Spread Spectrum Technologies Ampzilla 2000 Power Amplifiers

October, 2012

When I reviewed the original Ampzilla 2000 monoblock power amplifers in February, 2009, I reported on a very good sounding, well made component that had just enough of its own character that it was highly recommended but not without reservations. In hindsight now, comparing its sound to several other currently made amplifiers, its particular character was quite small and more acceptable than the competition.

The new $8495/pair Ampzilla 2000 sees an increase of power from 200 to 300 Watts per channel, while the weight is still very manageable at 52 pounds per chassis. I have had Class D amps that run warmer at low volume levels. When used at high volume levels, the heatsinks get warm. The permanently attached power cord eliminates the option to spend a lot of time and money experimenting with after-market power cords. There are RCA and XLR inputs and 2 pairs of speaker binding posts on each amplifier. There is no remote trigger, and I use a PS Audio Quintet to turn on and turn off the amplifiers remotely. The design is solid industrial but not at all cheap looking. Almost the entire front half of the chassis is taken up by a massive 1200VA power transformer.

My pair (owned, not borrowed or loaned) has a black faceplate and grey chassis. I was a little concerned about the large reflective “A” logo on the front panel. You know, the big Star Trek-looking insignia. This is not a problem, eyesore, intrusion, or distraction. With the amplifiers near the speakers, the reflection from this logo is just black and is only noticeable if I look directly at them. I actually like it. So no worries on that score.

Other components on hand during the audition included a SOTA Cosmos IV vacuum turntable with Triplanar VII u2 tonearm, Basis 2500 Signature turntable with Vector 4 and MØRCH DP-8 tonearms, Miyajima Kansui and Shilabe phono cartridges, Benz LP-S, ZYX Omega-S and UNIverse phono cartridges, Whest PS.30RDT Special Edition phono preamplifier, Bob’s Devices CineMag 1131 “Blue” step-up transformer, Mark Levinson 326S preamplifier with phono, Prism Orpheus Digital Interface and Berkeley Alpha DAC Series 2 with custom Windows 7 computer/music server, KingRex UC384 24bit 384kHz USB to SPDIF digital to digital converter, YG Acoustics Kipod II Signature Main Modules speakers, Dali Mentor 5 speakers (from the home theater system), and Gallo TR-3 subwoofers. Power amplifiers included Mark Levinson 532H, Modwright KWA 150 Signature Edition, Manley Snappers, and Classe CT-M300s. Interconnects and speaker cables are mostly Mogami. All front end components receive their AC power from a PS Audio AV-5000 power conditioner which is connected to the wall power with either PS Audio PerfectWave AC-10 power cord or Shunyata Python CX power cord. Other Shunyata Python CX and Black Mamba CX power cords are used elsewhere in the system, and I use Jerry’s DIY power cords on the music computer and Levinson preamp. A PS
Audio Quintet is normally used for the power amplifiers.

The small character I noticed in the original version of the Ampzilla 2000 is gone. That trace of forwardness in the upper midrange has been completely and utterly banished. With a signal/noise spec of -120dB, excellent low level resolution is assured. Given that the main speakers used for this review were the absolutely state-of-the-art, laboratory grade YG Acoustics Kipod II Signatures, I offer the following:

When I hear any sense of uneven frequency balance, where one part of the audible frequency spectrum is either forward or recessed, I will let you know.

When I hear any hint of uneven harmonic balance, such as a “thin” or threadbare sound in one part of the overall sound, for example, a rich and dense midrange with a thin treble, I will let you know.

When I hear complex music become congested or confused, I will let you know.

When I hear the soundstage offer less than outstanding width, depth, and height, I will let you know.

When I hear the sound field miss the ambience and overall size of the recording venue, I will let you know.

When I hear individual performers become flat “cardboard cutouts” or vague sources of sound, I will let you know.

When I hear these amplifiers have any sense of the negative connotations of “solid-state sound”, I will let you know.

In other words, when I hear these remarkable amplifiers doing anything – and I mean anything – wrong, I will let you know.

Hear ye, Hear ye! This is a game changing product. Vacuum tubes sound nice, but you will hear in short order how that “tube sound” really is a form of distortion that colors the music, giving it a false golden hue, obscuring and coloring upper frequency detail, and of course, reducing the resolution and impact in the bass. ALL of the sweet detail in the midrange and treble that we hear from good tube amplifiers is fully present with the Ampzillas, but without unwanted and incorrect additional baggage. Give these SST amps 200-300 hours of break in and your tube amps will be looking for a new home. And if you are like me, you will not miss wondering if your tube amps are going to blow a tube when you turn them on, harming your anticipated listening session. You will not miss that!

