Вот Мужики..., ПРИСЛАЛИ мне статейку правда она выпуска 2006 года и сравнивается там старая модель однотактника xa-160 с двухтактником из новой линейки..
насколько я понял в новом ха-160.5 все пожелания учтены и там всё более чем замечательно , но раз уж обещал я этот обзор выложить то вот он:
Pass Labs XA160 and X600.5
Monoblock Power Amplifiers
Anthony H. Cordesman
A Tale of Two Amplifiers
his is not a review for audiophiles who have blundered
into the wrong magazine and think that all
amplifiers sound the same. It is an exploration of
two new amplifiers from the same designer and
firm, of how their sound differs in nuance, and how
they differ in terms of their interface with different
speakers. It also is in some ways a warning about
amplifier reviews and system interfaces, and about the need to
carefully listen to the synergy—or lack of it—between your
power amplifiers, speaker cables, speakers, and listening rooms.
I also should stress that the two amplifiers involved—the
Pass XA160 and X600.5—do sound very much alike. They
should. They are both made by Pass Audio Labs; they are
both designed by teams led by Nelson Pass; they are built on
the same chassis; they both have the same basic “super symmetry”
and two-gainstage circuit topology. They also are
both expensive high-end products where cost is a minor constraint
on performance; both sell for $18,000 the pair.
Both designs are based on long evolutionary experience.
Nelson Pass is one of the most famous amplifier designers in
the high end, and the design teams he has led both at
Threshold and at Pass Labs have consistently pursued accuracy
and sonic purity, not gimmicks or fashion. Like most of the best
high-end designers, Pass has gotten
steadily better. Each generation of
amplifiers he has produced has been a
bit cleaner, has better low-level transients
and dynamics, and is sweeter
and more detailed. He has also been
consistent in the way he “voices” his
amplifiers: open and detailed, not
warm and forgiving; extended highs
and flat levels of upper midrange energy;
equally flat mid and upper bass,
with no gimmicks to give the sound
more punch and “rhythm.”
Like most audiophiles, I’m not
willing to make one more compromise
than I have to. I want both power and nuance. I want an amplifier
that can drive virtually any speaker, regardless of character
and load. I want it to sound exactly the same every time I turn
it on, so I can be sure that I hear the real differences between
the components I’m reviewing in my reference system. I also
want it to be both neutral and “musical” in the sense that it is
revealing and does not color or exaggerate, but also is not “analytic”
or fatiguing.
Pass Labs has delivered what I personally want in one of my
reference components ever since it introduced its Aleph series. I
have paid close attention to the Pass
X-series ever since, and when the
series of events that led to this review
began, I was using the Pass X600.
Shortly after the XA160 was introduced,
however, I replaced my Pass
X600.5 with it. I chose the XA160s
over the X600.5s because—like many
preceding Class A designs and tube
designs—they offered a slight advantage
in terms of nuance in low-to-midlevel
passages. They improved the air,
life, harmonic integrity, and low-mid
level dynamics of the music. They also
tilted the timbre slightly towards the
upper bass and lower midrange—which helps compensate for
the bright upper midrange and close-in perspective of far too
many modern recordings. Plus my main reference speakers—the
TAD-1s and Theil 7.2s—have very extended highs and more
upper midrange energy than most reference-quality speakers.
Pass Labs has
delivered what I
want in a reference
component ever
since it introduced
its Aleph series
The Key Design and Technical Differences Between
the XA160 and X600.5
he primary design and
technical differences
between the XA160 and
X600.5 are in their output
circuitry and power. The
differences in their specifications
for distortion, frequency range,
and flatness of response are virtually
negligible. The X600.5, however,
is a 600-watt amplifier into 8
ohms, and the XA160 is 160 watts;
the X600.5 has a maximum current
of 25 amps and the XA160 of
7 amps. The X600.5 has a faster
slew rate.
The power output of the X600.5
increases to 900 watts into 4-ohm
loads. The power of the XA160
drops sharply into lower impedances.
The X600.5 has a nominal
damping factor of approximately
1000, and the XA160 has a nominal
damping factor of 30. In terms of
basic design, the XA160 is a pure
Class A design while the X600.5 has
a Class A initial gainstage, but the
output stage only operates in Class
A at low-to-medium-low power levels
before shifting to Class B.
