YG Hailey with Luxman M900u, Boulder 2160, Burmester 911 mk3, Plinius
- Thread starter bonzo75
- Start date
Thanks for starting the thread Ked and apologies for not responding earlier but have been busy with other things.
I am glad the visit to Criterion Audio proved worthwhile. It is good to have the reviews of the Hailey confirmed by your experiences of them. The Carmels 1s I had and the current Kipod Signature passives have both been great buys and the family YG sound has obviously been continued and improved with the Haileys. I am sure it would be worthwhile to hear them with a Vitus amp(s) which I am confident would suit them well, but yes Romania seems a long way to go!
I am glad the visit to Criterion Audio proved worthwhile. It is good to have the reviews of the Hailey confirmed by your experiences of them. The Carmels 1s I had and the current Kipod Signature passives have both been great buys and the family YG sound has obviously been continued and improved with the Haileys. I am sure it would be worthwhile to hear them with a Vitus amp(s) which I am confident would suit them well, but yes Romania seems a long way to go!
Hi, was in Madrid yesterday comparing Gryphon Mephisto and Luxman M900 (single, not bridged) on TAD CR1 with Luxman pre (C900) and Luxman CD player.
Also compared one M900 to bridged 700, and though the 900 was superior, more refined.
When the Gryphon played, it clearly had more of an underlying layer of bass, and more dynamics. The separation on orchestral pieces were higher. The tone was marginally better on the Lux, not that Gryphon did not have good tone, but Gryphon tone had a warmness and an underlying darkness, while Luxman highs (vocals, violns, and woodwinds) were more natural. Yet the inflections and nuances were better with the Gryphon.
Overall, the Gryphon was more exciting. Gnomus from Pictures at an Exhibition clearly played better on Gryphon, more separation and control. But Old Castle played better on Luxman. Chorals sounded more natural on Luxman, but solo vocals imaged better as a whole body on Gryphon. Since Scheherazade has a lot of quieter tonal passages interlaced with dynamic ones, the overall went to Luxman, but the big difference where Gryphon pulled ahead was Mendelssohn’s Elijah, which has an extremely complex dynamic passage. The jump, speed, slam of this, was easily higher, reminded me of Spectrals.
On this basis, money aside, I would choose the Mephisto. With money considerations, Luxman seems a steal. A fairer comparison would be the Antileon Evo with the bridged M900.
My gut, without having compared them in the same system, says that Vitus (which I have heard many times and compared to Kondo Kagura) has more liquidity and flow and tone than Boulder and Gryphon (both of which I have heard only once in shootouts), less slam and jumps and dynamics. Boulder sounds most transparent and least colored of the three, and most nuanced on the micro. All three are too expensive and I am not going there.
I think one of the key factors at this price is fungibility. If you couldn't afford it, what is easier to compromise on? I think Vitus liquidity and flow and body is toughest to get out of other amps should you like and need it. Needs to be checked if Antileon Evo can be a lower cost substitute for Mephisto. The other thing is if one has a good vinyl set up, my nod might go to the more cleaner and transparent amp. All this has to be verified. But yes, changes in SS amps excite me less compared to speaker and vinyl compares as long as the amp is not doing something wrong.
So I will keep my SS choice locked at Luxman until I get very rich, or until I find something better at that money or cheaper
Also compared one M900 to bridged 700, and though the 900 was superior, more refined.
When the Gryphon played, it clearly had more of an underlying layer of bass, and more dynamics. The separation on orchestral pieces were higher. The tone was marginally better on the Lux, not that Gryphon did not have good tone, but Gryphon tone had a warmness and an underlying darkness, while Luxman highs (vocals, violns, and woodwinds) were more natural. Yet the inflections and nuances were better with the Gryphon.
Overall, the Gryphon was more exciting. Gnomus from Pictures at an Exhibition clearly played better on Gryphon, more separation and control. But Old Castle played better on Luxman. Chorals sounded more natural on Luxman, but solo vocals imaged better as a whole body on Gryphon. Since Scheherazade has a lot of quieter tonal passages interlaced with dynamic ones, the overall went to Luxman, but the big difference where Gryphon pulled ahead was Mendelssohn’s Elijah, which has an extremely complex dynamic passage. The jump, speed, slam of this, was easily higher, reminded me of Spectrals.
On this basis, money aside, I would choose the Mephisto. With money considerations, Luxman seems a steal. A fairer comparison would be the Antileon Evo with the bridged M900.
My gut, without having compared them in the same system, says that Vitus (which I have heard many times and compared to Kondo Kagura) has more liquidity and flow and tone than Boulder and Gryphon (both of which I have heard only once in shootouts), less slam and jumps and dynamics. Boulder sounds most transparent and least colored of the three, and most nuanced on the micro. All three are too expensive and I am not going there.
I think one of the key factors at this price is fungibility. If you couldn't afford it, what is easier to compromise on? I think Vitus liquidity and flow and body is toughest to get out of other amps should you like and need it. Needs to be checked if Antileon Evo can be a lower cost substitute for Mephisto. The other thing is if one has a good vinyl set up, my nod might go to the more cleaner and transparent amp. All this has to be verified. But yes, changes in SS amps excite me less compared to speaker and vinyl compares as long as the amp is not doing something wrong.
So I will keep my SS choice locked at Luxman until I get very rich, or until I find something better at that money or cheaper
Last edited:
Bonzo, thanks. So where would you rate your top contender amps in terms of tonality, dynamics, speed, and Musical transparency (vs. analytical detail retrieval, also called "transparency", by many of the confused shmeggies in the audio media)?
Also, do you know why gryphon is not sold in the us? I realize there is a lot of competition with pass, d'agostino, Boulder, soulution, consolation, and many, many others, but at the same time there are a lot of "rich" people still left in the USA.
Also, do you know why gryphon is not sold in the us? I realize there is a lot of competition with pass, d'agostino, Boulder, soulution, consolation, and many, many others, but at the same time there are a lot of "rich" people still left in the USA.
Hi ok, by transparency, I meant lack of color and the ability to let any upstream change be shown through. You can make Spectral sterile like bad digital or clearly show through a Koetsu colour due to its transparency
I think this statement of mine gives my thoughts as of today.
"My gut, without having compared them in the same system, says that Vitus (which I have heard many times and compared to Kondo Kagura) has more liquidity and flow and tone than Boulder and Gryphon (both of which I have heard only once in shootouts), less slam and jumps and dynamics. Boulder sounds most transparent and least colored of the three, and most nuanced on the micro. All three are too expensive and I am not going there. "
Tbh, since you like your pre/power combo, you would be better off spending your money on a good analog set up
Thanks.
As to your comment that Boulder is more nuanced on the micro, I am not surprised, as I believe it is the most powerful of the bunch. My gut feeling, based on listening to many amps, is that for those well-heeled to be able to bi-amp with the other contenders, you can achieve a lot of that micro-dynamic nuance and thus more breath of life in the music. But unfortunately, it all costs money one way or another, and there is no free lunch.
Can I ask you why you are discarding Burmester 911 mk3, that we can find used in mint condition in Europe at fantastic prices?
Good point. I will see if I can get a compare. The preamp of Burms with the battery is pretty expensive. Have you heard it do well with good valve preamps?
Unfortunately I have no experience with it. I have been considering one from the UK at a very nice price, but I have found it was sold a few weeks ago ...
I know several people have used it with ARC tube preamplfiers. The cj GAT, the VTL's or the Atmasphere MP1 should also drive it perfectly. The 911 mk3 has a gain of 34 dB - this means it will be operated at lower input voltage, requiring proportionally lower current.
i believe gryphon may now have a new distributor in the u.s.?
they never had luck in the u.s., beginning with j-10's original review debacle of the dm-100 over 20 years ago.
Thank you. If they scored a distributor, I hope it works out great.
Do you know what publication and / or individual did the review you mention?
Absolutely agree. In fact, going from Burmester 911 stereo to monos was a huge step up in terms of micro dynamics, slam and soundstage width. I first tried passive Biamping but that didn't yield the results I expected - guess biamping with an electronic crossover would have yielded better results. However, running them as bridged monos was just amazing. I haven't heard all the other amps to draw conclusions (and I am sure there are bigger and better amps out there) but I have heard the audionet maxII and the pass labs xa 200.5 and in my view they don't equal the 911 monos in terms of their pristine presentation and composure. And while there may be other bigger and more expensive amps out there, they may not be necessarily better......just different.
Cheers
Sujay
It was a 1991 review in Stereophile where they panned the Gryphon DM100, and then (in that same issue) Flemming Rasmussen, Gryphon's founder and chief designer wrote a letter to the editor pushing back saying the writer has personally requested to be able to keep the amp because he liked it and when turned down, 'retaliated' with a negative review. I used to have that original Stereophile edition until last year when we tossed out all the old mags as part of the move to our new home. FWIW, i have heard the DM100, and read 2 reviews of it one of which was stellar and frankly astounded by its quality (a reviewer in HK) and another positive one 1992 Hometheaterreview.com which liked it but noted its treble balance dark.
Burmester 911 Mk3 monos with 808 Mk5: end of games!
Hi Sunjay
Rocco, how different is the 956 to the 911, especially outside a Burm system
I've had the 956 MK2 and then after a direct comparison I choiced the 911 Mk3. Both driving the ProAc D38 (version with no ribbon tw) with easy. The 956 Mk2 is a great amp, very refined and airy sound with a wide soudstage. But the 911 Mk3 is much better in all regards compared to the already excellent 956 Mk2. In other systems (mixed with other brands) where I've attended the 911 Mk3 was always better than 956 Mk2. In that occasion I've used the 011's preamp and cd player 001. At my ears the 911's (especially the mono pairs) is one the absolute best power amps ever heard.
I've some friend that uses the 956 Mk2 with tube preamp alike, Audio Research, Nagra PLL. The sound is quite good, but I prefer by a very wide margin the combo Burmester with own brand preamp. The sinergy in Burmester is the result of an intense and precise research-development based on a concrete system approach that grant a perfect sound result.
I personally think many of the poweramps you use are very good , the pre s will make the difference .
No lacking of bass(control) with the pll ??.
No lacking of bass(control) with the pll ??.
Hi Rocco,
Trust you are doing well.... I agree that the burm power amps put on their best when paired with their own preamp, which is not surprising. Moreover, the gain in soundstage width, air, and slam are substantially enhanced going from stereo to monos.
Cheers
Sujay
Burmester 911 Mk3 monos with 808 Mk5: end of games!
Hi Sunjay
I've 1/3 of this combo ... and I know what you mean. I keep harping on and seems to be lost on many ios how long the Burmester electronics have been so good: so long they are forgotten when people are listing the best electronics around... The 911 is a 25 years old amp ... I repeat 25 years old .. the 805 is simply astounding in this world of an update per year in High End Audio... 36 years old!!! Having debuted in 1980 !!!!!
With the right speakers, meaning very efficient and with well-behaved impedance curve, the 956 gives little to the 911 IME
Burmester was once considered very expensive , now they are kind of middle of the road in term of High End Audio prices and because of that they aren't often not mentioned in the Best at any Price category... Those who own them or have heard them in the proper settings, acquire them and are done .. end of the road for them .. perhaps something many audiophiles secretly don't wish