As I typed the preceeding paragraph I realized that the natural comparison for the solid-state Ampzilla amplifiers is not to other solid-state amplifiers, but to vacuum tube amplifiers with their natural and lifelike sound. We take for granted the tubes’ wonderful harmonic depth and realistic presentation of voices and acoustic instruments, while accepting their almost universal weaknesses in the bass and upper treble. Eliminate those weaknesses, plus those noted above, and you have the Ampzillas.

I am using my system much more since I installed the Ampzilla amplifiers several months ago. I don’t worry about “wasting” costly vacuum tubes with background music. I don’t worry about the electric bill with these running all day because they use only about 0.6 Amps (each chassis) at low volume levels. Compare that to the Parasound JC-1 which draws 4.8 Amps at LOW bias, or Krell FPB-300cx at 4.5 Amps. And most of all, I am not thinking about my next amplifier! The amplifiers have operated perfectly without any faults or strange behavior since installed.

The Spread Spectrum Technologies Ampzilla 2000 power amplifiers are the most neutral and enjoyable sounding amps I have heard in my systems. My perfect amplifier would offer faultless sound, be affordable and easy to install, not heat the room, have no ongoing maintenance, and be inexpensive to operate. I believe that amplifier is in my listening room right now! If you are shopping in the $20k plus range, you will ignore these no matter how good they sound. For the rest of us, these are happy days! Live long and prosper.

Trinaural Processor Review (Original)

Having had the Trinaural Processor in my system for a few months now, I figured it was time to write a review to let people know the good, bad, and otherwise interesting aspects of this piece of equipment. As a dealer for this product, it would be foolish of me to think I had no bias. However, I am a firm believer in „full disclosure“ and believe that my long-term credibility and viability as a dealer depends on that. The opinions and observations I express here are strictly my own and may or may not align exactly with that of Spread Spectrum Technologies. For those that want the abbreviated summary up front, here it is:

Pro: Without a doubt, the best sound I have ever heard regardless of price. Significantly added more width, depth, and clarity to an already excellent system.

Cons: Takes a relatively long time to adjust to the „new“ sound. Best performance requires a center channel equal or better than the side channels.

Product Review

I first heard the Trinaural Processor at the 2003 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. After a few short-term listening sessions, my initial opinion was that it was OK but not fantastic. Luckily for James Bongiorno, I was not the judge at CES and the product went on to win the „Best of High-End Audio“ product award given at the show. I then heard the Trinaural a few months later at the home of Luther Ward ( Luther is a fantastic guy, has extreme amounts of audio knowledge, and is a good friend of James Bongiorno (and thus had a Trinaural before anyone else in the world). Instead of $16k in speakers (three RM/Xs) and $20k in electronics (five Ampzilla monoblocs, Theadra pre-amp, etc.) as demonstrated at CES, Luther had the Trinaural plugged into JBL bookshelf speakers and a few hundred dollars of vintage electronics. I was a little surprised, but it actually sounded quite good. In this system, the sound was MUCH better with the Trinaural added. This audition definitely got my interest up so that I could not wait until I had a Trinaural in my own test system.

The first production Trinaural Processors finally shipped in late May. I wasted no time in integrating it into my system. Before I go too far with this review, I want to point out two very important things:

1) The term „Processor“ is really a misnomer. Everything the Trinaural does is strictly in the Analog domain. The Trinaural does no/zero/zilch/nada digital processing at all. As far as I know, it is currently the only Analog two channel to 3.1 channel converter in the world. Comparing the Trinaural to any of the digital processors that I have heard is definitely an apples to bananas comparison. Most of the digital processors sound very good when you first use them since they sound interesting/different. They also give depth/ambiance to lower end systems that previously had none. However, once you get accustomed to the sound, you will likely start to notice that there is much less detail in the music (especially with something like 2 channel SACD). This is strictly a fact of life associated with the quality of the DSP chips used. Since the Trinaural is strictly Analog, there are none of these problems.

2) Speaker/room set-up is absolutely critical to getting the most out of the Trinaural. Some balancing and moving of speakers will be required for 99% of the Home Theater systems the Trinaural will be put into. Since there is no digital delay (no digital anything, actually), the front three speakers will need to be set up on an equidistant arc as shown:

I star­ted the pro­cess by put­ting the Tri­n­au­ral into my stan­dard demo Ste­reo/Home Thea­ter sys­tem. The front half of this sys­tem con­sis­ted of VMPS RM40s, LRC, Amp­zil­la mo­no­blocs, Marsh P2000B pre-amp, and a Pioneer Elite SACD/DVD-A/CD play­er.

When using the Tri­n­au­ral, I had to bring my Left/Right spea­ker out just a litt­le from their nor­mal po­si­ti­on so that ever­y­thing was per­fect­ly equi­dis­tant. I then used an SPL meter to make sure the ba­lan­ce on my pre-amp was still cor­rect. I then hoo­ked the Tri­n­au­ral into the path and used the SPL meter to ba­lan­ce the Cen­ter with the Left/Right (that is, after I was able to get the ground loop out of my sys­tem cau­sed by ad­ding the Tri­n­au­ral into the chain ;-). After about an hour of mo­ving, ca­b­ling, and AC de­tec­tive work, I was fi­nal­ly ready to lis­ten.

When I first heard the sound, it im­me­dia­te­ly re­min­ded me of CES. It was still a litt­le dif­fe­rent but not fan­tas­tic. The cen­ter chan­nel see­med a litt­le hot and the side chan­nels see­med beamy. Howe­ver, I had been told by James Bon­gior­no to ex­pect this and that it was 100% nor­mal. Howe­ver, ano­ther thing I im­me­dia­te­ly no­ti­ced was that I could dis­tinct­ly hear more of the music. This wasn’t just a re­la­tive­ly small dif­fe­rence like you would ex­pect when chan­ging ca­bles/in­ter­con­nect, this was major dif­fe­rence like chan­ging spea­kers!!! Back­ground har­mo­nies that I ty­pi­cal­ly strugg­le to hear on good sys­tems (or can’t hear at all on les­ser sys­tems), were fully pre­sent from first to last note. Wow, that was in­te­res­ting. Since I knew that it would take my ear/brain a while to ad­just to the „new“ sound (James sug­gests up to two weeks of pe­ri­o­dic lis­ten­ing), I sat in my lis­ten­ing chair and ca­sual­ly lis­tened/read a book for a few hours.

After about an hour or so, the cen­ter chan­nel fi­nal­ly star­ted to loose its per­cei­ved „loud­ness/bright­ness“. After about ano­ther two hours, the be­a­m­y­ness of the Left/Right spea­kers star­ted to sub­si­de and the space bet­ween the spea­kers star­ted to fill in. At this point, I would say that the over­all „en­joy­ment“ of the sys­tem was about the same as when I was set up for Ste­reo. Some things were bet­ter (could hear more music), some things were about the same (so­unds­ta­ge), and some things were slight­ly worse (voices had slight­ly less warmth). I also lear­ned at this point that I could move vir­tual­ly the ent­i­re width of the Left/Right spea­kers with al­most no chan­ge in the sound. The idea of a sin­gle sweet spot 6 in­ches wide di­rect­ly bet­ween the spea­kers is a thing of the past. For about a 3 foot area I could hear vir­tual­ly no dif­fe­rence in ima­ging and even outs­ide that the dif­fe­rence was ama­zingly small.

After a good nights sleep and ano­ther few hours of lis­ten­ing, things chan­ged even more. The con­ti­nuous so­unds­ta­ge now star­ted to have more depth. While the RM40s are no slouch in this area to begin with, I now felt like it was three times the depth I was used too. At this point, the „en­joy­ment“ fac­tor was de­fi­ni­te­ly til­ted in favor of the Tri­n­au­ral. What was even more ama­zing was that after ano­ther day of lis­ten­ing the sound see­med to chan­ge again!!! Our brains are de­fi­ni­te­ly a very funny thing. By day 3 the so­unds­ta­ge had spre­ad bey­ond the spea­kers. At this point I can trut­h­ful­ly say that I had never heard any sys­tem, at any price, that soun­ded as good as what I was hea­ring (and I have heard 100s of sys­tems ran­ging from a few hund­red dol­lars to a a few hund­red thousand dol­lars). Was it per­fect? No. Voices were still a litt­le thin but all the other at­tri­bu­tes more than made up for that fact.