I asked Nelson Pass to explain
the difference in design and sound
quality from his perspective, and he
put it this way: “The very first X
amplifier was the X1000 and was
intended to illustrate the capability
of the SuperSymmetric circuit by
delivering more high-quality power
with two gainstages than anyone
had ever seen. Of course, we followed
that up with the rest of the X
product line.
“The Class AB X amplifiers did very
well for us, but this is a company that
usually has at least some Class A
amplifiers for sale, and as the Aleph
series faded,we looked to build Class
A X amplifiers. They would not have
the higher power of the AB circuits
and they would operate less efficiently.
An XA160 would deliver 160
watts and the X600 output 600 watts,
but they both required the same
amount of resources and idled at 500
watts or so.
“The X.5 and XA have a slightly
different customer base. The X.5
delivers more power and a lot more
current. It is appropriate to tougher
loads and for more cost-sensitive
customers. The XA sounds better in
general, but this assumes 6-ohm
impedance or higher, and lesser
power requirements.”
These differences between the X600 and XA160 occurred,
however, as much because of amplifier and speaker interactions
as because of the inherent sonic character of the two amplifiers.
Moreover, I gave something up in switching to the XA160s. As
any reviewer can tell you, there is often only a marginal correlation
between the technical measurement of an amplifier’s
power and its real-world musical performance in a given system.
The X600s, however, had much more apparent power
than the XA160s with my relatively power-hungry TAD-1s
and Theil 7.2s. There was a very clear loss of high-level dynamic
capability and musical energy and life with full orchestral
music and grand opera, and not just with sonic spectaculars.
These differences were not significant with more efficient,
easier-to-drive, or less-capable speakers. The Polk LSi-15 is efficient
enough in any actual system and listening room that
amplifier power is less important. It cannot reproduce the same
level of dynamics as the TAD-1 and Thiel 7.2. The Quad 989
is a very good speaker, but lifelike, high dynamic levels are also
simply not its forte. With the Polks and Quads, the XA160
was clearly the better choice, and one that did not involve any
meaningful sonic sacrifices.
At the same time, the XA160 did not do as well with a truly
difficult load like the Spendor BC-1. The amp loses nearly half
its rated power into four-ohm loads, and my reference speakers
are nominally 4-ohm speakers. It did not have the X600’s amazing
capability to control the speaker almost regardless of load.
This became equally clear in terms of some aspects of the Thiel
C7.2’s performance at more moderate listening levels, and in
control over the bass in the TAD-1. The XA160 is not particularly
speaker- or cable-sensitive. In fact, it is much less sensitive
than many high-end solid-state amps and many vacuum tube
amps. It is, however, more sensitive than the X600.
Accordingly, when Pass announced the X600.5 and
claimed it had more of the virtues of the XA160, but still had
all the power I wanted, asking to audition it was an obvious
choice. You don’t have to be a reviewer, or even an audiophile,
to want the best of both or all worlds in a single option.
Well, I didn’t get the perfect solution or the ultimate best
of both worlds. The XA160 still outperforms the X600.5 in
the areas where it outperformed the X600. This comes through
if you compare the two amps with a highly revealing and calibrated
recording like the new Dolby Labs “Resolution
Project”—an extraordinary musical test record that compares
the same selections of jazz and classical music at different digital
sampling rates from the lowest up to 24-bit/192kHz.
The X600.5 is, however, a serious sonic upgrade from the
X600. It does everything better in the areas where the XA160 is
still better and is a very close match. It does better in high-level
dynamics and the deep bass than the X600. It also shows that
power really does make a difference. Music comes more alive.
What sometimes seems like a touch of hardness in your speakers
or source material is revealed to be the amplifier’s limitations in
handling sudden loud peaks. The same, strangely enough, can be
true of the softness or lack of detail in sustained organ swells.
High-power amplifiers almost always seem to have better
control over the speaker, particularly in the bass. This is true
even in tube amplifiers with low damping factors, but it is
especially true of solid-state amps with high damping factors.
