The only other wrinkle when it comes to set up is separating the digital and analogue sides of the system. I found that using one side of the Monster for digital and the other for the phono, line and amplifier connections, was a must. The V5.1exhibited similar benefits and, although Telos will tell you it doesn’t make any difference, it also does no harm, so I’d recommend the practice.
Sizing up the contenders…
First order of business was to compare the Monster and the V5.1 in the Music Room system, something that required doubling up some of the terminal connections on the smaller unit. Fortunately, the WBT binding posts make that easily achieved. Sadly (and partly because it was so easy to compare the two units) it quickly became apparent that the gulf in price was if not matched by, then reflected in the gulf in performance. At five times the price of the V5.1, this became an exercise in revisiting the astonishing musical contribution of the Monster. It really is a revelation. As it should be – given the cost.
But the news is not all bad. Yes, the Monster is clearly and fundamentally superior to the V5.1, but sonically and musically, the smaller unit is still cut from the same cloth as its bigger brother, while the superiority is system – or more precisely, bandwidth – dependent.
Running the main system with the impressive Peak Consult Dragon Legacy speakers, pulling the power on the Monster was a chastening experience. The soundstage literally collapsed in on itself, dropping in height and contracting. The music lost dynamic range and purpose, rhythmic articulation and the vivid tonal colouring it had previously enjoyed. Instrumental and musical textures were submerged in a muddy, congested sound-field. Those visiting the Munich show are going to see a few systems running the Telos Monster: this is why.
First comparisons between the two units, with the Monster sat on a trio of HRS Nimbus footers and the V5.1 directly on its supporting shelf were less than inspiring. The smaller GNR did manage to inject some life into proceedings, but there was no mistaking the reluctance with which the music was responding – a bit like a sleepy teenager burying themselves under the covers despite repeated prods. That’s when the question of coupling/supporting the V5.1 first occurred. Placing a trio of bamboo blocks under the chassis generated an astonishing increase in mid-band vitality, separation and dynamics. If the V5.1 sat directly on the shelf was struggling to deliver even a fifth of the Monster’s performance, lifting it clear of the supporting surface lifted its performance into if not contention, then the realms of worthwhile comparison. After considerable experimentation, I settled on a trio of AcouPlex cones, placed point upwards under the V5.1, an arrangement that retained the mid-band clarity and dynamics injected by the bamboo but added a more developed harmonic envelope, greater weight and dimensionality, more instrumental texture and musical articulation. But what even the best combination of V5.1 and supports couldn’t do was match the low-frequency transparency and dynamic range of the Monster. In turn, that transparency generated not just a bigger, broader and more dimensional soundstage and wider ranging dynamics, it underpinned greater separation through the midrange, more air, more instrumental texture and colour. At its best, the V5.1 does a sterling job of trying to emulate the Monster through the broad mid-band, but it simply can’t compete at either frequency extreme – with all of the limitations in ultimate performance that implies.
Taking a sideways glance…
Of course, looking down on the V5.1 from the dizzy heights of the Monster is akin to comparing the view from the summit of Everest to the view from base camp. But let’s not forget that it’s an awful lot easier to get to base camp – and the view is still pretty spectacular. Absent the Monster’s considerable presence, the V5.1 was still capable of making a musically significant contribution to the system and, perhaps more importantly, a seriously cost effective one. Would I use the GNR V5.1 Plus in the Music Room system? In a heartbeat. But where the V5.1 really comes into its own, is in the context of smaller, narrower-bandwidth systems where its low-frequency limitations are less exposed by the system’s capabilities. Shifting the area of operations to the reading Room, I was able to run the V5.1 in a whole range of different systems over a number of months, with speakers ranging from the Peak Consult Sinfonia and Wilson Sasha DAW, to the Stenheim Alumine 2, various Vienna Acoustics and the Living Voice Auditorium R25A – all with a variety of different electronics.
