|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Just a personal note on vintage insanity. Recently I posted a query about the best step-up transformer to input a micro Benz ref. moving coil signal to the Marantz 7 pre-amp. One of the best thought-out answers to this question was to scrap the model 7 and move up to a true pre-amp – “think modern, for the vintage pre-amps are complicated, and expensive stupidity, when compared to advances made during the 80’s and 90’s”.How about it, do you agree?
I have actually thought quite a lot about that recommendation over the past day. In fact, I almost determined to scrap NOT ONLY the model 7, but also the model 10b and the tape deck – I hardly ever use either one. That way I could join the modern world and enjoy the advantages of, say, the Manley Steelhead, or perhaps the Audion Quattro, with the result that I could really have the latest technology, with sound logic, and with great sound.
Then I went out for a drive in the 1954 Bentley to enjoy the desert in winter and fill up the petrol tank. I remembered my age, 62. After that, I got in the hot tub and considered again the modern audio gear. I remember that I first got involved in this insanity in the 1950’s with a Scott-Kit amp and two Altec speakers. The first LP was Joan Baez, she was beautiful then, not yet gone crazy. Back then I could hear a pin drop from across the room. Today, after a career of setting atop Navy aircraft engines, an anvil falling nearby probably wouldn’t even cause me to shake my prune juice. Still…..my old mind is vulnerable to the hype. If even 1/100th of the advances that have been announced over the years that I personally have followed this interest, were even 10% correct, we could have long ago retired all musicians – for recorded music would have surpassed their live possibilities at about the mid ‘70’s. That, however, did not occur. And I doubt that it ever will.
Just go out on any occasion that presents itself to you, and take a seat in about the 10th through 15th row, center section, of any philharmonic offering, in any city, in this great country. Ask yourself, during the concert, can it ever sound like this in my 20 x 30 foot music room. Ok, for you High Rollers, make it a 30 x 70 foot music room. Being honest (regardless of what you paid for the Hi-Fi system) the answer is, of course, no sir,… and it never will. In the case of small acoustical groups the possibilities are far greater. And for, say, a single instrument like a virtuoso guitar session, we can come very close indeed with recorded sound.
The logical mind doesn’t forget that the quest for perfect audio reproduction is nothing but a fools game, with an never-ending mirage of sonic perfection, just out of reach, just a few thousand dollars more, and always vanishing, coldly and cruelly, in the shimmering , rising desert heat… AFTER the funds are spent and done with. It will always be so. Yet I myself seem, even after all these years, still tempted…still seduced with the dancing desert-sand-dreams that yet another purchase will open the silver gates to pure, clean, presence at some precious, long-past musical event.
So here am I, even now, tempted to buy a modern miracle…in this particular weakness it happens to be the siren call of a certain AUDION QUATRO pre amp which came highly recommended, as the genuine article, sure to change, forevermore, all I have ever known about recorded sound.
I looked at the specs. – Impressive. I called the US importer of this UK product. The price is silly, over 14 big-ones for the separate-power-supply units….but oh…this will cure the problem “no vintage pre-amp is appropriate for 2003”. Sounds so good I still may “go for it”. Told the rep I will be there for a look at The Show, here is Las Vegas, perhaps two or three weeks hence.
Tonight though, I went to the computer and pulled up an image of this, the newest “best-of-the-best”, the pre-amp to cure all. Here and now, I wish to thank the designers of this unit, that I am saved from this latest run on the bank funds…That thing is simply too UGLY! Not only that, it is a pure dual-mono effort. That may sound great, but it REQUIRES that one handles two knobs to adjust the volume. Get real! Thank you, you English designers. You have the finest electronics available anywhere in the world in this unit, and you had me on the hook, even at the silly prices.. but, you blew it - big time – for us old guys – with the ugly layout
Of the design………and, .you have spared me this time, from my own stupidity.The game is pure sound, I agree. But I admit here, tonight, that presentation also matters for some of us. It matters enough that this particular old Sailor is unwilling to take onboard a set of pre-amps, that cost 14K+, and are presented without even the decently of a tube cage. Another option, the Manley Steelhead, a far better value for US dollars, is even further off -target, on the ugly scale. Sorry, but I must admit – appearance does play into this game for some of us. (Don’t like admitting it – but I actually did consider stuffing the steelhead inside a Marantz case - how sick is this?).
The vintage units, such as Marantz, are always pleasing to the eye, regardless of sonic questions, they look pleasing – and I am talking about 40 years so far.
