Rogue Audio Sphinx V3 Review (Tube Amplifier)

[Luchadorconan]

If I don't review them, all search results would point to subjectivist reviews with random evaluations within. Pretty sure many people buy these products because they think they are much better than they are. So I review them to show the reality of them.

You might try searching your own reviews for integrated amplifiers between $1000-$4000. You don’t recommend a single one.

 

[Luchadorconan]

That says it all boss, another one bites the dust

Yes, like almost all integrated amps reviewed here.

 

[digicidal]

You might try searching your own reviews for integrated amplifiers between $1000-$4000. You don’t recommend a single one.

A total of 8 reviewed isn't a surprising air-ball IMO. That price range (esp. $1K-$3K) is also the "sweet spot" for AVR's that are at least similarly performant as far as power & transparency are concerned. Unless you're looking for audiophile street-cred, many (myself included) are more likely to go with an AVR in that range - even if the goal is simply a 2.0/2.1 setup. You have more options than are common on a "pure" stereo integrated (room correction, streaming, a mediocre DAC and even a basic phono pre on some).

Higher than the AVR-ish portion of that range and you've got a hard sell simply because pre/power combos of separates are going to provide options of significantly more power, features, brands, etc. (many of the better pre/power amps don't have an integrated option).

Of course, if you expanded your range by another $1K (less on sale) you could find one @amirm does recommend: the NAD M33.

I haven't researched this, but I would guess that the number of new stereo integrated units sold per year (all brands/prices combined) is less than the number of AVR's sold under a single brand and possibly less than the number of DACs or HPAs as well.

 

[steve59]

Another predictable review. Again this reminds me of the 70's when companies like kenwood, technics, onkyo, sanyo, etc were chasing distortion numbers that were already in the .000's instead of listening to their crap. I wonder if back then had those engineers given a rats a$$ what their products sounded like if the 'hi end' would have found a market.

 

[Ken1951]

Another predictable review. Again this reminds me of the 70's when companies like kenwood, technics, onkyo, sanyo, etc were chasing distortion numbers that were already in the .000's instead of listening to their crap. I wonder if back then had those engineers given a rats a$$ what their products sounded like if the 'hi end' would have found a market.

Uh huh...

 

[PuX]

That price range (esp. $1K-$3K) is also the "sweet spot" for AVR's that are at least similarly performant as far as power & transparency are concerned.

no way.
a stereo amp will outperform any receiver at the same price in most cases.

NAD alone makes 5-10 models, and if you include models from recent years, then many more.
and judging from the review of C320 (an old low-end model), almost all of them will be decent.

Review and Measurements of NAD C 320BEE PWR Amplifier

This is a review and detailed measurements of the NAD C 320BEE power (speaker) amplifier. It is on kind loan. The C 320BEE is a vintage product, dating back to 2003 I think. The BEE designation is apparently a reference to Bjorn Erik Edvardsen who was one of their designers. Can't tell if he...

www.audiosciencereview.com

as for confirmation, I guess we'll have to wait and see. C355, C356 and C375 should be pretty good.

for receivers no confirmation is necessary, all of them are junk, even the very expensive ones are miles away from a good amp.

 

[DualTriode]

Arm waving? To whom?
We have two amps. A tube amp with distortion up to -60 dB and a solid state amp with distortion down to -100 dB. Which one reproduces the signal with higher fidelity?

And, sorry, what did I make up?

I should have replied sooner.

You are still arm waving and making up numbers. If noise and distortion are below audibility please define transparency.

Transparency is a hypothetical construct as you use it.

Thanks DT

 

[bkatbamna]

Many things in medicine are not exact.
An MRI is a series of images that is interpreted by the radiologist. There are some things in MRI that can be measurements(such as the size of a tumor) but sometimes, the measurement is off slightly as well.
Many times the reading from one radiologist is different than the reading from a different radiologist. This happens quite often in my experience.

 

[Bruce Morgen]

Many things in medicine are not exact.
An MRI is a series of images that is interpreted by the radiologist. There are some things in MRI that can be measurements(such as the size of a tumor) but sometimes, the measurement is off slightly as well.
Many times the reading from one radiologist is different than the reading from a different radiologist. This happens quite often in my experience.

