Any review on Apollon Purifi 1ET9040BA DM Dual Mono Stereo Amplifier?

[Ruediger]

You can have these gain options with many amps, also all (?) the Purifi modules and from various integrators.

Your thoughts about the gain structure are right of course. Just pointing out that you have choices and are not required to make 9040BA monoblocks work.

Purifi can't help you with this, the gain/input/buffer/trigger/sensing options is what the integrators do.

What was wrong with the audiophonics again? It looks like it has everything, only the second input option. I wouldn't worry about it. If you do, look at this review and see that they very well leverage what the hardware can do. And that is the older generation.

Audiophonics HPA-S400ET Review (Stereo Amplifier)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Audiophonics HPA-S400ET. It was sent to me by the company after member request and costs 1 490,00 € (US $1,638). I must say this is one of the best packaging of class D amplifiers (Purifi in this case) that I have seen! It is slick and has...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Ursulou]

Hello and thank you.
I contacted Purifi with questions regarding their latest modules (ET6525SA, ET9040 AB).
As for the choice of gain settings—far from being a drawback, it is actually a godsend for my specific situation.

However, since I only use the XLR input, I find the RCA/XLR switching circuit unnecessary.
My philosophy is that the simpler a circuit is—and the more it is stripped of superfluous features—the better and more reliable it becomes.
I would therefore prefer XLR inputs soldered directly to the board, without an RCA switch.
Audiophonics cannot remove that RCA/XLR switch.
Apollon can; that might be a reason for me to choose them.

What is your take on this? Apollon’s Premium series uses a dedicated linear power supply for the op-amps—what is the technical benefit of that?
The foundation of both their "basic" and Premium ranges is identical (using the same Purifi module); what justifies such a price gap, and is there likely to be a significant difference in quality between the two ranges?

 

[Ruediger]

What is your take on this? Apollon’s Premium series uses a dedicated linear power supply for the op-amps—what is the technical benefit of that?
The foundation of both their "basic" and Premium ranges is identical (using the same Purifi module); what justifies such a price gap, and is there likely to be a significant difference in quality between the two ranges?

I have one of the "basic" Apollon amps (1ET6525SA ST) and can't be bothered with the premium series. Simply because I get perfect measurements, more power than I need, proper cooling and top hardware with the basic amp already. They are more on the expensive side of the choices available and I see the little upgrades and thought through features, together with a nice case. That's a good offer for me.

Two things about the premium amps, or Lux line, stand out for me. The smaller and stereo amps get this upgraded, much heavier case. Better cooling and it's also good looking. I think that is the main selling point. When you look at the hardware details I think there are some upgrades here and there. Connectors and such.

Then with this premium 9040BA monoblock there are bigger differences. Different case layout than the basic line. Different buffer board, Weiss opamp and the linear psu for this subsection. That to me counts as a different take on making such an amp than the basic line (smps, amp module, buffer board - like they "all" basically look). Is it better? We would have to see measurements. There are other integrators (VNV?) that work with Weiss opamps. Maybe there are reviews about amps with them.

Personally I find the whole opamp thing - rolling, changing - nonsense. The OPA1656 is perfectly fine and there is nothing to gain here (that's a proven fact). I don't know if the special buffer board and Weiss opamp (not sure if reviewed here) can add anything. Or if there is anything to be had, in theory, from putting the buffer circuit on a different psu and making that a linear one (is it even good to have a linear psu within that amp case?). So maybe there is something on paper, but does it matter in reality? Reverse view: if there is really room for improvement, is the "basic" Apollon buffer board with stock opamp somehow bad? It is not, it measures top of the rank (proven fact again). So...

I'd get the basic 9040BA monoblocks if I wanted them. But I understand if someone wants that Lux amp. Luxury mustn't make scientific sense in every detail or be measured down to the last digit. Then again, the price difference is more than substantial.. more than double. One has to really want that.

If you want a detail like the input switch changed I think they will do that on request. Be aware of the rather long lead time (think 8 weeks). And if you want fast communication use their livechat.

 

[Ursulou]

Hello,
Apollon’s "Premium" series might indeed be superfluous; the core quality—regardless of the assembler—undoubtedly comes from the Eigentakt ET9040AB module paired with the independent Hypex SMPS1200A180 power supply board recommended by Purifi.
It follows that the Audiophonics LPA-M750ET power amplifier shouldn't fall short of the offerings from Boxem, Apollon, and others.
Audiophonics doesn't offer the option to remove the RCA/XLR switch, but does that switching board actually degrade the signal compared to a dedicated XLR output soldered directly to the main board?
According to Apollon, it doesn't; here is their reply:
"Our XLR/RCA switches are very clean and do not alter the signal in any way, as we have verified using an APX555."

