INTRODUCTION

First, let me thank the companies that sent their amplifiers for this shootout. It takes a lot of confidence in their products and trust in Stereomojo’s integrity and honesty for them to participate. We would also like to thank those readers who donated their personal property to be part of the test. Stereomojo encourages input from our readers on all levels because we exist to serve you – our fellow audio enthusiasts.

Special thanks also to those

who gave so unselfishly of their time to participate as judges, including the Stereomojo staff. Art Smuck and his lovely wife Kathy deserve singular thanks for their gracious hosting of the event. And last but not least, very special thanks to guru Danny Richie and GR Research for the inspiration and perspiration of organizing and co-ordinating the daunting logistics of such a massive undertaking. Our heartiest gratitude and congratulations for a job well done.

We at Stereomojo understand that there are flaws inherent in a single blind type test,

just as there are in any type of evaluation. As you will see, every possible step was taken to make sure the shootout was as fair and scientific as possible. Components of the highest caliber were used as a reference system to aid in the evaluations. Even so, we believe that the best test is your own ears in your own home in your own system. As with any test or review, it should be used as just one piece of your overall buying decision. We think the more honest and unbiased information a buyer has, the better equipped he is to make important decisions.

Lastly, the publisher, partly by time and cost constraints and partly by design, did not attend the actual shootouts which took place over two consecutive weekends in Texas. This allows me to read, evaluate and comment on the results without bias since I will read them exactly as if I were you - the reader.

As always, your comments and questions are welcome and encouraged.

James L. Darby

Publisher - Stereomojo

The setup

Methodology

by Art Smuck

Two rounds of listening to every amplifier were used to draw down to a final four, which then led to a final pairing, and as expected, a preferred amplifier at the end of the day

All amplifiers were assigned an identifying letter for each round of the competition

Blind draws were made for the first round and then the letters segregated so as not to repeat match-ups in the second round.

Prior to the second round all amplifiers were assigned a new letter and once again blind draws made for pairings. This was intended to prevent reviewers from keying in on a specific letter of amp and then making assumptions about it in the following rounds.

When the field was narrowed down to 4 amps, they were again assigned new letters and the final two pairings were again blind drawn.

The two finalists were again assigned new letters.

During the first two rounds a win was worth one point, a tie worth zero points, and a loss resulted in a deduction of one point. Criteria for an amp moving ahead to the final four were overall points. As we had an odd number of judges for the Integrated, there were no ties on head-to-head, and any ties to get into the final four were determined by a head to head shootout. This did occur for 2 amps, they were compared using the same music, and one was selected to move into the final four. For power amps, we had an even number of judges, and while there were ties in head-to-head matches, there were no total score ties at the end so the final four was clear-cut.

Judges were asked to listen in silence, did not discuss the amplifiers in between plays or rounds, and were asked to comment on the following in their note taking:

Strengths
Weaknesses
Indicated the amp you preferred and your reasons for your preference

A 4’ high tarp was strung between the speakers and supported by 2 rigid fiberglass tubes in the middle; there was zero visibility for the reviewers as to what was being played.

As a secondary precaution, during switching of cables between amplifiers a double switch was made so no one would be able to listen for specific sounds related to any type of binding posts, power cords or connectors.

All amplifiers, unless otherwise instructed by their user guide, were left running warmed up for 24 hours prior to the listening events.

All amplifiers were used with one of two types of power connection – if it came with a wall-wart style plug or fixed cord that was what was used, if it came with a detachable cord all used the Volex 17604 power cord

The same speaker cables and interconnects were used every time.

All amps were evaluated while drawing power off a dedicated 15amp line with nothing else plugged into it. Front ends were all powered on a separate dedicated line, as were the amps on standby and in warm up.

While being compared to another amp, all amplifiers were kept warm between uses by staying plugged in and powered up on a separate circuit using a 100kOhm resistor

Three selections of music were listened to for reviewing purposes.

They were selected for containing dynamics, vocals, frequency extension, complexity, and spatial cues. All selections were level set at 75-76 db as a base for comparison with peak db into the low and mid 80’s depending on source material.

The judges listened to all the selections a few times prior to commencing the reviewing using an amplifier not being reviewed.

Different selections were used each weekend to prevent the facilitator and reviewers from going insane listening to the same selections repeatedly over two weekends.

