Pathos Logos!

[Mike Anderson]

Those of you who have been kind enough to indulge my quest for an integrated amp to power the 1.6qr's I have on order know I got the Pathos Acoustics Classic One MkII -- and while I absolutely the sound of the amp, I was a little dismayed about the lack of power and low end.

Well I just found a used Pathos Acoustics Logos for a ridiculously low price! It's somewhat out of my original $2k budget, but not by a huge amount. What a score!!

If this thing sounds as good as the Classic One but with more power, then I'm going to be VERY happy.

Should be here Friday, I'll let you know what I think.

[Bernd]

Those of you who have been kind enough to indulge my quest for an integrated amp to power the 1.6qr's I have on order know I got the Pathos Acoustics Classic One MkII -- and while I absolutely the sound of the amp, I was a little dismayed about the lack of power and low end.

Well I just found a used Pathos Acoustics Logos for a ridiculously low price! It's somewhat out of my original $2k budget, but not by a huge amount. What a score!!

If this thing sounds as good as the Classic One but with more power, then I'm going to be VERY happy.

Should be here Friday, I'll let you know what I think.

Hi Mike,

I used to own the Logos and it is a fanatstic amp. Not only does it look great but it sounds clear and powerfull. I did change the two stock tubes for NOS Telefunken and that made a real difference. The amp is very heavy for it's size, and will run hot as the pre amp stage runs in pure class A. Let me know when you have it.
Have fun.

Bernd

[Mike Anderson]

Should be here today.

I have a couple of the Ei Gold (Yugoslavian tubes) that I put in the Classic One, they sound quite good. I heard someone refer to them as the "poor man's Telefunken". I'm not poor yet, but I will be at this rate!

[Bernd]

Should be here today.

I have a couple of the Ei Gold (Yugoslavian tubes) that I put in the Classic One, they sound quite good. I heard someone refer to them as the "poor man's Telefunken". I'm not poor yet, but I will be at this rate!

The Teles E88CC aren't that expensive. Take a look at www.machmat.com
He sometimes has some. Very reliable seller.The EI are Telefunken copies made to the same specs. Not the same though.I have towards the tail end of last year given a nos pair away.They are still a few of them about.
I think you will like the Logos. If I wouldn't have gone all tube I would have kept it.
Hey it's Friday-has it arrived yet?

Bernd

[Florian]

Grats, the Logos is a great amp. But wait till the 1.6 is there since its a big difference incl. the power output in max volume and low end. But dont expect earth shaking, not even the 20.1 does that.

Flo

[Mike Anderson]

The Teles E88CC aren't that expensive. Take a look at www.machmat.com
He sometimes has some. Very reliable seller.


I don't see any there right now. He has a lot of others at good prices though. I'm thinking about getting those Mullards - I always used Mullard 12AX7s in my guitar amp, and they were killer.

[Bernd]

That's a good choice too. I just like the clarity of the Tele's.Lot's of scope now.

Bernd

[Mike Anderson]

That's a good choice too. I just like the clarity of the Tele's.Lot's of scope now.

I'd love to get some Telefunkens - if you see some that don't cost $300/tube, let me know.
Thanks.

[Mike Anderson]

Been listening to it a while now on the MMG's, I really like it -- plenty of low end, and I don't have to crank it to 95!

More thoughts after I've had a chance to listen for a couple days.

Can't wait to hear what this thing sounds like on the 1.6's.

[Mike Anderson]

Well after only a couple hours I can say the Logos *definitely* handles bass with a lot more authority. It's significantly louder and more controlled than with the Classic One.

Overall the amp is just a heckuva lot beefier.

I think highs were possibly a bit clearer and more delicate with the Classic One, but I can't really tell if I just noticed them more with less prominent bass.

[Florian]

Well the Logos is twice the price so it better be different! Enjoy ;-)

[Bernd]

I'd love to get some Telefunkens - if you see some that don't cost $300/tube, let me know.
Thanks.

Will do. In the meantime, if you want, I have a matched pair of Harma Diamond 6922 (made a big improvement to the stock Sovteks) you can have. Just sent me a PM with your address and I sent them to you.

Have musical weekend

Bernd

[Mike Anderson]

^^ That's way too generous - but I won't turn you down! :D

[Bernd]

^^ That's way too generous - but I won't turn you down! :D

No problem. They will go out on monday.

Bernd

[Mike Anderson]

Well I've been listening to the amp for a day and a half now, and I have to say -- there's something not quite right: The highs are really harsh at times. When there's something like a soprano, a trumpet, or high piano, it can be quite unpleasant, grating and almost painful to listen to if it's at all loud.