The low bass is more powerful and cleaner, the midbass is
tighter, and the transition from the upper bass to lower
midrange is cleaner.
If you have a speaker that can be biamped, you can have the
best of both worlds. Put a pair of X600.5s on the woofer and a
pair of XA160s on the midrange and treble. This was the ideal
solution with my TAD-1s, although I should stress I live in a
detached house with reasonably tolerant neighbors. There is the
little matter, however, of cost. The combination of a pair of
XA160s and X600.5s is some $36,000.
Moreover, biamping does impose some minor trade-offs of
its own. You’ll get an argument on this from some of the best
reviewers and designers in the business. But to me, biamping
always imposes at least some cost in the coherence of solo
instruments, solo voice, and great chamber music and jazz
recordings. Important as combining high-level dynamic contrasts
with midrange air and sweetness can be at very high levels,
there is no such thing as a free launch (pun intended).
We are talking about two great amplifiers here, some of the
best equipment around. The Pass Labs XA160 and X600.5
should definitely be on your auditioning list if your taste in
sound is anything like mine, and if it isn’t, you should audition
them anyhow simply to hear them and decide whether or not
your taste has changed. &
SPECIFICATIONS
Pass XA160
Power Output: 160 watts into 8 ohms
Dimensions 19" x 11.5" x 22"
Weight 150 lbs.
Pass X600.5
Power Output: 600 watts into 8 ohms
Dimensions 19" x 11.5" x 22"
Weight 150 lbs.
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT
VPI TNT HX-X turntable and HWJr 12.5 arm; Van den Hul Black Beauty,
Sumiko Celebration, and Koetsu Onyx Cartridges; McIntosh MVP-861
SACD/DVD-A/DVD player; PS Audio Lambda CD transport (modified);
TacT 2.2X digital preamp-room correction-equalizer-D/A convertor; Pass
Xono phono preamp; Pass X0.2 stereo preamp
Aerial Acoustic Model 9 Loudspeaker
Our design goal for the Model 9 was to exceed the benchmark
performance of its predecessor, the Model 10T, while
improving both sensitivity and appearance. As with the 10T,
we also wanted to provide performance comparable to speakers
at double its price.
Exceeding the 10T’s midrange and treble openness, naturalness,
and transparency was particularly difficult. The
result speaks for itself as Jacob’s comments reveal.
In the bass, we used 4 expensive, long-stroke 7.1"
woofers to provide exceptional quickness and control with
the cone area equivalent to a 14" woofer, but without the
larger driver’s limitations. This is also how we increased
power handling and achieved 90dB sensitivity. Low frequency
extension was not sacrificed. Downward venting
was used to provide more constant loading and better
placement flexibility than rear venting. The front baffle is
8.5" narrow for good imaging. The slim profile cabinet is
well-braced for low coloration, and has large internal volume
for deep bass extension.
Regarding overall performance, we appreciated Jacob’s
various comments such as “luscious midrange, overall
smoothness, detail, authority, image stability, splendid linearity,
and dynamic ease.” We would like to add that these
characteristics are constant from quiet to thunderous levels.
During our visit, we did not have a chance to hear the
speakers in Jacob’s new listening room since it was under
construction. We set up temporarily in an untreated, square
room, which exhibited the usual glare and lumpy bass common
to such rooms. Normally we like to verify that the final
setup is good. I can only guess that placement was not optimum
(dynamic speakers generally require different positioning
than planars), or that the new room, whose dimensions
and wall treatments were changed, was not yet familiar. Our
experience, and that of our customers, is that the Model 9
does not have the problems noted.
Once again, we appreciate this opportunity and welcome
any questions. We hope readers will seek out and visit displaying
Aerial dealers so they can hear for themselves what
Jacob found so special in the new Model 9s.
