Boulder 2150 Stereophile review

Mike Lavigne said:
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?
Click to expand...


Not saying it was a bad match , MF reported what he heard , what im attempting to say is there is no best, best is the amp best suited for the load presented , i can see other mega amps giving the boulder a run at 8 ohm , but being left behind on a 2 ohm Load vs the Boulder , due to its massive reserve and low Thd into low z.

Please be aware all the other amps indiscussion increases in distortion at lower Z drive ...

What i would also like to reiterate , MF system is optimised around the darts, you know as well as i Mike , this gives a big advantage to the resident amp ...


Regards
 
mep said:
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.
Click to expand...

Firstly i never qouted you , my answer will require some knowledge and a little extrapolation thou and as to FMA , been there done that with you , im sure WBF search has it all ...
 
a.wayne said:
Not saying it was a bad match , MF reported what he heard , what im attempting to say is there is no best, best is the amp best suited for the load presented , i can see other mega amps giving the boulder a run at 8 ohm , but being left behind on a 2 ohm Load vs the Boulder , due to its massive reserve and low Thd into low z.

Please be aware all the other amps indiscussion increases in distortion at lower Z drive ...

What i would also like to reiterate , MF system is optimised around the darts, you know as well as i Mike , this gives a big advantage to the resident amp ...


Regards
Click to expand...

help me to understand how Fremer has optimized his system around the darts.

honestly, I don't see it. the big Wilson XLF's are not a product normally associated with the big darts. Fremer does not use the dart 'zeel' cables, he uses Tara Labs mostly. his system is set up to be brand agnostic mostly as the premier reviewer around. he lists his preamps as the Ypsilon and the D'Agustino. I'm not saying you are wrong but I've missed it if there is that evidence.

and then answer my question as to why Boulder would send him those amps to review if his system was slanted in that way? you don't see many Boulder reviews, so I would expect they are quite particular about who and when.

and no quibble that the Boulder handles tough loads as good or better than any. it's a brute and takes no prisoners. and beautifully built to last forever. none of those issues are at all in question. Fremer acknowledges all those attributes and where those qualities pay musical dividends.
 
Hi Mike,

Optimization :

Im sure MF has optimized his setup around the Darts , its his permanent setup , again you know as well as I Mike, each amplifier projects sound and weight differently and will sometimes require a different speaker setup position for optimization, not to mention the load on his electrical outlet vs the Darts, his cable RLC vs the Darts , once you commit to your amplification the optimization begins , one size doesn't fit all, cables , stands , outlets , et al becomes super critical at this level ..

Speakers :

Most Uber speakers can represent a difficult load when looking at phase and ZMin , especially by those running multiple drivers. Low -Z drive is very important in real World application , at this level , load choice , sensitivity, listening distance , room size , all will play a big deal when selecting a mega amp..

Conclusion :

What MF declares to be musical and flows may not work for me or you , so i dont see as others that his comments make one better than the other, personally I have an issue with added Euphonics, on the other hand, speed and attack is very important for realism , so i may or may not agree with Fremer when i do get a chance to hear both amps and BTW one shootout by one subjective reviewer does not determine a winner in my books , both are Uber amps , both with optimization will deliver a high level of fidelity , now if the Dart subjective review matched a superior Bench result then i could , well , very possibly , say yeah MF review jelled with JA bench test results so its plausible the Dart is the superior amp, but the Boulder's bench performance is exemplary , so IMO, it's not a slam dunk, subjectively MF may have preferred the Dart, as some here feel, but Objectively the Boulder is ahead , as per JA bench Test results ...



Regards
 
Indeed you make some valid and very requisite points--but JA's bench test results on the earlier reviews of the Halcro Amps were also exemplary--

Pity the Sonics didn't match up:wacko:

Bruce
 
Both in the Boulder review and the EAR Acute CD player review that proceeded it, I must say, it was refreshing to read honest reviews.
 
Bruce said:
Indeed you make some valid and very requisite points--but JA's bench test results on the earlier reviews of the Halcro Amps were also exemplary--

Pity the Sonics didn't match up:wacko:

Bruce
Click to expand...


That is not so , The Halcro had only low thd @8ohm and a alot of baggage , this has been pointed out many times over the years, it was at it's best on an 8 ohm load and ran away from anything else , there were more than obvious signs from the Bench results, speaker sensitivity and load would have to be carefully choosen to work with the Halcro..


It was not close to being in the same league as the Boulder ..
 
a.wayne said:
That is not so , The Halcro had only low thd @8ohm and a alot of baggage , this has been pointed out many times over the years, it was at it's best on an 8 ohm load and ran away from anything else , there were more than obvious signs from the Bench results, speaker sensitivity and load would have to be carefully choosen to work with the Halcro..

It was not close to being in the same league as the Boulder ..
Click to expand...

Where exactly have you read about this ?

I cannot see this in Stereophile's measurements (Halcro DM58):

HALCROFIG8.jpg


Fig.8 Halcro dm58, distortion (%) vs continuous output power into (from bottom to top at 1W): 8 ohms, 4 ohms, 2 ohms.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/...ifier-measurements-part-2#M00rG4E4LhGVOoI6.97

The THD seems to be extremely low at ALL loads.
 
