Rogue Audio Sphinx V3 Review (Tube Amplifier)

[Bjorn]

Well you don’t hear them as distortion.

You hear them as special effects. that crosstalk alone would be responsible for some.

so if you’re creating music or want a bit of salt and pepper and spice or flavours to favourite records..

Lack of clarity, details, resolution, etc. is distortion to me. That's what you get with measurements like this.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The image below are the real talking point here IMO. How can a device with so high noise and distortion get so good reviews? Do the audiopress have such poor setups that they need to listen through electronics with a veil that hide their flaws? Or are we talking either placebo or "a friendly review" to please the brand? Either way, it's certainly disturbing.
View attachment 137845

One explanation is people like it because of the distortion, not in spite of it. I'm not claiming this, but logically it fits.

OTOH, people letting sight of the marketing touting tubes and all the claims like it for what they think they are hearing rather than what they are hearing. That logically fits as well.

We here on ASR of course know what is needed to pick between the two hypothesis above.

 

[voodooless]

This is the guts of it:

They clearly didn't figure out that the PCB routing software could do 45-degree angles as well

 

[Bjorn]

One explanation is people like it because of the distortion, not in spite of it. I'm not claiming this, but logically it fits..

I think that only makes sense if the setup is so poor that you need to put a veil on it to make it listenable. This is not some sligthly added second harmonic distortion.

 

[Offler]

At the risk of offending people, I don't see the reason why this site even reviews tube equipment. It's never going to wow people here with distortion numbers compared to the solid-state solutions, and people looking at tube gear usually aren't focused on distortion numbers anyways. Even the best-engineered tube amplifier (Citation II comes to mind) would receive a negative review and the entire comment section would be filled with people complaining that they're "overpriced". It seems pretty well accepted that nobody buys tube gear to chase numbers.

This is why i dont get into debates of vinyl vs CDs or anything like that.

I have been photography purist, because classic photography is based on chemistry around silver. I got my first digital camera in 2015 when the resolution was good enough, but also the miniaturization progressed a lot.

Now... classic film camera versus digital camera is and always will be apples to oranges. What matters is what do you like or what tool do you need to get the work done.

There are people who claim that to have a good camera, you need a big camera or full frame. Like why? It does not affect any of the measurable performance of the camera - except when there are people who like snake-oil and dont understand physics, optics and electronics.

Now... What are my needs when it comes to photography, movie quality and audio?

This is a question I asked myself. Answers were 4k resolution 24bit color depth sRGB calibrated display and CD/BluRay lossless quality audio at lowest power consumption. Thats why I ended up with Class D amplifier and modern IPS display.

I still have film cameras, projectors and possibility to buy new films when I want something different.

 

[anphex]

The amp modules look surprisingly tiny for UCD. I recently build a UCD400HG (image) diy-kit and those are surprisingly beefy boards with lot's of parts. Those OEM boards look kind of bleak, but then again the NC400 is also a deceivingly small board for their 350 € and performane. Now that I think of it, pure UCD boards weren't testet so far at ASR. Would love to see those some time.

 

[tomtoo]

Designs like this make abolutly no sense to me.
It not even has tube flair

 

[Koeitje]

The amp modules look surprisingly tiny for UCD. I recently build a UCD400HG (image) diy-kit and those are surprisingly beefy boards with lot's of parts. Those OEM boards look kind of bleak, but then again the NC400 is also a deceivingly small board for their 350 € and performane. Now that I think of it, pure UCD boards weren't testet so far at ASR. Would love to see those some time.

View attachment 137850

Could be interesting to see the step in development from UcD to NCore to Purifi. But these days I wouldn't get UcD except as a subwoofer amplifier.

 

[Count Arthur]

The amp modules look surprisingly tiny for UCD

Similar to the Ncore amp modules, I think there were several versions of the UCD modules, some aimed towards DIY and others for OEM/manufacturers: https://www.hypex.nl/ucd-family/

 

[bidn]

"The amplifier has won many accolades as indicated by their mention on the product page"

What were the accolades for? Which part of the product's performance are they praising?
Isn't that proof enough that we should not believe in such 'awards' when there is conflict of interest between objective opinion and advertising revenues?

On another forum (homecinema fr), a long time member who was a retired journalist for a ( I think defunct) audio magazine explained the following
(it was in the TotalDAC thead after ASR's measurements, which thread TotalDAC had fully locked and another open under their full control):

- If the journalists write praising reviews of a device, the companies expend a lot of money in ads (= much revenue for the magazine).

- If they write a not so good review, the disappointed
company cuts the ads (= no revenue...).

This irrespective of the real quality and performance of the devices reviewed...

