|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.215.10.1
A review at TNT ...~ Pat O'Malley
Follow Ups:
The Cambridge 640P is a steal! I replaced the 640P with a Graham Slee ERA V Gold which has been a significant upgrade over the 640P. I must say though, that for under $5-600 I have not heard any other pre that is as good as the Cambridge 640P in my system.
I've got a 640 P (thanks to Mike A here), and without much to compare it to I'd agree that it's a real winner. Previous setup MMF-5, Shure M97xe, Kenwood KR-5600 receiver w/ built-in phono. Changed cart to AT 440 MLa, receiver to NAD C740, and phono to CA 640P and man does the whole setup sing! I notice so much more detail and slam on the vinyl, but cd sounds better too thanks to the 5600. For the $100 I paid fpr the 6440 (and $200 for the C740) I'd say the improvement was staggering.
The jump from 97 to 440 was probably equal to the jump from the old receiver to the new combo. Very happy with it all.TB
....stands up against the cambridge audio, it's very simple and only MM, if it's better I feel and upgrade coming on !
Greetings from Rob in the UK.
I just swapped in the 540p and it is non-existant on delivery compared to this Bugle. I don;t know what percentage better the 650p is over the 540p but the Bugle is full, detailed, fast, etc, on and on.My experience is limited to only the mm section in my old Adcom preamp, NAD PP-1, Cambridge 540p, and the Hagerman Bugle.
"I'm on a low budget" ..
*I just swapped in the 540p and it is non-existant on delivery compared to this Bugle. I don;t know what percentage better the 650p is over the 540p but the Bugle is full, detailed, fast, etc, on and on.*
I wonder about the difference between the 540P and the item on review here, too.Compared to a newly recapped internal MM phono board on my Nait 3R, a 540P sounded heavy-handed and stilted.
I haven't heard the Bugle, but Hagerman makes a good kit so I am not surprised by your findings.
...we don't need to give the Chinese all the money. That should be enough to tip the scales in itself.
Over the past year I have been auditioning manyt "budget" phono stages. In no particular order, I've listened to: Rotel RQ970BX, Cambridge Audio 640P, Grado PH-1, Musical Surroundings Phonomena, and that cheap little unit that sells on ebay for $73.50, the TCC-760LC. In addition, I bought a used Parasound zPhono that came in just a couple of days ago.The reviewer's results do not surprise me. I compared the Cambridge directly to the $500 Grado PH-1, and kept the 640P. Besides costing only 40% of what the Grado goes for, the 640P sounded better to me in every way.
The 640P also sounded as good as the Phonomena (a $600 unit), so off went the Phonomena.
The Rotel was outclassed by everything else, so it went.
The zPhono is on its way out as well. As soon as I got it connected I noticed a distinct buzz in the tweeters and mids. When music plays the buzz isn't audible, but on silent backgrounds it's there. Asked the previous owner about it and he wants me to triage my entire system. But since I've tried, what, 5 other phono stages and all have been silent, I don't think it's my system. Besides, the zPhono sounds too forward to me, overly bright and excited. So it's on the way to ebay.
In direct comparison with the 640P only one unit has held its own. And that's the TCC-760LC. I spent a lot of time comparing these 2 units. It was close. Very close. In the end it was a toss-up -- on some music the 640P sounded better to me. Other times, the 760LC sounded better. Since the 760LC is less than 50% of the cost of the 640P, I sold the 640P.
I have avoided posting these impressions because, frankly, I'm afraid of being flamed here. I was going to leave the 760LC out of this post all-together and just confirm the fine results I had with the 640P -- besting $500 and $600 models. But I'm feeling confident and strong today, so what the hell.
The real budget giant among phono stages is the TCC-760LC. By the way, did I mention that it will handle both MM and MC carts? And that it offers a choice of 20 or 100 ohms for MC input impedance?
Well, there you go.