Be­cau­se of this im­per­fec­tion, I de­ci­ded to take the next step. Since I did not have any demos sche­du­led for a few days, I de­ci­ded to to­tal­ly re-or­ga­ni­ze the room for an ab­so­lu­te op­ti­mal Tri­n­au­ral setup. My best guess as to why voices soun­ded a litt­le thin was that I was used to lis­ten­ing to vo­cals being pro­du­ced by a total of eight Neo Pa­nels (4 each on the Left and Right spea­ker) but now I was lis­ten only via one (the sin­gle Neo panel in the LRC). Sim­ple pro­blem, sim­ple so­lu­ti­on. Use an RM40 for my cen­ter chan­nel:

When I hit play with this sys­tem, all I could do was sit and lis­ten in ama­ze­ment. Play­ing Mah­ler’s 6th-Tra­gic by Zan­der was truly ama­zing. I felt like I was sit­ting in the third row at the sym­pho­ny. Width, depth, and cla­ri­ty were like not­hing I had ever heard be­fo­re. A jazz CD like Trio Jeepy by Bran­ford Mar­sa­lis is ab­so­lu­tely ama­zing since each in­stru­ment (sax, drums, and up­right bass) is ren­de­red by a se­pa­ra­te spea­ker. Male and fe­ma­le voices were now stun­ning. Na­ta­lie Mc­Mas­ters and Di­an­na Krall were both bre­a­thta­king. Ha­ving had the op­por­tu­ni­ty to sit in on ac­tu­al re­cor­ding stu­dio ses­si­ons of some of my test CDs, there were ac­tual­ly a few cases in which I thought this sys­tem soun­ded bet­ter then when I lis­tened to the per­for­mance live in the stu­dio!!!!!

The funny thing is that if an­yo­ne were to walk into the room just then, they would not have en­joy­ed it ne­ar­ly as much as I was. I could just ima­gi­ne so­meo­ne say­ing „The em­peror has no cloths!!“ 😉 The fact was, that at that point, the way I heard music was phy­si­cal­ly and psy­cho­lo­gi­cal­ly dif­fe­rent than an­yo­ne else. As such, I can only ima­gi­ne what the nay­say­ers on the fo­rums are going to say about this pro­duct (at least those that have not heard it them­sel­ves). My guess is that ul­ti­mate­ly so­meo­ne will have to take „be­fo­re“ and „after“ brain scans for most peop­le to un­der­stand and be­lie­ve the ac­tu­al ear/brain chan­ges going on. The best thing I can as­so­cia­te this with is the At­kins diet. After a few weeks of not ea­ting car­bo­hy­dra­tes, your body will ac­tual­ly chan­ge the pro­cess it uses for sto­ring and burning en­er­gy (a phy­si­cal chan­ge you can ve­ri­fy by uri­na­ting on a spe­cial paper to see if fat burning ke­to­nes are pre­sent in your sys­tem).

After all my ra­vings on how won­der­ful the Tri­n­au­ral sounds, the ob­vious ques­ti­on is „What ne­ga­ti­ves did you find?“. I would like to say ab­so­lu­tely none but un­for­t­u­n­a­te­ly I can­not. I did no­ti­ce a few things that peop­le should be aware of:

1) After lis­ten­ing to a si­gni­fi­cant num­ber of CDs/SACDs, I have no­ti­ced that a small per­cen­ta­ge of songs (less than 5%) sound a litt­le con­ge­sted/flat in the cen­ter chan­nel. Using a fri­ends demo tracks (he owns a re­cor­ding stu­dio), we were able to sur­mi­se that the use of di­gi­tal­ly mas­te­red delay seems to be the cause. What is this? So­me­ti­mes in the re­cor­ding pro­cess the mixer only has a mono sour­ce of an in­stru­ment. If they want the in­stru­ment to be pre­sen­ted hard right or left but also have some width to the music, they will di­gi­tal­ly copy the mono sour­ce and then delay it by 5 to 15 ms in the op­po­si­te spea­ker (this „trick“ is not con­side­red an in­dus­try best prac­tice). I have no idea how/why but the Tri­n­au­ral tries to pull both images to the cen­ter which can then over­power the me­lo­dy. Poor re­cor­ding tech­ni­que is more to blame than the Tri­n­au­ral but this can still be a litt­le frus­tra­ting es­pe­cial­ly if Sting’s new CD is your fa­vo­ri­te.