I would be tempted to say it's the room (I have hardwood floors and a fair number of windows), but I haven't experienced this with other amps. The Classic One is very sweet and pleasant at all frequencies, and it's sitting in the same room. The sound of the Classic One makes me want to turn it up, while high frequencies on the Logos make me want to turn it down.

Is it possible that with the greater amount of power, the amp is pushing out more volume at the high frequencies (as well as the low), and that's making my room issues more audible?

I'm going to wait until the 1.6's are here to make any decisions, but it's clear I may have to do some adjustments if I want to keep the Logos. I'm really hoping I can get it to sound like the Classic One, only with a little more volume and bass.

[Bernd]

Hi Mike,

Never had any issue with brightness from the Logos. It is a much better amp then the Classic one and will give you, of course, more of everything, especially power. I would guess ,you already indentified your room issues, you are getting much more clarity. And with all those hard reflective surfaces the sound will bounce around. I use several large leafed plants behind the speakers and that works a treat and looks good. I used the Logos with very sensitive Horn speakers and no issue with brightness there. I can not stand artifical bright metalic sound.I would wait for the 1.6 and see how you get on. I have no experience at all with panel speakers so can't really give an opinion.Also wait for the tubes to arrive. The Sovteks 6922 are a touch on the bright side, the Harma Diamond 6922 should put that right.

Bernd

[Mike Anderson]

^^ Will do.

[theaudiohobby]

Hi Mike,

Never had any issue with brightness from the Logos. It is a much better amp then the Classic one and will give you, of course, more of everything, especially power.

Hmm...There is a reason why the Classic One and TT are more popular than Logos...no prizes for guessing why ;) , and both have lower rated power than the Logos. Take my comments with a grain of salt though, as the dealer coyly (I think?) did not let me hear it alongside the TT or the Classic One, I think I know why ;) . By the way, The old Logos ,not sure about the new, did not use an INPOL circuit.

[Geoffcin]

Hmm...There is a reason why the Classic One and TT are more popular than Logos...no prizes for guessing why ;) , and both have lower rated power than the Logos. Take my comments with a grain of salt though, as the dealer coyly (I think?) did not let me hear it alongside the TT or the Classic One, I think I know why ;) . By the way, The old Logos ,not sure about the new, did not use an INPOL circuit.

This is the pic I took at HE2005 of the Vandy 5a's driven by Pathos amp

http://gallery.audioreview.com/data/audio/504/medium/207729vandy_5_and_pathos_2.jpg

Is this your amp?

[Geoffcin]

It appears to have been an Pathos InPower

[Mike Anderson]

. By the way, The old Logos ,not sure about the new, did not use an INPOL circuit.


I didn't know there was a "new" and "old" Logos - where do you see this info?

[theaudiohobby]

I didn't know there was a "new" and "old" Logos - where do you see this info?


Well this is a review (http://www.pathosacoustics.com/nov03.pdf) of the old model, they have since released a new Logos.

[theaudiohobby]

It appears to have been an Pathos InPower

Yep, that is the InPower, a rather majestic looking set of amps in the flesh. :) , how did it sound.

[Bernd]

Well this is a review (http://www.pathosacoustics.com/nov03.pdf) of the old model, they have since released a new Logos.

Absolute rubbish.

Classic One
Logos
Inpol2
Cinema-X
In Control
In Power
TT

This is the line up of Pathos Intgrated and Pre Power amps. The Inpol 2 is similar looking then the Logos. However it is a completely different amp. It is frustrating when people make comments about something they have absolutley no clue about.
Please get your information right and then bring something new to the table. As I said before"You are devoid of original thought".

Bernd

[Bernd]

I didn't know there was a "new" and "old" Logos - where do you see this info?

Mike,

There is no new and old Logos. There is the Logos and there is the Inpol2. Look similar but completely different amps.For high current demand with your panel speakers you will need the Classic One or the Logos.
The TT and the Inpol2 have less power and play better with sensitive speakers. They also sound clearer and sweeter as they should for the increase incost.
Tubes went off today.

Bernd

[Florian]

Dude, just wait! I was in Switzerland listening to some OTL's and Acoustats so i am replying late. Wait till you have the 1.6 and buy the QED cables, trust me. The Classic One had more then enough power and the thing doesnt sound bright either. Just wait, its all about matching and patience. Dont touch the tubes and mess with it, get the basics done right first. (isolation, placement, cabling, sources etc...impedance matching) and then go and tune

[theaudiohobby]

Unlke the TT, the Logos doesn't use the firm's proprietary INPOL circuitry ,Stereophile November 2003

Boy..oh..boy Bernd. aren't we touchy! INPOL (http://www.pathosacoustics.com/inpoleng.htm) is the name of the proprietary circuit in some of the Pathos amplifiers. If you took time to read the link that I got off Pathos site no less, it is explicitly stated that the Logos does not have an INPOL circuit, but the Classic One has. It pays to know what you are talking about rather than letting your emotions get the better of you. By the way, the 70W Classic One is a MKII, another fact that is not explicitly stated on Pathos' site.

[Bernd]

Unlke the TT, the Logos doesn't use the firm's proprietary INPOL circuitry ,Stereophile November 2003

Boy..oh..boy Bernd. aren't we touchy! INPOL (http://www.pathosacoustics.com/inpoleng.htm) is the name of the proprietary circuit in some of the Pathos amplifiers. If you took time to read the link that I got off Pathos site no less, it is explicitly stated that the Logos does not have an INPOL circuit, but the Classic One has. It pays to know what you are talking about rather than letting your emotions get the better of you. By the way, the 70W Classic One is a MKII, another fact that is not stated on the Pathos site

Not touchy at all. Just don't like to read miss-information.You stated a "new Logos"-no such thing. The Inpol2 is a Different amplifier-Period. I do know what I am talking about when it comes to the Logos. I did own one. Did you? We already covered the Classic one MKll so you are a bit late with that.
I would say with Florian having experience with the Maggies 1.6 and the Classic One and my knowledge of the Logos, this does put us in a more informed position-wouldn't you say.


Bernd

[theaudiohobby]

By the way Bernd, did you even read any of the links before replying? Just noticed that your commentary was totally oblivious of the preceeding posts.

[theaudiohobby]

Not touchy at all. Just don't like to read miss-information.You stated a "new Logos"-no such thing. The Inpol2 is a Different amplifier-Period. I do now what I am talking about when it comes to the Logos. I did own one. Did you? We already covered the Classic one MKll so you are a bit late with that.

I made a statement of fact about the Logos, even cited links, Anyway I was not discussing INPOL2, I was discussing the Logos (MK1?), it does not have an INPOL circuit, a statement of fact regardless of ownership.



I would say with Florian having experience with the Maggies 1.6 and the Classic One and my knowledge of the Logos, this does put us in a more informed position-wouldn't you say.

Enjoy your Sharp.

Bernd

Actually my original comments about the Classic One were spot on, a fact that is obliquely attested by Mike's first post on this thread. Do you or Florian have a more informed opinion, based on the evidence so far, I think not.

Thanks by the way, I am enjoying my Sharp.

[Bernd]

I made a statement of fact about the Logos, even cited links, Anyway I was not discussing INPOL2, I was discussing the Logos (MK1?), it does not have an INPOL circuit, a statement of fact regardless of ownership.



Actually my original comments about the Classic One were spot on, a fact that is obliquely attested by Mike's first post on this thread. Do you or Florian have a more informed opinion, based on the evidence so far, I think not.


Yes, and I was stating the Logos is the Logos there is no original or new version. Please show me your evidence that there are two versions of the Logos.
It appears to me, you are after confrontation again.

[Florian]

Well lets not start a **** kicking match. We all know what systems we have and where we stand, so no need to get into that.

To Bernd: Dont bother, like we spoke before and came to the conclusion that some things are just hopeless.

To Hobby: I have no idea what point your trying to make, what your trying to say or what this argument is over. Can you please state your point again and what it has to do with this thread?

[Bernd]

Well lets not start a **** kicking match. We all know what systems we have and where we stand, so no need to get into that.

To Bernd: Dont bother, like we spoke before and came to the conclusion that some things are just hopeless.

To Hobby: I have no idea what point your trying to make, what your trying to say or what this argument is over. Can you please state your point again and what it has to do with this thread?

HURRAY!!!!!

Yes completely hopeless. I am sure Mike will be well pleased with the final result once the 1.6 have arrived.
Good to read a mellow response from you. Much better. Mr.Hobby must be really unhappy with his Sharp amp.

The power of music gives you wings

Bernd

[theaudiohobby]

HURRAY!!!!!

Yes completely hopeless. I am sure Mike will be well pleased with the final result once the 1.6 have arrived.
Good to read a mellow response from you. Much better. Mr.Hobby must be really unhappy with his Sharp amp.

The power of music gives you wings

Bernd

Nice to see the power of music in action, You and Florian should get along handsomely ;).

[theaudiohobby]

Yes, and I was stating the Logos is the Logos there is no original or new version. Please show me your evidence that there are two versions of the Logos.
It appears to me, you are after confrontation again.

Hmm...let's see...you insult me....then claim that I am after a confrontation, tortuous logic I think. Did you bother to read any of the links at all. Let me rephrase my original statement to help you, the Logos (the version I am aware of) does not have an INPOL circuit, but the Pathos Classic One and the TT do. Frankly, even if there is no new version of the Logos, it does make my original commentary any less true.