MICHAEL KELLY
AERIAL ACOUSTICS
Arcam AV9 Controller
We are so happy you like our AV9 processor. As to your
impressions of the sonics of the AV9 we see no issue with
Alan’s conclusions. He seems to have hit on exactly what
Arcam intended to do. John Dawson, the founder of Arcam,
writes “Arcam balanced the sound of analog inputs of the
AV8/9 to suit analog (i.e. mostly music) playback, whereas
[we] realized the digital inputs were most likely to be assomanufacturer
насколько я понял в новом ха-160.5 все пожелания учтены и там всё более чем замечательно , но раз уж обещал я этот обзор выложить то вот он:
Pass Labs XA160 and X600.5
Monoblock Power Amplifiers
Anthony H. Cordesman
A Tale of Two Amplifiers
his is not a review for audiophiles who have blundered
into the wrong magazine and think that all
amplifiers sound the same. It is an exploration of
two new amplifiers from the same designer and
firm, of how their sound differs in nuance, and how
they differ in terms of their interface with different
speakers. It also is in some ways a warning about
amplifier reviews and system interfaces, and about the need to
carefully listen to the synergy—or lack of it—between your
power amplifiers, speaker cables, speakers, and listening rooms.
I also should stress that the two amplifiers involved—the
Pass XA160 and X600.5—do sound very much alike. They
should. They are both made by Pass Audio Labs; they are
both designed by teams led by Nelson Pass; they are built on
the same chassis; they both have the same basic “super symmetry”
and two-gainstage circuit topology. They also are
both expensive high-end products where cost is a minor constraint
on performance; both sell for $18,000 the pair.
Both designs are based on long evolutionary experience.
Nelson Pass is one of the most famous amplifier designers in
the high end, and the design teams he has led both at
Threshold and at Pass Labs have consistently pursued accuracy
and sonic purity, not gimmicks or fashion. Like most of the best
high-end designers, Pass has gotten
steadily better. Each generation of
amplifiers he has produced has been a
bit cleaner, has better low-level transients
and dynamics, and is sweeter
and more detailed. He has also been
consistent in the way he “voices” his
amplifiers: open and detailed, not
warm and forgiving; extended highs
and flat levels of upper midrange energy;
equally flat mid and upper bass,
with no gimmicks to give the sound
more punch and “rhythm.”
Like most audiophiles, I’m not
willing to make one more compromise
than I have to. I want both power and nuance. I want an amplifier
that can drive virtually any speaker, regardless of character
and load. I want it to sound exactly the same every time I turn
it on, so I can be sure that I hear the real differences between
the components I’m reviewing in my reference system. I also
want it to be both neutral and “musical” in the sense that it is
revealing and does not color or exaggerate, but also is not “analytic”
or fatiguing.
Pass Labs has delivered what I personally want in one of my
reference components ever since it introduced its Aleph series. I
have paid close attention to the Pass
X-series ever since, and when the
series of events that led to this review
began, I was using the Pass X600.
Shortly after the XA160 was introduced,
however, I replaced my Pass
X600.5 with it. I chose the XA160s
over the X600.5s because—like many
preceding Class A designs and tube
designs—they offered a slight advantage
in terms of nuance in low-to-midlevel
passages. They improved the air,
life, harmonic integrity, and low-mid
level dynamics of the music. They also
tilted the timbre slightly towards the
upper bass and lower midrange—which helps compensate for
the bright upper midrange and close-in perspective of far too
many modern recordings. Plus my main reference speakers—the
TAD-1s and Theil 7.2s—have very extended highs and more
upper midrange energy than most reference-quality speakers.
Pass Labs has
delivered what I
want in a reference
component ever
since it introduced
its Aleph series
The Key Design and Technical Differences Between
the XA160 and X600.5
he primary design and
technical differences
between the XA160 and
X600.5 are in their output
circuitry and power. The
differences in their specifications
for distortion, frequency range,
and flatness of response are virtually
negligible. The X600.5, however,
is a 600-watt amplifier into 8
ohms, and the XA160 is 160 watts;
the X600.5 has a maximum current
of 25 amps and the XA160 of
7 amps. The X600.5 has a faster
slew rate.
The power output of the X600.5
increases to 900 watts into 4-ohm
loads. The power of the XA160
drops sharply into lower impedances.
The X600.5 has a nominal
damping factor of approximately
1000, and the XA160 has a nominal
damping factor of 30. In terms of
basic design, the XA160 is a pure
Class A design while the X600.5 has
a Class A initial gainstage, but the
output stage only operates in Class
A at low-to-medium-low power levels
before shifting to Class B.
