| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
I just received a new tubed preamp which I will not identify (don't want to
get anyone in trouble) except to say that the maker has a hyphenated name (no I didn't buy it. It was loaned). I don't like to think that people in this business are purposely ripping the public off, but after looking this thing over, I think somebody is having an costly joke at the (extreme) expense of the audiophile community. This particular preamp is comprised of two 6922s (6DJ8/ECC88) feeding a MOSFET buffer stage to give it a low output impedance. The unit is divided into two sections, a digital section which uses a microprocessor (or microcontroller) to handle the remote controllable switching (5 high-level inputs) volume and balance duties, and of course, the all important audio section. The audio section is very simple, and very straightforward. If one would forego the fancy computer control section, one could copy this circuit, using the highest quality components for less than $300. There is virtually nothing in it. If there are any analog electronics engineers reading this (especially those who are familiar with both tubes and solid-state circuitry, you can probably envision this circuit in your head - and you'd be right. Build quality is also so-so (the remote, carved from a single block of anodized aluminum is nicely made, though). It has a nicely made fascia with machined plexiglass Art-Deco "covers" over the two tubes (very Flash Gordon). The front panel is a 1/4" thick piece of gold anodized aluminum, not unlike similar finishes used on entry-level "high-end" pieces since the old Dynaco days. The cover is a bent piece of steel very much like that which covers a $200 Japanese receiver. The back apron sports some nice single mounting hole WBT style gold RCAs, but is nothing out of the ordinary. What I have described to you is a preamp that could be built by any manufacturer of high-end tube equipment and sold for less that $2000 retail. It's that simple and that ordinary. But here's the reason why I have gone to all of the trouble to describe this pre-amp to you. It retails for - sit down for this - TWENTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS! More than many new cars. I haven't actually listened to it yet, but for that price it would have to be head and shoulders above anything that I can think of and it won't be, I suspect. Oh, it will be competent and will likely perform well, but so do many other pre-amps for a third this one's asking price and most of them look like they cost the money. This one looks like a preamp costing ONE TENTH the price or less. Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you understand. 8^) |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Sep 24, 8:54=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you understand. 8^) Who are you calling a 'gentleman'? That being written, it is a sad, brutal fact that there are but so many audio circuits and but so many sorts of components to make into those circuits. In my opinion, there is no audio component on the face of the earth with the remote, very distantly remote possible exception of speakers that justifies a real-world cost of more than $2,000 or so in 2009 US dollars - and even that is a stretch. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... I just received a new tubed preamp which I will not identify (don't want to get anyone in trouble) except to say that the maker has a hyphenated name (no I didn't buy it. It was loaned). I don't like to think that people in this business are purposely ripping the public off, but after looking this thing over, I think somebody is having an costly joke at the (extreme) expense of the audiophile community. This particular preamp is comprised of two 6922s (6DJ8/ECC88) feeding a MOSFET buffer stage to give it a low output impedance. The unit is divided into two sections, a digital section which uses a microprocessor (or microcontroller) to handle the remote controllable switching (5 high-level inputs) volume and balance duties, and of course, the all important audio section. The audio section is very simple, and very straightforward. If one would forego the fancy computer control section, one could copy this circuit, using the highest quality components for less than $300. There is virtually nothing in it. If there are any analog electronics engineers reading this (especially those who are familiar with both tubes and solid-state circuitry, you can probably envision this circuit in your head - and you'd be right. I am just such an engineer, and I am not surprised. I've seen alot of junk like this on sale in various snob-appeal retail stores. Build quality is also so-so (the remote, carved from a single block of anodized aluminum is nicely made, though). It has a nicely made fascia with machined plexiglass Art-Deco "covers" over the two tubes (very Flash Gordon). The front panel is a 1/4" thick piece of gold anodized aluminum, not unlike similar finishes used on entry-level "high-end" pieces since the old Dynaco days. The cover is a bent piece of steel very much like that which covers a $200 Japanese receiver. The back apron sports some nice single mounting hole WBT style gold RCAs, but is nothing out of the ordinary. What I have described to you is a preamp that could be built by any manufacturer of high-end tube equipment and sold for less that $2000 retail. It's that simple and that ordinary. But here's the reason why I have gone to all of the trouble to describe this pre-amp to you. It retails for - sit down for this - TWENTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS! More than many new cars. I haven't actually listened to it yet, but for that price it would have to be head and shoulders above anything that I can think of and it won't be, I suspect. Oh, it will be competent and will likely perform well, but so do many other pre-amps for a third this one's asking price and most of them look like they cost the money. This one looks like a preamp costing ONE TENTH the price or less. Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you understand. 8^) As long as there are gullible audio hobbyists with alot more money that technical knowledge, these scams will continue. The makers know they won't sell many of these, but selling only a few will give them a substantial profit. As it has vacuum tubes in the signal chain, I wouldn't install the thing in my system even if it were given to me as a gift! |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
|
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:54:43 -0700, H Davis wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... [quoted text deleted -- deb] Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you understand. 8^) As long as there are gullible audio hobbyists with alot more money that technical knowledge, these scams will continue. The makers know they won't sell many of these, but selling only a few will give them a substantial profit. As it has vacuum tubes in the signal chain, I wouldn't install the thing in my system even if it were given to me as a gift! I have nothing against vacuum tubes. In fact my reference pre-amp is an Audio Research SP11 MKIII and my power amps are VTL 140 monoblocks. My system sounds GREAT. Tubes and transistors are a means to an end. prejudice against either merely limits choices in my humble opinion. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
I believe that particular model was a LIMITED EDITION release, hence even