2) There seems to be an ever so slight loss of re­cor­ded echo/re­verb. On Na­ta­lie Mc­Mas­ter’s SACD „In My Hands“ tract 10, I can cle­ar­ly hear a trai­ling room echo when lis­ten­ing in Ste­reo (i.e., she was re­cor­ding in a large/live room). This echo is si­gni­fi­cant­ly fain­ter when using the Tri­n­au­ral. I have been un­able to de­ter­mi­ne if this „echo“ is being fil­te­red out or just being co­ve­r­ed up by the ad­di­tio­nal „music“ that can now be heard. So far, this has been the only song on any of the CDs/SACDs that I have lis­tened to that I have no­ti­ced this.

3) There are a coup­le of cos­me­tic idio­syn­cra­sies with the unit (but they do not ef­fect the music at all). The parts ma­nu­fac­tu­rers so­mehow got the blue­prints up­s­i­de down so the Left/Right switch used for ba­lan­cing the spea­kers is back­wards, the Right input jacks are white and the Left input jacks are red, and the ba­lan­ced input plugs are up­s­i­de down. All these things only come into play on in­iti­al set-up and do not ef­fect the per­for­mance in any way.

4) As my ex­pe­ri­ence show­ed, the cen­ter chan­nel is now the most im­portant spea­ker in the sys­tem. If you have fan­tas­tic Left/Right spea­kers but a poor cen­ter chan­nel, you will li­kely be un­hap­py with the Tri­n­au­ral. The cen­ter chan­nel needs to be at least as good if not bet­ter than the side chan­nels. If the cen­ter chan­nel is only „as good“ or does not have the full fre­quen­cy re­s­pon­se of the Left/Right chan­nels, the use of a se­pa­ra­te sub­woo­fer is ad­vi­sa­ble. The Tri­n­au­ral has sub­woo­fer out­puts for this si­tua­ti­on.

5) The final ob­vious ne­ga­ti­ve is that it takes time to get used to. Swit­ching back and forth bet­ween Ste­reo and Tri­n­au­ral is not ad­vi­sa­ble due to the ear/brain ef­fect. As such, there is no „easy“ way to switch to Ste­reo with the Tri­n­au­ral. Howe­ver, the Tri­n­au­ral does have a se­cond set of by­pass in­puts that allow you to ea­si­ly hook up your mul­ti-chan­nel SACD or Home Thea­ter pro­ces­sor. I no­ti­ced no ob­vious ne­ga­ti­ve ef­fect when lis­ten­ing to mul­ti-chan­nel SACDs or watching mo­vies through the Tri­n­au­ral.


The Tri­n­au­ral Pro­ces­sor is a re­vo­lu­tio­na­ry pro­duct with the po­ten­ti­al to break through the „sonic bar­ri­er“ that most high-end two chan­nel sys­tems are ap­proa­ching today. The Tri­n­au­ral is ca­pa­ble of de­li­ver­ing more mu­si­cal cla­ri­ty, depth, and so­unds­ta­ge than I pre­vious­ly thought pos­si­ble.

So the real ques­ti­on is „Who should buy this?“.

1) For an Au­dio­phi­le with a de­di­ca­te room who does not watch mo­vies, the Tri­n­au­ral Pro­ces­sor is an ab­so­lu­te no-brai­ner. For many au­dio­phi­les that al­re­a­dy have great sys­tems, in­cre­men­tal 1% chan­ges often cost a great deal of money. For these in­di­vi­du­als, the Tri­n­au­ral is a re­vo­lu­tio­na­ry pro­duct that will give them a 10%-15% in­crea­se in per­for­mance for less than they would spend on a sin­gle spea­ker cable (as­su­ming they have an extra spea­ker or two stas­hed away so­mew­he­re as many do ;-).

2) The Tri­n­au­ral is also an easy choice for Home Thea­ter en­thu­si­asts that al­re­a­dy have a great cen­ter chan­nel but only mo­dera­te/good front L/R spea­kers. The over­all be­ne­fit could be grea­ter with a Tri­n­au­ral than spen­ding equal or even si­gni­fi­cant­ly more money on the L/R spea­kers.

3) In­di­vi­du­als with front spea­kers that have good tim­bre but may not image over­ly well can great­ly be­ne­fit from the Tri­n­au­ral (in fact, the re­la­ti­ve per­for­mance in­crea­se seems to be grea­ter for lo­wer-end spea­kers than the hig­her-end spea­kers as de­mons­tra­ted by Lu­ther’s sys­tem). So­meo­ne just star­ting out in audio may even want to use the Tri­n­au­ral as the core com­po­nent and up­grade around it.

