Manufacturer: Monarchy Audio international inc., 380 Swift Ave., Unit 21, South San Francisco, CA 94080
Price: $980
Source: Manufacturer loan

    Seven months after I received the first of three of the Monarchy Model 22 series of D/A converters I have finally been able to listen to the most recent offering long enough to form an Opinion of its sonic performance. I received the first unit, the Model 22, in November, 1992, and was only able to audition is for a couple of hours before I received notice from the Editor that Monarchy wanted to replace it with an upgraded version. The second unit arrived when I was deeply immersed in the modification of the Philips DAC960 and the upgrading of my version of Aunt Corey's Buffered Passive Preamp, and guess which took precedence. When this unit arrived, I did listen to it briefly in my present system, but decided that it required more burning in and when, after a period of about two weeks, I re-installed it, the right channel had expired. I received the present unit only about three weeks ago, but have already formed an opinion about its performance after only about 20 hours total listening time. This is a brief enough period of time to qualify as a snap judgment which is, of course, anathema in audio reviewing but, in this case, this brief period was all that was required for me to conclude that this unit is an unqualified winner and, besides, this review is long overdue. Before I get into the details of the performance however, I better tell you something about the 22 and list the associated components used in the audition.

    Before describing the circuitry in more detail, I would like to say that this is the most well constructed and designed component I have seen in years. Beginning with cosmetics, the design is simple and elegant with a thick sheet metal case and sculpted aluminum faceplate. On this faceplate there are only two toggle type selection switches for optical or coax inputs and 0 or 180 degree phase with yellow indicator lights for each position. On the back are only two RCA output jacks, a ground screw (for potential hum problems, I suppose), Toslink and coax input jacks and lEC power cord jack. I should point out that the output jacks are reversed from the unwritten USA convention of the left being on the left and the right on the right facing the front of the unit, which is confusing.

    The Model 22 uses two "selected" 19 Bit Bun-Brown converters per channel in a push-pull arrangement which is supposed to yield a full 20 Bit resolution with 8 times oversampling. A phase locked loop is supposed to lower the amount of jitter passed on to the converters. The input circuitry automatically locks onto sampling rates of 32, 44.1 or 48/sec.

    The power supply employs two transformers and ten voltage regulators and I counted a total of 48,000uF storage capacitance in this section, which is more than that in some power amps. Other aspects of the circuitry that caught my eye are the presence of a unity gain class A buffer stage in the analog output section and a high slew rate transimpedance op amp for current to voltage converslon bemuse these are also employed in my POOGE 5 modified Philips DAC960. The quality of the components is also first rate. with the only non-electroiytic capacitors being WlMAs and all resistors being of the metal film type. One last singular feature of this unit is the option of the ability to select output voltages of either 3 or 6 volts by removal of a shorting plug on the circuit board. For my audition I used only the 3 volt output because even that is on the high side for my system. Ancillary equipment used with the Model 22 was as follows: Jung-Childress modified Parasound HCA-800 power amps, my version of the upgraded Aunt Corey's Buffered Passive Preamp, mas CDT-I CD transport. NHT 2.3 full range speakers and Hsu Research subwoofers with passive crossover at 40 Hz. Speaker cable was Audioquest F-18 and all interconnects, including the coax from transport to converter were Kimber KCAG.

    I did attempt to use a digital interconnect from Monarchy, the "digital reference DR- I," but it was so thick, heavy, and inflexible that it actually lifted the lightweight CDT- I transport off its platform and in the process yanked its digital output jack out by the roots. It was then sent to WCH for evaluation. Good luck, Mr. H!

    The only other converter available at the time for reference was my pride and joy, the Jung-Galm-Childress POOGE 5 modified Philips DAC960 I briefly waxed ecstatic about in my review of the Aunt Corey's Buffered Passive Preamp upgrades.

    In the Interest of placing the following comments about the sound of this unit - which amount to an unmitigated "rave" - into perspective, I feel compelled to expound briefly on a subject I have written about before: objectivity and bias. In fairness to the readers, it should be requisite that all audio reviewers should reveal their biases up front. In keeping with this view, I must say that, even before installing the Monarchy in my system, I had two major prejudices against this converter. The first was he fact that Monarchy, in what appeared to be an unabashed attempt at influencing the opinion of reviewers. Included with the first unit, a copy of the audio magazine (in Chinese, incidentally). Hi-Fi Review, in which the Model 22 was named "Best Buy of the Year," and with the second and third units, several copies of another glowing review from an audio review newsletter, the audio observatory This is, in all probability, oversensitivity on my part, but it is, nevertheless, a bias. Second as 1 stated above, I received these units at the worst possible time, which is when I was deeply involved in building the POOGE 5 Philips DAC960 and basking in the glow of its glorious sound and my accomplishment at actually pulling it off without any major screw-ups. Of course anything one builds oneself is always the best, isn't it?

    With two strikes against it .then it should be even more meaningful that I was so impressed with the sound of the Model 22 that after my initial annoyance at the fact that, in some respects, this upstan converter sounded better than my "Baby," I seriously considered purchasing the review unit.

    The first recording I played after installing the Model 22 in my system was one of the most recent Mercury re-issues, Marches and Overtures Francais; Paray Detroit,  434 332-2, on which the first 5 tracks were recorded in Old Orchestra Hall, whose acoustics apparently accentuated the bass drum, because the impact was phenomenal and unbelievably tight. Attributing this only to the recording.  I immediately switched to the DAC960 and played the same tracks at the same volume (with its 3 volt output, the 22 requires approximately 20 degrees of arc less on the preamp volume control) and was chagrined to hear that the tightness of the impact was noticeably diminished through the 960. The quantity also seemed to be a bit less, but this was a close call. This could be the effect of the signal passing through two sets of BUF-03s (one in the DAC960 and one in the preamp) which, in the view of some, tend to soften bass impact. At any rare, the bass performance, in general, of the 22 is astounding.

    If one were limited to one word to describe the sound of the 22, it would he "clarity". After the bass impact, this is the characteristic of the sound which caught my attention. Everything CD I played had a clean, uncluttered sound that allowed a wealth of fine detail to emerge. The 960 is also excellent in this respect hut, as much as I hate to admit it, the Model 22 excelled noticeably. How noticeably, you ask? (And if you don't, you should!) Well, I was never all that aware of tape splices on re-issues before but the 22 reveals them to a degree that is sometimes disconcerting.

    As might be expected with such clean, open sound, the soundstage is panoramic What would also be expected is that the soundstage would be exceptionally deep, but this is not the case and this is baffling. Now don't read into this that the Model 22 does not reveal depth in recordings, because ii is as proficient in this characteristic as any one-box CD player I have heretofore reviewed and better than some. It is simply that, with its impressively open, airy, and spacious sound, it is not as outstanding in this aspect of performance as one would expect. With the DAC960 one is more aware of the characteristic sound of the recording venue and there is more of a "layering effect. It is easier to visualize the reeds, for example, as being immediately behind the violas.
Lateral imaging precision and image stability are exemplary and, once again as much as I hate to admit it, marginally – very, very marginally - better than the DAC960, and instruments are outlined with a degree of definition that is almost visual.

    Another area in which the 22 excels is dynamics. Except on re-issues with an abundance of tape hiss, pianissimos emerge from a totally black background and well wrought, uniform crescendos (such as those present on the Szell/Cleveland Beethoven symphonies, which are peerless in this respect) are breathtaking,

    With such an open. clean, and detailed sound, I fully expected that "digititis" would be a problem but this is not the case. Indeed, the wont examples of digititis, Capitol's Hollywood Bowl re-issues were rendered almost painlessly. The Columbia (CBS, Sony, whatever) Szell/Cleveland -e i ues which were also rife with stridency on high, massed violins, were reproduced as cleanly as I have previously heard.

    The only aspect of the otherwise outstanding performance of the Monarchy which I can find to criticize, outside of the reproduction of depth, which is merely "very good,” is that the overall sound has an aura of sterility-analytical, if you will-and this, quite frankly is the only aspect of performance which prevented me from purchasing the review unit.

    Because the above statement is vague to the point of appearing to be flippant, I had better explain further. By “sterility," I mean that instrumental timbres seem to be reproduced more faithfully with the DAC960. Cellos, for example, are reproduced by the 960 with a rich, full-bodied sound that is missing with Monarchy 22. The sound of the recording venue is also more apparent through the DAC960. Which is more accurate, I can't say, but for me. personally, the big, rich, "musical sound” of the DAC960 wins, hands down, over the clear, airy, detail-laden, and impactful sound of the Monarchy Model 22. 1 am however, going to attempt to hang on to it as long as possible, employing the excuse that I will (hopefully) be receiving, in the near future, more converters with which to compare it. such as under $ 1 K units from EAD and Parasound Hey, it works for me Now, the question is, will Monarchy buy it?

    In summary, if you are considering moving from a one-box CD Player to a separate transport converter system (and I think you should), begin, and very likely end, your search here. very highly recommended!

    The new model looks a lot like the old one: a nice standard black finish readable lettering, and an attractive stepped effect on the front panel. There is one cosmetic change, though. The front panel features a large Monarchy logo which looks Sort of like a design from a coat of arms featuring a lion's head. all done in gold on black. I think this looks really tacky. Hey Monarchy, is it removable?
Now that I've offended the Monarchy folks as well as their dealers and owners of this unit, I'll get on with the review ...

    Installation,  Connections, and Such - Once again, I connected the Monarchy unit to my Denon 1500 II, which is around five years old. Initial digital connection was with a six inch length of Mogami Neglex interconnect. During the course of my time with the unit. I received and used the Monarchy DR- I Digital Reference digital interconnect. Again as with the earlier model, warmup was not a crucial issue. And as before, the unit worked perfectly at all times.

    Sound - First things first. Use of the DR-I digital cable did make some difference. That is the effects of processor were more apparent with the digital cable than with the regular cable between the transport and decoder. The following comments are based on the use of the digital cable.

     This time the improvement with the Monarchy in the system was a bit more obvious than with the previous version of this unit. The sound was a bit smoother and more open, seemingly a little more dynamic. The soundstage was more three-dimensional with instruments clearly positioned. One excellent example of this was the Chesky reissue of the Rachmaninoff Second Concerto. With this CD, the piano was clearly placed in front of the orchestra, yet in the same performance space. Other instrumental groupings were also clearly delineated, for example, the violas were easy to separate from the violins. With the Monarchy unit out of the circuit, the piano was sort of toward the front. but not as clearly separated, and other instruments were harder to separate also. This may not sound like a tremendous difference, but it added greatly to my enjoyment.

    On other recordings, though, the difference was not as great. In most cases, the Monarchy made some difference, and never for the worse. Again, the main effects were better delineation of individual instruments and groups as well as a smoother treble. On orchestral music, violins had less glare or metallic overtone, while not sounding overly subdued. In addition, string sections sounded more like groups of instruments as opposed to one big, amorphous chunk of sound. As might be expected, with more simple textures, such as those of a solo piano, few differences were apparent between the Monarchy and the stock Denon.

    I did not notice any particular differences in image width, Whatever differences were made in image depth probably were more attributable to the better delineation provided by the Monarchy than to any increase in depth per se

    In summary the Monarchy did improve the overall sound in fairly consistent ways for most CD's. The differences were small: I noticed them most after using the Monarchy for a few days and then returning to Denon. The effect was that something was missing, that the music was a bit less enjoyable or interesting.

    Conclusions - The current Monarchy unit does improve on the previous model, and the previous model was good to start with. And my review is based on comparison with only one CD player, so readers should be careful in generalizing these conclusions. But as with the earlier Monarchy unit, I have trouble justifying the cost based on what I heard. For around a thousand dollars I want more substantial improvements. The improvements in some systems may indeed be greater; those who want to explore certainly should give the latest Monarchy unit a listen.

    Please note that I developed my conclusions about the Monarchy 22 before hearing the Levinson unit mentioned below. It would be quite unreasonable to expect the Monarchy to match the Levinson at 15 times the price.

    Addendum - In my review of the earlier Monarchy converter, l theorized that the sound we hear from CD is essentially limited by the format. But as Sherlock Holmes points out, it is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the data. Since writing that review the data (no pen intended) has arrived in the form of the Levinson Number 31 D/A converter in a friend's system. The unit exceeded anything I would have thought possible. Every CD that we listened to, from Lyle Lovett to Shostakovich to Miles Davis, sounded more lifelike, more enjoyable, more there than I have ever experienced. Granted this unit is staggeringly expensive at a list price of $ 15.00, but it does do what its is supposed to, and it does it remarkably well. Of course, it didn't hurt that it was operating in the context of a great system.

    In a perverse way, I find that the Levinson unit is more $ensible than the Monarchy. No doubt KWN as well as our devoted readers now assume that WCH has gone over the edge, so let me explain Yes,  the Levineon is (insert favorite adverb here) expensive. But when listening to this unit, I couldn't wait to hear the next recording so that I could enjoy the music some more. This went on for several hours: I can't remember a listening session in which I reveled in the music so much for so long. Regardless of price, isn't the point of the audio hobby to make it possible to enjoy music in your own home (or a friend's home in this case)? So maybe the most $ensible decision is to buy the Levinson sit back, and enjoy!

    OK, most of our readers won't or can't do that. We can hope, though, that the technology in this unit will filter down to more affordable components soon.

    No WCH, most of us won't be buying $15,000 CD transports any time soon. Had you been able to listen to the Monarchy in the same system in which you listened to the Levinson, and been able to switch back and forth between them, and still been able to gush over the Levinson, then I would be more frustrated by the state of digital music reproduction, Although I have no doubt that the Levinson is an extremely fine unit, I do suspect we are up against a particularly severe case of diminishing returns here. But you have provided some excellent food for thought.

    Reprinted with permission from issue #50, Winter 1994, of The $ensible  Sound.
Subscriptions to The Sensible Sound are available for $20 per year by check to 403 Darwin Drive, Snyder, NY 14226 or through Visa/MC by phone (716-839-2199) or FAX (716-839-2264). You may also purchase a set of all available back issues (currently 30+ issues) for $59, shipping included.

Download Review From The Sensible Sound In Adobe PDF Format

Download Adobe Reader 3.01 For Windows