to posting my observations. Just to refresh, I plopped in the UL (single unit, stereo) in lieu of my QZ's (no other change to front end or speakers). The rest of my setup consists of the following chain: HQPlayer (USB PCM) -> Aqua La Scala mk2 -> MZ2 -> Amp -> Nola Baby Grand ref 2.
I believe I let the UL sufficiently burn-in before forming my final opinions, although I did not notice very much change over burn-in (there was a little more ease and space after many hours of use, but not as much as I was expecting).
Long story short, the UL falls short of the QZ, but not necessarily in the ways that one might imagine (related to high SPL and dynamic range). In fact, for my listening comparison, I would say I kept the listening levels low (<80dB SPL) to be fair. The volume was well below the maximum for the UL (I used the direct volume input on the UL to bypass the high quality relay based stepped attenuator and used the MZ2 volume control instead, same as I do normally in my setup).
Here are some details. The UL excels in the bass department. I think a number of people on this thread will note the nice bass response of the UL. Surprisingly, bass wakes up nicely with the UL compared to my QZ. Go figure. Its not about the power! Bass is tight and powerful, well defined. Leaves me lacking more from the QZ..
The mids on the UL have a bit more tonal weight than with my QZ. This is a nice plus. I guess this could be flavored by some tube rolling (either amp). I did not tube roll any of the stock tubes in the UL, whereas my QZs have some nice NOS Siemens tubes in them (known to be a little "thin" on the mids). I give the UL a plus here.
UL is a lot more quiet in the background (a lot less hiss with volume at max). Better SNR is a plus.
I personally did not like how the UL was a lot more forward in its presentation than the QZ. I found this irritating, and for me, detracted from the overall positive attributes I previously mentioned. In addition to being more forward, the stage size was markedly reduced in both width, and depth. I lost the "immersion" and "holographic" feel of the music. The UL's presentation, although nice for vocals, was just not up to the task of convincing me of a real 3D performance like the QZ could (especially at night with the lights out). Big difference for me. Because of the lack of space in the sound stage with the UL, I could better localize the sound coming from my speakers with my eyes closed (bad). I cannot do this with the QZ. Overall, there is a lack of spaciousness and "air" in the body of the sound stage (nothing to do with the treble, for which the UL does just fine). This is difficult to describe because the UL appears to have slightly more subtle details available in the treble (probably due to the blacker backgrounds), yet details (layers) that would normally fill a 3D sound stage are just not there with the UL. My personal feeling is overall, the sound is lacking emotional connection compared to my QZ, although there is nothing that is "off" (tone is right, lows, highs, its all there). The QZ, although its a "muscle" amp, plays with supreme finesse down through the first watt. It seemingly outclasses the UL in this first watt of output power, adding more realism to the performance, and then continues to pull away beyond the first watt. The QZ layers music so well. This aspect is tough to beat.
Overall, the sound felt a bit more "stuffy" and congested with the UL. It felt like listening to a more dynamic range compressed CD than when played through the QZ. Things got worse when I cheated and turned up the volume a lot more. The UL's congestion became a lot more apparent (harsher mids/treble). I can't get the UL to play loud comfortably (for me). But then again, I wasn't expecting this. The UL is fast (dynamic), and it performs admirably when pressed (much better than I expected). Both amps share a lot of the same DNA, so it is more like comparing the two amps, rather than contrasting. I believe it is unfair to compare the UL to the QZ at higher SPLs.
I think a little bit of tube rolling in the UL can yield some very tangible improvements (although I have yet to try). From personal experience with tube rolling other gear, I know tube swaps can sometimes yield more spacious presentations. I think the UL can only get better from here. My comparisons were in no way made to detract from the overall enthusiasm of the UL. In fact, writing such a comparison to an amp that is multiples of the UL's price actually is a testament to how great of an audio value the UL is. It can hold its own. For paying a lot more with the QZ, there are tangible benefits, but those benefits may not be worth the price difference for some. I'm very happy with both amps! Please also consider, that my audio priorities may be different than yours, which is why I tried to list positives and negatives. Only the reader can discern if what I like or dislike is important to their ears. In conclusion, even though my write up appears critical, please take it as an endorsement for the UL.