New H20 Signature S250


After reaading a lot of reviews about these amps, i emailed Henry to build me (2) S250 to biamp my speakers, I have an immediate response from him and this is what he say:

Hi Patrick,

The Amps are the Signature Stereo which has an addional Big Toroidal
transfomrer which makes it a true dual mono design, for $300 more which
makes the amp now $2800. Of course, The amp is improved over the
regular stereo across the whole Audio Spectrum. If you want the regular
version stereo, let me know.

Thanks for the number and I'll try to give you a call sometime today.

Henry

Does anyone yet owned this amp?
rneclps
With the interest of a local audiophile who had an H20 (non-sig stereo) model on loan, I had the opportunity to audition this in my home system. As a Sound-Lab A1 owner with CAT JL-3 Signature amps and a 10-year old Counterpoint NPS400 hybrid amp, I was eager to hear how the H20 amp would compare to both a reference amp and a more affordable ($1500-2000 on the used market) amp. All amps were powered on for at least an hour before listening, and were only powered down for the brief periods of swapping IC and spkr cables and then powered back on.

There is much issue on MIT cables with the H20 amps in the Audiogon forums and from Mr. Ho when he wrote to me after my initial impression of his amp. But because I use a 25' MIT 350 EVO single-ended cable from an Aesthetix Callisto Signature line stage to the CAT amps, this cable was what I initially used to compare the amps. The CAT amps do not support balanced connections.

The H20 has outstanding extension and resolution at the frequency extremes. There was however, a huge dip in the midrange. On two different LP recordings, the singers, guitar and keyboard players were very much recessed on the stage relative to the other members of the band. I tried turning up the volume to bring the performers together, but this only caused the bass player and drummer to overpower the performance. In all the ARC, Counterpoint, Wolcott and CAT amps I have owned, my system has never had a tonal imbalance like this.

Another concern with the H20 had to do with image widths. Singers, guitar players and pianos all had a very narrow field. Piano image size was only a couple feet wide. The H20's image compression was very evident after hearing the same music minutes before with the CATs which brought the piano’s presence to realism. The Counterpoint was not all that far behind the CATs in this regard.

The other problem with the H20 was its lack of dynamic contrasts. I could not get the loud peaks in the music to really come out into the room. With the CATs and less so with the Counterpoint, segments in the music would build up and briefly become quite loud and then return to a softer level. There was very much a defined volume range for which the H20 played the music and the brief loud peaks reached by the other amps were just not to be achieved with the H20.

The whole issue of decays and harmonic richness was not to be an expected strength here and indeed, the H20 was very much like any other solid state amp I have heard in my system and elsewhere.

Upon sharing my findings with Mr. Ho, he told me of the incompatibility with his amps and the MIT cables. With all the praise I have read here on these amps, I wanted to do anything I could to get out of them what others have written. The only option I had was to use a 14’ NBS Statement XLR cable and run it across the room to hear this setup. This required me to bring the component rack a few feet into the room vs. being at the back wall, but the effort was well worth it. I used adaptors to run the NBS into the CATs.

Huge difference with the NBS balanced cable!!! Now the H20 had very good tonal coherency. Images were still a bit narrow, but a definite improvement here. I was very pleased with these changes.

The now far more accurate tonality brought on great musical enjoyment but at the same time, it made clear the subtle deficiencies that were masked before due to the recessed midrange. With piano now having more accurate presence, the notes were more clearly connected rather than being distinct from one to the next; intricate guitar work was a bit slurred from one note to the next as well. The Counterpoint did not fair very well here either, but with the CATs, the space between each of the notes was very clear. Without the CATs on hand to hear this capability, the H20's resolving power fairs quite well.

With the H20, there was still a definite reduction of each performer occupying a realistic volume of space on the stage. However, with the improvements brought on with the balanced NBS cable, overall, the result here was most impressive for an amp of this cost....and a solid state amp at that. Still this was one area where the Counterpoint clearly excelled over the H20. The 3-dimensionality, bloom, decays, etc., are very significant characterizations I listen for when evaluating audio components. To the H20's credit, it does have a more refined and resolving top-end than the Counterpoint.

The H20's dynamic compression issue with the single-ended MIT cable was now much less an issue with the balanced NBS. This was one area I was pleased to hear an improvement as I would have little tolerance for an amp of such dynamic compression.

One new problem with the balanced cable was that there was now a fatigue in the upper trebles. If anything, the NBS is more soft and a little less resolving on the top than the MIT, and yet there was now an annoying ringing in not the attack but the trailing (decay) of primarily percussion notes. I suspect this issue would make the H20 very system critical to find a balance elsewhere in the system to tame this characteristic. And perhaps this fatigue could be partly resolved with adjusting the Sound-Lab brilliance controls. Trying other cables could very well resolve this problem as well. Since I had this amp just for a couple days, I did not have the time to investigate these opportunities.

So what is the reason for the dramatic change between the two listening sessions? 1) is the H20 indeed incompatible with the MIT 350 EVO? OR 2) does the H20 simply need to be run with a balanced signal to achieve its potential? My gut feeling is the latter as the NBS and MIT cables used here have very subtle differences in my system and this has been true when I've run them with the Counterpoint as well as previously, the Wolcott monos. And the same was true when I had the BAT 31SE line stage before the Aesthetix Callisto.