[Bernd]

Hmm...let's see...you insult me....then claim that I am after a confrontation, tortuous logic I think. Did you bother to read any of the links at all. Let me rephrase my original statement to help you, the Logos (the version I am aware of) does not have an INPOL circuit, but the Pathos Classic One and the TT do. Frankly, even if there is no new version of the Logos, it does make my original commentary any less true.

And your point is??????????????

[Bernd]

Nice to see the power of music in action, You and Florian should get along handsomely ;).


And your point is???????????????

[Florian]

Dear Mr. Hobby, yes we do get along nicely. There are several people i get along with on this site and we all have one thing in common. We love music and take the right steps to persue our passion. We try equipment and dont read about them or bug HIFI store owners without buying something. We have different views but are at a position where we can call on preferences.

-Florian W.

[theaudiohobby]

...
To Hobby: I have no idea what point your trying to make, what your trying to say or what this argument is over. Can you please state your point again and what it has to do with this thread?

Just read my posts in the thread..., if you are still unclear after that, then ask a more specific question.

[theaudiohobby]

And your point is???????????????

Well Florian just answered your curiousity , quite nicely too.... ;)

[theaudiohobby]

Hmm...let's see...you insult me....then claim that I am after a confrontation, tortuous logic I think. Did you bother to read any of the links at all. Let me rephrase my original statement to help you, the Logos (the version I am aware of) does not have an INPOL circuit, but the Pathos Classic One and the TT do. Frankly, even if there is no new version of the Logos, it does make my original commentary any less true.


And your point is??????????????

could you be more specific? Quite a few lines of thought in the post you responded to.

[Bernd]

Hmm...let's see...you insult me....then claim that I am after a confrontation, tortuous logic I think. Did you bother to read any of the links at all. Let me rephrase my original statement to help you, the Logos (the version I am aware of) does not have an INPOL circuit, but the Pathos Classic One and the TT do. Frankly, even if there is no new version of the Logos, it does make my original commentary any less true.



could you be more specific? Quite a few lines of thought in the post you responded to.

You stated that there is Mark 1 and Mark 2 version of the Logos - which I corrected you on, and then you said the Logos had no INPOL circuitry = which we all know. My point is - you were giving advice to someone about something you clearly have no knowledge of (ie there is only ONE Logos and therefore your debate was irrelevant) - as usual. It isn't helpful to someone looking to improve, if people respond with a lot of waffle about things that they clearly have no practical knowledge of. Is that specific enough?

And your point is?????????

[theaudiohobby]

You stated that there is Mark 1 and Mark 2 version of the Logos - which I corrected you on, and then you said the Logos had no INPOL circuitry = which we all know. My point is - you were giving advice to someone about something you clearly have no knowledge of (ie there is only ONE Logos and therefore your debate was irrelevant) - as usual. It isn't helpful to someone looking to improve, if people respond with a lot of waffle about things that they clearly have no practical knowledge of. Is that specific enough?

And your point is?????????


Man, you are touchy and for no reason whatsoever, there is no debate here, mistakes are allowed. Nice that you agree that Logos does not have an INPOL circuitry. My original quote

By the way, The old Logos ,not sure about the new, did not use an INPOL circuit.

Now that you have graciously corrected me by pointing me in the direction of the INPOL2 and we agree that the Logos does not have an INPOL circuit, we can move on to crux of my original post, I believe that the lack of the INPOL circuit has a decisive effect on the sound, after all, the the Logos has more power than the Classic One, TT and even the new INPOL2, yet I have heard no one, absolutely no one claim that the Logos is better sounding that the TT, also the TT with just about half the power of the Classic, has a more authoritative low end on the same low-efficiency speaker, an electrostatic, so it is not all in the power, is it?

As to being helpful and knowledgable...I suggest you read my earlier installments, I have been helpful as well as accurate in my posts, nor have I omitted to acknowlege any mistakes or errors on my side, as to the sound of the Classic One, I was spot on. If in doubt read the original thread. This thread is really for me a case of I told you so.

[Florian]

as to the sound of the Classic One, I was spot on.
Excuse me? You were not spot on, nor where you right. The owner has a Magnepan MMG which is the smallest, least dynamic, almost no bass having, max spl limited planar that i know that is worth mentioning. The recommendation was based on the 1.6 and the QED cables which is identical to one of my earliest systems. There are no volume or bass contrainsts, the owner was too fast and changed tubes immediatly without even knowing the true sound of the amplifier or exploring it. Dont be so quick on your comments and i can guarantee you that a single ended no feedback OTL amp matches your small Quads way better then the Pathos, as a end comment.

[theaudiohobby]

Excuse me? You were not spot on, nor where you right. The owner has a Magnepan MMG which is the smallest, least dynamic, almost no bass having, max spl limited planar that i know that is worth mentioning..