Electrical measurements are nothing like medical imaging.

 

[bkatbamna]

Electrical measurements are nothing like medical imaging.

I think that was my point. So an MRI reading should not be assigned as an objective measurement by our tennis playing member.

 

[charleski]

Many things in medicine are not exact.
An MRI is a series of images that is interpreted by the radiologist. There are some things in MRI that can be measurements(such as the size of a tumor) but sometimes, the measurement is off slightly as well.
Many times the reading from one radiologist is different than the reading from a different radiologist. This happens quite often in my experience.

Yes. Speaking as a doctor, I can tell you that medicine is seriously deficient in comparison to proper scientific disciplines that require stricter measures.
But there's a reason for that: medicine is an applied science that needs to do the best it can right now, doctors simply don't have the luxury of waiting decades for all the evidence to come in, or even waiting weeks or months for multiple assessments of a particular measurement.

And of course there are a whole load of pesky inconveniences like ethics ...
/s

 

[digicidal]

a stereo amp will outperform any receiver at the same price in most cases.
...
for receivers no confirmation is necessary, all of them are junk, even the very expensive ones are miles away from a good amp.

That's quite a bit of hyperbole there. Sure you can cherry pick selections on either side and get supportive results... however, you can just as easily cherry pick contrary devices. Take the Denon AVR-X3600H and find me something that's "miles ahead" of that "piece of junk" for $1100 or less.

Note that for many people, beating it in a single metric by 5% or so isn't usually considered "miles away" - and likely not even an audible difference at all.

EDIT: About the only area we partially agree upon is that NAD (for the most part) does integrated amps far better than it does AVR's - especially where price is the primary consideration.

 

[steve59]

There's a local dealer thats been carrying RA products for many years now because the products sell, they're popular. This shop actively undersells to customers, taking time to weed out impulse buyers and they have always sent me home with a product I was interested in to home demo b4 selling to me. After home demo's Rogue Audio remains the shops top selling product. Makes me wonder if sounding different is what their customers are looking for?

 

[bkatbamna]

That's quite a bit of hyperbole there. Sure you can cherry pick selections on either side and get supportive results... however, you can just as easily cherry pick contrary devices. Take the Denon AVR-X3600H and find me something that's "miles ahead" of that "piece of junk" for $1100 or less.

Note that for many people, beating it in a single metric by 5% or so isn't usually considered "miles away" - and likely not even an audible difference at all.

EDIT: About the only area we partially agree upon is that NAD (for the most part) does integrated amps far better than it does AVR's - especially where price is the primary consideration.

Absolutely. Especially in 5 years when the HT crowd has moved on to something new and that receiver can be had in good condition for a third of the new price.

 

[PuX]

That's quite a bit of hyperbole there. Sure you can cherry pick selections on either side and get supportive results... however, you can just as easily cherry pick contrary devices.

you didn't notice in most cases.
I am not cherry picking, I am saying in the vast majority of cases amp will be better at the same price.
it makes sense if you think about it - amp does 1 thing and 1 thing only, receiver does many things. budget is the same. of course the amp would be better.

Take the Denon AVR-X3600H and find me something that's "miles ahead" of that "piece of junk" for $1100 or less.

this one is not junk, but it's not very good as an amp (compare to NAD C320 and SINAD does not look that good anymore, that's an old low-end model and I assume C356 for example would be even better) and not very good as a DAC (compare to any recent DAC really).
I would only consider this if for you have limited space. or maybe if you really want the surround sound, but that's not really for music listening.

 

[Ken1951]

but that's not really for music listening.

 

[PuX]

are you going to tell me stereo is not the dominant format for music listening?

 

[digicidal]

Absolutely. Especially in 5 years when the HT crowd has moved on to something new and that receiver can be had in good condition for a third of the new price.

Also a good point. I guess that could be considered a "plus" on the integrated side of things... they do tend to hold their value a little better because it's basically obsolete to start with - in the sense that little has changed in 40 years. With an AVR which is much more likely to be forced into obsolescence by an emerging codec or improvement to REQ, etc. - the resale on the previous model is significantly lower... hence a boon to budget shoppers especially if they just want a 2/3 channel setup primarily for music.

are you going to tell me stereo is not the dominant format for music listening?

