Lcherepkai, I do not want to give you a "guarntee" since I do not know your speakers, nor the other equipment. However, know this, the Pathi (two in bridged mode) are FAR more effective than a single unit. They become more powerful, with far better transient response in the bass. Also, better warmth and fullness in the bass. They have much better articulation than the stereo mode. They have much better stereo separation. They have better dynamics, better imaging, better virtually anything you wish to mention in terms of performance over the stereo mode.

Listening to two units is almost like moving to a different company's amp. It's that much improved. So much that I really do not care to listen to one unit in stereo anymore. And that's taking nothing away from the quality of the stereo mode; it's just that the bridged mode is so much better.

The stereo mode is a bit weak, at least on the original and MkII versions. The MkIII is improved in this regard, but still some might find them a bit underpowered for higher levels of listening. No problem with the MKIII in mono mode, however. I have used all manner of speakers with them and they are driven well by the Pathi, even 88dB 4 Ohm speakers.

So, if you are not trying to "wake the dead" with irrationally high listening levels which would strain most amps, then I would suggest the Pathi will be up to the task. AND, they are drop-dead gorgeous!

I have one reservation; you mention "...transparent and hi-rez" which makes me wonder if you are really a SS guy who is gung ho on detail at the cost of warmth. If you must have every final detail and precision (which can at times come at the cost of any warmth) then you may not want a tube integrated. However, I have found no great lack of detail in the Pathi. They are a wonderful blend of tube richness and detail. I feel they are extremely listenable and have had no fatigue even with longer listening sessions. I cannot say that with most SS gear as it usually starts getting to me as the highs sound "tough" on some music. I never have that issue with the Pathi.

I have a few audiophile friends in the area who have heard the Pathi and they are all quite impressed with its "musicality" and richness. Also, cables can make a huge difference in detail, so they must be addressed as well if you want a slight difference in detail.

I know it's nerve wracking trying to determine if a piece of gear will sound good to you, even though you've not heard it. I've tried that many times. You may be encouraged to know two things. One is the aftermath of the sale of the MkII units as I upgraded to MkIII. (I may have said this before, but the story is so good, it bears repeating!)
The man who bought them is from Maryland, and he was downsizing from Boulder separates. When he got the Pathi running he was very pleasantly surprised at how little they gave up to that extremely high end rig.
Encouragement #2 - I had never heard them either before buying. I spoke with Gianni B. at Pathos and asked him about the mono mode. He was modest and said he thought there would be improvement. What an understatement! There was BIG time improvement. So, if the concern is only over "heft" to drive speakers, worry not. The only thing you may run into is if you had serious power, ie. 250-500W per ch. now, then step down a bit to the 170wpc in 8 Ohms of the Pathi. If you're used to big power, then the Pathi might seem a bit (not a ton, as I've compared them to 1,000wpc JR equipment as well) less impactful. But, if you've been in that range, they'll sound fine in terms of heft.

Finally, you have the option of tube rolling if they are not as "bright" sounding as you would like. I rolled some different tubes in, maybe Siemens, but took them back out as I preferred the stock Sovtek. Maybe with different cables that would change. Tubes are about as cheap as they come for this amp, which is a bonus!

Ok, one last thought; I see you have had the likes of the Consonance Calaf, etc. If you want to jump up on power, then you're not going to do it by the Pathi, not likely. If you had plenty of power, almost too much available, then the Pathi will likely be fine as well. It all depends on how hard you want to drive your gear, and I'm not out to break the sound barrier. I don't want to lose any hearing from "live" levels and rediculous loudness. So, the Pathi are more than adequate. If you're looking to run those dual subs per speaker at insane levels, then I will not guarantee you'll be satisfied. The Pathi might be able to do so to your satisfaction, and I get plenty of loud out of them when I want, but only you know whether you need "gobs" of power to be happy.

douglas_schroeder September 13, 2008 19:09

Hi Doug,
I just posted here on forums asking for opinions on a powerful, transparent, and hi-rez integrated and someone forwarded your post to me. I am considering going with a pair of Pathos Classic Ones and have read a review by you in the past. My speakers are custom-made similar to Legacy Focus with above average sensitivity but, still needing some brute force power to get those 4 12" subs moving with control.

Is there a downside to using a pair of the Classic One MK III in pairs? I hear they can be slightly lean in stereo. Is this an issue in mono. My speakers already walk a tight-rope between detail and leaness. Thanks for your time, sir.

lcherepkai September 13, 2008 17:14

System edited: Updated component listing.

douglas_schroeder September 11, 2008 19:26

Kiwi, thanks, and I wish you blessings in your search. If you're like me, the major effort is to not get "overly obsessed" about the gear, but to remember that it's for enjoyment! Gotta watch we don't have any typos, or else it becomes "Dark Hearse Special"! :) Last amp you'll ever need...

douglas_schroeder September 09, 2008 04:08

Hi Doug,

Thanks for your reply.

You write well.

I hear what you say about "tuning" sound and i guess that i hope against all hopes to find "the amp" - perhaps the dark horse special?

I wrote a mini review on the Continuum 500 and posted it on the forum page of my native audio site at www.audioenz.co.nz

As mentioned in my review i continue to look for 'the amp' and i have yet to audition the dual pathos config. That will be interesting indeed.

kiwi_1282001 September 09, 2008 00:14

Kiwi, yes, the Rowland has the incredible power, and thus, has the sound stage thing down, along with the transient response. Yes, it leans to the cooler and analytical side, especially when compared with the Pathi.

However, cables alone, much less the source, can make a huge difference in how white (vs. golden)it sounds. It can be brought a good way toward warmth and fullness with the right attending equipment. One tube DAC that I'm currently using enriches the class D sound of the 501's amazingly. There is plenty of flexibility to maneuver with these amps. They will give the detail and power, and you can inject warmth and body to whatever degree at another point in the system, i.e. source, DAC, and to much lesser degree, cables with less bite. However, it seems class D does not yet have the inherent body of a tube amp.

You should probably give a listen to the 501's with a good tube pre in front. You would likely hear a totally different presentation, and you may have to adjust your conclusion.

OTOH, the Pathi are nautrally warm and inviting in a way that the 501's cannot match. However, they do not have the innate power to reach the same levels of sound stage expansion or transient response that the 501's have. It's an absolute trade off due to the designs; you're not going to get it all with either one. The Pathi provide much more tube power than usual for the dollar, and because they are sans an additional component (as would be the case in a separate pre/amp) and extra set of IC's they are tremendously clean sounding - a very "direct" from source sound.

Up until this week the Pathi were my "champs" in terms of overall listenability. Now they have a serious contender, a "dark horse" which I can't reveal yet. This new amp also has shockingly good sound with the Focus HD. I'll be writing about it for sure, but it's going to take a while before the dust settles and the new amp is announced.

So, do you sit and wait for several months until the next review is published? Maybe. But that amp also has limitations as well, which might not make it perfect for everyone. It's up to you, but an outstanding rig can be had with either the 501's or the Pathi.

That's the way it goes in audio. It's tough to proclaim an absolute "winner" as a person really can assemble gear with care and turn a myriad of options into outstanding systems. I can put together super-good rigs that I would love to listen to for hours with either the 501's, the Pathi or the new amps. I not only can, I have. I have said, using both of these amplification schemes, "Oh! That sounds Good!"

Having said that, if you want tube warmth as your highest ideal, then the Pathi would be the choice. If you want more definition with seemingly unlimited power, giving you tremendous scale and transient response, and super-tight bass, then the 501's are the ticket. Customer's choice.

Bottom line, I did not get rid of the Pathi when the Rowland 501's arrived. That says something good about the Classic Ones in mono mode.

The odd thing is that lately the Pathi have sat for weeks on end. NOT due to being usurped, but due to working with different equipment for review which necessitated their sitting idle. Now, however, the new amps are configured with the Focus HD's and the Pathi can be slipped back into the chain. I have not heard the Pathi in comparison to the new amp. But you can bet I will...

I do not want to build up the Pathi to such levels that people think there is nothing which could ever surpass them. And the day may come when I divest them (not in my immediate plans; working with multiples of amps the opportunity is increased that it could happen). Having said that, they are simply a wonderful, delightful set. They do give the person with a conservative budget a full helping of the tube amp high end. They may not be the "end all, be all" but they are excellent, and I think not many audiophiles would be disappointed by them.

Can't recall if I mentioned that the man who bought my set of MkII units previously had Boulder separates and was downsizing. He was elated at how little the Pathi gave up to the Boulder gear. I wasn't all that surprised. It seems the Pathos dealers don't even know what they have on their hands. The dealer in Colorado (where I bought my second MkII) who sells them regularly had never used them bridged. People at Pathos had never paid much attention to the mono function; I know, I discussed it with Gianni Borinato the designer. The dealers seemed to dismiss it. Virtually no one has used them this way. That's too bad, as they are completely UPscale when used mono, so much so that I don't care to listen to them anymore in stereo mode. It's possible that if the mono Classic One idea was pushed too hard by distributor and showrooms the sales of the higher end Pathos amps would suffer from cannibalization.

That is also likely the reason why the Classic One is such a unique product. Why aren't other manufacturers making integrateds which are switchable to mono? Likely because it would effect sales of separates. It certainly is NOT because a mono integrated would not sound good. Those few who have done it have been very pleased with the sound. (There was one guy in Australia who had the original Classic One; he said the sound was poor! Turned out his cdp had a much higher output voltage than the original integrated accepted. With the MkII verson that was corrected. Aside from that oddity, the results have been enthusiastic)

Your experiences are revealing the limitations and strengths of different amp technologies, as did mine.

douglas_schroeder September 08, 2008 13:26

Hi Doug,

Thanks for your comments. I would also be interested in your expanded thoughts on the Pathos MKIII vs. the Jeff Rowland 501 mono's driving the LFT-8's, all components of which i understand now grace your system. If i read your reviews correctly, despite giving the 501 mono's great praise, you actually prefer the Pathos sound - because in a nutshell of its warmth? Would that comment be fair?

After reading you 501 review i decided to head down to my local Jeff Rowland agent for an audition. Rather than listening to the 501's i opted instead to listen to the Jeff Roland Continuum 500 integrated. The continuum 500 is actually composed of 2 x 501 monos, with a Capri like pre and PFC-1 power supply - all integrated into a single chassis. For loudspeakers the agent connected MBL 116 Radialstrahlers which present a similar load to the LFT-8B's [and as i was very surprised to find out a very similar soundstage :-)] and for the front end MBL's 1521 transport and 1511 DAC.

The overall sound was pretty darn impressive. A big sonic picture was created which had incredible depth and width. Vocal articulation was brilliant as were the effortless dynamics which i think presented the most fleet footed transcient response i have ever witnessed. Until now, I never really 'got' [comprehended] what reviewers were talking about when they mentioned the 'blackness' between notes - but now i do, all thanks to the Continuum amp.

Glowing praise, so i'll be out to buy this Jeff Rowland next week then? Er, not quite. On the negative side, i found as you did, a general lack of warmth. Further, whilst not mentioned in your 501 review i also felt that the JR whilst delivering amazing vocal articulation did not capture the 'body' of the vocal. There was if you like a fantastic high resolution outline to vocals but no real density to them. My present, and much cheaper hybrid integrated amp does a better job of this even though it would have no hope of matching the JR in the other areas mentioned. Would you care to comment on my observations?

kiwi_1282001 September 06, 2008 11:59

Kiwi, I have reviewed both of them extensively on Dagogo.com, but in a nutshell, they are drastically different technologies, so they are not an "apples to apples" comparison.

The Focus HD is a more high end speaker, but as I said it is three times the price, so it had better be.

Characteristics of the LFT-8B:
Good low end for an 8" driver, but will sound like it "pops" with too much level if there is not enough wattage. With 1,000 watts from Jeff Rowland Monos the bass was excellent with very little popping effect. So, power matters to clean up the bass if you are driving levels higher with them.

Their mid/treble is gloriously open sounding; I feel it sounds faster/cleaner than the Magnepan 1.6. The upgrade to "B" version is very worthwhile as it lended a balance to the entire speaker, and I would recommend all owners do it. The LFT-8B is an excellent economical speaker.

The Focus HD is truly capable of playing with the "bigger boys" under $20k. It is actual full range (not ballpark) 20Hz-25kHz +/- 2dB, a very impressive spec for a $7K spaker. With twin 12" dynamic drivers the bass is much more effortless sounding than the LFT-8B (which should be expected). One can use them without subs. BTW, I did put subs on the LFT's and they sounded larger with the added low end.

The planar mid in the HDs also is a bonus. This gives it a sense of planar upper end, and the mix of speaker technology is done superbly well, as seamless as I've ever heard a hybrid sound.

The high end of the LFT is open but more diffused sounding. The treble of the HD is cleaner but more localized, as would be expected. However, I really like the neo-ribbon tweeter on the HD as it is very delicate sounding and responds well to cable changes.

Though the HD is a cabinet design I do not hear displeasing cabinet resonances or other anomalies which put me off.

In short, the Focus HD does nothing worse than the LFT-8B and many things better. Although, obviously, it cannot lay claim to the vast breadth of the planar pannel. Both are superb efforts at their price range and for their technology. A person will not be shortchanged with either one. Budget and preference for sound would determine which is best. I love both dynamic and planar sound. One may say that either is better than the other, but that would be shortchanging the speaker unfairly.

douglas_schroeder September 04, 2008 14:59

Many Thanks for your reply.

Yes, i believe it was Robert Harley who made the comment of being able to live with the 840C at the front end of a $100k rig. Robert's heard a few players in his time so the comment really is quite powerful. All i know is that when i replaced my 840C i had to spend 5 times its purchase price to find something which clearly sounded superior. In this context your description of the 840C as being an "affordable reference player" really is quite apt.

I would be very interested in your comparison between the Legacy Focus HD and ET LFT 8b's. While the Focus speakers clearly are much more expensive what in your opinion do they do better and/or worse than the ET's?

Many thanks

kiwi_1282001 September 04, 2008 00:11

Kiwi, nice nice to hear from you! Things have changed a lot in the past couple of years. The pics are WAY out of date; my apologies. I know I should update them. Even my equipment list is lagging.

Over the months I have wanted to make comments regarding the Focus HD and Azur 840C, but they were under review. So, now that the reviews are done I can speak as an owner.

The ET's which are in my possession now are review speakers and I continue to use them for that purpose. (At my office I use a pair of older ET LFT-VI's, which I paired with a set of HSU STF-1 subs; space was a consideration or I would have gone larger on the subs. So I'm still very much enjoying the LFT experience!) The office system is actually getting respectable. I had paired the LFT-8B's with the Jeff Rowland 501 Monos; I have never heard those speakers sound more scintillating.

My most recent speaker purchase (all review equipment which is undisclosed not considered) is the Legacy Audio Focus HD, which I eagerly bought after the review. The Focus HD is in a different class than the LFT-8B in several respects (dynamic hybrid speaker, nearly a true full range speaker, also in different price class) so that should be noted.

Regarding the Pathi, they are still one of my favorite amp schemes. It is about as clean a signal path as one can get, and it sounds like it. If you consider them for the planars, try to get the MkIII version as it has more grunt than the MkII. However, if the LFT's are not over driven, not taken to "live" levels then you'll be ok with the MkII.

The Pathi sound superb with the Legacy Focus HD speakers, and the MkII version would work excellently. I just love the combination. The larger Legacy models (Helix, Whisper, Focus) have excellent sensitivity, so they can be driven quite easily by the Pathi. Off the top of my head, I believe the HD has 96dB sens., which is 1dB higher than the Tannoy Glenair I reviewed!

The Focus HD are impressive with the Jeff Rowland 501 Monos. I couldn't get enough of that power - 1,000wpc and the twin 12" woofers of the HD's! I really like both presentations with the Focus HD speakers. The Pathi are sweet and lush, the Rowland 501's are overwhelmingly powerful and vibrant.

I am regularly using the Cambridge Audio Azur 840C as my "affordable reference" player (also a fine transport for DACs under review). I also am working with higher end players in review, but can't talk about that now. I purchased two of the Azur 840C's, one for the listening room, and one for the office system. The Azur holds its own in systems on up to $75K. I recall one magazine reviewer saying it would not be out of place in a $100K rig. I agree, as I've used it in higher end rigs I'm assembling up to $75K and it does sound wonderful.

douglas_schroeder September 03, 2008 03:04

Added to the above have you replaced the ET's with Legacy speakers? What did the Legacy Focus speakers do better than the ET's? Are the Legacy speakers an easier or harder load for the Pathos mono's?

kiwi_1282001 August 31, 2008 08:42

Hi Doug,

I think the world of the Cambridge Audio 840C player. It offers great resolution with neutrality - which for me are the two most important attributes of a source. I still have my LFT-8B's and they are not going anywhere soon. I'm still considering your recommendation of dual Pathos Classic One's to drive them. I guess my only real reservation is whether 140 watts or so is really sufficient to drive the ET's? They are low in sensitivity.

kiwi_1282001 August 30, 2008 02:22

No problemo, I had to throw my unit out a over twenty years ago because it was un-repairable.
However, I really liked it at the time, and seeing it crushed under a wheel as a "bad component" seems an unfair fate.

cjfrbw July 29, 2008 18:39

Cjfrbw, here's some background to offset your surprise/dismay...

Nothing against the Advent, but it was worthless (as it was when I checked eBay - two newer operational Advent units sit unloved at $70 - and as it will be in 15-20 years most likely), inoperative, and I was not about to put a penny into refurbishing a component which is already worth almost zilch and can't touch the performance of even the most modest of surround processors of today.

It came along with a batch of old gear from an estate. I had three systems operating already, and the vintage stuff was turned into a fourth system; I still use the Nikko separates I obtained in my garage system. There was also an older Sansui receiver, which sounded ok, but again couldn't compete with a Naim Nait 5i, which replaced it in my office. I did not euthanize the Sansui (I sold it) as it worked well and I knew it was a collectible.