Now that's funny...I wonder what your friend MIke A has to say about that :) , the posts are out there whether you agree or not with my final conclusions.


The recommendation was based on the 1.6 and the QED cables which is identical to one of my earliest systems.
Owned those cables many moons ago, sold them because I did not care for them, nor do I not care for cable discussions in general.


There are no volume or bass contrainsts, the owner was too fast and changed tubes immediatly without even knowing the true sound of the amplifier or exploring it. Dont be so quick on your comments

well....tell that to Mike A not me, afterall my original comments mirrored his findings...


and i can guarantee you that a single ended no feedback OTL amp matches your small Quads way better then the Pathos, as a end comment.

An irrelevant comment. I am not in the market for an amplifier to drive my Quads, The Silvaweld OTL is simply not an amplifier I am interested in, if I do eventually buy a Classic One, I will be buying it on it own merit not as an amplifier to driver the Quads.

[Bernd]

Man, you are touchy and for no reason whatsoever, there is no debate here, mistakes are allowed. Nice that you agree that Logos does not have an INPOL circuitry. My original quote

By the way, The old Logos ,not sure about the new, did not use an INPOL circuit.

Now that you have graciously corrected me by pointing me in the direction of the INPOL2 and we agree that the Logos does not have an INPOL circuit, we can move on to crux of my original post, I believe that the lack of the INPOL circuit has a decisive effect on the sound, after all, the the Logos has more power than the Classic One, TT and even the new INPOL2, yet I have heard no one, absolutely no one claim that the Logos is better sounding that the TT, also the TT with just about half the power of the Classic, has a more authoritative low end on the same low-efficiency speaker, an electrostatic, so it is not all in the power, is it?

As to being helpful and knowledgable...I suggest you read my earlier installments, I have been helpful as well as accurate in my posts, nor have I omitted to acknowlege any mistakes or errors on my side, as to the sound of the Classic One, I was spot on. If in doubt read the original thread. This thread is really for me a case of I told you so.

Ahh! The TT is a far better amp than the Logos (Mike didn't want a TT), but loads below 5ohm make the TT cry. And yes I have auditioned the whole range over time. So I am still not sure what your point was concerning the Logos.
And yes mistakes are allowed and necessary, but speaking with authority on a subject without a firm practical knowledge is counter productive.I have said all there is to say on your posts.
Enjoy the rest of your day

[theaudiohobby]

Ahh! The TT is a far better amp than the Logos (Mike didn't want a TT), but loads below 3ohm make the TT cry. And yes I have auditioned the whole range over time. So I am still not sure what your point was concerning the Logos.
And yes mistakes are allowed and necessary, but speaking with authority on a subject without a firm practical knowledge is counter productive.I have said all there is to say on your posts.
Enjoy the rest of your day

My point has been the same my first post on this thread, The Logos is not a better sounding amplifier because of it's extra power as it lacks the INPOL circuit, a point I made on the very first post before you went off in a tangent.

And on these threads, it has been my comments (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=121827&postcount=18) not yours that have been the user's experience, so any semblance of authority you think you have on this subject is purely imaginary, your (neither has Florian's so far for that matter) comments have done zilch to alert Mike A to the specific sonic attributes and pitfalls that are specific to these amplifiers.

[theaudiohobby]

Ahh! The TT is a far better amp than the Logos (Mike didn't want a TT), but loads below 3ohm make the TT cry.

By the way this is an irrelevant point in the light of my previous post, The TT sounds better and it has much less power, and sounds better than the Logos on compatible loads, which was the original point anyway.

[Florian]

Hey Hobby, you know what your problem is`? It is the fact that Bernd and I both know that you know less then 10% of what you claim to know. I bet that 70% of the brands and models i recommend and talk about you have never heard before in your life.

Peace out

[JohnMichael]

Obviously GMichael and I did not know a heated arguement was happening or we would have been here to add some inane comments. Florian and Bernd as always handling the situation well. Keep up the good work.

[Bernd]

By the way this is an irrelevant point in the light of my previous post, The TT sounds better and it has much less power, and sounds better than the Logos on compatible loads, which was the original point anyway.

Have you ever owned or lived with any Pathos Products? Yes or No.
Have you ever compared any Pathos products againts each other? Yes or No.
Have you ever heard a Classic One drive 1.6 Maggies? Yes or No.

What is your knowledge based on? Please enlighten us.

Bernd

P.S. I had in direct comparision in my home at the same time, the Logos,Classic One,TT and Inpol2.
Case closed. But feel free to keep digging you an even bigger hole.

[Bernd]

Obviously GMichael and I did not know a heated arguement was happening or we would have been here to add some inane comments. Florian and Bernd as always handling the situation well. Keep up the good work.

