This is a review of my experience comparing an Audio Note M-Zero with a Creek OBH-22 in a system comprising:

AE1 MKII speakers
TDL Nucleus SBR sub-woofer
TA2024-based power amp (biamped)
AMB Gamma 2 DAC from a laptop via the USB output
Speaker cables are ‘FFRC’
interconnects are Shark Silver Co-Ax with WBT terminals.

I’m a fan of T-amps, in particular the TA2024-based amplifier board from Helder-HiFi. I first heard about them from my brother, having set up a bare board into a kitchen set up and was blown away.

TA2024-based amps aren’t particularly powerful, but if your pursuit is quality over quantity for the price of pocket-money, I implore you to have a look and listen.

AE1 speakers even in MKII guise, are known for needing a fair amount of welly to get those metal cones moving, so I have my T-Amp doubled up in a bi-amp configuration, one for treble, one for bass.

I’ve read that valve-preamps marry up very nicely with the TA2024 power amps and that’s what I’ve been running for about 2 years in my domestic set-up.

You know how curiosity can get the better of you? Well, I wondered what my system would sound like if I ran the DAC straight off the power amp. You have to bear in mind that a laptop into a DAC has a variable output. Plug your CD player straight into the power amp and it’s going to be at full volume, so be careful!

Problem is, it sounded different… Quite a bit different. Now, if you’re pursuit of musical excellence is ‘truth’, this got me thinking and therein belies the review and comparison.

I’m not a professional reviewer, I just like listening to music in a system that is both convenient and doesn’t cost astronomical amounts of money.

So, what music did I use?

I particularly focussed on what I noticed and whether I liked it.

Please note that the attached videos are links to the tracks I listened to for reference. However, I used  MP3 audio format in the bitrate shown for the actual listening experience.

Summary

The first thing that hits me, is that the OBH-22 hits me! It’s harder, sharper, deeper, faster and ultimately, ‘freer’ – it sounds like the music has been liberated. I suppose electronically, it actually has.

The M-Zero experience is a smoother journey, possibly even more pleasant, conveying emotion and feeling exceptionally well, but it does alter the sound that’s fed to it. Pretty much all pre-amplifiers do, but the M-Zero 'prettifies' the music.

Conclusion

I feel the M-Zero is a better pre-amp if you want to hear the music, have it playing in the background in an unfatiguing way. However, if you want to listen to the music, and perhaps even analyse it, the OBH-22 is truer to the source by the very virtue of its circuitry. It literally lets through more of what it’s fed, sometimes wart ‘n’ all. Aesthetically, I feel the Audio Note is nicer… The Creek sticks out like a sore thumb in my predominately black system, but I like it. Both are remote amps so are just as convenient from the sofa. The M-Zero has more inputs (and outputs), the Creek maxes out at 3 inputs and that’s including the tape out and if you have ‘fat’ RCA/phono plugs you may have a problem squeezing them into their sockets!

… and finally

I’m now left wondering, do all passive pre-amplifiers sound the same?

Verbatim transcript from WHAT HI-FI?
May 1991 Haymarket Trade and Leisure publications LTD.

JPW Sonata Review

Small Wonders – an exploration of the ability of small speakers ranging in price from £100 - £800 and included:

Goodmans Maxim 2
Mission 760
Celestion 3
JBL XE1
Wharfedale Diamond IV
Mordaunt Short MS3.10
JPW Sonata
NAD 8225
Royd Coniston R
Rogers LS2a
Shan Shimna
Spendor LS3/5a
Linn Kan II
Monitor Audio Studio 5
Acoustic Energy AE1
Celestion SL600si

This is the one. The JPW is the best of the budget loudspeakers, and by such an overwhelming margin that there’s effectively no contest. The only problem with the Sonata, and this point has been made many times in the past, is that the tweeter can sound somewhat aggressive to the point of rawness when used directly from the box. It takes a considerable amount of running in before it reaches its peak.

When this has been accomplished, however, the improvement made is truly astonishing. It’s true that the treble doesn’t have either the grace or informativeness of the Wharfedale Diamond IV or Celestion 3 metal domes, but in this loudspeaker it is the bass/midrange driver that takes most of the load, and the whole area from lower treble down to the bass has an energy, vitality quite unique in this price range.

Colouration levels from the enclosure are much lower than normal, a fair reflection of the materials employed and the way they have been used, but the bass is also deeper and more solid. This helps provide a firmer foundation to the music, which literally sounds larger in scale and more tactile in feel when it matter.

The occasional rawness of the design imposes limitations on partnering equipment, which by preference should be smooth and well-behaved. This point apart, there were obvious constraints in the way the Sonata works with amplifiers and other components.

Build-quality mirrors the findings for sound quality. The sealed enclosure is larger than the other budget models, yet it is easily the most solid and resonance-free cabinet, partly achieved by using real wood veneers (with a balancing veneer internally) which helps stiffen the chipboard inbetween. Real wood veneers are more than merely decorative.

By contrast the combination of cone/dome tweeter and pulp cone bass look rather prosaic, but this belies the fact that what they are counts for less than how they are used. By any standards, it must be said, the JPW represents exceptional value for money.

+ Large, dynamic sound; it’s a real winner

- A trace of roughness; there’s little else to say.

The conclusion of the small loudspeaker test had the JPW Sonata coming 2nd (Acoustic Energy AE1 came in first in its original guise).

In conclusion they went on to say...

The JPW Sonata is far from being the second-best-sounding loudspeaker of the group (of 16 ranging from £100 - £800). It is the best value however, and by a sizable margin.

First appearances suggest a very ordinary system based on cost effective but rather ordinary drive units, the only slightly unusual point being the size of the enclosure, which is bigger than most of the price level. Take a closer look though, and you’ll see that the finish is real wood veneer which is extremely uncommon even at twice the price.

The idea of using real wood veneers on the box has certain attractions on aesthetic grounds of course, but there’s another much more important, though largely unrecognised, factor here.

Veneers strengthen the panels they’re applied to. A (cosmetically inferior) veneer is used on the inside of the panels for balancing purposes, and the effect is to sandwich the chipboard that makes up most of the thickness of the walls, in this case stiffening it enough to make the Sonata much less resonant than usual when tested with the standard knuckle test – basically, you rap it hard and listen for echoes (bad) or a dull thud (good).

The solidity of the enclosure reflects directly in the solidity of the sound, which extends  throughout the frequency range down to the deepest bass, which where most lightweight cheapies come unstuck. The Sonata is the speaker of contrasts: dynamic contrasts, tone colour contrasts, contrasts between notes and the spaces in between that somehow seem to get ‘filled up’ in lesser designs. A visual analogy for these benefits being the loss of deep blacks and subtle shadow detail on lesser television receivers.

Don’t expect the Sonata to perform straight from the box. Used without a thorough running-in process, which will take you at least a week, the Sonata tends to sound rather edgy and abrasive.