I asked Nelson Pass to explain
the difference in design and sound
quality from his perspective, and he
put it this way: “The very first X
amplifier was the X1000 and was
intended to illustrate the capability
of the SuperSymmetric circuit by
delivering more high-quality power
with two gainstages than anyone
had ever seen. Of course, we followed
that up with the rest of the X
product line.
“The Class AB X amplifiers did very
well for us, but this is a company that
usually has at least some Class A
amplifiers for sale, and as the Aleph
series faded,we looked to build Class
A X amplifiers. They would not have
the higher power of the AB circuits
and they would operate less efficiently.
An XA160 would deliver 160
watts and the X600 output 600 watts,
but they both required the same
amount of resources and idled at 500
watts or so.
“The X.5 and XA have a slightly
different customer base. The X.5
delivers more power and a lot more
current. It is appropriate to tougher
loads and for more cost-sensitive
customers. The XA sounds better in
general, but this assumes 6-ohm
impedance or higher, and lesser
power requirements.”
These differences between the X600 and XA160 occurred,
however, as much because of amplifier and speaker interactions
as because of the inherent sonic character of the two amplifiers.
Moreover, I gave something up in switching to the XA160s. As
any reviewer can tell you, there is often only a marginal correlation
between the technical measurement of an amplifier’s
power and its real-world musical performance in a given system.
The X600s, however, had much more apparent power
than the XA160s with my relatively power-hungry TAD-1s
and Theil 7.2s. There was a very clear loss of high-level dynamic
capability and musical energy and life with full orchestral
music and grand opera, and not just with sonic spectaculars.
These differences were not significant with more efficient,
easier-to-drive, or less-capable speakers. The Polk LSi-15 is efficient
enough in any actual system and listening room that
amplifier power is less important. It cannot reproduce the same
level of dynamics as the TAD-1 and Thiel 7.2. The Quad 989
is a very good speaker, but lifelike, high dynamic levels are also
simply not its forte. With the Polks and Quads, the XA160
was clearly the better choice, and one that did not involve any
meaningful sonic sacrifices.
At the same time, the XA160 did not do as well with a truly
difficult load like the Spendor BC-1. The amp loses nearly half
its rated power into four-ohm loads, and my reference speakers
are nominally 4-ohm speakers. It did not have the X600’s amazing
capability to control the speaker almost regardless of load.
This became equally clear in terms of some aspects of the Thiel
C7.2’s performance at more moderate listening levels, and in
control over the bass in the TAD-1. The XA160 is not particularly
speaker- or cable-sensitive. In fact, it is much less sensitive
than many high-end solid-state amps and many vacuum tube
amps. It is, however, more sensitive than the X600.
Accordingly, when Pass announced the X600.5 and
claimed it had more of the virtues of the XA160, but still had
all the power I wanted, asking to audition it was an obvious
choice. You don’t have to be a reviewer, or even an audiophile,
to want the best of both or all worlds in a single option.
Well, I didn’t get the perfect solution or the ultimate best
of both worlds. The XA160 still outperforms the X600.5 in
the areas where it outperformed the X600. This comes through
if you compare the two amps with a highly revealing and calibrated
recording like the new Dolby Labs “Resolution
Project”—an extraordinary musical test record that compares
the same selections of jazz and classical music at different digital
sampling rates from the lowest up to 24-bit/192kHz.
The X600.5 is, however, a serious sonic upgrade from the
X600. It does everything better in the areas where the XA160 is
still better and is a very close match. It does better in high-level
dynamics and the deep bass than the X600. It also shows that
power really does make a difference. Music comes more alive.
What sometimes seems like a touch of hardness in your speakers
or source material is revealed to be the amplifier’s limitations in
handling sudden loud peaks. The same, strangely enough, can be
true of the softness or lack of detail in sustained organ swells.
High-power amplifiers almost always seem to have better
control over the speaker, particularly in the bass. This is true
even in tube amplifiers with low damping factors, but it is
especially true of solid-state amps with high damping factors.
The low bass is more powerful and cleaner, the midbass is
tighter, and the transition from the upper bass to lower
midrange is cleaner.