Thank you John.
Just trying to help Mike get good sound with his new gear and we get Mr Hobby with his fantasy based knowledge.What can you do? I am a peace-loving man.Salt anyone?

The power of music gives you wings

Bernd

[Geoffcin]

If you want to get personal with someone your free to use PM.

[Mike Anderson]

Just for the record:

I still have the Classic One, as well as the Logos. However, I haven't gotten the 1.6qr's yet. When I do, I will try both amps with them, as well as various tubes.

Until then, it's a little premature to say whether my experience confirms or negates anything that has been said about these amps and the 1.6qr's!

Criminy... You all need to chill out!

[Florian]

And also for the record, when Mike asked for help i actually helped. The system i had is extremely close to what he will most likely have. I have lots of experience with their technology and how they work. I have recommended amps, cables speaker positioning etc.. Bernd has been very helpfull with his comments and they only person who has brought nothing to this advisery board is Mr. Hobby who only seems to look for trouble. My recommendations are based on real life and long term relationships with the mentioned products and cannot be weighted less then theoretical mumbojumbo from a person who has no Maggies, nor has he owned Maggies or the Pathos equipment. And let the record show that in my opinion, anyone who pics a Pathos Integrated over the Silverwald OTL's has no buisiness owning a electrostatic and deserves to own a Sharp. (The last part is my sole opinion)

[theaudiohobby]

I had in direct comparision in my home at the same time, the Logos,Classic One,TT and Inpol2.

All that knowledge, yet your posts suggest you were seemingly incapable of enunciating the basic sonic distinctions of the amplifiers in question. As for your questions, the answers are already their in previous replies across both threads.


Bernd has been very helpful with his comments and they only person who has brought nothing to this advisery board is Mr. Hobby who only seems to look for trouble. Yep, so helpful that both of you omitted to mention that the Classic One lacks bass punch. So helpful, that he claimed the superior sound quality of the Logos, claiming more power, following his original logic the Logos should be best sounding Pathos of all after all it has the most power. So peaceful, his opening reply was to insult me. As I said earlier, both of you will get on handsomely, as neither of you seem capable of telling the forest for the trees. Finding it hard to respect dissenting opinions.


And let the record show that in my opinion, anyone who pics a Pathos Integrated over the Silverwald OTL's has no buisiness owning a electrostatic and deserves to own a Sharp. (The last part is my sole opinion)Just goes to show the depth of your helpful knowledge.I repeat I am not interested in the Silverwald OTL, And please stop speaking about a imaginary choice/decision, Silverweld does not have distribution in the UK.

Finally, thanks for your backhanded comments about my system, I am here to select a system that works not to earn audiophile brownie points or bragging rights, and the wise ones do the same.

[Florian]

You bring this upon yourself, the matter of the fact is that the Classic One does have enough bass punch and that Mike hasnt gotten the chance yet to hear my recommended setup since he hasnt gotten the 1.6 yet so your entire argument is a waste of mine and Bernds time. You say the Silvaweld is not distributed into england, which means i was right and you have never heard it but can clearly say your not interested in it. Should i continue or will you leave this thread and stop with your non helpfull comments? And on the side note, if you had a clue you would know that the Classic one MKI has a sweeter more romantic sound then the MKII and that the Logo (which i didnt recommend since it was over the budget), i have never said any bad things about it or that the Classic One is better. So get your facts straight and get back to the back seats.

[theaudiohobby]

You bring this upon yourself
GMAB!

the matter of the fact is that the Classic One does have enough bass punch and that Mike hasnt gotten the chance yet to hear my recommended setup The Classic One lacks bass punch, pure and simple, and that will sonic distinction will show up on any speaker with reasonable bandwidth, I know that because I have heard that selfsame amplifer with at least five speakers, the same sonic distinction every time, when compared to other amplifiers. That you and Bernd failed to alert Mike A to this critical sonic distinction is really a pity. Instead both of you are now happing about a side issue.

You say the Silvaweld is not distributed into england, which means i was right and you have never heard it So what!!, talk about building castles in the air! I have not heard it and I am not interested in hearing it, neither have I ever discussed that amp, you making a totally irrelevant point!

Get your facts straight Well, they were so straight in the first place, that you had to put up a rant to vent out your frustration :eek: . As I said earlier, if you and Bernd had been more helpful in the first place, the guy will not be in the pickle that he now is, in essense he now has two amplifiers whose essential sonic strengths seem to be at cross purposes with each other :eek:.

[Florian]

Dude your dissapearing, your into shrinking. Your arguments get less and less and you start to crumble and crawl back. How can you say the Pathos lacks bass punch when you run a old Quad that lacks in more then bass punch. It lacks in dynamic swings, bass extension and max spl etc.. Mike runs a MMG which has pretty much no bass at all. Heck even the MG20R driven active lacks bass extension and bass punch. You say you heard it on 5 speakers? I will tell you something, that amp is sitting next to and i can drive the .5 with it, the 1.6, the Apogee DIVA reference, the VMPS RM30-M or the 3.6R/SE.

I had had that amp on more speakers then you own! Ok, get the picture finally? I dont agree with your so called lack of bass punch, the Quad has no bass and that is why you run a cheesy subwoofer and talk about no integration problems. No die hard audiophile with a clue would punish the Quads, noß mattter how small to a subwoofer in the first place or use a bloddy Sharp amp no matter if its the big digital one or not.

Mike has the MMG and will have the 1.6 soon, and asked for a recommendation and listed many amps and the Pathos is the one that fitted the bill well. Heck, i would have recommended something different if there would be a better match for the Maggies in that price range. Get together man, and simply stop this crap. I can crush you in expereice with my left hand and have all of those sitting in my listening room. Get out while you can!

And for the record, if Mike had 11000$ to spend on a amp i would have recommend the big MK Industries, Silvaweld or the Sphinx amps if he can find one. Do these have more bass punch then the little Classic One? Yes! But they are close to the 7 times the price. For the money it was the right recommendation and works very well with the speakers.

[theaudiohobby]

Ah! we are back to I have more toys than you do style of argument! Whose competing with you? Get a clue, I don't care. And It would seem that all those toys have not helped your knowledge of audio a jot, as you keep lurching from one booboo to another, so much experience you commit a booboo each time discuss the Quads :eek:. I see that you have come around and accepted that the Quads may be successfully integrated with a cheesy subwoofer, one more thing to add to your knowledge and it did not cost a penny ;) .

l suggest you get a clue.

[Florian]

Yes, i have more toys then you. I have the toys i recommend and i can back up my claims. You are just a bunch or empty words, and since Berd is smart enough to ignore you and i have tried too i will call it quits. You win, enjoy it then in the end i know where i stand and i know where you stand and so do the other who read this.

[Bernd]

Don't Sharp make Microwave ovens? I am in the market for a new one. Any good?

[theaudiohobby]

And for the record, if Mike had 11000$ to spend on a amp i would have recommend the big MK Industries, Silvaweld or the Sphinx amps if he can find one. Do these have more bass punch then the little Classic One? Yes! But they are close to the 7 times the price. For the money it was the right recommendation and works very well with the speakers.
So you now grudgingly accept that the Classic One does indeed lack bass punch, too little, too late. You could have helped your friend a lot more if you were more upfront about that in the first place rather than prancing around with a snotty attitude.

[Bernd]

I think so. Two pages of babble.Unbelievable.

Bernd

[Bernd]

What a pity! Your mutual friend is in a pickle over which amp to choose based on your 'sanguine' advice and you are jesting about a technicality, casually admiting that the amplfiier has a sonic distinction, but only in comparison to 11K amps, Why did you not mention that in the first place? Pity that your friend Bernd is not smart as you potrayed him to be, he joined the affray with some choice comments of his own, so much for peace and wisdom, obviously cut from the same cloth as you are :), preaching one thing whilst conspicously engaging in the opposite.

Well...the game is still on ;)

And your point is??????????

Pingggg!

[Mike Anderson]

What a pity! Your mutual friend is in a pickle over which amp to choose based on your 'sanguine' advice and you are jesting about a technicality, casually admiting that the amplfiier has a sonic distinction, but only in comparison to 11K amps, Why did you not mention that in the first place? Pity that your friend Bernd is not smart as you potrayed him to be, he joined the affray with some choice comments of his own, so much for peace and wisdom, obviously cut from the same cloth as you are :), preaching one thing whilst conspicously engaging in the opposite.


1) I bought both amps used, and both in very good condition, so it isn't really that much of a pickle - in fact if I decide to sell the Logos, 2-to-1 says I can make a profit off it.

2) I was aware that the Classic One wouldn't be huge on bass before I bought it. I was hoping it would have enough power, and it may yet, once I get the chance to try it out with the 1.6qr's.

[Geoffcin]

1) I bought both amps used, and both in very good condition, so it isn't really that much of a pickle - in fact if I decide to sell the Logos, 2-to-1 says I can make a profit off it.

2) I was aware that the Classic One wouldn't be huge on bass before I bought it. I was hoping it would have enough power, and it may yet, once I get the chance to try it out with the 1.6qr's.

Rolling equipment, and making some $$$ at the same time....I like it!

As much as I hate to agree with Florian (it get's his head even bigger than it is if that's possible!) I would say that once you get he 1.6qr's your going to see a lot more bass.

