so tom, you ask how does it sound. well, after two dozen plus swaps between the 300x2 and 400x7 the imag in my view has a suttle yet more delicate presentation of the program material. in this case, roger waters ca-ara. on track 7 first disc, there are five singers spread throughout the sound stage. with the imag, they are spread out just on the wall itself. then there is a thunder crackle behind the wall/window in this case that has such realism you would think that a storm is infact going on outside. let me also mention that the new amazings are what i think are just as responceable for the sound doing what it does as is the amp. so, this is on the current setting not the voltage. now come in the 300x2. the stage is a little more narrow in that the performers that are singing are now about 2-4 inches in towards the center. the stage is not quite as wide. the tonal characteristics although simular are more delicate in the imag. the stage is further back as mention with the imag so the 300 has a more forward quality. the midrange has a fuller quality in that it is not as realistic as the imag because it is a more speaker sounding quality the realistic. hard to describe as this is not my calling, writing reviews. anywho, the next up is the 7400. it has a cleaner sound than the 300, yet still laking the character of the imag. the thunder is not as believable though. i could kind of describe this as pelling off thin layers dark tint on glass. the singer on the 7400 are spread out as good, but the stage is still a little more forward.
so after going back and forth many times, i start to look into the eq to get a simular effect, but i come up short in that i get close, but not exact. keep in mind i only worked at the eq for 5 minutes. so next i start to look at the oscilloscope to see if there are any clues to why the imag sounds a little more realistic over the other amps. well, i notice that even though the middle/high of the frequency band width is not as full by ear on the imag , the soundstage being further back due to the i would guess at 2k-4k being a db or less down maybe and the 400-600 thinned out a hair , the scope shows a wider trace. huh,what is going on. the 300 and 400 have a fuller tone to them on the voices, yet the scope says the trace is a little smaller. hmm. so i turn the volume up just a notch, and even though the the dynamics are closer to the imag on the scope, it is clearly a little louder to the ear. so the imag is a little more delicate yet just as powerful with the volume a touch lower. this is more than likely due to the sound signature bob put in the amp. well, now a little envious of alex, what a great amp, i start to try different combo's on the voltage/current outputs. first up is the 300. the sound is a little less clouded, cloudy, hell, muddy might be the word. again, writing is not my cup of tea. still the singers are not as wide and the thunder is not as real sounding. next the 400, again this amp is better than the 300 and almost the same as the imag in the voices and clarity, yet the imag still edges it out when the thunder hits even though the stage is still a touch more forward. that might also be why the thunder sounds so real with the imag due to the sound coming from the other side of the window. no, that would not be entirely correct as the imag has the crackle of the thunder sounding real, even with the eq adjusted, the other two just come up short somehow. another thing that is noticed with the imag is that the treble is over bearing at high volumes. it can be described as less/not as much ssssss in the voices as compared to any other amp i have listened to. it is warm and inviting at high volumes. with the new amazings, this becomes very evident as there are 26 ribbons telling you of every, and i mean every detail. they do not forgive i say. you better come correct, as these speakers will reveal any flaws in your system as they have the ability to amplify the program material like none have been able to do before their arrival. wow.
so now for the scientic discussion of what i am hearing with bob. bob states that as hard as the imag was to design, the sound signature of the amp took the longest to get right(to his liking). he states that the gundry is what i am noticing, and it is just so hard to get to a proportion that is realistic yet not over done. well, my hats is off. well done indeed. another thing in the imag is that like a tube amp, the feedback from the room though the speakers is also part of the picture. next we talk about the treble, and he states that like a riaa equalization on a phono section, the amp has a simular quality. wow again.
so now i state that i wish there were more of these amps, and bob say says, you know, with a few parts, we could make modify the parts values in the circuit that does the same for the amps you have more or less. now excited, i await the time later that we will sit and follow through and make the amp listen to the room better as a mod to my current amps. more later on this. that's all for now, over and out.
CarverFest: I just go for the arts and crafts