If you have a speaker that can be biamped, you can have the
best of both worlds. Put a pair of X600.5s on the woofer and a
pair of XA160s on the midrange and treble. This was the ideal
solution with my TAD-1s, although I should stress I live in a
detached house with reasonably tolerant neighbors. There is the
little matter, however, of cost. The combination of a pair of
XA160s and X600.5s is some $36,000.
Moreover, biamping does impose some minor trade-offs of
its own. You’ll get an argument on this from some of the best
reviewers and designers in the business. But to me, biamping
always imposes at least some cost in the coherence of solo
instruments, solo voice, and great chamber music and jazz
recordings. Important as combining high-level dynamic contrasts
with midrange air and sweetness can be at very high levels,
there is no such thing as a free launch (pun intended).
We are talking about two great amplifiers here, some of the
best equipment around. The Pass Labs XA160 and X600.5
should definitely be on your auditioning list if your taste in
sound is anything like mine, and if it isn’t, you should audition
them anyhow simply to hear them and decide whether or not
your taste has changed. &
SPECIFICATIONS
Pass XA160
Power Output: 160 watts into 8 ohms
Dimensions 19" x 11.5" x 22"
Weight 150 lbs.
Pass X600.5
Power Output: 600 watts into 8 ohms
Dimensions 19" x 11.5" x 22"
Weight 150 lbs.
ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT
VPI TNT HX-X turntable and HWJr 12.5 arm; Van den Hul Black Beauty,
Sumiko Celebration, and Koetsu Onyx Cartridges; McIntosh MVP-861
SACD/DVD-A/DVD player; PS Audio Lambda CD transport (modified);
TacT 2.2X digital preamp-room correction-equalizer-D/A convertor; Pass
Xono phono preamp; Pass X0.2 stereo preamp
Aerial Acoustic Model 9 Loudspeaker
Our design goal for the Model 9 was to exceed the benchmark
performance of its predecessor, the Model 10T, while
improving both sensitivity and appearance. As with the 10T,
we also wanted to provide performance comparable to speakers
at double its price.
Exceeding the 10T’s midrange and treble openness, naturalness,
and transparency was particularly difficult. The
result speaks for itself as Jacob’s comments reveal.
In the bass, we used 4 expensive, long-stroke 7.1"
woofers to provide exceptional quickness and control with
the cone area equivalent to a 14" woofer, but without the
larger driver’s limitations. This is also how we increased
power handling and achieved 90dB sensitivity. Low frequency
extension was not sacrificed. Downward venting
was used to provide more constant loading and better
placement flexibility than rear venting. The front baffle is
8.5" narrow for good imaging. The slim profile cabinet is
well-braced for low coloration, and has large internal volume
for deep bass extension.
Regarding overall performance, we appreciated Jacob’s
various comments such as “luscious midrange, overall
smoothness, detail, authority, image stability, splendid linearity,
and dynamic ease.” We would like to add that these
characteristics are constant from quiet to thunderous levels.
During our visit, we did not have a chance to hear the
speakers in Jacob’s new listening room since it was under
construction. We set up temporarily in an untreated, square
room, which exhibited the usual glare and lumpy bass common
to such rooms. Normally we like to verify that the final
setup is good. I can only guess that placement was not optimum
(dynamic speakers generally require different positioning
than planars), or that the new room, whose dimensions
and wall treatments were changed, was not yet familiar. Our
experience, and that of our customers, is that the Model 9
does not have the problems noted.
Once again, we appreciate this opportunity and welcome
any questions. We hope readers will seek out and visit displaying
Aerial dealers so they can hear for themselves what
Jacob found so special in the new Model 9s.
MICHAEL KELLY
AERIAL ACOUSTICS
Arcam AV9 Controller
We are so happy you like our AV9 processor. As to your
impressions of the sonics of the AV9 we see no issue with
Alan’s conclusions. He seems to have hit on exactly what
Arcam intended to do. John Dawson, the founder of Arcam,
writes “Arcam balanced the sound of analog inputs of the
AV8/9 to suit analog (i.e. mostly music) playback, whereas
[we] realized the digital inputs were most likely to be assomanufacturer