It could go on. Let’s also remember that NONE of these modern marvels will be worth, even ½ their purchase price in five years (How about a bet – which will draw more in an open auction in Jan. 2008 – a Marantz 7 or a Manley Steelhead?). A vintage unit will likely have appreciated in value, The Steelhead, in 2008? What was that? Further, an owner, while he is at rest, listening to quiet music of an evening, cannot avoid his vision catching the occasional image of the electronic components responsible for his joy. Would you rather glimpse the classic symmetry of Marantz thoughtfulness or the ugliness of a great glaring pair of “modern phono-stage magic”?
Again gentle readers, could someone please advise me about the Sid Smith modifications to the BEAUTIFUL model 7 Marantz?
James
Follow Ups:
I don't know the difference between vintage and new-age, all I know is that I want to listen to good sounds, and I want it no matter what it costs me. Presently I am listening to "Grateful Deads" Europe '72 album that I picked up for $0.80 (with four more of their albums too)at a local Youth Challenge Store here in Newport News, Virginia, on my JVC JL-F30 belt driven "automatic" Turntable, powered through by a Kenwood low end intergrated amp, to my Sansui's SP-X8000 speakers. The music is clear, clean and great to listen to. It doens't mean nothing to me on what I am listening on, only that I can hear what I want, the way I want, PERIOD!
To each one who took the time to answer this post…. thank you.
I have seldom seen so many well thought-out responses, and each one of them has given me something new to think about and consider.
This is a wonderful group of enthusiasts.
James
JW,I will throw my 2 cents in here. High value resistors, caps, and switches all degrade in the 60's tube gear. If Sid Smith is overhauling the 7 I would recommend you send it to him and have it updated. Sid Smith is one of the top audio engineers of all time, is the designer of the pre amp, so how can you go wrong? It will be quieter than new and probably last another 40 years. Some here have said do not modify your 7 but we all know it is already modified by time. It is not the same unit with the same sound as when new.
Use an external step up device which matches the cartridge you chose. As for the 10B, my favorite Marantz piece, if you no longer use it you can sell it or put up a new outside antenna and start FM DXing!
Ron-C
Ron,
First off let me say I enjoyed your post. I too am a vintage tube fan but also don't care for the overdone controls on vintage preamps.Here is a quick, cheap, and easy way to see what if anything you are missing with your old preamp. Build a resistive passive preamp. All you need is some RCA jacks and a volume pot. Radio Shack sells a 100K stereo pot made by Alps for the volume control that is under 5 bucks and rather good for the money. That, a case of some sort, and a few jacks are all that is needed. You will need a phono stage for vinyl though. But one can play CD's right away through the passive unit. At higher volumes they are quite good but not near as good at lower volumes. Consider it a cheap experiment to gauge your present preamp. You may find you like all the tone controls you now have. Or you may find that the 20 buck passive is far better. Depending on results you can decide on a future course.
A transformer based passive combined with a stand alone phono stage is likely to yeild the best sound for the least money. But if you like tone controls then go with a full featured active preamp. Although again I might encourage you to look at a stand alone phono stage as a good one makes a world of difference.
Your preamp is a good investment and can certainly be restored with better quality passive parts and simply doing that alone may be all you need and want. One could consider some small changes such as including the cathode follower in the feedback loop and/or perhaps trying a 12AT7 or 12AU7 tube in that location. But I wouldn't modify it much as it has too much value as is.
Don't fall for too much hype. Your preamp is a good one. If it has been pleasing to you for decades there is no reason why it should not continue to please you with some simple TLC and a few replacements parts at most.
It got me thinking (usually a bad thing). But here goes. There's probably a dozen people reading this who have the schematic for the Marantz 7 in their minds. The guy who modded my CD player did, but I can't find him anymore because he's wanted by the police. Anyway, why doesn't someone post a schematic for the 7's line-stage only? It's been copied many times by other manufacturers. A person could build that line-stage for under $100 or have it built by a knowledgeable friend cheaply. Then compare it directly to the old Marantz 7 playing CDs - same speakers, same power amp, same everything. If the new one sounds better, then the old one is sounding worse. If the old one sounds better, then good. Problem solved. Plus, you could probably put a brand new line-stage based on a Marantz 7 on eBay and sell it for more than you had in it. Or you could keep it and sell the old 7 for big bucks. Seems like a win-win to me.