But the journey continues.... Just got a wicked good deal on a NIB Bellari VP-129, which should be here next week. I've read so many good things about it, so I'm sure it's the budget model to finally beat the TCC-760LC. Then, again, that's what I've thought about all the others!
Hi RDR, I have an experiment for you when you get your Bellari. Because it has a variable output, you can plug the pre directly into your amp if you have a dedicated power amp or monoblocks. I have gained the best results in my rig with this configuration. Be cautious with your amps gain rate. My monoblocks have 26db of gain so I don't think they are high gain amps-and with the Bellari's output at half way it is very loud. Sound's so damn transaparent it's bordering on creepy. Let me know if you attempt this.
listings and nothing shows??
Henry
Here's the link.Hey, O'Malley's probably right. It'll probably never be mentioned again.
- http://cgi.ebay.com/TCC-TC-760LC-MM-MC-Phono-Preamp-with-Level-Adjust_W0QQitemZ150122598824QQihZ005QQcategoryZ12050QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem (Open in New Window)
because a lot of good nuggets go unoticed.For instance there were some recent posts re putting duct tape on the DL-103 body ... nevermind.
and what's nice is that the MC/MM selector switch is on the front panel ..
~ Pat O'Malley
Sold by phonopreamps.com
you will never see this mentioned again.
Hey O'Malley, you're right. 100% right. I, personally, will never mention it again. You and your Hagerman Bugle WIN. Congratulations.
It looks like a cheaper equivilant to the Cambridge 640p, on your say so ... I'm glad I got you to post on it.We all win. Especially someone on a budget looking for a good phono preamp.
After reading this review, it made me think if it is time for me to change out my Parasound PPH-100 that is connected to my Pro-Ject 1.2 turntable with Sumiko Pearl cartridge with the Cambridge Audio 640P or with the other choice I was thinking about a Channel Islands Audio VPP-1 since I own a CIA VDA-2 and VAC-1. Luckily with my Parasound, I have not experienced any hum that others have mentioned. Not sure if switching out my Parasound phono preamp with either the Cambridge or Channel Islands would be a sizeable upgrade in sound with my basic vinyl set up. Any thoughts?
Henry
Henry,Thanks for the response. Now do you think purchasing the CIA VPP-1 ($349) with it's price difference is justified over the Cambridge Audio 640P ($169)? Seems like your thoughts that either would be much better than my current Parasound PPH-100.
although I did own another of Dusty Vawter's pres, a Monolithic PS-1 at one time. If the CIA phono stage is as good as the Monolithic (It sold for $599) I'd say the CIA at $349 might be worth the difference, but it's a close call.
Henry
Good news, the affordable stuff is competitive. But check out his system, it's OK but not high end. And check out his test records, i wonder how much difference between phono stages you can hear while spinning blues recordings from the 1950s. There should be at least 1 decent classical record and 1 jazz record on the test LP list. IMHO but YMMV etc.
"The torture never stops"
My system is probably poor as well.
Who knew?
And the 50's blues, well......
How can you respond to such a well thought out critique?
Bill.
Sorry, if you find my system less than adequate; but I find it more than satisfactory. I'm curious if you have ever actually compared those specific components to others, and if so could you share you methodology and findings - perhaps we could all learn something from your experiences. I'll gladly admit that in the past 7-8 years I've been doing this I feel like i've barely scratched the surface.To help aleviate your prejudice against old blues records, you may want to check out "Folk Singer" by Muddy Waters. There are very few recordings I would put on par with it in terms of recording quality - from any year/genre.
I had not realized that you needed certain genres of music to evaluate equipment. But taking your edict as sacrement, I must point out that "KOB" is a jazz album and "Indian Architexture" is a classical album. And if you have not listened to a Waterlily vinyl, then it further confirms my suspicion - you're all wet.
"Indian Architecture" sounds like Indian classical music, not what most people mean by "classical", or am I wrong? In particular, it would be useful to have a comparison of large-scale orchestral music. That you don't do so doesn't cause me to completely discount your review, but it does make it less useful to me as that is my primary musical diet.