Since we all had some experience with shootouts, we decided to not play all three selections on one amp and rely on memory for how they sounded as the next amp went through the same lineup. We switched between amps on each selection as follows to allow for closest comparisons in performance:

Song 1 – Amp A

Song 1 – Amp B

Song 2 – Amp B

Song 2 – Amp A

Song 3 – Amp A

Song 3 – Amp B

Reviewers could, and did, ask to hear some parts of selections again to allow for follow up on an amp.

Finally, after listening and completing their notes, a show of hands vote was taken and the scoring validate against their sheets to capture results.

All specifications listed are by the provider.

- About the reference speakers –

The reference speakers used for the shootout are prototypes of the most hotly anticipated speakers in recent memory – the AV123 LS6. Due to be released soon, the speakers have already sold hundreds by way of preorders – people buying them without ever hearing them. For good reason – our own Technical Editor Danny Richie is the designer. Danny has reputation as being one of the most brilliant designers in the industry and has a track record of producing insanely great speakers at insanely great prices.

INTEGRATED AMPLIFIER SHOOTOUT

(The power amplifier shootout was held seperately.

See the link at page bottom)

- Songs used: -

“Azul” from the disc “Gravity” by Jesse Cook

“March to the Scaffold” from “Symphonie Fantastique” by

Berlioz as conducted by Sir Thomas Beecham with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra

“Eric’s Song” from the disc “Waking Hour” by Vienna Teng

- The Contenders -

Round 1 Match up

Sonneteer Vs. Panasonic

SONNETEER BRONTE

Class D

150watts per ch.into 4ohms

Includes remote control

DC and overload protection

>90% efficiency.

LIST: $2,295

Panasonic SAXR-55

Class D

This unit is a HOME THEATER RECEIVER rather than an integrated amplifier. As such, it provides 7 channels of power,

a tuner and all the bells and whistles associated with video reproduction and DSP. Includes remote.

Output Power - Stereo Mode 100W per channel (20Hz - 20kHz, 6 ohms, 0.09% THD)

LIST: $299

Sonneteer Strength Comments

Smooth and pleasing highs; nice on vocals and piano, can tell guitar string makeup, good maracas reproduction; good separation; good sound stage width and separation, good depth, good dynamics; nice detail without being “bright”

Sonneteer weakness comments

Sibilance; female vocal seemed forward and gritty; lack of soundstage depth; fuzzy low end, tympani’s somewhat indistinct; bass extension seemed weak

Preferred Sonneteer because:

More detailed, clearer and more open. More emotion
Better control and contrast, more exciting
More musical, easier to listen to

Panasonic Strength comments

More “tinkle” to the highs, better delineation on low notes; quiet background; good detail and definition; clean, fairly musical; deeper low end; good sound stage

Panasonic weakness comments

Not as much depth to sound stage; not as much body, seemed slightly thinner; veiled and lack of dynamics; some lower notes blended into one another, not a lot, but noticeable; bass seemed “boomy”

Preferred Panasonic because:

Feel it would be better over a broader range of musical types

Sonneteer is preferred by a vote of 4 to 3

1 reviewer noted this was a very difficult decision and he would be happy with either

Publisher’s note – The Panasonic is a full Home Theater Receiver with gobs of video and DSP involved- and a tuner.

It also is capable of full digital input. In addition, the Panasonic has seven channels of amplification.

Round 1 Match up #2

NuForce vs Sonic Impact Super-T

NuForce IA-7

Class D

Power Output:100W x 2 with 24,000uF of capacitance using 200W SMPS

Power Bandwidth: 100Hz to 20kHz +/- 0.3 dB; 20Hz -0.9 dB; 80kHz -3 dB

THD+N < 0.05% from 20Hz to 20kHz @ 10W, 8-ohm load

Damping Factor > 4000 at any audio frequency

Remote input selection and volume control with memory (last selection, volume level)

Digitally-controlled switched attenuator. Volume Range: +30dB to –70dB with 0.5dB steps

Audio Inputs: 4 sets of RCA inputs (1 set can be configured as pre-out)

Audio Outputs:

1 set of RCA preamp output jacks (only 3 sets of RCA inputs are available if this is configured)