Read your post with some interest. I'm about 3 years older than you, and still enjoy tinkering. I've pretty much tried everything over the years. So, naturally, I have a few comments.I currently am using and NAD C350 integrated amp. A remarkably good sounding piece of gear for the $325 I paid for it. The preamp is electrically separate, having it's own power transformer and power supply. The case is light gauge steel, with a molded plastic front panel. It looks cheap. And that bothers me. Yet, I have not found anything I like better. It dawned on me that if it had a heavy gauge steel case, and a milled aluminum front panel about 10 mm thick, it could be sold for $2500 as a "high end" product and the audiophiles would think it was a bargain. I even found myself thinking about doing that. Such is the pressure we put on ourselves for exclusivity, appearances, and just plain old hype.
More recently, I picked up a clean Dyna PAT-4 preamp in nice shape. These things were never known for great sound. But mine measured well through the line level stages. So I decided to run some simple tests, hooking it up though the tape monitor circuit of my NAD and using the level control to match the level to unity gain. Then when I switched the tape monitor circuit in or out there was no level change, and any change I did hear would be coloration introduced by the PAT-4. Bottom line? There was no difference I could hear with the PAT-4 in or out. It was completely neutral. I did not evaluate the phono stage. Inserting the NAD preamp into the PAT-4 tape circuit was equally neutral.
So I have two preamps that model the proverbial "straight wire with gain" in their line stages. (a number of other preamps or preamp sections of integrated amps or receivers have not passed this test, they have all added coloration of some sort). Why would I want to replace them? Cosmetics or the elitism of name brand recognition are the only reasons I can think of for line stages. True, I did not evaluate the phono section, and my test method won't work for phono amps. The NAD has none, and I did not check out the Dyna. So I guess if I needed a phono section or was unhappy with the one I had, this test would be worthless. But NAD makes a fine outboard phono amp for $139 as do many other companies, and if I needed a phono section, I would probably go that route.
I haven't done it recently, but some years ago I measured the RIAA equalization on a number of phono preamps. I was rather surprised just how many were off spec. by significant amounts, often differing in the left and right channels. Since this translates into frequency response variations, it's small wonder that many phono amps sounded different. As an experiment, I padded two different preamps that sounded quite different (and measured differently)to bring their RIAA curves to within +/- 0.2 dB. After that the two preamps sounded nearly identical, but only after the input impedances were corrected to the 47,000 ohm standard, and the input capacitance was equalized in both to the same value. So the circuit design itself was of little importance once the frequency response was made the same in both designs.
One more point. Floyd Toole of Harman International has run some tests showing that very low Q resonances of low amplitude are surprisingly audible. This same finding also applies to electronics in terms of frequency response variations. If you have ever played with the "tilt" control on a Luxman preamp, you'll know just how sensitive to small tilts the ear is. So, if a preamp (or other component) has a spec of 20-20k Hz +/-0.5 dB, and one is ruler flat through the range, and rolls off at the extremes, it will sound quite different than one which meets the same specs but is tilted downward over the whole range, being + 0.5 dB at 20 Hz and -0.5dB at 20 kHz. The folks who design equipment know about this and do take advantage of it. (for example, I had an Arcam CD player which was up 0.5 dB at 1 kHz in a broad rise, and was at -0.5 at the extremes. The result was higher midrange output and a forward sound compared to most other CD players.) Was that deliberate? I think it was. On first hearing it made the Arcam much clearer and more detailed sounding. Then there was the Mark Levinson power amp that met the same +/- 0.5 dB spec., but which was at reference level at 20, 1 kHz, and 20 kHz; and was +0.5 dB at 300 Hz and -0.5 dB at 3 kHz. Amps don't behave that way. Clearly, it was tweaked to have that contour and to have a distinctive and pleasing sound.
The hype is that advances in circuit design, premium components, etc. make the product sound "better". The reality is very often that it is not because of the wonderfullness of the circuit design, but because of deliberate tinkering with frequency response or other properties. You can do that with an equalizer, if that's what you want.
Bottom line, I really don't see much evidence of significant advances in circuit designs or construction techniques in electroncs. The better vintage gear, in good condition and checked for frequency response should be able to hold it's own against the latest and greatest. There is a caveat! Bench testing of frequency response is of no value if there are impedance mismatches at the inputs or outputs. I have found quite a number of mismatches that color the sound. So in the end, it's not so much component quality that counts, but the matching and interfacing of the components that counts. You still have to try it and see for yourself how it sounds in your system.
Agreed. It seems like all the sane people hang out in the vintage asylum. I have a PAT-4 in a garage system and it sounds fine. I think to most reviewers, amps and preamps either sound like they look or like someone else told them it would sound. One or two golden ears said they didn't like the PAT 4 and the rest of the audio lemmings suddenly heard problems that weren't there when they first auditioned it. Go figure. I have been telling people that the fancy cables are nothing but overpriced filters for years but for the most part no one is listening. The reality is the most audiophiles and audio reviewers don't understand enough to know what is real and what is b/s and stand ready to believe in the wonderfullness of everything from $20K phono stages to cone shaped solid metal vibration isolation to all sorts of magic aborbers and enhancers. Oh well its their money. I choose to spend mine on things that might actually have a snowballs chance of improving the sound.
Bob,Amen to that! A funny story about preamps was Stereophile and Bob Carver. He sent them a new preamp to review. They hated it. But they contacted Bob, pre-article. He told them something must be wrong with the unit he sent. Send it back, and he'd check it out. He did check it out and found nothing wrong. Cleaned it up, put on a new label with a new serial #, and sent it back with a letter saying he had found some problems and was sending them one they had checked and found to be in spec. (that was true) They reviewed it a second time, and raved about how much better it was than the first example.
Kind of makes your point doesn't it?As you may have guessed, I am an engineer, and all the snake oil, hype and BS just aggrivates the S--- out of me. A couple of us dropped into a local "hype end" shop last year. Among the things we listened to was the "good" system in the main listening room. A pair of Revels driven by Mark levinson electronics. Total was around $40,000. We asked the owner to play two CD's for us. The Blind Boys of Alabama, a gospel group with some excellent backing, and the Telarc of Vivaldi's Four Seasons. The system gave a totally unrealistic vocal presentation on the Blind Boys (my friend said it sounded like some white guys trying to sound black) and on the Vivaldi, the harpsichord in the background was not resolved at all. However, a $1500 system of Vandersteen 1C and NAD electronics out in the open space in the shop in a very unfavorable placement sounded great on the vocals and easily resolved the harpsichord. After we got back here we tried the same two CD's on my den system with stacked Advents, Rotel CD player, and NAD C350 integrated amp and the vocals were "live" sounding and the harpsichord stood out clearly. On the living room TV system (Bose AM-5's, Sony XE-500 CD player, and Sony STR-D135 receiver, $140 at Best Buy, chosen for the high WAF)the vocals were very good and the harpsichord easily found. OK, so why would I want to spend $40,000 for an inferior system, unless it's bragging rights about the $$$ and the name plates. We've had this same experience several times in other shops. Set up is part of it, but they can't all be that badly set up, can they?
I won't get started on the cones and stuff. Suffice to say I worked for the first 12 years of my career running aerospace vibration and acoustics labs and 95% of the devices and claims are pure BS.
Thank you jerry,
For a most informative posting that was. Your central message is that not much has changed in audio signal-path circuits over the years from the first high fidelity achievement.
You will agree though, I believe, that the manufacturing tolerances have, in some cases, tightened. Capacitors are hyped the most. It is fair to say, I believe, that 2003 capacitors are more dependable and accurate than, say, those from the 1960’s. In particular, the big filter electrolytes, which through their failure (none are really expensive in themselves) often cause the wipeout of precious and irreplaceable transformers – and with them, another vintage amplifier is only a scrap source. With that said, I am amazed at the quality of those telephonic capacitors used on the Marantz model 9. I bought new ones from VAC to allow me the security of all-new electrolytic caps (before anyone sends hate-mail; yes, I did stuff the new, bias-caps inside the old cap- tubes,). But, on visual inspection, they were not leaking any electrolytic fluid (except the horizontal can – inside the chassis – that one I replaced), so I decided to attempt a reform. Two days of slow voltage increase resulted in a great surprise for me. This particular amplifier is as quiet as I could hope for……….no hum…..ho hiss………no errors. I have however; drifted from the subject, so let’s get back.
Another point, which I will be the first to concede, is that these vintage units, even the Marantz probably have too much complication. Actually I grew with it and so find such things as loudness control, low freq. elimination, tone-control, output selection (Stereo,mono,L, R, etc.) to be normal. It must be admitted though that 1. They are complicating/degrading the signal path, and 2. They are rarely used. The best modern units are able to claim “simple, pure signal flow” by eliminating a number of possible distortion problems. (They also, in the process, reduce costs and increase profits).