Sorry I was being a bit antagonistic, he did get the better of me. But in all honesty, I do not think you need to use specific genres to evaluate gear. What you need are well recorded excerpts that are good tests for certain attributes.Your point on large scale orchestras indicates that you are likely concerned with what is generally termed as macro-dynamics and perhaps scale/soundstaging. Once it is established that a component performs well in those aspects, you should be able to get the same results in those aspects in a comparable quality recording in any genre.
I bought one some time ago, but returned it to go with a factory-installed phono stage in my Bryston BP25. I bought a 540P to use in a second (surround sound / vintage quadraphonic) system with an Audio Refinement Pre2-DSP, but something was missing. I sold the 540P and bought another 640P and I must say that it is significantly better than its cheaper sibling.I had also tried a Parasound, but it was a pretty big disappointment. I also tried NAD and Pro-Ject Phono Box units in the past, but the 640P is BY FAR the better choice ... especially for the price ... but to be fair, it was the original Phono Box.
One very cool thing is that the 640P actually has inputs for two turntables, since it has separate input jacks for MM and MC cartridges. You just have to use the MM/MC switch on the back to select betweent them.
where as the 540 uses active RIAA. Much prefer passive in the 640P.
Henry
I think the Cambridge compared well against my Bottlehead Seduction when I had one here to play with for a bit.
If the Seduction ever went up in a puff of blue smoke and the smell of burning cat piss, I'd probably replace it with the Cambridge.
_____________________
There's no stoppin' the cretins from hoppin'
The bottle head and Clarinet usually go head to head. Does this mean that the Cambridge is in the same league?
The answer is no . . . with a caveat. The Cornet/Cornet II is a superior phono stage. It betters the 640 in just about every area. The only downside is it is MM/HO MC only. You must use a SUT or head amp to run a LO MC.
Henry
C****t ... they look so similar.
If the Seduction suffered some terrible fate and I had to switch to the 640P, I'd never agonize over what once was or worry over what could be.
It might not be as good as the Seduction, but its plenty good enough to prevent audiophilia nervosa .
_____________________
There's no stoppin' the cretins from hoppin'
Alas they screwed up the specs. The Cambridge has the desireable 100 Ohm loading for MCs and 47K for MMs, not the Parasound, which is fixed at 47K for both, by the way.Less than half the cost of the Graham plus offering both MM and MC, plus a subsonic filter. Hmmm. Kudos to Cambridge Audio.
Since owning a 640P, I've recommended it as a no-brainer entry level phono stage and will continue to do so.
And I feel the same about the Jolida JD-9 in the $400 price range.
Henry
Hello Henry,
The Parasound website confirms the specs I stated, and I could not find a reliable source of input impedance for the Cambridge unit. I also had the manufacturers/importers review the draft for exactly that sort of stuff. If you could point me to a verifiable source for that spec I'd greatly appreciate it.
AK
For the Cambridge, it's in the User Guide. here's the URL:
http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets/documents/AP145092azur540P&640PUsersManual.pdfOn Page 4.
And the same for the Zphono, in the Manual located here:
http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/ZphonoManual.pdf
Page 6 here.
Henry
confirmed by Tony at Parasound.
Henry
...the specs in the review are correct. Per Richard Scram of Parasound.
the 'specs' tab at this link says 47k/100 for the parasound;
http://parasound.com/zcustom/zphono.phpThanks for finding the Cambridge spec, of course it was not listed everywhere else I looked.
Yet funnier/sadder is that I sent a draft of the spec to both of them and did not hear a peep. I'll ask for the CA spec to be added and I'll ask Parasound to confirm which version of the truth they uphold. Not sure who Tony is, I had been dealing with Paul Brownlee there.
Arvind, I did not note in your review whether the subsonic filter in the Cambridge was switched in or out (nor does Cambridge seem to list the specs for that filter)
The filter was always off. Sorry, I should have been clearer about that. I always lean on the side of lesser circuitry where possible.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: