This review page is supported in part by the sponsors whose ad banners are displayed below

An inexperienced audiophile/music lover might simply have issues with properly interpreting some of these differences. For example, when one moves an amplifier from shelf to platform the sound could seem to get bit darker and more dull the other way. Which impression is real? Both are but they require proper interpretation. That's only possible if one realizes what created such a perception.
Moving my amplifier from shelf to platform slightly shifted the tonal balance downward plus I had a general impression of a more orderly presentation. It seemed there was less treble and that the presentation centered more around lower midrange. I had a similar impression with the CEC Wellfloat platform. Apart from many things it did right, the Japanese platform also introduced small tonal alterations. The Monolith Audio unit didn't change the tonality at all. Instead it had my focus of attention on something else than before. These consequences were far more important than one might think from the previous sentence. Slightly lower tonal balance became far better resolution and definition. The treble no longer attracted the same attention because it seemed better integrated with the rest of the range. It was clearer and richer.


So actually when comparing without and with platform, the former seemed a bit brighter, harsher and had less bass punch. The sound was a bit raw. Less sophisticated. Obviously that's a subjective assessment. When I finished my review and reacclimated to hearing my amp without platform, I soon appreciated its sound again. But the point remains that when placed on the Monolith the sound got even better. This had me think about how we perceive and interpret sound. It's not a simple and linear process at all. Here tonally really didn't change much. Other elements did. And those also affected my perception of the tonal balance. Confused?

As I already said, psychoacoustics influence our subjective perception of objective changes. That's why going back from platform to my stand produced different observations. Then I saw that the amplifier directly on the rack shelf sounded dull. I observed the same effect with different recordings. Direct sounded flat and muddy, tone colors bleached. Indirect (with the platform in-between) added verve, color and vividness.

When I got used to the 'new' sound, I could finally try to define what sonic changes one should expect from the Monolith Audio platform and even attempt to establish why. The platform improves resolution without a doubt because the presentation gets richer and its differentiation better. Without this platform different music seemed to sound more alike. The cymbals on A Day at Jazz Spot 'Basie'… sounded the same, dynamics on Portishead's Dummy didn't change and Beth Gibbons' voice always delivered the same intensity of emotions. Which was of course all false even considering that these recordings had to be played at levels far below what you might hear during a live concert. I'd recently attended one in Hala Ocynowni ArcelorMittal. Such a concert is pure power and energy. Disregarding the huge contrast between a live performance and played-back recording, when listening to the latter using a good system you can easily tell that Gibbons' voice is not monotonous at all. There are a lot of different emotions at work and nice depth too. Monolith allows you to hear small nuances even with old recordings not supposed to contain much dynamic or three-dimensional information.