 

[Ruediger]

Audiophonics offers some amps (smaller Hypex) in versions RCA or XLR. But I don't think the switching has anything to do with it. Just costs for parts and labor. These models are very competetively priced.

I wouldn't worry about it at all.

 

[Ursulou]

Hello,
I really like Apollon's artisanal philosophy: it’s a small company that is actively working and evolving its models. The person in charge finds time to answer emails from prospective clients and even comes onto this forum to participate personally; I’ve always preferred buying directly from small, passionate manufacturers.
Apollon goes the extra mile to accommodate specific requests—like my request to have only XLR inputs installed, with no RCAs.
Boxem, on the other hand, didn't even take the time to reply to my email!
However, with Apollon, there’s a 40-business-day lead time (a full two months), a price 25% higher than for the same modules and power supplies, and build quality comparable to Audiophonics.
In France, Audiophonics offers exceptional customer service (fast email replies, very professional handling of technical questions), a 15-day money-back guarantee, and solid build quality (regarding one Audiophonics model, Amir even rated the quality of their speaker terminals as exceptional).
Ultimately, for me personally, this might just tip the scales in favor of Audiophonics.
The only lingering doubt comes from the lack of user feedback on the ET9040AB module, but the key factors are there for me:
- The 9040 handles very low impedances perfectly.
- The gain control allows me to fine-tune the settings for my high-efficiency system, even if the monoblocks' power seems like overkill (the Orchard Starkrimson 25 Premium—despite being "powerful"—struggled a bit; was that due to limits in handling very low impedances, a lack of current reserve, or something else?).
----> Orchard's GaN technology *almost* worked for me; Atma-Sphere's version costs over €5,000 here, but would it have been truly different—and significantly better—than Orchard's?
Purifi Eigentakt might turn out to be a great match for my audio system... time will tell.

 

[Ruediger]

I have been reading into GaN tech a bit lately and am not impressed about it in audio. I don't think it can hold water to a proper built Purifi amp. Just my opinion.

Audiophonics is probably too big to do a custom order for you. I mean their workshop could be flexible, but if it's not I can imagine why.

The standard Apollon monoblocks seem to come to the same budget, more or less, with taxes for me. If they go the extra mile for you, that's very nice.

 

[Ursulou]

Having tested GaN technology on my own system, and based on my understanding of Purifi's technology, I have a hunch that combining the two—if it were to happen—would likely yield unparalleled results.
A few years of waiting, and—provided the sky doesn't fall on our heads—time will tell...

 

[Ursulou]

Hello,
It is now highly likely that I will opt for two mono blocks based on the ET9040BA—I'm weighing up options from Audiophonics and Apollon.
However, regarding a preamp other than the one built into the Teac UD-701N, I am considering the Schiit Freya+ F (after having tested the Teac on its own).
I have always appreciated the 6SN7 for its distinctive sound signature.
Are you familiar with the Freya+ F? How do you think the ET9040BA mono power amps would perform via XLR when paired with this preamp?

 

[Ruediger]

I feed my amps with DACs. Sources are streamers and computers mostly, turntable and tape drives here and there.

Doesn't a tube pre-amp add it's signature through distortion and harmonics? I like that for playing guitar, but it doesn't belong in a music reproduction chain for me. Especially when paying a huge premium for the best from Purifi, the guys that aim to do the exact opposite as best as possible.

 

[Ursulou]