I have found the line-stage-to-amp link to be by far the most critical of cable differences. And I have found only a few products capable of retaining the 3-dimensionality in the music; the NBS Statement and MIT 350 EVO & Reference Proline cables are among this group.

So yes, the H20 can perform incredibly well with the Sound-Lab speakers. When run with the "appropriate" cable(s) with the balanced inputs, this amp can be very impressive. The simple fact that it does not have listener fatigue, that I often associate with many solid state amps, speaks well for this amplifier. And that it faired so well to amps of the caliber of the CATs says a lot about the H20's potential and what I suspect exists to a higher degree in the Signature and mono amplifiers developed by Mr. Ho.

I hope to learn more from Mr. Ho on whether or not the H20 amp really needs to be driven by a balanced signal to work at its best.

John
Wow! Nobody would argue the big Soundlabs are a challenge. I laud you for sticking with the H2O for the time being. It is evident a lot of systems are well evolved along the path to better solid state listening. All dissatisfied listening I've seen has been when the H2O is set in place of a well hued solid state system. Some items could very well be incompatable.

MIT, and similar cables don't work with the H2O. Come to think of it, I wonder of any tube lovers use MIT? The H2O excels in low level info, and network box cables mess with that. Some line conditioners choke the high current H2O. The amps can not reach their optimum without well shielded power cables, on all components. They are ultra sensitive to speaker cables, digital cables, and ICs.

There is nothing remaining in my H2O system that was in use during my system's solid state days. I have incrementally improved the H2O's success with carefully chosen changes. I have opted for a modified non-upsampling DAC. The preamp has to be extra clean. I have a custom class A. There is still more to do.

I have the H2O Sig, which is worth the extra dough. I don't experience any placement, size, or stage width abnormalities with my Scintilla system. I have an old Vollenweider disc, "Book of the Roses." People who have his discs know there are lots comings and goings of very deep images. It comes as something of a shock when Vollenweider lays into a foreground electric harp. The strings of that harp extend from speaker to speaker.

I guess what I am saying, you have not heard the H2O amp at it's best yet. For the Big Soundlab, I think you should go with the Signature.

But then, what do I know? I use Speltz Anti-Cable.

Oh yeah, I like piano too. My piano is what size it would be in the recording. Clara Monty in her Uberoth recording, is on stage, some distance away. Jim Brickman's "No Words," the piano is close-miced, and fills the room. I fool people all the time. It has all the bloom, and decay of the real thing.
Vince,
Are you using the Speltz anti cable speaker cables? Do you a biwire configuration and how does the anti cable work with the H2o's?
I don't agree with your statement that'network cables mess with low level detail.' My past set of MIT 750 shotgun was very resolving of low level info.
Thanks,
Bill
Mr. Bill,

I have no experience with the MIT & H2o together. However, in the past I had used the MIT 750 Series 2 biwire with Theil 3.6's and McCormack DNA-Deluxe. As you state, there was no loss of low level detail... It was there and fine. I ended up making and audiophile "adjustment" and ended up with Martin Logan SL3's, same amp, same MIT cabling. Still sounded alright. Looking to make a swap to tubes, friends came over with Sonic Frontiers SFS-80, Music Reference RM-9, as well as a Conrad Johnson model I can't recall. I can tell you after swapping all of them in and OUT, everyone was scratching their heads. Two friends *swore* it had to be those damn MIT boxes and one drove home and brought back a pair of Synergistic Research speaker cables (No. 2 or No. 3 if I recall) and it was amazing, every single ONE of the tube amps there sounded MUCH better than the big McCormack DNA-2 Deluxe with the MIT... actually we then tried the DNA-2 Deluxe with the Synergistic as well, and it was much better. All we could come up with is the box must have caps and such that "adjust" or "tune" the highs and lows to affect the sound for SS amps that may be bright in some systems. It was definately affecting the sonics in my system.

Disclaimer: This was well into the past... about 8 years or so ago, perhaps 7. However, after that weekend - I listed every MIT interconnect and speaker cable for sale, and will never consider another again.

Don't get me wrong, I have heard them sound quite decent on a Krell or Spectral / Avalon or Thiel / MIT system, however detailed, sterile, analytical doesn't appeal to my musical tastes... at least not anymore (that is what got me hooked initially).

All in all I guess I am just trying to relay almost all cables have strengths and weaknesses. Some more than others, I assume. In this case, I know there were "major" sonic landscape shifts with the comparison of the MIT cabling with tube gear compared to Synergistic Research.

Perhaps the MIT boxes adversely affect the H2o. Like I said, I don't know personally. I know the MIT boxes did adversely affect the SFS-80, Music Reference RM-9, and those Conrad Johnsons...

At the summit, it usually does depend on overall synergy of equipment to bring out the best in each component.
The sixth entry in this thread describes my problems with the 250sig and my Transparent ref speaker cables. Jafox put it so much better and I find most of his description about turning it up to try to get the mix better on MITs was exactly MY problem (and again, Henry Ho said his amp doesn't perform well with network boxed speakers.) I subsequently tried Anti-Cables and the harmonics and volumes felt much better, but I thought the Anti-Cables weren't up to the quality I had been used to in the Transparents on the end of my ARC VT100MKII. YMMV.