Boulder 2150 Stereophile review
- Thread starter a.wayne
- Start date
audio.bill
Active member
As I recall this review it was very favorable objectively (measurements) but not definitively so subjectively... :skeptical:
KeithR
Active member
he basically said it was dry with no flow between notes - the signs of an amp that uses negative feedback.
honestly, i have always found Boulder to sound like this though despite the impressive build quality
honestly, i have always found Boulder to sound like this though despite the impressive build quality
a.wayne
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #6
Keith,
Yes, but he described it's speed and attack as one of the best, the extended decay he is describing is usually from added thd and mostly never in the recording, easy to obtain with reduced amp bias. Again the Darts are not a true voltage source, the Boulder is , it's measurements tells me it will be the better choice for an all out assault vs the Darts, speaker load and phase angle be damned.
Mikey's system is optimized for the Darts and while both are great amplifiers if he had optimized his system for the Boulder, the Darts would sound slow and unnatural by comparison , well IMO, IME...
Yes, but he described it's speed and attack as one of the best, the extended decay he is describing is usually from added thd and mostly never in the recording, easy to obtain with reduced amp bias. Again the Darts are not a true voltage source, the Boulder is , it's measurements tells me it will be the better choice for an all out assault vs the Darts, speaker load and phase angle be damned.
Mikey's system is optimized for the Darts and while both are great amplifiers if he had optimized his system for the Boulder, the Darts would sound slow and unnatural by comparison , well IMO, IME...
After this compare, the 2160 made it to the Recommended list components of Zero Distortion along with Vitus in the expensive SS category
KeithR
Active member
that's exactly the problem with Boulder - its unnatural leading edge and attack.
at least MF doesn't pull any punches - unlike the softies at TAS.
at least MF doesn't pull any punches - unlike the softies at TAS.
A friend of mine tried this amp. He owns a Vitus SS-101 and is looking for replacement to drive his Dynaudio Consequence Ultimate Edition. So far, he have tried the MBL 9008A, Vitus SM 011, Accuphase A200, Dan D'Agostino Progression monos and Boulder 2160.
He was very disappointed when he tried the 2160. He said that both the Vitus amps and especially the Dan D'Agostino Progression monos - which he probably will end up buying - are 'in another class altogether' when compared to this Boulder monster amp.
He was very disappointed when he tried the 2160. He said that both the Vitus amps and especially the Dan D'Agostino Progression monos - which he probably will end up buying - are 'in another class altogether' when compared to this Boulder monster amp.
KeithR
Active member
Fremer said it was the sustain between attacks and decays actually.
I can't help to think that all those rows of transistors screws things up, but who knows.
KeithR
Active member
That's quite the list of amp demos!
a.wayne
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #13
Adam,
I can believe that , i have heard all the others you have mentioned and they went from poor to barely good sounding and very good in other setups, so i know setup can be an issue , because , on way or the other , they are all seriously built and great amplifiers in their own right, so when the results dont add up i dont jump to say amplifier, there is usually some mis-match and a lack of optimization somewhere ..
I can believe that , i have heard all the others you have mentioned and they went from poor to barely good sounding and very good in other setups, so i know setup can be an issue , because , on way or the other , they are all seriously built and great amplifiers in their own right, so when the results dont add up i dont jump to say amplifier, there is usually some mis-match and a lack of optimization somewhere ..
Well that's what I have said too - that Vitus and Dan D's rock as well - all three are different sounds. Vitus is liquid, flowing, dense, full bodied...Boulder is cleaner, faster, and can sound sterile if not matched properly. A bit like Spectral, but more class A sound (as compared to Spectral) and micro inflections. Dan Momentums were the best I have heard on Wilson Alexandrias. I think people have to dem all as they are all very different sounds
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,081
We have all seen amps that impress on the test bench but fail to move people who listen to them.
a.wayne
Well-known member
- Thread Author
- #17
So what does that mean , I have heard many "highly " rated hi-fi setups that fail to move , even from those claiming a movement ..
Setup is everything . matching amplifier to load is very important, the load changes everything , Boulder is unique in their approach to bias and FB compensation vs load . On an 8 ohm high sensitivity load I can see many liking something different , at 4/2 ohm the field becomes pretty narrow, throw in low sensitivity and it's another ball game again ...
Then Again MEP, you thought FMA was junk ...
Setup is everything . matching amplifier to load is very important, the load changes everything , Boulder is unique in their approach to bias and FB compensation vs load . On an 8 ohm high sensitivity load I can see many liking something different , at 4/2 ohm the field becomes pretty narrow, throw in low sensitivity and it's another ball game again ...
Then Again MEP, you thought FMA was junk ...
He had the Progression monos, not the Momentums.
And it was not the case of just beeing 'different'. It is easy to dismiss his choice by stating that he was using the Vitus amp, which are on the warm side of things, vs the utra transparent and fast Boulder. The Boulder was neither ultra transparent nor ultradynamic (that title had to go to the MBL amp). It was just not up to the level of the other amps he tried.
Mike Lavigne
Member
So what does that mean , I have heard many "highly " rated hi-fi setups that fail to move , even from those claiming a movement ..
Setup is everything . matching amplifier to load is very important, the load changes everything , Boulder is unique in their approach to bias and FB compensation vs load . On an 8 ohm high sensitivity load I can see many liking something different , at 4/2 ohm the field becomes pretty narrow, throw in low sensitivity and it's another ball game again ...
Then Again MEP, you thought FMA was junk ...
so are you saying the efficiency of the Wilson XLF is the problem in the equation between the Boulder 2150 and the darTZeel 458's?
if so, what about the Wilson Alexandra X-2 or X-2 mK2's (which are only slightly less efficient)?
hard to imagine the most popular 'mega speakers' would not work with a Boulder? I'm sure it's a (thee) target speaker for their products.
or is Fremer telling it right; that is just the way the Boulder sounds (to him)?
why would Boulder have Fremer review the amps if those speakers were a bad match?
mep
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 5,081
So what does that mean , I have heard many "highly " rated hi-fi setups that fail to move , even from those claiming a movement ..
Setup is everything . matching amplifier to load is very important, the load changes everything , Boulder is unique in their approach to bias and FB compensation vs load . On an 8 ohm high sensitivity load I can see many liking something different , at 4/2 ohm the field becomes pretty narrow, throw in low sensitivity and it's another ball game again ...
Then Again MEP, you thought FMA was junk ...
First of all, you misquoted what I said. I never said that I have heard many highly rated hi-fi setups that fail to move. Go back and reread what I said. I also never said FMA was junk.