Not so for 2ohm, the 2 ohm measurments clearly show the amp severely current limiting at 2 ohms with drive issues , any speaker representing a load below 4 ohm will change its drive characteristics and send the amp searching for a PSU, the PSU is what we are really listening to in amplfiers , its the foundation for everything, the rest is the oscillator :)

Anyway , the Halcro is at its best at 8 ohm nom , 4 ohm min , its rapid rise in THD near clipping also means if one gets it anywhere close to its clipping point it will sound very harsh, amplifiers with a gradual rise in THD towards clipping have a more pleasant transfer ( read SET and most toobs ) into clipping with less hardness and since 90% of philes run their systems under powered the clipping characteristics is what most favor , the "fleshing out and Tone" favored by those raving over flea wattage for one ...

High voltage and High Current is necessary from a super amp especially controlling woofers , no suprise MF heard this with Boulder..




Regards
 
a.wayne said:
Not so for 2ohm, the 2 ohm measurments clearly show the amp severely current limiting at 2 ohms with drive issues , any speaker representing a load below 4 ohm will change its drive characteristics and send the amp searching for a PSU, the PSU is what we are really listening to in amplfiers , its the foundation for everything, the rest is the oscillator :)

Anyway , the Halcro is at its best at 8 ohm nom , 4 ohm min , its rapid rise in THD near clipping also means if one gets it anywhere close to its clipping point it will sound very harsh, amplifiers with a gradual rise in THD towards clipping have a more pleasant transfer ( read SET and most toobs ) into clipping with less hardness and since 90% of philes run their systems under powered the clipping characteristics is what most favor , the "fleshing out and Tone" favored by those raving over flea wattage for one ...

High voltage and High Current is necessary from a super amp especially controlling woofers , no suprise MF heard this with Boulder..
Regards
Click to expand...

Well, now you are running away from your previous post when you said anything below 8 ohms was a THD issue:

a.wayne said:
That is not so , The Halcro had only low thd @8ohm and a alot of baggage , this has been pointed out many times over the years, it was at it's best on an 8 ohm load and ran away from anything else , there were more than obvious signs from the Bench results, speaker sensitivity and load would have to be carefully choosen to work with the Halcro..
Click to expand...

Now it's 2 ohms...
 
Speaking of amps no longer manufactured, my Boulder 2060 was bought as an upgrade from the 1060 I had owned. What was very interesting is that for Boulder amps in the 2000 series and up, they recommend you go with 240V. You can get a 2000 series amp that will run on 120V, but the 3000 series only comes in 240V. I had an electrician run the 240V to my amp because I and heard the exact amp, 2010 preamp, Debussy DAC to a pair of Alexia's (almost my system exactly) at my dealers. His 2060 was 120V. The sound was noticeably different, but I didn't know until I had the line run. In comparison, my 240V 2060 is quieter (because the separate phases cancel out noise), more dynamic and seems to have better transient response among other things. Otherwise, the sound was similar. Despite claims that it's clean and doesn't have a sound, in comparison with my old 1060, the 2060 is warm sounding. Possibly because it is entirely Class-A and the 1060 was A/B. My point here is that the way the Boulder Amps are configured for power can play with their sound. I don't know what MF's were set for. It's probably in JA's technical review.

I've since heard the 2160, 2110 with a Debussy through Alexia's. It was an improvement in sound over the previous generation, but not so significant as to make me swap out mine. The story Rich at Boulder gave me was that the improvements in the 2160 came from a list they kept of issues and areas for improvement for the 2060. None were significant enough to modify the 2060, but they kept the list and built upon it. In the end, they took this list along with a few larger improvements and used that as the starting point for the 2160.

But I agree with anyone who says that the PSU is what we're hearing. Swapping from 120 to 240 or vice versa was not something that could be easily done with the 2060. The cost was significant, not to mention shipping the beast. It was actually cheaper to have an electrician run a 240V line direct to the panel 3 stories up and patch up the drywall disturbed in the process.

It bears mentioning that the 2050 and 2150 are essentially 2060 and 2160's configured for mono.
 
mep said:
Well, now you are running away from your previous post when you said anything below 8 ohms was a THD issue:



Now it's 2 ohms...
Click to expand...

Speaking of Philes under powering their Speakers ... :)


Anyway I guess you weren't told 2ohm is below 4 Ohm and do you have a point ? Quite clear what i had said and explained , semantic Much ....
 
Radioactive , agree , 240V is the way to go , highly recommended once your pulling that kind of current , actually best for "most " amplification.


PS: Corrected as per Mike L point made and suggestion ..
 
a.wayne said:
Speaking of Philes under powering their Speakers ... :)


Anyway I guess you weren't told 2ohm is below 4 Ohm and do you have a point ? Quite clear what i had said and explained , semantic Much ....
Click to expand...