higher "premium" pricing on top of the usual "pricey" C-J gear. In todays economy, the "street prices" for C-J, as well as other "high-end" gear, is substantially less than "retail." C-J gear is typically highly rated by critics and consumers alike, and the "cost" of designing, marketing, distributing, and warranting electronics is a LOT more than the cost of the components. As long as there is a "market" for extravagant audio gear, there will be manufacturers happy to oblige! "Sonnova" wrote in message ... I just received a new tubed preamp which I will not identify (don't want to get anyone in trouble) except to say that the maker has a hyphenated name (no I didn't buy it. It was loaned). I don't like to think that people in this business are purposely ripping the public off, but after looking this thing over, I think somebody is having an costly joke at the (extreme) expense of the audiophile community. This particular preamp is comprised of two 6922s (6DJ8/ECC88) feeding a MOSFET buffer stage to give it a low output impedance. The unit is divided into two sections, a digital section which uses a microprocessor (or microcontroller) to handle the remote controllable switching (5 high-level inputs) volume and balance duties, and of course, the all important audio section. The audio section is very simple, and very straightforward. If one would forego the fancy computer control section, one could copy this circuit, using the highest quality components for less than $300. There is virtually nothing in it. If there are any analog electronics engineers reading this (especially those who are familiar with both tubes and solid-state circuitry, you can probably envision this circuit in your head - and you'd be right. Build quality is also so-so (the remote, carved from a single block of anodized aluminum is nicely made, though). It has a nicely made fascia with machined plexiglass Art-Deco "covers" over the two tubes (very Flash Gordon). The front panel is a 1/4" thick piece of gold anodized aluminum, not unlike similar finishes used on entry-level "high-end" pieces since the old Dynaco days. The cover is a bent piece of steel very much like that which covers a $200 Japanese receiver. The back apron sports some nice single mounting hole WBT style gold RCAs, but is nothing out of the ordinary. What I have described to you is a preamp that could be built by any manufacturer of high-end tube equipment and sold for less that $2000 retail. It's that simple and that ordinary. But here's the reason why I have gone to all of the trouble to describe this pre-amp to you. It retails for - sit down for this - TWENTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS! More than many new cars. I haven't actually listened to it yet, but for that price it would have to be head and shoulders above anything that I can think of and it won't be, I suspect. Oh, it will be competent and will likely perform well, but so do many other pre-amps for a third this one's asking price and most of them look like they cost the money. This one looks like a preamp costing ONE TENTH the price or less. Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you understand. 8^) |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:30:44 -0700, Alan N wrote
(in article ): I believe that particular model was a LIMITED EDITION release, hence even higher "premium" pricing on top of the usual "pricey" C-J gear. In todays economy, the "street prices" for C-J, as well as other "high-end" gear, is substantially less than "retail." C-J gear is typically highly rated by critics and consumers alike, and the "cost" of designing, marketing, distributing, and warranting electronics is a LOT more than the cost of the components. As long as there is a "market" for extravagant audio gear, there will be manufacturers happy to oblige! While what you say may well be true, None of that justifies a $20,000 price tag. Fact is, it doesn't matter how limited the edition is or how 'highly rated' the brand is, the unit could have been hand-made, one-at-a-time, with silver wiring throughout by an aerospace electronics company using MIL-Spec parts and procedures and it still wouldn't justify a $20,000 price tag! In fact that was the point of my post. There is nothing in the thing. It was built using a handful of parts (not counting the digital control circuitry, which is so cheap these days that even $200 receivers use it) and, essentially, very simple, cook-book tube circuitry. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:54:43 -0700, H Davis wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... [quoted text deleted -- deb] Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you understand. 8^) As long as there are gullible audio hobbyists with alot more money that technical knowledge, these scams will continue. The makers know they won't sell many of these, but selling only a few will give them a substantial profit. As it has vacuum tubes in the signal chain, I wouldn't install the thing in my system even if it were given to me as a gift! I have nothing against vacuum tubes. In fact my reference pre-amp is an Audio Research SP11 MKIII and my power amps are VTL 140 monoblocks. My system sounds GREAT. Tubes and transistors are a means to an end. prejudice against either merely limits choices in my humble opinion. Regarding vacuum tubes, please read: http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm It is possible for a tube preamp to sound as good as any solid state preamp - until the tubes degrade, that is. However, if your tube power amp has an output transformer (and all I know of do), there is NO WAY it could have the low frequency power bandwidth and freedom from distortion of a decent direct-coupled solid state power amp. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:44:32 -0700, H Davis wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:54:43 -0700, H Davis wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... [quoted text deleted -- deb] Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you understand. 8^) As long as there are gullible audio hobbyists with alot more money that technical knowledge, these scams will continue. The makers know they won't sell many of these, but selling only a few will give them a substantial profit. As it has vacuum tubes in the signal chain, I wouldn't install the thing in my system even if it were given to me as a gift! I have nothing against vacuum tubes. In fact my reference pre-amp is an Audio Research SP11 MKIII and my power amps are VTL 140 monoblocks. My system sounds GREAT. Tubes and transistors are a means to an end. prejudice against either merely limits choices in my humble opinion. Regarding vacuum tubes, please read: http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm It is possible for a tube preamp to sound as good as any solid state preamp - until the tubes degrade, that is. However, if your tube power amp has an output transformer (and all I know of do), there is NO WAY it could have the low frequency power bandwidth and freedom from distortion of a decent direct-coupled solid state power amp. I read the article by Howard Davis that you sent me to. When you remove all of his objections to tubes as electric guitar amps (In my opinion a solid-body electric guitar is the worlds ugliest-sounding instrument. I literally hate them), it boils down to his objections to the nonlinearities introduced by output transformers. While it is true that low frequency performance is better on solid-state amps, that advantage goes away as the frequency rises and the degree to which it occurs in the first place varies with different manufacturers. The poor low-frequency square wave response and elevated levels of low frequency distortion are, of course measurable (and the amount and severity of the problem are highly dependent on how carefully that transformer is designed and constructed. High-end tube amps generally use ultralinear transformers that are well designed and well executed), but they aren't particularly audible because the human ear is fairly insensitive to that kind of low-frequency non-linearity (in extreme example, it can be heard in doirect comparison, though). It's a lot like linear-tracking in phonograph tone-arms. On paper, it looks like a slam-dunk in favor of linear-trackers, but in reality, once high quality linear-trackers were on the market, it was found that the difference in actual performance between a linear-tracking tone-arm and a well designed and executed pivoted arm was, at best, a tertiary effect. This is true with well designed tube power amps as well. The differences between the theoretical and measured performance of a high-quality tube amp and a high-quality transistor amp looks as if the solid-state unit should be far superior. In reality, good amps of both design philosophies can both sound very good (and sometimes, surprisingly alike) across the entire spectrum. In fact, in a recent double-blind shootout between a solid-state Mark Levinson power amp and a tubed Audio Research amp of the same power, little to NO difference could be detected between the two from a panel of experienced listeners. Again It comes down to good design. Mr. Davis, like most of us, has his prejudices and biases and his comments on tubed guitar amplifiers might well accurately characterize those devices, I wouldn't know. But I maintain that these guitar amps have little to do with a good, modern, high-end tubed power amplifier which is designed for completely different purpose. As a preamp, tubes work really well. My AR SP11, for instance, was, when it was released, hailed as the finest sounding preamp in the world. Today, some twenty years after the last one was made, it still holds it's own next to anything you might want to put against it (and measure like new). I know this because I get sent preamps, both tube and transistor, all the time to review and that way, I get to keep-up with the progress in circuit design. True, the SP11 is not 100% tube, as each 6992/ECC88 in the circuit (it has 6) is paired with MOSFETs which, among other things, keep the tubes biased on the linear portion of their curves as they age. By the way, I change the tubes in my preamp every three years. At the moment, I have the aforementioned C-J in house along with a recent Krell solid-state unit, a KAV-280p. While both perform superbly, they are no better than my SP11, which at more than 20 years old is worth more on the used market than it cost new (and significantly more than this current Krell). I will say that Krell stuff has come a long way in the last few years. It wasn't long ago when every Krell component I heard reminded me of a surgical operating room (or an iceberg). While everything was squeeky-clean and crystal clear, it was also cold and lifeless, robbing the music of any warmth or feeling. This seems to no longer be the case. Now, if tube equipment was obsolete, there wouldn't be so many manufacturers, all over the world, still making tubed audio gear. Somebody needs to look-up the term "obsolete". It does not mean "superseded by another technology", it means "Out of date. Completely replaced. No longer used or made. This is clearly not the case of tubes. If you want an example of obsolete audio technology, try wire-recorders or 78-RPM shellac discs! One other point that I'd like to make is that used tubed audio gear commands high prices at flea markets and other used audio marts. This is not the case with most older solid-state gear, even expensive stuff. I only mention this to point out that while techno-freaks tend to pooh-pooh tubed equipment, music lovers seem to find that it has a lot of intrinsic value, so don't count tubes out. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
I am a typical consumer of high end audio. I love music and can
appreciate music coming from a great system. My sense of musicality and need to hear natural sounding music with clarity and detail is what drives me to high end audio. I am not an engineer and when you go on about this tube and that circuit I haven=92t got a clue what you are talking about although I appreciate your ability to understand and distinguish good design and hardware from bad. I have the ability to pay for high end equipment but the more I read and inform myself the less tolerant I am of the prices my local audio store is charging. As a business man I hate being ripped off and I believe a company must give value and quality to stay in business for the long term. In whatever I do I have tried to understand the underlying form of an object or business to fully appreciate what I am buying and to get a sense of value. With that said, I am probably your typical high end audio consumer making my decisions based on listening (which can vary wildly depending on the room and supporting components), brand, and the reviews of influential magazines. I believe the typical high end consumer has a bit of money, not a lot of time and a passion for the music. What I constantly hear on the blogs is, as long as the ignorant and uniformed buy high end equipment the market will exist. Well what is a guy to do? I don=92t have the time or inclination to get an EE degree so I rely on TRUST....I trust the manufacturers, marketers, magazines, and sales people. For a company such as CJ, a long standing and respected brand, to do as you describe is a gross violation of that trust. Perhaps being ripped off is part of the high end audio game. I don=92t have a solution to my problem but thank you for opening my eyes this glaring issue. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
"Sonnova" wrote in message
... On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:44:32 -0700, H Davis wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:54:43 -0700, H Davis wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message ... [quoted text deleted -- deb] Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you understand. 8^) As long as there are gullible audio hobbyists with alot more money that technical knowledge, these scams will continue. The makers know they won't sell many of these, but selling only a few will give them a substantial profit. As it has vacuum tubes in the signal chain, I wouldn't install the thing in my system even if it were given to me as a gift! I have nothing against vacuum tubes. In fact my reference pre-amp is an Audio Research SP11 MKIII and my power amps are VTL 140 monoblocks. My system sounds GREAT. Tubes and transistors are a means to an end. prejudice against either merely limits choices in my humble opinion. Regarding vacuum tubes, please read: http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm It is possible for a tube preamp to sound as good as any solid state preamp - until the tubes degrade, that is. However, if your tube power amp has an output transformer (and all I know of do), there is NO WAY it could have the low frequency power bandwidth and freedom from distortion of a decent direct-coupled solid state power amp. I read the article by Howard Davis that you sent me to. When you remove all of his objections to tubes as electric guitar amps (In my opinion a solid-body electric guitar is the worlds ugliest-sounding instrument. I literally hate them), it boils down to his objections to the nonlinearities introduced by output transformers. I am the author of that article - it is my website. Electric guitars can only sound as good as the electronic equipment they must be used with. The output transformer is a major problem, but many other defects inherent in tube technology are addressed as well. Still, if you like it, use it. While it is true that low frequency performance is better on solid-state amps, that advantage goes away as the frequency rises and the degree to which it occurs in the first place varies with different manufacturers. The poor low-frequency square wave response and elevated levels of low frequency distortion are, of course measurable (and the amount and severity of the problem are highly dependent on how carefully that transformer is designed and constructed. High-end tube amps generally use ultralinear transformers that are well designed and well executed), but they aren't particularly audible because the human ear is fairly insensitive to that kind of low-frequency non-linearity (in extreme example, it can be heard in doirect comparison, though). It's a lot like linear-tracking in phonograph tone-arms. On paper, it looks like a slam-dunk in favor of linear-trackers, but in reality, once high quality linear-trackers were on the market, it was found that the difference in actual performance between a linear-tracking tone-arm and a well designed and executed pivoted arm was, at best, a tertiary effect. This is true with well designed tube power amps as well. The differences between the theoretical and measured performance of a high-quality tube amp and a high-quality transistor amp looks as if the solid-state unit should be far superior. In reality, good amps of both design philosophies can both sound very good (and sometimes, surprisingly alike) across the entire spectrum. In fact, in a recent double-blind shootout between a solid-state Mark Levinson power amp and a tubed Audio Research amp of the same power, little to NO difference could be detected between the two from a panel of experienced listeners. Again It comes down to good design. What speakers were used for that evaluation? The reason that many cannot perceive the audible deficiencies of a tube power amp as compared to a solid-state amp is that their speakers are far worse than any amp at frequencies below 50 Hz or so. Also, if the evaluation is done with program material without substantial content in the bottom octave (16 to 40 Hz or so), the tube amp deficiencies in this area will not present themselves. Mr. Davis, like most of us, has his prejudices and biases and his comments on tubed guitar amplifiers might well accurately characterize those devices, I wouldn't know. But I maintain that these guitar amps have little to do with a good, modern, high-end tubed power amplifier which is designed for completely different purpose. As a preamp, tubes work really well. My AR SP11, for instance, was, when it was released, hailed as the finest sounding preamp in the world. "Hailed as?" I for one give no credence to commercials, and I suspect that many reviewers are influenced by those that give them the equipment to evaluate. Today, some twenty years after the last one was made, it still holds it's own next to anything you might want to put against it (and measure like new). I know this because I get sent preamps, both tube and transistor, all the time to review and that way, I get to keep-up with the progress in circuit design. True, the SP11 is not 100% tube, as each 6992/ECC88 in the circuit (it has 6) is paired with MOSFETs which, among other things, keep the tubes biased on the linear portion of their curves as they age. By the way, I change the tubes in my preamp every three years. Transistors and ICs need never be changed, unless they become defective. In properly designed equipment, this very rarely occurs. I know because I have designed and use such equipment. At the moment, I have the aforementioned C-J in house along with a recent Krell solid-state unit, a KAV-280p. While both perform superbly, they are no better than my SP11, which at more than 20 years old is worth more on the used market than it cost new (and significantly more than this current Krell). I will say that Krell stuff has come a long way in the last few years. It wasn't long ago when every Krell component I heard reminded me of a surgical operating room (or an iceberg). While everything was squeeky-clean and crystal clear, it was also cold and lifeless, robbing the music of any warmth or feeling. This seems to no longer be the case. Audio reproduction equipment should be totally transparent. If "warmth" or whatever is added, it is NOT transparent. A little boost of the lower midrange will "warm" things, but I only want to hear the sounds the musicians produced. Now, if tube equipment was obsolete, there wouldn't be so many manufacturers, all over the world, still making tubed audio gear. Somebody needs to look-up the term "obsolete". It does not mean "superseded by another technology", it means "Out of date. Completely replaced. No longer used or made. This is clearly not the case of tubes. If you want an example of obsolete audio technology, try wire-recorders or 78-RPM shellac discs! The fact there is some market demand for something does not mean there is nothing better available. It means that for reasons of snob appeal, fad appeal, sales promotion, technical ignorance, etc., some people are persuaded it is worth buying. As an engineer, I believe otherwise. One other point that I'd like to make is that used tubed audio gear commands high prices at flea markets and other used audio marts. This is not the case with most older solid-state gear, even expensive stuff. I only mention this to point out that while techno-freaks tend to pooh-pooh tubed equipment, music lovers seem to find that it has a lot of intrinsic value, so don't count tubes out. Old solid state gear, as from the 1970s, often had sometimes audible design defects. Old tube equipment has nostalgia appeal that makes it desirable to some - like an old Philco radio - but soundwise? Forget it! |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Sep 26, 1:32=A0pm, Ron wrote:
snip =A0I have the ability to pay for high end equipment but the more I read and inform myself the less tolerant I am of the prices my local audio store is charging. =A0As a business man I hate being ripped off and I believe a company must give value and quality to stay in business for the long term. =A0In whatever I do I have tried to understand the underlying form of an object or business to fully appreciate what I am buying and to get a sense of value. =A0With that said, I am probably your typical high end audio consumer making my decisions based on listening (which can vary wildly depending on the room and supporting components), brand, and the reviews of influential magazines. Sadly, uncontrolled listening conditions are just about worthless for evaluating audio components. Influential magazines don't appear to be useful either since many evaluations that they do are also uncontrolled. I believe the typical high end consumer has a bit of money, not a lot of time and a passion for the music. =A0What I constantly hear on the blogs is, as long as the ignorant and uniformed buy high end equipment the market will exist. =A0Well what is a guy to do? =A0I don=92t have the time or inclination to get an EE degree so I rely on TRUST....I trust the manufacturers, marketers, magazines, and sales people. You don't really need an EE degree but it is hard to find a valid reason for trust here. From an engineering standpoint, there will be very little difference in performance between modern amplifiers and CD and DVD players that are competently designed. Even low-cost units are likely to be indistinguishable in carefully controlled comparisons. This also goes for amplifiers in receivers although tuners may have differing sensitivity and sound quality. I would suspect that most audiophiles are not overly impressed with modern programming anyway, especially since it will be somewhat degraded compared to pristine digital recordings. High-end cables are one of the biggest ripoffs. =A0For a company such as CJ, a long standing and respected brand, to do as you describe is a gross violation of that trust. =A0 Perhaps being ripped off is part of the high end audio game. =A0I don=92t have a solution to m= y problem but thank you for opening my eyes this glaring issue. You might consider performing careful comparisons of components that are not as predictable as those components previously mentioned, i.e. speakers or perhaps turntables. Room conditioning is also a good investment. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:26:02 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: Now, if tube equipment was obsolete, there wouldn't be so many manufacturers, all over the world, still making tubed audio gear. There are NOT "so many manufacturers, all over the world" still making tubed audio equipment. Realize first that the high-end audio business, relative to the general audio business, is utterly insiginificant, and only a portion of that insignificance is involved in making tubed audio equipment. I beg to differ. There are HUNDREDS of companies all over the world still making tuned audio equipment, your attempts to belittle that popularity notwithstanding. Somebody needs to look-up the term "obsolete". Okay, I'm up to the challenge. It does not mean "superseded by another technology", it means "Out of date. Completely replaced. No longer used or made. This is clearly not the case of tubes. From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, we find: ob so lete [L from obsole to grow old, become disused] 1 a: no longer in use b: of a kind or style no longer current Tubes are still in use and among many audiophiles, are still in style. From various on-line sources, we also find: no longer in general use of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date outmoded in design, style, or construction Are tubes "in general use? Are the not an "outmoded" type or used in outmoded designs, styles or constructions? Are the not of a style "no longer current?" You hand-pick your definition, I'll hand-pick mine. 8^) If you want an example of obsolete audio technology, try wire-recorders or 78-RPM shellac discs! One other point that I'd like to make is that used tubed audio gear commands high prices at flea markets and other used audio marts. So do some of the absolutely wrost loudspeakers ever created. I also have found examples of Scott, MacIntosh, and Marantz tube equipment discarded as junk at the local transfer station. And I also found solid state gear that I later sold for obscene prices on eBay. Next time you run across some classic Scott, MacIntosh or Marantz tube gear in a dustbin, send it my way, won't you? This is not the case with most older solid-state gear, even expensive stuff. I only mention this to point out that while techno-freaks tend to pooh-pooh tubed equipment, music lovers seem to find that it has a lot of intrinsic value, so don't count tubes out. But there are also people who are willing to pay ridiculous prices for expensive watches that simply don't keep time as well as a $10 digital watch at Walmart. There's no accounting for taste. I never said that they did. But those expensive watches are gorgeous and will last several lifetimes becoming heirlooms. What is the "intrinsic value" of vanity items like jewelry, expensive watches, JBL Paragons or some tube equipment? The tube equipment still sounds musical and the expensive watches represent real craftsmanship and, as I said before, will last several lifetimes, long after that $10 Walmart watch you mentioned is part of some landfill. Jewlery, of course, is worth the precious stones, gold and platinum in it as well as the craftsmanship that went in to making it. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:32:42 -0700, Ron wrote
(in article ): I am a typical consumer of high end audio. I love music and can appreciate music coming from a great system. My sense of musicality and need to hear natural sounding music with clarity and detail is what drives me to high end audio. I am not an engineer and when you go on about this tube and that circuit I haven=92t got a clue what you are talking about although I appreciate your ability to understand and distinguish good design and hardware from bad. I have the ability to pay for high end equipment but the more I read and inform myself the less tolerant I am of the prices my local audio store is charging. As a business man I hate being ripped off and I believe a company must give value and quality to stay in business for the long term. In whatever I do I have tried to understand the underlying form of an object or business to fully appreciate what I am buying and to get a sense of value. With that said, I am probably your typical high end audio consumer making my decisions based on listening (which can vary wildly depending on the room and supporting components), brand, and the reviews of influential magazines. I believe the typical high end consumer has a bit of money, not a lot of time and a passion for the music. What I constantly hear on the blogs is, as long as the ignorant and uniformed buy high end equipment the market will exist. Well what is a guy to do? I don=92t have the time or inclination to get an EE degree so I rely on TRUST....I trust the manufacturers, marketers, magazines, and sales people. For a company such as CJ, a long standing and respected brand, to do as you describe is a gross violation of that trust. Perhaps being ripped off is part of the high end audio game. I don=92t have a solution to my problem but thank you for opening my eyes this glaring issue. You bring up an interesting point. Is being ripped off a part of the audio game? Unfortunately, in my experience, the answer is that in way too many cases, the answer is yes. Twenty-thousand dollar preamps that are made with a couple of hundred dollars worth of parts, $4000/meter interconnect cables, green pens for edging CDs, cable elevators to keep cables up off the carpet? Myrtlewood blocks placed on the tops of amps and preamps and CD players? These are all snake oil sold to the unwary and all of this is seemingly sanctioned by the High-End press (I'm a reviewer and I refuse, categorically, to "review" either interconnects or speaker cables). Fact is that the performance of megabuck preamps and power amps can be realized at a fraction of the cost most of this stuff sells for. Of course the audiophile has to give-up a lot of the bling that many manufacturers impart upon their components; cases machined out of solid billits of aluminum, cool blue digital displays, and other eye-candy, but if all you want is the performance, it's available for unbelievably low prices. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Sep 27, 10:45=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:26:02 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote But there are also people who are willing to pay ridiculous prices for expensive watches that simply don't keep time as well as a $10 digital watch at Walmart. There's no accounting for taste. I never said that they did. But those expensive watches are gorgeous and = will last several lifetimes becoming heirlooms. But Conrad-Johnson is under no more obligation to offer "value for the money" than is Patek Philippe. In neither case do their retail prices bear any relationship to their manufacturing costs. And while you may think that a luxury watch makes more sense than a "luxury preamp," that is not really for you to say, as you are not buying either. Now, the difference is that the watch buyer certainly knows he's buying bling, and is probably well aware that the luxury version doesn't tell time any better than a Timex. The buyer of a $20K tube preamp, on the other hand, may well believe he is buying something that really does perform better than a $2K tube preamp. But whose fault is that? I doubt C-J is making any refutable technical claims about its product. And it's certainly not C-J's job to tell you they could make the same amp for $2K if they wanted. So whose fault is it? I would place the bulk of the blame on the audiophile press, which, while claiming to represent the interests of the consumer, is in fact just an extended advertisement for the overpriced mediocrity which dominates the so-called high end today. bob |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
All I am concerned about is performance for the money. Where does one
start? Obviously I am in the wrong circles when my local audio dealer tries to sell me a $20K tube pre-amp, the press I am reading raves about how great it is despite the price, then I find out the item is made from $400 worth of parts. I am a fairly technical person (computers) but don't think I have the time or inclination to get down to DIY kits. Does an audiophile community exist out there that stresses performance and value over bling and vanity items? Are these local communities and is this philosophy championed any specific companies (Outlaw Audio perhaps???). You would think there is a lot of money to be made in this niche. It may be too late for me to benefit from this info (Wisdom Audio, ML32, Krell, etc..) but I have many friends which I have converted to high end that are currently assembling their systems. Thanks |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:49:48 -0700, Ron wrote
(in article ): All I am concerned about is performance for the money. Where does one start? Obviously I am in the wrong circles when my local audio dealer tries to sell me a $20K tube pre-amp, the press I am reading raves about how great it is despite the price, then I find out the item is made from $400 worth of parts. I am a fairly technical person (computers) but don't think I have the time or inclination to get down to DIY kits. Does an audiophile community exist out there that stresses performance and value over bling and vanity items? Are these local communities and is this philosophy championed any specific companies (Outlaw Audio perhaps???). You would think there is a lot of money to be made in this niche. It may be too late for me to benefit from this info (Wisdom Audio, ML32, Krell, etc..) but I have many friends which I have converted to high end that are currently assembling their systems. Thanks Their are GREAT audio bargains out there and decent performing new components at reasonable prices, but - and here's the rub - you really have to look for them. How about a great performing MOSFET 150+ Watt/channel stereo power amp for $200? How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mono design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies (including separate power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wired, gorgeously finished for under $700? How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of the famous Marantz 7 for about $250? How about a quiet, FET preamp (and a copy of an older Nelson Pass design) with a decent phono stage for $200? How about a 24-bit/96KHz DAC that perform superbly for @$100? All of this and more is available, but you won't hear about it in the audio press. Of course speakers are different. They are largely a matter of taste (as none are even close to perfect). That's where the bulk of your money should go. But there is gorgeous stuff out there, mostly made in China or Taiwan that are real bargains. How long they'll remain that way is unknown, but right now, is great time to be an audiophile. There's fine equipment available at great prices for those who look for it. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On 30 Sep 2009 01:36:46 GMT, Sonnova
wrote: It may be too late for me to benefit from this info (Wisdom Audio, ML32, Krell, etc..) but I have many friends which I have converted to high end that are currently assembling their systems. Thanks Their are GREAT audio bargains out there and decent performing new components at reasonable prices, but - and here's the rub - you really have to look for them. How about a great performing MOSFET 150+ Watt/channel stereo power amp for $200? How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mono design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies (including separate power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wired, gorgeously finished for under $700? How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of the famous Marantz 7 for about $250? How about a quiet, FET preamp (and a copy of an older Nelson Pass design) with a decent phono stage for $200? How about a 24-bit/96KHz DAC that perform superbly for @$100? .....and of course now we all want to know the names of the gear you're referring to! :-) I can guess a few (I believe I have at least one of the items). It's a shame it's such hard work for the bargain-hunting audiophile to find such products. In the ideal world that's what the hi-fi press should be doing. There's a clear gap in the market for someone to occupy and create a trusted place where such recommendations can be found. By the way another example of totally unecessary expenditure must be the CD transport, some of which sell for ludicrous amounts of money. I wish more people would realise that: a) pretty much any modern cheapo CD/DVD/BD player from your local supermarket, connected by SPDIF to your DAC will work just as well and sound identical; b) why use a CD player at all when you can rip the music to lossless disk images and have the convenience of playing them back via, eg iTunes into your DAC. I've yet to see any hi-fi magazine in the UK do anything other than wax lyrically about these devices instead of berating them as pointless expensive bling, which I suppose pretty much sums up where their loyalties and priorities lie. --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
"Ron" wrote in message
... All I am concerned about is performance for the money. Where does one start? Obviously I am in the wrong circles when my local audio dealer tries to sell me a $20K tube pre-amp, the press I am reading raves about how great it is despite the price, then I find out the item is made from $400 worth of parts. I am a fairly technical person (computers) but don't think I have the time or inclination to get down to DIY kits. Does an audiophile community exist out there that stresses performance and value over bling and vanity items? Are these local communities and is this philosophy championed any specific companies (Outlaw Audio perhaps???). You would think there is a lot of money to be made in this niche. It may be too late for me to benefit from this info (Wisdom Audio, ML32, Krell, etc..) but I have many friends which I have converted to high end that are currently assembling their systems. Thanks Ron, I'd be just a bit cautious. While the overall level of mid-level and upper mass-level components has improved to a level inconceivable 30 years ago, they often sound a bit "grey" and "mechanical". Real high-end components often do sound just a bit better (livlier, more transparent)....enough to make the difference between "fine sound" and "you are there". But prices have gotten largely out of whack. My first choice to tell your friends is "used quality", particularly with regard to preamps and tuners. With the market having swung to home theatre, there are dozens of excellent ARC, ML, Krell, C-J etc. preamps, Onkyo and Carver tuners, etc. on the market at affordable prices. Team these with, let us say, Outlaw Monoblock amplifiers (200 true wpc) and you have all the electronics you need short of a CD player. There are several good CD players (Arcam, Cambridge, NAD) and SACD players (SONY), even blu-ray all-in-one-combos (OPPO) that can form satisfying front ends. Many good turntables, arms, and cartridge combos available from Project, Music Hall, and even Thorens for less than $1000, if vinyl is desired. For speakers, I find used Thiels hard to beat. They are unfailingly musical, and for less than $1200 a pair, used 3.5's and 2 2's offer wonderful sound. There are also fine NHT's, Snells, and PSB's out there at quite reasonable prices. If vintage is appealing, don't overlook older Dual Turntables (the 700 series in particular) which are available reasonably cheap and can be reconditioned if need be...and when in top shape rival the new stuff up to the $4000 level. In speakers, stacked Large Advents can hold their own against most modern speakers....at $150 each used, four will set you back only $600. I'd say redirect your friends interest in this direction, and at least some of them will thank you later. Others may well decided to pay current prices and get good sound.....just at a much higher price. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Sep 29, 9:36=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
[ excess quotation snipped -- dsr ] All of this and more is available, but you won't hear about it in the aud= io press. Of course speakers are different. They are largely a matter of tas= te (as none are even close to perfect). That's where the bulk of your money should go. But there is gorgeous stuff out there, mostly made in China or Taiwan that are real bargains. How long they'll remain that way is unknow= n, but right now, is great time to be an audiophile. =A0There's fine equipme= nt available at great prices for those who look for it. And for a fraction of even Chinese prices, one has the ability to DIY any number of fine designs using high-quality parts and transformers from any of several sources including the US and Europe. Many are simple cook-book recipes requiring little other than decent soldering skills. HOWEVER, and it is a big one, there may be considerable time involved depending on the level of finish and elegance desired. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:25:49 -0700, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ): On 30 Sep 2009 01:36:46 GMT, Sonnova wrote: It may be too late for me to benefit from this info (Wisdom Audio, ML32, Krell, etc..) but I have many friends which I have converted to high end that are currently assembling their systems. Thanks Their are GREAT audio bargains out there and decent performing new components at reasonable prices, but - and here's the rub - you really have to look for them. How about a great performing MOSFET 150+ Watt/channel stereo power amp for $200? How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mono design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies (including separate power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wired, gorgeously finished for under $700? How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of the famous Marantz 7 for about $250? How about a quiet, FET preamp (and a copy of an older Nelson Pass design) with a decent phono stage for $200? How about a 24-bit/96KHz DAC that perform superbly for @$100? ....and of course now we all want to know the names of the gear you're referring to! :-) I can guess a few (I believe I have at least one of the items). It's a shame it's such hard work for the bargain-hunting audiophile to find such products. In the ideal world that's what the hi-fi press should be doing. There's a clear gap in the market for someone to occupy and create a trusted place where such recommendations can be found. I agree with you 100%. This IS what the Hi-Fi press should be doing, but the truth is that a lot of reviewers are - there's no other word for it - jaded. They can't get interested in gear unless it's frighteningly expensive and exclusive. That's why modern Hi-Fi magazines are filled with $20,000 preamps. $100,000 (+) speaker systems, $60,000 CD players, and $15,000 turntables. By the way another example of totally unecessary expenditure must be the CD transport, some of which sell for ludicrous amounts of money. I wish more people would realise that: That's a fact a) pretty much any modern cheapo CD/DVD/BD player from your local supermarket, connected by SPDIF to your DAC will work just as well and sound identical; That's been my experience. DACs might sound different from one another, but I've never heard a fancy CD transport (like the TEAC Esoteric) make any difference. b) why use a CD player at all when you can rip the music to lossless disk images and have the convenience of playing them back via, eg iTunes into your DAC. Because a lot of people are intimidated by computers and the process and don't trust the HDD medium. OTOH, there is, among some, the same reluctance to give up that tangible jewel box that many LP collectors felt when asked to give up that big, colorful album cover for that same tiny jewel box. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
|
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Sep 30, 7:30=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
That too is true, but the poster who asked about reasonably-priced gear stated quite clearly that he was not interested in going THAT route. Point being - and the following opinion is based on observed fact as recently as yesterday - that a great deal of moderately priced Chinese Junque is not much better than rank-amateur build quality using minimally-specified parts with most of the emphasis on exterior appearance. High-gloss stained Zebra Wood or Walnut with laser-etched markings is elegant. Too bad more effort was not spent in how the capacitors are secured in the chassis... as one very obvious example. Too bad that the burn-marks in the wire insulation extending right down to the strands was not repaired as another. That this wire in the observed case is carrying full B+ makes things even more interesting. Point being that even as lowest-common-denominator vintage equipment such as a Dynaco SCA-35 designed in 1962 is kilometers ahead ('new' currency used out of respect for the Chinese) in every aspect of build- quality, serviceability and layout from its modern-day Yaquin-or-equal EL84-based integrated amp - which, as it happens, does not have a phono stage. Point being that the Yaquin-or-equal design uses a quite fussy bias system that is not particularly user-friendly whereas the 40+ year- older design uses a quite elegant self-bias system with a quite user- friendly hum-pot to achieve measurably better results, again from an simple cook-book circuit. Point being that it is ineffibly sad that a company with the reputation of Conrad-Johnson should engage in flim-flamming its customers as is apparently reported here. I HAVE NOT SEEN the pre-amp in question, but I do know what a brown-paper-bag of very high-quality electronic parts would cost me, what a very good blank metal chassis would cost me, what sufficient NOS Euro/US tubes would cost me, what the wire, ceramic mil.spec. sockets would cost me, what turreted wiring boards would cost me, what very high-end mil.spec. controls would cost me - and about how many hours it would take me to put the whole shebang together. Oh, any-of-many proven, reliable, super-quiet circuits would cost me nothing as they are readily available from multiple sources. And even if I were paying myself $200/hour including every task up to licking the stamp on the final credit-card bill payment - not really but you get the picture - I doubt very seriously that I would have more than $2,000 in the entire exercise. Send it down the street to my wood-shop, spend $200. Send it further down the street to a custom-jeweler for the silver and gold inlays and jeweled indicator lights, spend another $1,500. And I am doing a onesie/twosie/ all-retail-parts. Not engaging in a production exercise with on an established, experienced production line using bulk-purchased parts. Point being that we are most of us in the wrong business if the C-J is worth even 5% of its nominal price. And spare me the c**p about 'list' vs. 'actual' prices. C-J would not put a $20,000 'suggested' price on anything unless they expected it to get at least half that, and even that a factor of 10X what it is demonstrably worth. As most everyone here will understand by now, I am VERY MUCH a vintage- electronic-equipment person - the most modern stuff (excepting speakers, of course) I have are two CD players from the early part of the present century - and from there stepping back at least two decades to the next layer. And I have about equal numbers of systems in solid-state and tube and very much enjoy them both as much for their differences as anything else. BUT - I will not allow equipment of any nature in the house that I do not deem ready for polite society - which includes cats, grand-children on frequent occasion from 9 weeks to 6 years, kittens, puppies and adults. So, failure-prone, badly designed, poorly executed, potentially dangerous equipment from whatever area of the world has no place here. High-end is a factor of how things sound - not of how much they cost. And the disconnect between the former and the latter is getting broader each day - again, very sadly. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
|
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Sep 29, 7:36=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mo= no design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies (inclu= ding separate =A0power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wi= red, gorgeously finished for under $700? How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of t= he famous Marantz 7 for about $250? What might these be ? Roger |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 21:20:09 -0700, Roger Kulp wrote
(in article ): On Sep 29, 7:36=A0pm, Sonnova wrote: How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mo= no design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies (inclu= ding separate =A0power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wi= red, gorgeously finished for under $700? How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of t= he famous Marantz 7 for about $250? What might these be ? Roger Check out "Amplifiers" on E-Bay and you'll see lots of interesting stuff. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 21:20:09 -0700, Roger Kulp wrote (in article ): On Sep 29, 7:36=A0pm, Sonnova wrote: How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mo= no design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies (inclu= ding separate =A0power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wi= red, gorgeously finished for under $700? How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of the famous Marantz 7 for about $250? What might these be ? Roger Check out "Amplifiers" on E-Bay and you'll see lots of interesting stuff. The "Marantz 7" clones I see on eBay are obvious frauds, if you audit even simple things like the tube count, Compare the detailed views to a schematic of the real thing. I would chacterize what I see as being more like a somewhat degenerate Conrad Johnson CJ-4 or 5. Significant absences - cathode follower buffers on both the tape and main outputs. Signficiant excess - what appears to be a silicon state power regulator. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
|
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On Oct 3, 10:50=A0am, John Stone wrote:
And yet you find old Dynaco tube products to be worthy of your trust? I wouldn't leave one of those things switched on unattended for even a few minutes for fear of burning down my house. Have you ever seen a UL label = on a Dynaco product? John: I will distill it down for you. When I am done with a Dynaco product *today* and deem it ready for polite society, it has been substantially rebuilt down to the boards if necessary. That would include resistors, caps, tube sockets, wiring, connectors & plugs, even controls if required. Various modifications developed over the years will be included as well. And I will also typically de-rate the load on the power-supply - because - absolutely 17.5 wpc (or 35 wpc from the 70) is patently absurd. But then and at those levels the difference between the 'real' 12 watts or so and the rated output is of negligible sonic value. The going rate for a SCA-35 with good iron these days is under $200. For about $150, one may rebuild it right down to the boards and sockets and have a quite nice little amp that is extremely reliable and sounds as well as any other similarly-rated tube amp whether from Yaquin or elsewhere. One thing Hafler did do was use good output iron. Perhaps his power transformers are a bit edgy, but the number that have survived over the years suggests that they were at least adequate. As to the single example - yes. But the 6550-based amp mentioned in this thread was sitting right beside it - and its innards were no better than the pre-amp. Elegant on the outside - but about what one might expect of a hobbyist with his Dynaco wiring on the inside. Really. I dunno - I find Dynaco products to be very well laid out and very well designed. That they were also designed to be resilient enough to withstand an amateur assembler and work very much most of the time is a good indicator as well. Now, my Scott LK150 is a quantum-leap better all the way around - also a kit. But not something I would have put in inexperienced hands. Today, I cannot imagine what its functional equivalent would cost. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp
On 2 Oct 2009 04:19:52 GMT, Sonnova
wrote: And, in the case of the C-J GAT, the British price, in Pounds Sterling is the same number as the American Price in Dollars even though a British Pound is about US$1.60. Meaning that the Brits get to pay roughly 60% more than we do for this this thing! Yep, an all too common and very irritating fact of life here in the UK. We know it as "rip-off Britain". Totally unjustifiable but so long as punters cough up the cash, the rip-off merchants continue to get away with it. --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| conrad-johnson pv5 preamp | Tech | |||
| FS: CONRAD JOHNSON PV-8 (PV8) TUBE PREAMP | Marketplace | |||
| FS: CONRAD JOHNSON PV-8 (PV8) TUBE PREAMP | Marketplace | |||
| WTB Conrad-Johnson EF-1 phono preamp | Marketplace | |||
| WTB Conrad-Johnson EF-1 phono preamp | Marketplace | |||
Linear Mode