Je suis partiellement d'accord avec vous.
Le risque est que le son manque de sensualité, notamment au niveau des voix, avec les modules Eigentakt ET9040AB.
Tout dépend de la qualité sonore brute initiale des amplificateurs Purifi utilisés seuls.
À plusieurs reprises, Léo d'Orchard (et un critique belge ayant participé à la tournée de démonstration européenne de Starkrimson) ont confirmé que de nombreux utilisateurs placent un préamplificateur à tubes avant les amplificateurs GaN.
Or, la technologie GaN est réputée pour être plus douce et plus onctueuse que celle de Purifi.
Ayant moi-même testé les amplificateurs Orchard, je dois admettre que le son n'était pas totalement froid ni stérile.
Mes appréhensions concernant la technologie Purifi – fondées sur certains commentaires, mes mauvais souvenirs des Bel Canto Reference 1000 et les conseils de Léo – me poussent à envisager l'ajout d'un composant à tubes à la chaîne du signal.
L'utilisation de la technologie Purifi uniquement pour l'amplification de puissance, associée à une source apportant une légère coloration sonore, permettrait-elle de combiner les avantages des deux technologies ?
Quoi qu'il en soit, je dois d'abord tester les amplificateurs Purifi seuls ; la décision d'ajouter de la richesse harmonique dépendra du résultat de ce test.
Cependant, je garde à l'esprit l'idée de me pencher sur le préamplificateur Schiit, et plus particulièrement sur ses points forts et ses points faibles, si quelqu'un le connaît.

 

[Ruediger]

Je suis partiellement d'accord avec vous.
Le risque est que le son manque de sensualité, notamment au niveau des voix, avec les modules Eigentakt ET9040AB.
Tout dépend de la qualité sonore brute initiale des amplificateurs Purifi utilisés seuls.
À plusieurs reprises, Léo d'Orchard (et un critique belge ayant participé à la tournée de démonstration européenne de Starkrimson) ont confirmé que de nombreux utilisateurs placent un préamplificateur à tubes avant les amplificateurs GaN.
Or, la technologie GaN est réputée pour être plus douce et plus onctueuse que celle de Purifi.
Ayant moi-même testé les amplificateurs Orchard, je dois admettre que le son n'était pas totalement froid ni stérile.
Mes appréhensions concernant la technologie Purifi – fondées sur certains commentaires, mes mauvais souvenirs des Bel Canto Reference 1000 et les conseils de Léo – me poussent à envisager l'ajout d'un composant à tubes à la chaîne du signal.
L'utilisation de la technologie Purifi uniquement pour l'amplification de puissance, associée à une source apportant une légère coloration sonore, permettrait-elle de combiner les avantages des deux technologies ?
Quoi qu'il en soit, je dois d'abord tester les amplificateurs Purifi seuls ; la décision d'ajouter de la richesse harmonique dépendra du résultat de ce test.
Cependant, je garde à l'esprit l'idée de me pencher sur le préamplificateur Schiit, et plus particulièrement sur ses points forts et ses points faibles, si quelqu'un le connaît.

Translation service:

I partially agree with you.

The risk is that the sound may lack sensuality, particularly in the reproduction of voices, with the Eigentakt ET9040AB modules.

It all depends on the initial, unadulterated sound quality of the Purifi amplifiers when used on their own.

On several occasions, Léo from Orchard, as well as a Belgian reviewer who took part in Starkrimson’s European demonstration tour, have confirmed that many users place a tube preamplifier in front of their GaN amplifiers.

GaN technology is generally considered to sound smoother and more silky than Purifi.

Having personally tested the Orchard amplifiers, I have to admit that the sound was by no means completely cold or sterile.

My reservations about Purifi technology — based on certain comments, my bad experiences with the Bel Canto Reference 1000, and Léo’s advice — are leading me to consider adding a tube component to the signal chain.

Could using Purifi technology exclusively for power amplification, combined with a source that adds a slight degree of sonic coloration, make it possible to combine the advantages of both technologies?

In any case, I first need to test the Purifi amplifiers on their own. Whether I ultimately decide to add some extra harmonic richness will depend on the outcome of that test.

However, I’m keeping in mind the idea of taking a closer look at the Schiit preamplifier, particularly its strengths and weaknesses, if anyone has experience with it.

 

[Ruediger]

An amp like the Purifi aims to reproduce the sound as pure, unchanged and clean as possible. Any signature, features, warmth, distortion, disharmonics belong to the musicians, producers and the studio where they did the work and decided on how they want it to be sounding -> produced. Their piece of art, which I want to hear as they intended it to be.

So that is a philosophy or a general understanding of who does what. Not saying it is the only way to see things.

People introduce all kinds of sound changes in their audio chains. And they are free to do so, there is no right or wrong in personal taste. Just pointing out you are opting for what I see as kind of opposite approaches. Which does not make much sense to me, especially when spending a lot of money. Maybe you think you have to overcome some shortcomings in the audio chain? Don't listen to what salesmen from the audio industry think. There is never an end to what they can sell to finally get you to heaven. Think about what you want.