 

[Frank Dernie]

The image below are the real talking point here IMO. How can a device with so high noise and distortion get so good reviews? Do the audiopress have such poor setups that they need to listen through electronics with a veil that hide their flaws? Or are we talking either placebo or "a friendly review" to please the brand? Either way, it's certainly disturbing.
View attachment 137845

Well, having looked at the measurements whilst they are poor with the possible exception of the noise level on sensitive speakers IME all the measurements are just below audibility for me, based on my tests of actual sounds on myself, and I think I am fairly average, so this amp is probably good enough for the placebo effect to outweigh any real audible differences from a sota amp.
IMHO.

 

[Frank Dernie]

that crosstalk alone would be responsible for some.

I would guess not, based on tests I participated in.
When checking crosstalk effects (about 25 years ago now) none of the participants could detect any difference between a crosstalk level typical of a pickup cartridge at around 30dB and the maximum the test setup could achieve, so I would guess that the level of crosstalk, whilst technically poor, is adequate for listening to music in stereo.
I think the praise comes from "buying into" a narrative and the placebo effect not anything genuinely audible.

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

Such amplifers and their various awards/kudos epitomize sadly measurements and how they relate to what we can truly hear.

The differences between a 50 dB SINAD and 100 dB are not as perceptible as we would like to believe, even for us , the objectivists. Many LP chains (TT, Cartridge, RIAA preamp and amp) are likely about 50 dB of SINAD. If it is a tube chain it might even not clear 40 dB... Yet people rave about them and sometimes they're sincere (not often but once in a blue moon). The audiophiles, start chasing the ideals put forth by the reviews. Many (most?) audiophiles do not have the means to acquire the extraordinary expensive products with gushing reviews and industry-wide accolades, owned by influencers (Influencers, have become an important aspect of today's marketing). Those audiophiles, I would surmise the majority, have to resign themselves to lesser products (in term of reviews and price) and that is where brands like Rogue come into play. They are "rogue", they go against the grain. They "challenge" the status-quo by being innovative with a clear eye on the glorious past... when tubes ruled audio. a "rogue" amplifier is modern, efficient and powerful: It uses class D but feed it with "organic", "warm" signals ... to mitigate class d inherent dry, cold and and aseptic sound...
The engineering is not "poor". High objective performance wasn't the design objective. What is reviewed is what they wanted.

I am dreaming of ASR reviews of an expensive High End tubes preamplifier, line Stage or amplifier. I suspect their performance will not be any better.


Thanks Amir.

Peace.

 

[roog]

It would be very interesting to see rigorous testing of some long-standing mainstream products, not just 'high-end' stuff, as I suspect many do not measure well but, survive due to almost unshakeable folk law, or maybe a risk of lawsuits?
.

 

[anphex]

Could be interesting to see the step in development from UcD to NCore to Purifi. But these days I wouldn't get UcD except as a subwoofer amplifier.

I got them for my surrounds just to have an external "best value amp" for non critical speakers. I tried them quickly at my big main speakers and they weren't as good as NC400 but still ahead of Emotiva XPA und Denon 6400 AVR amps.

Hi

Such amplifers and its various awards/kudos epitomize sadly measurements and how they relate to what we can truly hear.

The differences between a 50 dB SINAD and 100 dB are not as perceptible as we would like to believe, even for us , the objectivists. Many LP chains (TT, Cartridge, RIAA preamp and amp) are likely about 50 dB of SINAD. If it is a tube chain it might even not clear 40 dB... Yet people rave about them and sometimes they're sincere (not often but once in a blue moon). The audiophiles, start chasing the ideals put forth by the reviews. Many (most?) audiophiles do not have the means to acquire the extraordinary expensive products with gushing reviews and industry-wide accolades, owned by influencers (Influencers, have become an important aspect of today's marketing). Those audiophiles, I would surmise the majority, have to resign themselves to lesser products (in term of reviews and price) and that is where brands like Rogue come into play. They are "rogue", they go against the grain. They "challenge" the status-quo by being innovative with a clear eye on the glorious past... when tubes ruled audio. "rogues" amplifier is modern, efficient and powerful: They use class D but feed it with "organic", "warm" signals ... to mitigate class d inherent dry, cold and and aseptic sound...
This is such a product. The engineering is not "poor". High objective performance wasn't the design objective. What is reviewed is what they wanted.

I am dreaming of ASR reviews of an expensive High End tubes preamplifier, line Stage or amplifier. I suspect their performance will not be any better.


Thanks Amir.

Peace.

I agree a little but the point of tube amps is adding harmonics. And looking at the data, the second harmonic is still quieter than the 3th harmonic, what makes this whole amp kind of pointless when the harmonic excitement vanishes into discordant harmonics.