Speaker Binding Posts accept spade lugs or banana plugs

LIST: $1,195

NuForce strength comments:

Female voice was good, smooth; good low and high level detail; good depth and resolution; clean and clear sound; good instrument resonance; image focus is good; big soundstage

NuForce weakness comments:

Soundstage was just okay; slight distortion; a bit dry and lean; noisy turn off

Preferred NuForce because:

Resolution and clarity
Good control and focus to image
Good all around sound, very laid back, very quiet

Sonic Impact Super T

Class T

REAR CONNECTORS: 1) Left and Right audio input channels. DC 12V in for wall adapter or optional portable power supply. Left and Right audio output channels.CONTROL PANEL: 1) Power Button: Power on or power off the Super T Amp. 2) Blue Led: The Led on/off indicates power on/off. 3) Volume control knob Class-T architecture Single Supply Operation; High Power; Single Supply Operation 15W @4 Ohm,10% THD+N

Audiophile Quality Sound 10W @ 8 Ohm,10% THD+N; 0.04% THD+N @ 9W,4 Ohm; High Efficiency; 0.18% IHF-IM @ 1W,4 Ohm 81% @ 5W,4 Ohm; 11W @ 4 Ohm,0.1% THD+N 88% @ 10W,8 6W @ 8 Ohm,0.1% THD+N; Dynamic Range=98dB

PRICE:$139

Sonic Impact strength comments:

Deep low end, very realistic; good resolution and detail; instruments and vocals sounded realistic; not harsh, very smooth; more air around instruments; soundstage and separation better than the other

Sonic Impact weakness comments:

Focus is poor across the whole spectrum; musicality and rhythm is lacking; sibilance; muddled low end

Preferred Sonic Impact because:

Slightly better than the other. For personal use with lesser front end electronics
Close, but it did more right and took everything a step further

NuForce is preferred by a vote of 4 to 3

2 reviewers noted difficulty in deciding due to close performance

Publisher’s note – the Super T has 10 watts of output per channel vs. the NuForce’s 100. The Super T’s volume was maxed out while the NuForce was probably barely idling.

Round 1 Match up #3

Onkyo A-9555 vs. Little Dot

ONKYO A-9555

Exclusive Vector Linear (VL) Digital technology /Optimum Gain Volume Circuitry / Pure Stream Power Supply / All discrete output stage circuitry / Low-impedance, thick bus plateAudiophile-grade capacitor / Precision motor-driven volume control / Tone control (Bass, Treble, Loudness On/Off) / Pure direct mode / Discrete phono equalizer circuitry6 audio inputs and 2 outputs / Phono input / High-rigidity, anti-resonant chassis / Aluminum volume and selector knobs / Speaker A/B posts / Banana plug-compatible speaker posts / Headphone jack / Heavy-duty power cord (inlet type) / Compatible with Remote Interactive Dock for the iPod / RI (Remote Interactive) remote control

AMPLIFIER SECTION - Power Output 85 W/Ch (8 ohms, 0.5 %, FTC) / Dynamic Power 230 W + 230 W (3 ohms, Front) 200 W + 200 W (4 ohms, Front) / 120 W + 120 W (8 ohms, Front)Total Harmonic Distortion 0.08 % / Damping Factor 25 (Front, 1 kHz, 8 ohms) / Input Sensitivity and Impedance - Phono MM 2.5 mV/50 k-ohms / CD 200 mV/50 k-ohms

$799 LIST

Onkyo strength comments:

Good low impact and weight; Midrange and vocals very nice; good resonance; good dynamics on vocals an piano; instruments more realistic and noticeable; easy to listen to; good detail and soundstage; good balance across the frequencies; airy and open

Onkyo weakness comments:

Female voice seemed grainy; a bit thinner than the other; slightly blurred bass; not as musical as the other, less focused; could use more detail

Preferred Onkyo because:

Both were very similar but D was easier to listen to; probably better for most people and applications than the other; more musical and full-bodied; more airy and open, more realistic