Personally I think you are mislead from your old experience. Maybe you can take the time and go listen to some amps in a studio. And hear a chain that aims at clean reproduction. Because that is what you intend to buy. And also think about PEQ/GEQ from a digital source. Not all things they used to sell boxes for do need to be done in hardware today.

 

[Ursulou]

I doubt that your "studio" sound truly reflects what one actually hears in front of the stage or in the opera house: microphones placed right next to the musicians, signals passing through hundreds of meters of cable and numerous pieces of processing equipment—adjusted by sound engineers according to their own tastes—before finally reaching the speakers... forgive me, but that is no longer reality.
And even if you were to prove otherwise, I can't imagine living in a recording studio with my family and friends!
Admittedly, no reproduction is perfect, so it might as well be to your own taste and enjoyed in the comfort of your own home.
Best regards

 

[Ruediger]

Stage or opera and studio are very different challenges. In any case it is about bringing the audience the best experience in accordance with the sound the artists want to get across. That's the job the engineer has.

I think any good amp has nothing to do with this, it should be transparent.

But anything before the amps, why not! Personally I would use PEQ/GEQ and insert no hardware that always does the same. But other people other opinions. F.e. if you listen to one genre of music exclusively and want the same sound all the time, then why not do it in hardware.

Anyways, so much for opinions. Keep posting what you get in the end and how it works out for you. I'm sure whatever you put before them, the Purifi amps are a great choice.

 

[Ursulou]

Of course, that's what we're here for!

 

[Soundproof]

Well aware of my limited competence, the idea I follow is to keep the signal as clean as possible to the speakers and let the speakers and the room define the sound. (P)eq, and for those who has the gear, room correction to sort things out. A band, an orchestra or a huge choir do also play with the room to get their sound right, cathredal, stadium, concert hall or the basement for 300 people, and on tour they have to adapt to a lot of different acoustic spaces.

A bit on the side of this, but the cat doesn't just pick up sound through it's ears, they got whiskers too. In my book, we don't hear only with our ears, thus for instance headsets/IEMs only provide sound for ears loosing whatever the rest of the body picks up. As far as I understand, if the measurement spectrum is defined only by what our ears can pick up, that would be a limitation of basing everything on measurements only. So if the entire signal chain is measured and defined/ranked by the results from a measurement spectrum taking only ears into account, I would argue there MAY be a perspective lost, highly beneficial when using IEM/Headsets though, and from the perspective of the body as part of hearing, the measured spectrum will also be picked up. Just not sure if it picks up everything outside the measurement spectrum.

In particular on low budgets, I believe the ASR philosophy is of vey significant importance choosing formats, sources, dacs, headamps, amps, speakers and headgear ++. It makes it way easier to not go wrong when purchasing units for a setup be it ears only or for a room. Having a reliable trusted and specced signal chain one can limit oneself to the speakers and the room to get it right or to taste, and I believe the well performing high ranked amps like Purify/Topping is very helpful in that scenario.

Maybe, deviations from the ASR concept by be it R2R or tube amps could be seen as a deliberate deviation to color the sound at a different place in the signal chain than e.g. (P)eq. For instance when you have the speakers you want in the room you have and never will replace neiter, having a desire to tune the sound closer to your preferences.

Just my perspective on it as a total newbie, and not at all believing this is the absolute truth.

 

[Ursulou]

If a single manufacturer held the absolute truth, we wouldn't be on forums sharing our impressions and listening experiences; we would all be customers of that one and only manufacturer.

 

[Purité Audio]

Many manufacturers most in fact produce blameless electronics, you decide which price/aesthetic is right for you.
Keith

 

[Soundproof]

Many manufacturers most in fact produce blameless electronics, you decide which price/aesthetic is right for you.
Keith

Certainly.

Whatever brings the pleasure the actual owner/customer seek. I would however argue that sometimes (or quite often actually), the brand value / prestige value / aesthetics and so on may very well exceed the actual performance value. That's for just about anything an enthusiast within any area would purchase.

For my specific needs and desires, not having a single purpose listening room, aesthetics and function is a factor, budget also of significance. Following the ASR philosophy, I would very much have preferred to pick Ascilabs F6B, but I can't make it work. Thus I will pay more and get less performance with 1961 monitors because i can make that work in terms of available space and aesthetically. It is always a compromise. Like when I probably have to shop a placeholder integrated amp to get up and going faster, rather than getting (my) "end game" (which I picture as Purifi for the time being) straight away, which would be wiser and cheaper.