 

[Gorgonzola]

Looks quite clean. I don't care for the PCB-mounted tube sockets, though that's pretty much par for the course these days. If they were power tubes it'd be a bigger issue, since they run hotter.

Looks like they're using 12AU7s, which aren't the most linear things on the planet. They are easy to get, however, and can drive a reasonable amount of current for a small-signal tube. If it were me I'd probably have designed this around 6922s or 6SN7s, but to each their own.

At the risk of offending people, I don't see the reason why this site even reviews tube equipment. It's never going to wow people here with distortion numbers compared to the solid-state solutions, and people looking at tube gear usually aren't focused on distortion numbers anyways. Even the best-engineered tube amplifier (Citation II comes to mind) would receive a negative review and the entire comment section would be filled with people complaining that they're "overpriced". It seems pretty well accepted that nobody buys tube gear to chase numbers.

No reason why the site should review tube equipment? Wrong. There is lots of tube equipment out there and it deserved to be reviewed as much as anything else -- even our esteemed co-member, @SIY, agrees that you can make fine tube equipment.

The concept of combining a tube preamp with a solid-state power amp is very familiar to audiophiles. These folks universally assert that the tube pre smooths, warms, and provided "layered" or "holographic" imaging in various degrees. I'll admit subscribe to this notion. That said, an an audiophile on another site, an acquaintance of many years who has audition dozens of amps of all types, auditioned the Sphinx a few years ago and declared he did not like the sound.

Presently my system includes a Sonic Frontiers Line 1 preamp combined with a VTV Purifi stereo power amp. Actually not a bad combo. Just for yuks I'm attaching a photo of the insides of my SF Line 1. It is a fully balanced and differential preamp with six 6922-type tubes for driver, gain and output buffer, (cathode follower), stages. I recently acquired this preamp but it is about 20 years old; I' taking it in for an "SE+" upgrade today. Will this pricey upgrade improve the sound audibly? Maybe not, but it is pretty thorough renewal of this aging component so I'm resolved to do it ...

 

[xaviescacs]

At the risk of offending people, I don't see the reason why this site even reviews tube equipment. It's never going to wow people here with distortion numbers compared to the solid-state solutions, and people looking at tube gear usually aren't focused on distortion numbers anyways. Even the best-engineered tube amplifier (Citation II comes to mind) would receive a negative review and the entire comment section would be filled with people complaining that they're "overpriced". It seems pretty well accepted that nobody buys tube gear to chase numbers.

But I think people with some tube gear deserve to know how their gear perfoms. In my oppinion tube or not tube shouldn't be an issue, as this site aims for transparency and objectivity.

Besides, one can't discard that some tube gear performs very well. Maybe with more distortion, perhaps with some particular frequency dependency, but with good numbers in other aspects. How are we going to find out?

 

[anphex]

Considering all the tube amps reviews I've seen so far I have yet to see any amp that has noticably higher even number harmonics then uneven ones. And uneven harmonics you get plenty with bad amps. I believe some tube lovers would technically (not emotionally maybe) happy with a very good, clean DAC, a good hardware audio exciter and an amp in the league of NC400 or ABH2.

Edit: Just clicked through some reviews of tube amps. There are, in fact, a few very good ones as it seems. Even when this changes my view on tube amps to the better it also shows that the sphinx v3 is kind of... bad.

 

[FrantzM]

Honest questions:

Why tubes?
Seriously?
Nostalgia or veiled belief that .... ???

With all due respect to @Gorganzola ... In what objective way would the LF1 be superior to say a Topping Pre90? I bet the upgrade to SE is likely to cost more than the Topping Pre...

Again .. Why tubes? At all?

Similar to use a Intel 386 because .. one can ...

 

[EchoChamber]

The image below are the real talking point here IMO. How can a device with so high noise and distortion get so good reviews? Do the audiopress have such poor setups that they need to listen through electronics with a veil that hide their flaws? Or are we talking either placebo or "a friendly review" to please the brand? Either way, it's certainly disturbing.
View attachment 137845

It is common for companies to pay to get their product’s awarded. I’m not sure that’s the case here, depends on the ethics of the publication. At minimum they will be clients with a healthy advertisement budget with the publication. To me, those badges are meaningless…

Assuming that’s not the case and the people reviewing audio products are serious about their subjective review. What they miss in my opinion is a reference, a few components that they know are very transparent so they can subjectively compare against. Better yet, run some measurements and add those to the review findings.

In the past I remember having bought products that were really well reviewed and awarded that sounded horrible. The excuse then is system “compatibility” or “synergy”, and that fuel the whole upgrade cycle… That’s what got me into DYI (I couldn’t trust “audio designers” to do it right), and now, I just won’t buy anything unless Amir has tested it and recommended.