Stereo is definitely the dominant format for music for now... just like 16/44 is the dominant depth/rate - but that is changing as well as physical media becomes obsolete. It's hard to say with much specificity because you're talking about a minority within a minority - since clearly the majority of modern music consumers use a phone and earbuds and call it good. Similarly the majority of tv/movie consumers use a soundbar and maybe a sub - and a large number without any external speaker(s) at all.

As with any type of enthusiast, it's difficult to extrapolate broader and/or emerging trends based on their preferences. For the majority of people 200HP is 'plenty', boxed wine tastes 'fine', and Pottery Barn furniture is 'high-end' - while the enthusiasts (myself included) finds those statements to be utterly ridiculous.

you didn't notice in most cases.
I am not cherry picking, I am saying in the vast majority of cases amp will be better at the same price.
it makes sense if you think about it - amp does 1 thing and 1 thing only, receiver does many things. budget is the same. of course the amp would be better.

LOL I noticed... but that doesn't really change the breadth of the other statements. I would agree with the second part if sales volume is conveniently ignored. Most integrated amp manufacturers (esp. boutique brands like Rogue Audio) must sell at a much higher margin in order to be profitable. Regardless, I agree that overall you are more likely (but still far from guaranteed) to get a better amp in a stereo integrated vs. AVR - the question is whether or not that difference is meaningful or even audible.

To some extent the point is moot, because many audio enthusiasts (regardless of the number of channels used) prefer separates where budget allows. For all but those "purists on a budget" the difference between a stereo integrated, stereo receiver, and an AVR is merely the number of things they can plug into it.

 

[PuX]

It's hard to say with much specificity because you're talking about a minority within a minority

I don't see how stereo for music is a minority. We have 2 ears, most people use headphones nowadays, why would music have more channels? What's the benefit?

LOL I noticed... but that doesn't really change the breadth of the other statements.

It's just a rule of thumb. Of course you could find an awful amp, an amazing receiver and the receiver would be preferable. But generally it's reflected in measurements - a separate DAC is just better and relatively cheap to upgrade, a separate amp can be replaced with a better one while keeping other parts of your system, while a receiver has it all fused together in one box and if one part of it becomes outdated (DACs made lots of progress in a short time for instance), you are stuck with it. And I haven't seen any receivers with a state-of-the-art amp and DAC inside of it.
The only downsides I can think of are more space taken and cables. Costs change case by case.

 

[digicidal]

I don't see how stereo for music is a minority. We have 2 ears, most people use headphones nowadays, why would music have more channels? What's the benefit?

No. You misunderstood my point. The first minority is people that can tell the difference between good equipment and bad equipment... and the second minority is those for whom that is significantly important. Both my parents and my wife's parents have actively prevented me from even giving them free equipment I have just laying around because "a clock-radio with CD player does everything I need" and "my TV already sounds great."

For ~90% of consumers - the difference in the quality (or even quantity) of amplification in any device (even truly horrible ones) is of very little importance to them. For the other ~10% it's meaningful, but of varying importance... and for maybe 10% of those - it's one of the primary criteria involved in their selection. For a similarly small number, the "audiophile credentials" might be the most important (but they mostly stick to magazine reviews, personal recommendations, and dealer propaganda).

My point is merely that anyone on this forum is already in that minority of a minority - or they wouldn't be bothering to read (let alone post) anything here. For everyone else, any device which allows them to play music or movies with a nominal level of fidelity, while not breaking the bank, is a winner. An even smaller minority still, also feels that the immersive audio yielded by a matrixed multichannel setup is superior for experiencing recorded musical performances - even those mastered and published as stereo (a premise backed up by the research and experiences of @Floyd Toole and many others).

Obviously that last minority does not include you - but all of us are a distinct minority compared to the people that just want it to sound "good enough" - and almost any AVR these days will do that. Plus they're available at the same place they bought their computer and television... so it's win-win in their book.