|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.209.123
In Reply to: RE: Receiver and speakers to complement Thorens td 160? posted by Brian Levy on December 29, 2014 at 14:47:45
I was first exposed to the DB Systems preamp back in the early 70s. Homely looking, but nice sounding. At the time, I had a Van Alstine modified PAT-5 called the FET-5.
It and Sherwoods early history are the only 2 companies where engineering was truly #1.
I will respectfully disagree. Unlike companies like McIntosh where cosmetics, assorted useless gee-gaws and impressive light shows ruled the day, Audio Research was another company where engineering and sound quality ruled the day.
My SP20 is today's version of the SP3a. And no, the tubes are not backlit like a Halloween display with green lighting. No utterly superfluous meters either. :)
Follow Ups:
Back in the day - I wanted the Mac C32 Preamp, loved the sound of the AR SP-6 Preamp and purchased the completely blah looking Acoustat RP2A Preamp, I still use today.
Absolutely no point to this other trip down memory lane. Listened to & purchased from Havens & Hardesty - Huntington Beach California.
"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius
Back in the day - I wanted the Mac C32 Preamp...
I never got the light show allure of Mac products. Especially when I actually heard them.
End of that.
Never got the hokey block diagrams painted on the top of certain components either. Did folks have trouble figuring out how to use them? As for me, I lusted after Audio Research and Mark Levinson gear. Far classier looking and sound-wise were in a different league altogether. I think the best looking (and one of the best sounding) preamps of the 70s was the JC-2:
I've been an Acoustat fan ever since I met Jim Strickland and Bob Rieman back in '76 when they brought a pair of the new model X to chez Dr. Cooledge for the TAS review. Still use a pair of 1+1s in the garage today.
And functional - I liked the channel balance control - great for phono - many cartridges don't have precision channel level match - and this was exasperated by my tone arm (Grace 704) with no antiskating.
I dabbled with Advent 300 (Schematic on bottom - LoL), Dyna PAT5, Hafler preamps before I found a good sounding and quiet one.
"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius
ARC engineers can do things well or poorly. They have a less than seller track record and while the company may run with a circuit for a series even here it is not consistent. An example where they did was with the D75/76 series but not the same as the earlier Dual 50/51 amps.
I have not seen the schematic for the SP20 but between the 3 and 20 ARC did not continue the SP3 design and in fact produced some pretty horrid models.
I am not knocking ARC. I bought in early to their products having a Dual 50, 2 versions of the Dual 51 a pair of the D76A, a D75 and, a SP3a1.
Db Systems has had the same preamp circuit since day 1, updating, upgrading and using newer and better components. The most radical they have gone was in the power supply design.
Sherwood had 3 amps circuits during their tube days and improved on them rather than starting from scratch, same with their tube tuners. Their fm ss tuner used the same circuit updated for fets and later microcircuits. It started in '67 and ran until '76 with the only other change being the ultralinear IF filters used in the SEL200 and SEL300. The amp used in their signature SEL200 in 74-76 was introduced in '67. In the intervening years there were for both their tube and these early ss circuits running production changes.
I also disagree about your assessment about McIntosh. While you may disagree with their goals their engineering was first rate and during the fairly long lived production runs they continually improved their models. Compared to a db Systems pre, an AVID pre, I had for some 15 years Frank's First version SuperPas3x with some updates, the McIntosh preamps were seemingly doggedly complex BUT where so many companies opened cases and dumped in meaningless switches, controls and other things, McIntosh put them in for a meaningful reading. I used to do things with my C28 that with most other preamps you had to mickey mouse to do the same. Sadly, some of these things got in the way of the music but, no less so than most complex system preamps.
There have been other companies with well engineered models but, for some reason they did not continue with their development and many times the later designs were not as good. Look at the Marantz 10 and 20. Then look at the 120, 125 and 150 for example. This applies to their preamps as well. The units coming after the 7t were not up to that standard though towards the end of the Philips era they showed hope. ARC had a similar problem after the 3 until at least the 6 or even later, depending on what version of the 3 was in the contest. The 3 would still be one of the best if ARC had stuck with it and not started screwing around with say the power supply in their support services. A case where my argument as to engineering fails. Take a great product and destroy it by "improving" on it.
I guess it comes down to one's personal phyosophy. I am quite conservative in my life's outlook so for me change, especially for the sake of change is not easily accepted in many things. I still find no advantage of these new cars over say, my old Checker or Nash Metropolitan or MG1100 or, the Renault LeCar. My '72 Subaru was every bit as good as a new one, and maybe better based on reading conycerning the head gasket issue that have plagued the Boxer engine for more than a decade. I still use fountain pens and for a ball point have a supply of NOS Parker Jotters and for pencils a supply of Autopoints.
Don Brian Levy, J.D.
Toronto ON Canada
ARC did not continue the SP3 design and in fact produced some pretty horrid models.They continually strive to do better. I guess philosophically, I prefer companies that never rest on their laurels or don't experiment with different approaches. They may lay a few eggs along the way, but continue to move forward and advance the art. The same can be said for the evolving designs of Nelson Pass.
In the case of the SP3 series, you can only refine a product so far. Actually, the SP6 series (I used one from '81-'99), was essentially an SP3 with larger power supply resulting in better response at the extremes. It's true that the solid state SP4/SP5 design was a comparative toad. The SP9 now used in the garage system provides similar magic as the SP6, but with its higher gain and lower noise, supports MC cartridges like the Shinon I use with only two gain stages.
The 3 would still be one of the best if ARC had stuck with it and not started screwing around with say the power supply in their support services.
If you recall, changes were made due to parts availability . BTW, you can upgrade any SP3 at the factory today.
The DB-1 was a good product both then and now. Never, however, was it a great product. I would, however, take one in a New York minute over a C28 though. :)
The SP20 is a single box full function preamplifier (with phono stage) based on the REF5 circuit which sounds far better than those early ground breaking models. I am especially taken by its micro dynamics.
I still find no advantage of these new cars over say, my old Checker or Nash Metropolitan or MG1100 or, the Renault LeCar.
Well, they all take you from point A to point B. :)
edit: I'm curious as to exactly what this means:
I used to do things with my C28...
Edits: 12/30/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: