Shunyata DENALI

[Bobvin]

A question to the Shunyata folks, Caelin or Grant... is there work underway to make a new generation of cyclops, or is the Denali 2000t the ne plus ultra going forward (allowing for future upgrades)?

I ask because I am just thrilled with the difference in my system having upgraded from an old Hydra v2 to a Triton v3. WOW! I have to say my system took a huge step into the big leagues. With my acoustic remodel completed, adding the Triton v3 has left me gobsmacked night after night. I have loved Allan Toussaint's "The Bright Mississippi" since I first bought a copy several years back (the 2-disk pressing). The first cut on side A is everything I think of when I think of New Orleans Jazz, and between the Triton and my room remodel, the big marching band bass drum is rendered with amazing clarity and definition. This has been a reference cut for me as my system has improved over the years, but it has never sounded as lifelike and realistic as it does now.

That said, I am thinking a Denali 2000 would be appropriate as my REF75 is currently plugged into a dedicated circuit with a Sigma alpha PC. If I put a Denali between the amp and the wall, what PC should I include for best effect and value. With a Denali or a Triton in the system, are the NR power cords significant between components?

 

[ricjor1]

Another question for Shunyata. If I have the Denali, what power cords do you recommend from my components to the Denali (amp, preamp, DAC, and music server)? Why is it necessary to invest in an after market power cord, since the Denali reduces almost a 100% of the noise?

 

[GrantS]

Another question for Shunyata. If I have the Denali, what power cords do you recommend from my components to the Denali (amp, preamp, DAC, and music server)? Why is it necessary to invest in an after market power cord, since the Denali reduces almost a 100% of the noise?

If you are currently using stock power cords, almost anything shielded, with good connections and reasonable gauge will be a big improvement. If you want a step better, then I recommend considering the Delta NR power cords.

To answer your other question: First of all, there is no such thing as a power distributor that reduces "almost 100% of the noise" or anywhere within a country mile of that. Electronic systems are bathed in noise fields from every angle; power-supply generated EMI, RFI is everywhere. Near-field noise generation by electronics can be a real problem. Our electrical systems offer distributed power conditioning, where noise can be isolated at the component and again where all the components join (in your case that'd be the Denali).

Its easy to discern as each stage is applied, that perceived noise is being reduced. This noise is measurable and endemic to electronic operation in both music, recording and medical applications and there is no such thing as a single box panacea for noise, unfortunately. The fewer points of ingress you allow for noise to circulate in and around electronics systems, the better the performance. Adding NR power cords won't eliminate close to 100% of the noise either, but you will notice their addition in a very positive way. Too much in-box noise-isolation can kill other areas of performance such as dynamics, timing and frequency extension in sound. We find it far better to approach the isolation of noise in stages, from its inception and through the power-distributor with as little in-line resistance in front of instantaneous current as possible. Leaving electronics free to interact with unrestricted peak-current (and less reactance) is far more critical to system performance than mere noise-reduction.

Best regards,

Grant

 

[nonesup]

I have my Denali 6000T, along with an Alpha NR (for the Lumin), running for 11 days.
It really is a sensational device. Silence and an organic sound in the orchestral masses, I love it. I'm waiting to try a Sigma NR to connect the Denali to the wall socket.
I have high hopes that the sound, will still be better

 

[Horatio]

I will probably buy a Denali 6000, and sell my Triton and possibly Typhon. My question: can you plug the Typhon in the Denali, and is there any benefit to be expected from it? If not, it will be easier to sell the Triton v1 with Typhon, then just the Triton. So advice on this will be appreciated.

 

[GrantS]

I will probably buy a Denali 6000, and sell my Triton and possibly Typhon. My question: can you plug the Typhon in the Denali, and is there any benefit to be expected from it? If not, it will be easier to sell the Triton v1 with Typhon, then just the Triton. So advice on this will be appreciated.

If you live abroad, I would recommend speaking to your dealer about a possible trade-in of your Triton v1 toward a Triton v3 and keep the Typhon if you can afford to, or sell/trade that and the Triton v1 to procure the Triton v3, which is a notable step up in performance from the Denali 6000T, or the Triton v1 and Typhon.

However, If you reside in the US, I would consider sending the Triton v1 in for an upgrade to the Triton v3 as a first option if best performance is the goal.

If its easiest to sell the Triton v1 and buy the Denali 6000T, then that would be option #3. The Denali 6000T is better than either the Triton v1 or the Triton v2. Adding a Typhon to the Denali may result in better performance in some systems, but the Typhon was made to be used with the Triton models. The better the Triton model, the more improvement you will get from what the Typhon has to offer.

Feel free to e-mail me at grant@shunyata.com if I can be of more help with your specifics in terms of system and your best options.

Best regards,

Grant

 

[Horatio]

If you live abroad, I would recommend speaking to your dealer about a possible trade-in of your Triton v1 toward a Triton v3 and keep the Typhon if you can afford to, or sell/trade that and the Triton v1 to procure the Triton v3, which is a notable step up in performance from the Denali 6000T, or the Triton v1 and Typhon.

However, If you reside in the US, I would consider sending the Triton v1 in for an upgrade to the Triton v3 as a first option if best performance is the goal.

If its easiest to sell the Triton v1 and buy the Denali 6000T, then that would be option #3. The Denali 6000T is better than either the Triton v1 or the Triton v2. Adding a Typhon to the Denali may result in better performance in some systems, but the Typhon was made to be used with the Triton models. The better the Triton model, the more improvement you will get from what the Typhon has to offer.

Feel free to e-mail me at grant@shunyata.com if I can be of more help with your specifics in terms of system and your best options.

Best regards,

Grant

Thanks Grant for the reply. The question for me now is, what should I choose to do (I live in the Netherlands and cannot upgrade, very unfortunately (why not by the way, even if it's more expensive than the US upgrade, I'd still be happy to do that)? I prefer to opt for the best sound, but experiences concerning the difference between the Denali and the Triton v3 plus Typhon are not unequivocally clear to me, so maybe you can help me. I saw a sort of scale determination, where the Triton v2 got 65 points, the Denali 85, and the Triton v3 100 (on a scale from 0-100 of course). If this is more or less correct, than the Denali has a very good price/quality ratio. But it's not clear to me for example if this comparison includes the use of a Typhon with the Triton. Anyway, I'd like to hear your own impressions about the difference, I guess you're a addicted to music and good presentation of it as I am

 

[GrantS]

Thanks Grant for the reply. The question for me now is, what should I choose to do (I live in the Netherlands and cannot upgrade, very unfortunately (why not by the way, even if it's more expensive than the US upgrade, I'd still be happy to do that)? I prefer to opt for the best sound, but experiences concerning the difference between the Denali and the Triton v3 plus Typhon are not unequivocally clear to me, so maybe you can help me. I saw a sort of scale determination, where the Triton v2 got 65 points, the Denali 85, and the Triton v3 100 (on a scale from 0-100 of course). If this is more or less correct, than the Denali has a very good price/quality ratio. But it's not clear to me for example if this comparison includes the use of a Typhon with the Triton. Anyway, I'd like to hear your own impressions about the difference, I guess you're a addicted to music and good presentation of it as I am

The grading scale you mentioned provides a very limited view of the differences. The Denali is measurably more quiet than anything we've ever produced, almost eerily so, but also retains precise timing and excellent dynamics. It will never sound slowed down or dull in the way most "conditioners" do that restrict instantaneous current. These characteristics, in a snapshot explain Denali's popularity and value at the price. Compared to the Triton v2, I would agree that the Denali while different, is ultimately a clear step up. That is not the case with the v3.

The Triton v3, while measurably not as quiet as a 6000T, does literally everything else better. The dynamic scale of music comes across more broadly, almost unlimited in the way it frees extension at dynamic extremes. Sound with the Triton v3 is imparted with more weight, three-dimensionality and room-shaking power, as if you've added 100 watts to your amps output. The Triton v3 has a massively over-sized (3x larger) version of the patent-pending QR/BB that is in the Denali's HC outlet. The QR/BB facilitates greater access to instantaneous current than when plugging electronics directly into the wall. This is accomplished without using capacitors, which is unique to Denali models and the Triton v3.

Instruments and voice present with more texture and bolder color -- more dimensional, or 'present-in-the-room' with the v3 Triton than through Denali 6000T or competitive brands. The best description is to say the Denali can delineate an ideal hologram of sound images in space from front to back, side to side and the soundstage is unbelievably wide and deep. The Triton v3 fills in these holograms with added scale, weight and perceived power, as if the instruments take on their corporeal form and you can "feel" the instrument's sound, whether a cello, violin or kick-drum that vibrates the front of your shirt. That kind of difference and live-feel separates our products from others and the Triton v3 is by far the best at presenting this characteristic. The Denali is exceptional, but the Triton v3 would assert its superiority in the areas I mention within a minute of playing music. Adding a Typhon to the Triton v3 only increases dynamic scale and adds dimension to instruments. Conversely, adding a Typhon to Denali produces a more subtle difference and I'm not sure is worth the added cost, but on a Triton v3 you would likely never part with it once you realize what it adds to the performance.

I hope this helps better describe the differences between the units. If the v3 is at all within your budget, that is what I would consider. The Denali is technically better than the v1 or v2, but its also different, whereas the v3 is unequivocally better in virtually every respect. Its also, quite a bit more expensive so before I get ahead of myself, that has to be a primary consideration.

I hope this helps!

Grant

 

[Horatio]

The grading scale you mentioned provides a very limited view of the differences. The Denali is measurably more quiet than anything we've ever produced, almost eerily so, but also retains precise timing and excellent dynamics. It will never sound slowed down or dull in the way most "conditioners" do that restrict instantaneous current. These characteristics, in a snapshot explain Denali's popularity and value at the price. Compared to the Triton v2, I would agree that the Denali while different, is ultimately a clear step up. That is not the case with the v3.

The Triton v3, while measurably not as quiet as a 6000T, does literally everything else better. The dynamic scale of music comes across more broadly, almost unlimited in the way it frees extension at dynamic extremes. Sound with the Triton v3 is imparted with more weight, three-dimensionality and room-shaking power, as if you've added 100 watts to your amps output. The Triton v3 has a massively over-sized (3x larger) version of the patent-pending QR/BB that is in the Denali's HC outlet. The QR/BB facilitates greater access to instantaneous current than when plugging electronics directly into the wall. This is accomplished without using capacitors, which is unique to Denali models and the Triton v3.

Instruments and voice present with more texture and bolder color -- more dimensional, or 'present-in-the-room' with the v3 Triton than through Denali 6000T or competitive brands. The best description is to say the Denali can delineate an ideal hologram of sound images in space from front to back, side to side and the soundstage is unbelievably wide and deep. The Triton v3 fills in these holograms with added scale, weight and perceived power, as if the instruments take on their corporeal form and you can "feel" the instrument's sound, whether a cello, violin or kick-drum that vibrates the front of your shirt. That kind of difference and live-feel separates our products from others and the Triton v3 is by far the best at presenting this characteristic. The Denali is exceptional, but the Triton v3 would assert its superiority in the areas I mention within a minute of playing music. Adding a Typhon to the Triton v3 only increases dynamic scale and adds dimension to instruments. Conversely, adding a Typhon to Denali produces a more subtle difference and I'm not sure is worth the added cost, but on a Triton v3 you would likely never part with it once you realize what it adds to the performance.

I hope this helps better describe the differences between the units. If the v3 is at all within your budget, that is what I would consider. The Denali is technically better than the v1 or v2, but its also different, whereas the v3 is unequivocally better in virtually every respect. Its also, quite a bit more expensive so before I get ahead of myself, that has to be a primary consideration.

I hope this helps!

Grant

This certainly helps, thanks! Your (impressive) description of the differences paints a very real picture of the presentational merits of both conditioners, and contains exactly the aspects I need to make a decision. As my preference is classical music specific timbres of instruments and space is essential, and if I understand well the Triton gives the instruments more body and power ('presence') within that space. In terms of how you experience this I expect the instruments to reach out more and enhance the connection the listener can make with the music. So Triton v3 it has to be. I'll keep the Typhon for use with it and sell the Triton.

 

[Horatio]

One more question, if you allow me, Grant. What are your impressions concerning the difference between the Sigma HC and Digital and the Sigma NR cable? Are the differences as audible and striking as in the comparison between Denali and Triton? Thanks, Ben

An additional question, also for other forum members: I am looking for good cables for the Martin Logan 15a speakers I ordered. What would be best for these speakers with their dual 500W D-amplifiers for the bass section and their relatively big panels? Would they need the Sigma NR, or would the Alpha NR suffice? What can I expect as to difference between the two? Does have anyone has experience with the CLX for example?

I hope someone can help me with this.

 

[Bar81]

Hi Bud, thanks for the note. I hope all is well with you.

It may be helpful as context to think of power products such as ours, as high-current amplifiers. Would it be wise to set an amp on its faceplate? Upside down on carpet or wood? God forbid, tile, which I've seen a few times. Nuts.

Forget the simple aesthetic and possible value loss in terms of cosmetics, but you are essentially setting a high-current device that is sensitive to where it rests, on its flattest surface and in many cases on carpet or a hard surface near massive speakers. Power devices like ours or any others, are sensitive to where they rest, which is why we made that a big part of the Denali design. Caelin would not be doing accelerometer tests if it were not so, see our video on the subject on you-tube. Vibration isolation is critical to high-current devices performing at their peak.

We've made it impossible to set the 6000S (Shelf unit) on its face by angling the faceplate. None of this is big-time major depending on your perspective, and the product will still function well, but we are in a detail oriented business, where from our necessary perspective, everything matters. The better oriented components are, the better the sound gets. That is why I recommend products like Stillpoints, HRS for supports. They make components sound better and are properly engineered by smart people.

...

Best regards,

Grant

As an initial point, while you can't place it on its face, you can place it on its side

Anyway, what you're saying is 100% on the money although I'm still quite surprised that how the Denali is set up can have such a monumental impact on performance.

I purchased a 6000/S and after I purchased my D'Agostino M400 monos (which I expected to solve system speed and transient issues given the nasty impedance curve of my speakers) was experiencing slow speed, blunted transients and lack of air and shimmer. For a sanity check, I pulled out the Denali and while the noise floor was higher, all the speed, attack, air and shimmer returned.

So I emailed my dealer just to let him know my experience and that the Denali was coming out of my system. He was really surprised and said that the Denali was one of the few products in his many years in audio that had almost universally positive feedback, particularly with high end systems. He said he'd email Shunyata and let me know. Shunyata couldn't understand why the Denali was doing that but sent some things to try - one of which is to use the unit as intended (I had been sitting it on its side on two HRS nimbus assemblies due to lack of space - the 6000/T was too wide to fit in the same space due to its spread out feet).

I was planning on doing my biennial system cleaning anyway and stripped the system down completely and temporarily configured the system so that the Denali was used as intended - on its own feet on hard tile over concrete. Turned the system on and WOW were there transients, but the top end still didn't have the proper air and shimmer.

I know my speakers and they are tipped down in the brilliance region (which generally helps with real world untreated rooms but is the region that produces air and shimmer) so I figured that the Denali was doing something Focal did not expect - delivering very clean power. Thankfully, this was solvable thanks to Focal's wonderful jumper system - I set the tweeter jumper to high (a +1db boost) and the treble was again airy with the right shimmer.

So all good? Not quite. I started to reassemble the system and as I usually do, placed HRS nimbus assemblies under all components and cable network boxes. UGH! Sluggish again and blunted transients. Hmm... So I started systemically removing the nimbus assemblies, first from the speaker networks and then from the interconnect networks. Transient attack and speed returned to almost where it was before (for the components, the superior top to bottom effect of the nimbus assemblies warranted their remaining despite a shade of lessened transient speed - as far as I can tell this lessening has to do with my preamp not being on an HRS M3 platform (due to space issues) since it was only when placing the nimbus under the pre that there was any minor detrimental effect on transient speed).

Morals of the story for me - use components as intended/the manufacturer knows best, get to know your system (speaker measurements are invaluable although that's more a result of the good fortune of having a stereophile review which includes measurements) and sometimes you can't understand what something is doing until you take away other things (even if those things that you take away worked amazingly well earlier).

 

[murphys33]

I have my Dan D'agostino stereo amp plugged into a Torus AVR16 to good effect. Prior, I connected it into the Shunyata Triton / Typhon and there were no issues of slowness of lack of air.

 

[wil]

I'm going to demo 3 conditioners: Audioquest Niagara 5000, Shunyata Denali 6000s, and Richard Gray 1200c.

I have two dedicated lines.

Richard Rogers, at Shunyata, has advised that given my two lines, rather than run both my Sources and Amp both through the 6000s, it would better to run my Sources (Mac Pro Server and Lumin S1) through the Denali 6000s and the Amp direct to the wall outlet on the 2nd dedicated line. Even better, for an extra $3400, would be to run the Sources through the 6000s and the amp through the 2000t.

I plan to also ask Audioquest, and well as Richard Gray Power, if they agree with this approach (to separate Source and Amp on two different dedicated lines rather than run everything through their condiioner.

Does anyone have opinions on this?

 

[LL21]

I'm going to demo 3 conditioners: Audioquest Niagara 5000, Shunyata Denali 6000s, and Richard Gray 1200c.

I have two dedicated lines.

Richard Rogers, at Shunyata, has advised that given my two lines, rather than run both my Sources and Amp both through the 6000s, it would better to run my Sources (Mac Pro Server and Lumin S1) through the Denali 6000s and the Amp direct to the wall outlet on the 2nd dedicated line. Even better, for an extra $3400, would be to run the Sources through the 6000s and the amp through the 2000t.

I plan to also ask Audioquest, and well as Richard Gray Power, if they agree with this approach (to separate Source and Amp on two different dedicated lines rather than run everything through their condiioner.

Does anyone have opinions on this?

FWIW, after discussing with electricians who wire recording studios and our audio distributor, i ended up putting Source/Pre through the Burmester Power Conditioner into 1 dedicated line...and the power amp thru a dedicated special 16a outlet straight from the wall.

 

[CGabriel]

I'm going to demo 3 conditioners: Audioquest Niagara 5000, Shunyata Denali 6000s, and Richard Gray 1200c.

I have two dedicated lines.

Richard Rogers, at Shunyata, has advised that given my two lines, rather than run both my Sources and Amp both through the 6000s, it would better to run my Sources (Mac Pro Server and Lumin S1) through the Denali 6000s and the Amp direct to the wall outlet on the 2nd dedicated line. Even better, for an extra $3400, would be to run the Sources through the 6000s and the amp through the 2000t.

I plan to also ask Audioquest, and well as Richard Gray Power, if they agree with this approach (to separate Source and Amp on two different dedicated lines rather than run everything through their condiioner.

Does anyone have opinions on this?

People that race cars know that there is no replacement for displacement to make horsepower. Likewise, there is no substitute for total current capacity in an audio system. Especially so it you have high power amplifiers. So, for the fortunate people that have more than one dedicated line, it is always advantageous to use them. The best method of dividing the workload is to put the amplifiers on one circuit and all the source equipment on the other.

For those of you that do not have more than one power line available - no worries. The Denali is more than capable even if you have very high power amplifiers. Just plug the amplifiers into the HC (high current) sockets. The Denali D6000/T is designed to deliver 30 amps of continuous current (US models).

If you have the luxury of two dedicated lines - use the Denali 6000 for the source equipment and use the Denali D2000/T for the second line. The Denali D2000/T was designed specifically to improve the performance of amplifiers but many people use them for video projectors, two component systems and for headphone systems.

 

[wil]

People that race cars know that there is no replacement for displacement to make horsepower. Likewise, there is no substitute for total current capacity in an audio system. Especially so it you have high power amplifiers. So, for the fortunate people that have more than one dedicated line, it is always advantageous to use them. The best method of dividing the workload is to put the amplifiers on one circuit and all the source equipment on the other.

For those of you that do not have more than one power line available - no worries. The Denali is more than capable even if you have very high power amplifiers. Just plug the amplifiers into the HC (high current) sockets. The Denali D6000/T is designed to deliver 30 amps of continuous current (US models).

If you have the luxury of two dedicated lines - use the Denali 6000 for the source equipment and use the Denali D2000/T for the second line. The Denali D2000/T was designed specifically to improve the performance of amplifiers but many people use them for video projectors, two component systems and for headphone systems.

Given that I won't be able to invest in both the Denali 6000 and the D2000, would you still advise using the 2nd dedicated line for the amp
rather than running the amp through the Denali 6000 HC line into the first dedicated line? (Also, I'm using a relatively low powered 30 watt/channel tube amp driving high efficiency 107 db speakers.)

My primary question comes down to what is the trade off in choosing between the isolation offered by running the amp on a separate line (10 gage and 30 amp) and the noise filtering, etc offered by running the amp through the Denali? Thanks!


Thanks

 

[CGabriel]

Given that I won't be able to invest in both the Denali 6000 and the D2000, would you still advise using the 2nd dedicated line for the amp
rather than running the amp through the Denali 6000 HC line into the first dedicated line? (Also, I'm using a relatively low powered 30 watt/channel tube amp driving high efficiency 107 db speakers.)

My primary question comes down to what is the trade off in choosing between the isolation offered by running the amp on a separate line (10 gage and 30 amp) and the noise filtering, etc offered by running the amp through the Denali? Thanks!


Thanks

If you are asking are there any trade offs compared to another power conditioner like the Niagra; the answer would be no.

If you are asking if there are advantages to two dedicated lines even though your total current draw is relatively low; the answer would be a “probably not”. Most amplifiers will sound better plugged into the Denali rather than plugged directly into the wall outlet.

 

[nonesup]

People that race cars know that there is no replacement for displacement to make horsepower. Likewise, there is no substitute for total current capacity in an audio system. Especially so it you have high power amplifiers. So, for the fortunate people that have more than one dedicated line, it is always advantageous to use them. The best method of dividing the workload is to put the amplifiers on one circuit and all the source equipment on the other.

For those of you that do not have more than one power line available - no worries. The Denali is more than capable even if you have very high power amplifiers. Just plug the amplifiers into the HC (high current) sockets. The Denali D6000/T is designed to deliver 30 amps of continuous current (US models).

If you have the luxury of two dedicated lines - use the Denali 6000 for the source equipment and use the Denali D2000/T for the second line. The Denali D2000/T was designed specifically to improve the performance of amplifiers but many people use them for video projectors, two component systems and for headphone systems.

If you have a 6000T and a 2000T, you have the problem of missing out on two HC receptacles in the 6000T. For that reason I believe that a 6000 model with the 6 receptacles of high filtered should exist, for those who wish to add a 2000T.

 

[CGabriel]

If you have a 6000T and a 2000T, you have the problem of missing out on two HC receptacles in the 6000T. For that reason I believe that a 6000 model with the 6 receptacles of high filtered should exist, for those who wish to add a 2000T.

Thank you for that. We are seriously considering this as a model variation.

 

[Bar81]

So would a Triton V3 on a single dedicated line be a better option than a Denali 6000T and a 2000T on two dedicated lines? If not, would the Typhon (QR - new model?) change the analysis? System includes D'Agostino M400 mono blocs. Thanks.