Little Dot T 100

Class T

• Based on the Tripath TA2022 Class T • Continuous Maximum Output: 2x100W @ 4 ohms, 2x60 @ 8 ohms • Frequency Response: 9 hz - 93 Khz (+/- 5db) • THD+N: 0.02% • Micro-chip switching from four different sources • 0 to -63 digital volume control (degree of distortion < 0.002%) • Samsung digital (VFD) display • Speaker surge protection: 200VA • Infrared remote control • Dimensions: 14"L x 10'W x 3"H • Weight: 7.5 kg (16.5 lbs) • Includes Upgraded Tube Pre-stage PCB with EF92/CV131 vacuum tubes

• Price: $399

Little Dot strength comments:

Female vocals excellent, less sibilance; nice airy high end, nice balanced tone; good punch and low end extension; nice smooth overall tone, sounds a bit tube-like

Little Dot weakness comments:

Low end a bit blurred (orchestral and tympani); volume reset after turnoff; soundstage not as good; a bit grainy sounding, like on violins; less dynamic

Preferred Little Dot because:

Much more musical than the other amp
1 reviewer gave no reason

Onkyo is preferred by a vote of 5 to 2

2 reviewers noted difficulty in deciding due to close performance

Publisher’s note – I wonder how good the Onkyo’s phono section is…

Round 1 Match up #4

Trends Micro vs. Flying Mole

Trends Audio TA-10

Class T

Output Power2 x 15W @ 4ohm 2 x 10W @ 8ohm

Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) 98dB

Dynamic Range 98dB

IHF-IM Distortion 0.10% @ 1W, 4ohm

THD+Noise0.03% @ 9W, 4ohm 0.1% @ 11W 4ohm 0.1% @ 6W 8ohm 10% @ 15W 4ohm 10% @ 10W 8ohmInput

Audio IN RCA (Left/Right) x 1

Output

Speaker OUT (Left) x 1 pair (+ / -)

Speaker OUT (Right) x 1 pair (+ / -)

Power Supply

DC 12V~13.2V(max.)

PRICE: $129.95

Trends strength comments:

More lifelike vocals than the other; good delineation of lower registers (piano); all percussive instruments sound excellent, tympani especially; horns sound more “blatty” than other; handled orchestral complexity better; well balanced; analog-like; good separation and staging; very 3-dimensional; very smooth and full-bodied with good resolution and air

Trends weakness comments:

Some sibilance; not as dynamic as other; female voice seemed a tad compressed; guitars not quite as realistic; large dynamics seemed to compress; bass was a tad heavy for me; slightly thin on the lowest lows

Preferred Trends because:

Low end detail and accuracy; more balanced and analog; overall musicality and 3-dimensional image; just overall better in all areas; would be better for vocals but you give up some dynamics

Flying Mole CAS-10 Integrated

CLASS D

100 Watts per channel dual mono design

Rated Output

100W ×2 / 8Ohms

160W ×2 / 4Ohms

T.H.D.0.05% ?@50W/8Ohms/1kHz?

Frequency Characteristics

DC -20kHz? +0dB/-0.5dB??/ 8Ohms?

DC -50kHz? +0dB/-3dB??/ 8Ohms?

Channel Separation

>70dB ?20kHz?

S/N Ratio120 dB (Revised Input Short)

Residual Noise25 μV Input Sensitivity

PRICE: $1,795

Flying Mole strength comments:

Nice airy highs, “tinkly” high end; good integration of upper and lower registers; vocals forward and clean; ease of presentation; good attack on guitar strings; spacious sounding; female vocals very good; clean and detailed; good low end; well controlled sound, very smooth

Flying Mole weakness comments:

A touch of sibilance and edge on vocals; hand clamp on guitar sounds muffled; less “blat” on brass than others have had; ouch, violins sound thin and veiled; piano sounds a bit veiled; some distortion on orchestral; lack of soundstage depth, forward midbass; 2-dimensional, this amp made me look at the speakers

Preferred Flying Mole because:

I think it is a better overall unit in the end

Trends is preferred by a vote of 6 to 1

3 reviewers noted difficulty in deciding due to close performance

Publisher’s note – The Trends has only one input and no remote. Does the Mole come with remote?

As with the Super T, the Trends was run wide open. The Mole has much more power if that is a consideration for you.

THIS IS THE END OF ROUND ONE

ROUND 2 BEGINS

Round 2 Match up #1

Sonneteer Vs. Onkyo

Sonneteer Strength Comments

Nice sense of breath in vocals; nice high end with no sibilance; well controlled bass, okay soundstage; better balance on acoustic pieces; seemed to handle orchestral complexity better

Sonneteer weakness comments

Seems to “drag” while processing complex pieces; seems thin; maracas are somewhat artificial sounding; too sharp and too piercing on the high end; sound does not seem cohesive; mid-bass seems congested; dynamics seem constrained; very limited high frequency extension; bass seems to break up at times, seems congested (this comment was made twice)

Preferred Sonneteer because:

Very close, but imaging is slightly better and soundstage is deeper
Only a very slight edge

Onkyo Strength comments

Rich vocals and piano; excellent soundstage presentation; airy highs; good string attack; instruments sound very realistic (maracas); extremely good dynamics; good tympani reproduction; good resolution but still full bodied; open and clean sounding; natural instrument tones; separation good between instruments

Onkyo weakness comments

Just a tad tubby in the low end; image could use more focus and bass can be a bit loose at times; slight distortion at peaks

Preferred Onkyo because:

Feel it would be better over a broader range of musical types
This is one of the best overall amps in this comparison. Better dynamics and sound reproduction, does all the music genres well.
For sound and resolution this amp is far better, the other amp could not convey the music as well.
Very close call but chose this one for soundstage, resolution between instruments and better low end

Onkyo is preferred by a vote of 3 to 2

3 reviewers noted this was a very close decision

Publisher’s note -

Just wondering – was the Sonneteer broken in enough? Description sounds like it could have used more time.

We know the Onkyo was used quite a bit by it’s owner who loaned it to us.

Round 2 Match up #2

Sonic Impact vs. Trends

Sonic Impact strength comments:

Nice higher register on piano; stronger string attack with little trailing edge to harmonies; good vocals, clean; more dynamic; nice on acoustic pieces; smooth and detailed; well controlled dynamics; good layering and overall sound; loved the vocals

Sonic Impact weakness comments:

Sibilance in vocals; slightly muddy bass; kind of artificial sounding; not very realistic dynamics; instrument resonance is a bit shorter compared to the other; midbass seems closed and compressed; lacked control on lowe end

Preferred Sonic Impact because:

Felt it was a bit more dynamic and clean
Very close, but slightly better

Trends strength comments:

Brass sounds better; better trailing edge to notes; no noticeable sibilance; nice big soundstage; very clean sounding but not edgy; coherent and detailed; 3D soundstage; great bass response; good resonance; good vocals and detail; excellent imaging

Trends weakness comments:

Low end a little muddy; slight “closed in” sound; vocal and guitar a bit forward; could be a little grainy at times; slight top end hardness or glare; seemed to run out of gas on peaks

Preferred Trends because:

This amp is overall better and I think more people would like it in their systems
Better imaging and tonality

Better musically due to soundstage and balance

Trends is preferred by a vote of 3 to 2

1 reviewer noted difficulty in deciding due to close performance

Publisher’s note -

Oooo..what a squeaker! Descriptions of both reveal the shortcomings of limited output, I think.

Round 2 Match up #3

Little Dot vs. Flying Mole

Little Dot strength comments:

Good piano reproduction, good string attack on guitar; better bass on classical than the other; sound more natural; excellent dynamics; clean and open sounding on instruments and vocals; most lush vocals of the group, very smooth; great choice for longer listening sessions; good imaging and rich textures

Little Dot weakness comments:

Noticeable sibilance on vocals; bit thin at times; distortion on peaks; image was not precise and it seemed a little compressed at times

Preferred Little Dot because:

Very very close call, chose this one because of dynamics, you may want the other one if you listen to a lot of vocals
Close call on this one. Very close, chose this one for overall balance
Much more musical and easier to listen to, better harmonics

Flying Mole strength comments:

Noticeable harmonics in addition to individual piano notes; more “realistic” on instruments than the other; very good dynamics; bass had drive and tone, really excellent; clean, clear and open sounding; good detail on vocals; dynamics range was very good; nice and open sounding; good detail and resolution, I especially liked the low end on this one

Flying Mole weakness comments:

Very slight sibilance on vocals; not quite as open as the other amp; soundstage seemed more compressed; some distortion at peaks; just wasn’t very exciting sounding; lack of depth and image was 2D; slight glare and kind of clinical sounding

Preferred Flying Mole because:

“Detail is more important than depth to me, resolution was better on this one”

Little Dot is preferred by a vote of 3 to 2

3 reviewers noted difficulty in deciding due to close performance

Round 2 Match up #4

NuForce vs. Panasonic

NuForce strength comments:

Sweet and smooth sound; a lot of detail; soundstage is huge; good balance and tone; excellent detail and resolution; good vocal articulation, detailed without sibilance; very close to real on acoustic pieces; strong bass; good cohesiveness throughout the register; very good dynamics without seeming overdone

NuForce weakness comments:

Lack of image focus; slight glare and a little artificial sounding; the turn off thump was scary; not something I would choose for long-term listening;

Preferred NuForce because:

No reason given on two reviews – (Naughty, naughty… - publisher)
Better imaging and soundstage layering
More detailed and dynamics, soundstage was far better
Way better overall sound

Panasonic strength comments:

Detailed and articulate sound; string mass is clear and well done; nice vocals; rich harmonics; attack on strings fairly quick and good;

Panasonic weakness comments:

Bass is over-emphasized and less controlled; soundstage lacks depth; dynamics not as good; vocal sibilance that blurred articulation; not as detailed as the other amp; slightly “white-noiseish” bass was overblown and muddy; classical in particular sounded “digitized” and somewhat lifeless

Preferred Panasonic because:

NONE

NuForce is preferred by a vote of 5 to 0

Overall Scorecard after Two Rounds

Win = +1 point / Tie = 0 points / Loss = (1) point

INTEGRATED	Round 1	Round 2	Overall
Trends	1	1	2
Onkyo	1	1	2
NuForce	1	1	2
Sonneteer	1	-1	0
Little Dot	-1	1	0
Flying Mole	-1	-1	-2
Sonic Impact	-1	-1	-2
Panasonic	-1	-1	-2

Trends, Onkyo and NuForce all move on to the Final Four.

There was a runoff session to determine the final member, due to a tie between the Little Dot and Sonneteer.

Runoff Session Match up

Sonneteer Vs. Little Dot

Sonneteer Strength Comments

Tympani sounds very realistic; violins slightly strident; trumpets are “spitty”; clean, vocal and piano were good, good on orchestral; good resolution and detail, very smooth

Sonneteer weakness comments

Some sibilance; some breakup at peaks

Preferred Sonneteer because:

More detailed, clearer and more open

Little Dot Strength comments

Good sustain on notes; piano very cohesive; good dynamics; clean sounding with good resonance; piano sounded better on this one than the other; good separation and dynamics; soundstage was okay; more excitement on vocals; orchestral was better with this amp; most analog of the group, very good overall performer

Little Dot weakness comments

Slight sibilance; some breakup at peaks; lacks some tightness in the low end

Preferred Little Dot because:

Slightly better sounding than the other; less strident at peaks
Very close, but this one sounded more musical and complete
Slightly more exciting
Has better detail and conveys the emotion of the performance better
More open sounding than the other amp, this is a very smooth and analog sounding piece

Little Dot is preferred by a vote of 5 to 0

1 reviewer noted this was a very difficult decision

THE FINAL FOUR

Semi-Final Match up

The excitement builds!

NuForce vs. Onkyo

NuForce strength comments:

Good vocals; big soundstage; resolution and dynamics; big 3D soundstage; fuller bodied, more dimensional; nice “tinkly” highs; instruments sounded real; piano sounds very natural, nice and open with good resolution; good separation and space between instruments; highs very extended and open

NuForce weakness comments:

Can sound a bit harsh at times; some sibilance; a bit thin on orchestral; some distortion at peaks; turn off noise is a turn off; a slight glare and bite in the highs

Preferred NuForce because:

Has a fuller bodied sound with a greater spectrum of positives (very close though)
Fullness of sound and better overall presentation, very close call though

Onkyo strength comments:

Clear and clean sounding; vocals were slightly better than the other amp; well controlled and very smooth; very cohesive and lifelike; better for long listening; clean and resolving, more musical than the other amp, instruments sounded rich and real; good separation and low level detail

Onkyo weakness comments:

Can sound a bit 2D; midbass is a little cardboard sounding; slight lack of resonance; slight distortion on peaks; maybe a bit veiled in places; bottom end not as clean as the other amp; vocals a tough thin

Preferred Onkyo because:

Slightly cleaner sounding, tough choice
The other was just more harsh on orchestral
Slightly less fatiguing at higher levels (very very close)

Onkyo is preferred by a vote of 3 to 2

The reviewers would later discuss how difficult this choice was, both amps sounded very good and the margin of difference was negligible

Publisher’s note – We know that the NuForce is very touchy when it comes to reliability – one failed on us and had to be replaced. The manual is replete with cautions about things NOT to do or you will damage it. I personally know nothing about the Onkyo in this regard. Someone wanna read the manual? Just a FYI, FWIW.

Semi-Final Match Up

Trends vs. Little Dot

Trends strength comments:

Clean and detailed; vocals excellent; good soundstage and imaging; contrast; flow of the music; resolution; this is the most articulate of all the amps; sweet sounding; good resonance, very natural sounding; very little sibilance, if any; nice deep bass, open highs without being screechy; sounded very good on Vienna Teng; clean with good detail;

Trends weakness comments:

None I can think of; not as lush as the other amp, but better in some ways; more of a dry sound;

Preferred Trends because:

It was a little cleaner and had slightly, but only slightly, better detail
Both sound so close, they should both be in the final comparison. Both are very clear but the this one is a little better defined
Sounded more realistic on more musical material

Little Dot strength comments:

Clean and smooth sounding; good soundstage and image; resolving and full bodied; fuller bass than the other one; good strings attack; rich and musical; sounds very close to the other amp; open, airy and clean; good resolution and high frequencies

Little Dot weakness comments:

Slightly harsh, bass seems slightly overemphasized; light on deepest bass; maybe a little rolled off; not quite the details and resolution of the other amp; slightly muddy sounding at times; some breakup on peaks

Preferred Little Dot because:

It’s strengths are more in tune with my tastes
Very close between the two, I gave the edge to this one for handling peak levels with lower distortion

Trends is preferred by a vote of 3 to 2

Again, all the reviewers noted difficulty in deciding due to very close performance

Publisher’s note –Just some observations: Interesting that both are Tripath based. The LD has 60 wpc vs. 10 for the Trends, 4 inputs vs. 1 and includes a remote where the Trends does not. The LD also comes with a tube pre-stage. I wonder if the panel knew all that if the result would be different. Good subject for discussion on Audio Circle!

FINAL MATCHUP

Trends vs. Onkyo

Trends strength comments:

Fuller bass and nicer highs; good string attack; I just know now when I hear this amp and it’s really great in all areas to me; dynamic resolution and image depth; emotionally involving

Trends weakness comments:

None noted; vocals a bit thinner, not as full sounding

Preferred Trends because:

Sounds more realistic and has fewer negatives than the other amp, to me
A bit more 2D and dynamic. More musical as well, the other seemed more constrained
Body and fullness. Better low end, but close in many other ways. This was tough to call

Onkyo strength comments:

“Tinkly” and open high end; good delineation of instruments; very cohesive; slightly better on vocals; fuller and richer on acoustic pieces; well controlled; clean vocals, resolution is good

Onkyo weakness comments:

Bass seemed a bit lighter on this one; less resolution and detail; slight distortion at peaks; slightly more muddy

Preferred Onkyo because:

Fuller and richer sounding overall

Trends is preferred by a vote of 4 to 1

TRENDS Link

Congratulations !

As winner of the INTEGRATED AMP shootout

The TRENDS MICRO TA 10.1

is awarded our

Publisher’s comments

This is not to minimize the Trend’s well-deserved victory, but our first allegiance is to our readers, so a small “heads up” is in order here. I know many of you may be tempted to order the Trends right away, but bear in mind some things before you do:

First, the Trends was run wide open – volume all the way up to achieve the 74db baseline.

If you like to listen to at anything above moderate levels in anything larger than a small room, you should take this into consideration.

There is no headphone jack.

Also, there is no remote control.

The Trends has only 1 input. If you have more than one source, you will be changing cables quite a bit.

If those factors work for you, go for it!

Trends Audio Link

A full review of the Trends is now in progress.

Discussion of this shootout:

GR Research Forum at Audio Circle

James Darby

NEXT UP…The POWER AMP SHOOTOUT!

Click to go there now