• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Apollon audio, OPA 1656 vs Sparkos Labs SS2590 PRO

Kappa9a

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2021
Messages
6
Likes
9
I am on the verge of buying apollon audio Purifi 1ET9040BA M Monoblocks. I can choose either OPA 1656 or Sparkos Labs SS2590 PRO. The latter for an additional charge of €200 per mono.

Would you guys recommend one of these and why? Is there truly a noticable difference or ia it all psycho acoustics?

Best regards,

Joost from the Netherlands
 
Would you guys recommend one of these and why? Is there truly a noticable difference or ia it all psycho acoustics
Welcome to ASR :)

Buy the OPA 1656 version. Its performance vastly exceeds your hearing ability. There are many tests on ASR confirming that a different op-amp has no difference in sound, except for where it makes it worse.

It's nothing to do with psycho acoustics. Those who claim to hear a difference are suffering from perfectly normal human biases.
 
Welcome to ASR :)

Buy the OPA 1656 version. Its performance vastly exceeds your hearing ability. There are many tests on ASR confirming that a different op-amp has no difference in sound, except for where it makes it worse.

It's nothing to do with psycho acoustics. Those who claim to hear a difference are suffering from perfectly normal human biases.
Thanks. That aligns with what I suspected. Since the OPA1656 already measures far beyond audibility, paying €200 extra per mono for the Sparkos probably does not make much sense from an engineering perspective.

I was mainly wondering whether anyone had actually done a properly level-matched blind comparison between the two in the same Purifi implementation. My intuition is that if there is any difference at all, it is likely to be extremely small and easily swamped by expectation bias.

Given that I will eventually use them with a Trinnov Nova and dipole speakers in a treated room, room acoustics and system integration will almost certainly dominate any op-amp differences.
 


JSmith
 


JSmith
Thanks.
 
Thank you!

I have recently noticed a shift in how I think about high-end audio.

For a long time, my goal was to get the most “musical” sound possible. But what does “musical” really mean? The more I researched, the more I realized that much of what people describe as musicality is simply coloration added by the equipment.

I borrowed a pair of Pass Labs XA100.8 monoblocks and they sounded great, but mostly just different from my own Musical Fidelity A5.5. Then I borrowed a Benchmark AHB2. Again, excellent, but not a night-and-day difference. That made me question how much of what I thought I was hearing came from expectation and my own psychology.

Reading about controlled blind tests and ABX comparisons was eye-opening. The more I looked into it, the more it seemed that competently designed amplifiers are often much more alike than different when operated within their limits.

I have now come to the point where I simply want equipment that is technically as transparent and accurate as possible, mostly for my own peace of mind, and then let the speakers and room acoustics determine the character of the sound.

For that reason I am leaning toward the Purifi 1ET9040BA modules for my Analysis Audio Omega ribbons. The AHB2 drove them very well, but I cannot quite shake the feeling that the extra current and power reserve of the 1ET9040BA is a more logical match for a difficult ribbon load.

Realistically, at my listening levels of around 85–90 dB, even a lower-powered Purifi such as the 1ET6525SA or even the Eigentakt ET400A would probably be more than sufficient. But I know myself: I would always keep wondering whether I should simply have chosen the 9040.

I am still rather new to this path so I still will be learning. I recently sold my expensive streamer and dac and went with a wiim ultra and a benchmark dac3L. First investment now is room acoustics. First a wall of fwd-diffusers on the front wall. Then measurements and look at further acoustic improvements (first reflections and the sidewall, ceiling, floor etc.) Then a trinnov nova to further improve the sound because my room is not ideal and assymetrical. Then some nice poweramps and subwoofers.

Edit. sorry for the long reply
 
Last edited:
Yes there is a lot of bullshit in the audiophile world, and I have seen since the 80's the development of the market. A lot of people buy a reputation, a status, a brand to "show off" with friends, and not on actual performance. Thanks ASR we have an insight in this world, although I sometimes get lost in the measures/interpretation of it;...
and...
I am personnally convinced that sometimes a bit of distortion/roll off simply makes the sound more agreable, more natural, depending on your room and the other elements, (esp. loudspeakers). So at the end there is not 1 truth, but each one should decide which sound/measures/hardwares fit best to his needs
 
Thank you!

I have recently noticed a shift in how I think about high-end audio.

For a long time, my goal was to get the most “musical” sound possible. But what does “musical” really mean? The more I researched, the more I realized that much of what people describe as musicality is simply coloration added by the equipment.

I borrowed a pair of Pass Labs XA100.8 monoblocks and they sounded great, but mostly just different from my own Musical Fidelity A5.5. Then I borrowed a Benchmark AHB2. Again, excellent, but not a night-and-day difference. That made me question how much of what I thought I was hearing came from expectation and my own psychology.

Reading about controlled blind tests and ABX comparisons was eye-opening. The more I looked into it, the more it seemed that competently designed amplifiers are often much more alike than different when operated within their limits.

I have now come to the point where I simply want equipment that is technically as transparent and accurate as possible, mostly for my own peace of mind, and then let the speakers and room acoustics determine the character of the sound.

For that reason I am leaning toward the Purifi 1ET9040BA modules for my Analysis Audio Omega ribbons. The AHB2 drove them very well, but I cannot quite shake the feeling that the extra current and power reserve of the 1ET9040BA is a more logical match for a difficult ribbon load.

Realistically, at my listening levels of around 85–90 dB, even a lower-powered Purifi such as the 1ET6525SA or even the Eigentakt ET400A would probably be more than sufficient. But I know myself: I would always keep wondering whether I should simply have chosen the 9040.

I am still rather new to this path so I still will be learning. I recently sold my expensive streamer and dac and went with a wiim ultra and a benchmark dac3L. First investment now is room acoustics. First a wall of fwd-diffusers on the front wall. Then measurements and look at further acoustic improvements (first reflections and the sidewall, ceiling, floor etc.) Then a trinnov nova to further improve the sound because my room is not ideal and assymetrical. Then some nice poweramps and subwoofers.

Edit. sorry for the long reply
You're aware that you are listening at higher noise levels than those which are recommended, to protect your hearing?
 
Back
Top Bottom