Pass Aleph vs. McCormack: What to Expect?

What you pay for in the original Pass Aleph 3 is exotic metalwork compared to the Aleph 30. From an electronic standpoint, identical components are used internally, the patented Aleph current source is utilized, and Pass tweaked the circuit to offer a much higher differential input impedance (52K ohms run balanced, 47Kohms run single-ended), an extra TO3 output device per channel, and the option of a balanced input (single-ended only on the Aleph 3 due to physical constraints of the chassis size). The Aleph 30 is a spectacular value, particularly now that it is closed out and being blown out, and considered by Pass Labs every bit the equal of its predecessor. That Volksamp could not sustain itself as a corporate entity does not abrogate the value of this product. Anyone who owns an Aleph 30 has a unique piece of the Pass legacy, and might be enjoying the sonic performance of the amp, as well!

In my humble opinion, of course.

Cheers!

Quin

That higher input impedence is a real plus. The Pass designs tend to be low enough in this area to cause potential mismatches with some tube preamps.

I would like to try an Aleph 5 to see how it compares in sound to the Aleph 3. The Aleph 3 has such a nice sound, and my Proac 2.5's do OK on the bass, though there could be more. What is disconcerting is that I have to turn the volume control on the Rogue 66 up to 75% to get loud levels. With the Berning ZH270 (70 wpc) it's less than half that. But having to turn the volume up past 50% doesn't seem to degrade the sound. The owner of Rogue said there would be no problem matching this tube preamp to the Aleph 3, using the 1:10 impedence matching rule. Would this be any different if I biamped the Aleph 3's? Can anyone tell me how to bridge them? Thanks.

Peter,

The Aleph 3 is not bridgeable, per se, but you could parallel wire the outputs (red to red, black to black) and split the input signal from the preamp with a Y splitter, thus using each stereo amp to drive one channel only. A more desireable way to go (in my opinion) would be to use an active electronic crossover, driving the bottom end with one amp and the mid/tweeter with another. Having said that, if you were able to round up say an Aleph 5, and were to vertically biamp (using an electronic crossover), you could drive the bottom end with the 60 watt Aleph 5 and the mid/top end with the Aleph 3. The gain is the same for both amplifiers, and crossing over actively truly (again in my opinion) allows the maximum benefit to be derived from each amp, as it only has to work within a specific frequency range.

Cheers!

Quin

A friend had the opportunity to own the Aleph 5 and a DNA 0.5. Depending on speaker, in some instances, the 5 wins out, and in some cases the 0.5 wins out.

Liquidity, lushness, midrange and holographic are some characteristic to die for in the Aleph5, the 0.5 sounds a tad grainy. However, the 0.5 wins out on the bass department, speed, and dynamics. The Aleph 5 sounds slow in comparison.

My friend is eyeing on getting his McCormack modified to Revision A when money allows. This might be a different story by then.

For now, the two is a close toss in air.