Remember that the breakin on the 1.6's is like forever. You'll keep getting more bass after a few HUNDRED hours of playing!

[Florian]

(it get's his head even bigger than it is if that's possible!)
Considering that all the people who followed my advice and who understand me have gotten wonderfull results so far i think i can handle the growth of my head. The only people that disagree Geof. are those with systems that you and i know well and dont consider to be worth mentioning in terms of true audiophile performance regardless of cost.

-Flo

[Geoffcin]

Considering that all the people who followed my advice and who understand me have gotten wonderfull results so far i think i can handle the growth of my head. The only people that disagree Geof. are those with systems that you and i know well and dont consider to be worth mentioning in terms of true audiophile performance regardless of cost.

-Flo

It's when you join in flame wars that the problems arise.

Mike Anderson is a pretty sharp dude, I'm sure he knows who's got advice that he wants to listen to. Let him make that decision.

[Florian]

You know as well as i that i dont start the flame wars. (exept in the steel cage) You also know that i offer real help to all serious people, no matter if its a 500$ system or a 5000$ dollar system. I have written small guides, pay a monthly fee to keep the planar speaker section pictures etc.. up and running. I am the only one recommending affordable cables from Paul Speltz and before me there was never a discussion about planar speakers, italian amps etc..

You should keep your eyes open for the real bad people on this forum who seek every chance they get to offend me or to start a argument.

-Florian

PS: I know Mike is sharp, but look back at how much time i invested and what experience i have offered together with Bernd and others. I dont see a moderator in here stoping the fishing from others!

[Mike Anderson]

For what it's worth, Florian and everybody else, I really appreciate the time you've take to help me out with this. In the end, I know I'm going to have an awesome-sounding rig, with much thanks to you folks.

And I actually enjoy hearing some of the contrary opinions, provided they're voiced intelligently. Debate can be very enlightening when conducted meaningfully.

I think it's important to remember that everybody has different tastes, so I don't know whether it's valid to claim one piece of equipment sounds better than another as if this were objective fact. You can argue about bass levels, or frequency response or SPLs, or whatever can be measured objectively -- but I don't see much sense in saying "this speaker sounds terrible" unless you qualify it with a phrase like "according to my preferences."

Really, if someone prefers the sound of Bose to Maggies, who's to say they're wrong? It's kind of like saying you like one flavor of ice cream better than another; there's no right or wrong, just taste.

[Mike Anderson]

Mike Anderson is a pretty sharp dude, I'm sure he knows who's got advice that he wants to listen to. Let him make that decision.

Hey, thanks (on both counts)!

Can't say I know much about audio equipment though -- I know something about guitars and guitar amps, but nothing about audio gear.

I do try to research it though. I don't want anyone to get the idea that I just spend thousands of dollars on whatever amp somebody on this forum tells me to buy. I researched the Pathos stuff thoroughly, and it happens that the amps have just the features and quality I was looking for, and in just the right price range. If I had a decent dealer around here, I would have done an in-home audition, but it just wasn't possible - which is why I looked hard for some good prices on used models that could be turned around if necessary.

[Bernd]

It's when you join in flame wars that the problems arise.

Mike Anderson is a pretty sharp dude, I'm sure he knows who's got advice that he wants to listen to. Let him make that decision.

Hi Geoff,

Good of you to sum this up.

Bernd

[Mike Anderson]

BTW, I seem to have solved the brightness problem.

I'm not sure what was causing it, but I changed a number of things. The volume coming out of the Benchmark was too high (at max) and probably causing some slight distortion. The digital coax cable was right next to (in contact with) one of the power cords. So I made some adjustments and moved stuff around. Whatever it was, it worked.

So the Logos is now every bit as sweet as the Classic One, but with all the power and bass! I spent all last night bathed in lush, gorgeous sound, like a beautiful woman relaxing in a marble tub full of bubbles (or something like that).

Now if the 1.6qrs would just get here already... sheesh.

[Florian]

So your still waiting on the 1.6's ? That sucks, hey hit me up on MSN (overture3@hotmail.com)

[Mike Anderson]

So your still waiting on the 1.6's ? That sucks, hey hit me up on MSN (overture3@hotmail.com)

Yeah, supposedly they shipped out this past Wednesday, should be here some time this week.

[Mike Anderson]

So your still waiting on the 1.6's ? That sucks, hey hit me up on MSN (overture3@hotmail.com)

Are you sure that email addy is correct? It bounced.

[Florian]

Are you sure that email addy is correct? It bounced.
Yeah thats correct, send me your addy and i will add you.

Cheers

Flo

[Mike Anderson]

mikeand1 at comcast.net


If you're talking about chat though (is that what MSN is?) I don't really use it.

[Florian]

Yeah thats what i mean.