Now you're being an .......! If you have the knowledge & experience, share it. Don't use it to bash people & in particular certain posters. Sure mep is forthright & sometimes pretty hard to take, but, he doesn't bullshit, he tells it like it is & if a few decide to voice their disgruntlement at his lack of tack & tact, he is pretty savvy. He also has a lot more experience than a lot here, as with his occupation, but he doesn't ridicule someone to the point of being "blatant" with irresponsibility.

I personally have heard a better designed amp get trounced by no-names on occasions for the simple reason of the power supplies, but then again, I do live in the land of 240v.
 
a.wayne said:
Radioactive , agree , 240V is the way to go , highly recommended once your pulling that kind of current , actually best for any amplfication ... .
Click to expand...

well....er....maybe.

my dearly departed local friend Winston Ma, had 240v in his dedicated room for years and tried to use it with a number of amplifiers, but he found that it was problematic to eliminate noise compared to his 115v circuits. he preferred the end result of 115v for music. so his 240v circuit sat there unused. and Winston had access and means to acquire the best amps.

I'm not claiming any ultimate truth from Winston's anecdotal experience. only that throwing 240v at an amplifier is but one part of any picture. still, the best circuit sounds the best.

I owned the big Mark Levinson #33 mono blocks, which had the option of 240v configuration. but.....it was said that the noise floor was higher in that mode. (I never tried it).

if you are welding, or related activity, then i'll grant 240v has ultimate authority. .5 and such impedance dips do require welding like current supply. and......all other things being equal, then I'd agree that 240v is an advantage. but.......all other things are seldom completely equal. I'm guessing using 240v with the big Boulders, that Boulder has solved any noise issues, but what is the total musical equation in doing that?

garbage in, garbage out.

more efficient speakers, easier loads, more moderate power, or simply less robustly built, minimalist circuitry amplifiers are just an alternate ultimate approach.

I think making 'absolute' claims is a slippery slope.
 
bzr said:
Now you're being an .......! If you have the knowledge & experience, share it. Don't use it to bash people & in particular certain posters. Sure mep is forthright & sometimes pretty hard to take, but, he doesn't bullshit, he tells it like it is & if a few decide to voice their disgruntlement at his lack of tack & tact, he is pretty savvy. He also has a lot more experience than a lot here, as with his occupation, but he doesn't ridicule someone to the point of being "blatant" with irresponsibility.

I personally have heard a better designed amp get trounced by no-names on occasions for the simple reason of the power supplies, but then again, I do live in the land of 240v.
Click to expand...


Kev,

Not sure what you are trying to project by defending MEP's position , may I suggest you read thru the discussion before going all ad hominem and BTW its not his lack of tack i had an issue with , it was his comprehension and semantics, I'm also well aware Myles signed off on his "expertise" a couple of Years ago , so I'm guessing i should yield to his superior "knowledge" , well, when he decides to expose it ...

:)


BTW, Living in the land of 240V is a good deal, we too live in that land , for some reason most Homes opt out and our appliances end up getting the better deal ... !!!
 
Mike Lavigne said:
well....er....maybe.

my dearly departed local friend Winston Ma, had 240v in his dedicated room for years and tried to use it with a number of amplifiers, but he found that it was problematic to eliminate noise compared to his 115v circuits. he preferred the end result of 115v for music. so his 240v circuit sat there unused. and Winston had access and means to acquire the best amps.

I'm not claiming any ultimate truth from Winston's anecdotal experience. only that throwing 240v at an amplifier is but one part of any picture. still, the best circuit sounds the best.

I owned the big Mark Levinson #33 mono blocks, which had the option of 240v configuration. but.....it was said that the noise floor was higher in that mode. (I never tried it).

if you are welding, or related activity, then i'll grant 240v has ultimate authority. .5 and such impedance dips do require welding like current supply. and......all other things being equal, then I'd agree that 240v is an advantage. but.......all other things are seldom completely equal. I'm guessing using 240v with the big Boulders, that Boulder has solved any noise issues, but what is the total musical equation in doing that?

garbage in, garbage out.

more efficient speakers, easier loads, more moderate power, or simply less robustly built, minimalist circuitry amplifiers are just an alternate ultimate approach.

I think making 'absolute' claims is a slippery slope.
Click to expand...


Hi Mike,

Every rule has its caveat ...

I can believe and do agree with you on high sensitivity , high efficiency speakers. The current draw would be minimal and not really susceptible to the disadvantages previously discussed. One reason the noise floor would go up is due to PSU design and more specifically to the type of transformers being used. A psu designed with multiple dedicated transformers, say a 240v only, large toroidial for the outputs and Multiple smaller c-core types for the low voltage stages IMO will not have the issues as discussed by the Late Winston Ma and in high current draw situations will benefit as described previously , but without looking at his actually 240V setup i cant say Why WM was having his specific issues ( was he in an industrial area) or what was unique to his situation ...

As to golden rules in audio, we all know that's when the proverbial audio curve ball comes flying, so YMMV , always applies.

Everything being equal I'm with Radioactive and 240V would be "my" choice, then again, I'm a current hog.


:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top