And of cour­se the op­po­si­te ques­ti­on, „Who should avoid the Tri­n­au­ral?“

1) If you cur­rent­ly have fan­tas­tic L/R spea­kers and you have no de­si­re to get a cen­ter chan­nel (or a bet­ter cen­ter chan­nel in the case of many com­bi­na­ti­on Ste­reo/HT sys­tems), then the Tri­n­au­ral may not be a fit for you. The cen­ter chan­nel is ex­tre­me­ly im­portant when using the Tri­n­au­ral and will dic­ta­te the over­all per­for­mance of the sys­tem.

2) If you only use in­te­gra­ted amps wi­thout pre-outs and se­pa­ra­te pre-in­puts, then the Tri­n­au­ral will not work. The Tri­n­au­ral must be pla­ced in the path bet­ween the pre-amp and the amp.

3) If you rou­ti­nely have peop­le over to your home to de­mons­tra­te your „fan­tas­tic soun­ding sys­tem“, then the lack of a Ste­reo by­pass might be an issue. Once you are used to the Tri­n­au­ral, what you hear (great image, so­unds­ta­ge, depth, etc.) and what they hear (hot cen­ter chan­nel with beamy side chan­nels) will be very dif­fe­rent. Howe­ver, by ca­re­ful con­fi­gu­ra­ti­on you can use the by­pass in­puts to allow for re­gu­lar Ste­reo for when your fri­ends come by. The­re­fo­re, this is more of a con­ve­ni­ence/plan­ning issue than a real li­mi­ta­ti­on.

Happy lis­ten­ing. Ju­li­an Tur­ner

Prin­ted with per­mis­si­on

Se­do­na Sky Sound.

Co­py­right © 2003. All rights re­ser­ved.

Re­vi­sed: 10/30/03 Re­view ori­gi­nal­ly writ­ten: 07/16/03

„the audiophile voice“

– Ampzilla 2000 Testbericht –

Spread Spectrum Technologies Inc.
Reviewer: Anthony H. Cordesman

„The Ampzilla 2000 is one of the most dynamic amplifiers that I have heard in terms of musically natural power in handling orchestral climaxes and its ability to reproduce truly loud rock. It is also exceptional in its ability to accurately reproduce musically natural dynamic changes even in very complex music and at very high power levels.“     

Anthony H. Cordesman

Testbericht in Auszügen… (Übersetzung folgt)

James helped pioneer the high-quality, high-powered transistor amp some 30 years ago. … I used designs of his like the Dynaco 400, his original Sumo amplifiers, and the original Ampzilla. All were designs that moved the state of the art forward at a time when most solid-state amplifiers had serious sonic problems.

It may not have changed my psyche or brought me a sonic revolution, but it is an exceptionally good and very musical amplifier. 

… „The Ampzilla 2000 is one of the most dynamic amplifiers that i have heard in terms of musically natural power in handling orchestral climaxes and its ability to reproduce truly loud rock. It is also exceptional in its ability to accurately reproduce musically natural dynamic changes even in very complex music and at very high power levels.“

… Moreover, the Ampzilla performs equally well with highly efficient speakers; unlike some transistor power amplifiers, its dynamics are as clean at low power levels with simple loads as at high power levels with difficult loads.

… The Ampzilla 2000 did an outstanding job of this with my favorite Telarc and Reference Recording’s bass spectaculars, with the demanding climax of Saint Saens‘ Third Symphony and with the more complex passages of Mahler’s Eigth. My son informs me Ampzilla 2000 does equally well with electronic synthesizer and bass guitar, his music.

… I found the Ampzilla 2000 to have a slightly warmer timbre that I felt was a bit more musically realistic than the timbre of the Pass X 600…

The Ampzilla 2000 did, however, produce excellent resolution of percussion (including the usual Telarc and Reference Recording bass drum sounds) and very good articulation of the bass from complex organ music.

… I was impressed with the compatibility of the Ampzilla 2000. It easily drove any speaker I used it with…

… it also worked fine with all of my speaker cables as well.


The Sensible Sound magazine #97 Sept/Oct – Trinaural Processor review –

Spread Spectrum Technologies Inc.
Reviewer: David Rich

PDF download engl. Originalartikel