If you had a useless Radio Shack receiver you might do the same as I did with the Advent; I still recall the exact looks of that receiver and I'd likely freak out if I saw a pic of it getting crushed. That was my first piece of stereo gear, and I'd love to have that model again. I'm normally not violent toward even broken gear (it's about the only piece of gear I have put even a scratch on), but I was in the mood for something dramatic.

I have lived around people who keep absolutely everything, even if it has no practical value (and most often little fiscal value either), and I aggressively resist that impulse. In fact, that's why I have not hunted down that Radio Shack receiver. Even audio gear is not sacred; if that's heresy, so be it.

The odds are very good that this is the only piece of gear that I ever have/ever will subject to mistreatment. But, I must say, after decades of handling CD's, cables, sources, and especially speakers with kid gloves, it WAS fun to do! But, I had an older set of tires ready for replacement on the car at the time, just in case Murphy's Law kicked in!

Mitch4t, thanks for the complement. Acoustically the room has exceeded my expectations, and they were high. The pics of the gear are woefully out of date, my apologies. I should post the pics of the Legacy Focus HD's, as I bought them. I also bought the Cambridge Audio Azur 840C - two, in fact - for my office as well as the listening room. My office system is getting very interesting as well (Cambridge Audio Azur 840C, Naim Nait 5i, Eminent Technology LFT-VI speakers (vintage!) and twin HSU STF-1 subs). Gives me my planar fix!

douglas_schroeder July 28, 2008 22:03

OMIGOD! You crushed an Advent Soundspace control under your wheel! I had that thing for years and loved it, my first surround processor.

cjfrbw July 26, 2008 18:43

Well executed. Very nice.

mitch4t July 26, 2008 09:28

Update: My oh, my, it's been an exciting five months! Huge, sweeping changes in the system. The pics are now grossly inaccurate.

The Pathos Classic One MkIII integrateds in mono are still being used. I have added the Legacy Focus HD speakers (which I just reviewed on Dagogo.com) as a new reference speaker.

douglas_schroeder February 17, 2008 23:05

Update: I've transitioned to the Pathos Classic One MkIII's (in bridged mode) from the MkII's. Definitely worthwhile upgrade, as there is a substantive increase in power. While the MkII's handled the planars capably, the MkIII's handle them with ease. While the wpc ratings are similar, changes to the op amps etc. have resulted in a more robust amp.

douglas_schroeder October 20, 2007 18:36

Garry, thanks for the thoughts! The ancient Jews likened our moving into the future as a man walking backwards; perfect hindsight and absolute blindness to the future! So, with that, I'll say that you'll have to wait and see! I'm sure most observant folk saw that it was an Advent Soundspace that was destroyed, old, inoperative, and unrepairable from what I could tell. Likely the only component I ever have or will treat with contempt. Thought it'd be good for a laugh.

douglas_schroeder April 13, 2007 20:56

Hi Doug,

Congratulations on your new speaks - very sweet. Nice write up - maybe you should give up your day job :)) ??

Interesting background about aesthetics and how they can affect our perception of quality and kudos on your "true confession". Being an interior design buff, I can appreciate your likening the VR's fit and finish to Baker furniture. For that kind of money, equipment should look as good as it sounds and vice versa.

Sure wouldn't want to be one of your old components . . . see what happens when you miss a couple of anger management classes :)!

Enjoy your new VRs!

Cheers,
Garry

PS - Any other changes on the horizon??

garryh April 09, 2007 13:59

Those new speakers sure look good in your room, I hope they never end up under your tires!

chadnliz April 09, 2007 03:18

System edited: Took some doing, but I've added a "Personal Audio Star", quite the hot item. Had to use telescope to catch close up of Von Schweikert VR-4 SR MKII speakers. Case of road rage against inferior components; hope it won't hurt my reviewing record.

douglas_schroeder April 09, 2007 02:59

Well keep the reviews coming, they are really good so far
ever think of reviewing the ET VIIIA you loved for so long?

chadnliz April 06, 2007 00:05

Chad, as a reviewer I'm choosing components within a certain price zone typically (occasionally I can wander). Hence, the reference is chosen according to my means and range of reviews. Many things change by necessity when reviewing.

douglas_schroeder April 06, 2007 00:01

So what about your Chapman's? I think you can do better than Von's....I heard them and like them but reference????
I dunno about all that, your gonna have gear going in and out of your house at a good clip, I hope every 8 weeks you dont find a new reference:)

chadnliz April 05, 2007 18:15