Bottom line, you guys have supported my gut feeling. For an old Redneck like me, the best bet is to maintain the components that I already know and love. Leave the ultra-pure audio quest to another generation. Through your young fingers will the sand sift, and the newest, latest gold/silver-wire siren-song draw its future support?
Still……….lets do be honest…. I am not yet dead. When the world re-opens its doors from this holiday turkey-eating session, I am looking into a certain BENT AUDIO MU step-up device. Canadian, so it seems. I do believe that would allow me to use the Benz Micro (tiny) output into the old tried-and-true Model 7 preamp MM phono stage. AND, will allow me to keep that VPI TNT turntable, now setting on the dining-table. Otherwise it was going up on eBay.
Best regards,
James
James,I think you're spot on in your assessment. Things like coupling caps don't need really close tolerances if the circuits are well designed, their variance should be part of the design consideration. But modern electrolytics are better in terms of life, dissipation factor, and leakage. And, yes, replacing or upgrading the caps in a vintage piece is probably just part of the regular maintenance program. Like brake linings, points, and plugs on a vintage car.
Things like close tolerance capacitors and metal film resistors were available in the 60's, but not readily. Today, it's gotten much easier to find those items. The other thing that has changed for the better is much wider use of precious metal contacts and connections. I absolutely do not believe gold and silver sound different than clean nickel or tinned contacts, but the gold contacts do not corrode and if the connection is left alone for a while, a true metallurgical bond occurs, eliminating any contact resistance. A lot of early 70's electronics (Pioneer, Sansui, Kenwood) made extensive use of wire wrap terminations in receivers and such. Over time, these connections do corrode/oxidize with the result of poor connections and degraded sound. I've soldered up literally dozens of amps, preamps and receivers that used wire wraps, and the sonic improvement is immediately noticeable. Modern gear, with very large PC boards eliminates most of the board to board connections, and they will not degrade as much or as fast. Also, I think later PC board production techniques with wave soldered boards gives a better and more consistent joint than hand soldered. Just about every 60's or 70's Harman-Kardon unit I've had has had very poor quality soldering and many have had cold solder joints or rosin joints which have degraded over time. You don't see those problems with wave soldered boards to the same degree. You also don't see them on hand wired point to point wiring on older factory gear from Marantz, McIntosh, Fairchild, Scott, Fisher, or Dyna.
Before I close, a comment on phono systems. Back when everybody used phono, the need for proper cartridge loading was well known and talked about in all the newstand magazines. Load capacitance and load resistance for most all high output MM cartridges was published. Phono sections were measured in test reports and load resistance and capacitance for many preamps and receivers were available. The low output MC cartridges were much more of a mystery. That still seems to be true. It's still very much a trial and error kind of thing; trying to match a cartridge to a MC pre-preamp or transformer. Also, because of the very low outputs, this is an area where gold plated connections, good grounds and shielding are essential.
I have noticed with speaker cables and witrh interconnects, that a new one, brought in to replace the older, sounds better, simply because it has fresh clean contacts. This is probably true of components like preamps or pre-preamps as well. A thorough treatment with Deoxit, and tightening of connections can make a surprising difference in older cables and wires, and components. I also soldered up all the internal mechanical connections in my speakers (wire nuts and slip-on connections) and it made a definite difference in the left-right match of my speaker pairs, and the overall smoothness.
So yes, I still think the basic circuits in the old stuff are as good as they need to be. But there is preventive maintenance to be done, newer caps are better, simpler is better to a point (I want one volume knob) until it affects convenience or basic functions, and phono stages are the primary area of differentiation in preamps.
I also think it's absurd to pay as much for a component as for a new car. My wife and I just returned from a 25 day cruise and tour of Australia and new Zealand. It cost as much as her 2002 Focus ZTS list price. So we can afford items in that price range. But I absolutely refuse to even consider paying that much for my hi-fi gear. First, I don't think it's necessary for sound quality; second, I think it's very poor value for money; and third, I resent being played like that; whether I can afford it or not. How can a little box with a few electronic components cost as much as a car? The car contains far more electronic components (on board computer, voltage regulator, radio, CD player, amplifiers, controls for lights, power windows, remote entry, temperature controls, etc.) plus an engine, interior, lighting, steering, etc.
Jerry
What about 2048? Then likely the Manley will be the more sought after item. Boys always want to buy the toys they could not afford in their youths when they get into their late 40's and early 50's. To me price is not the issue, sound is. Thanks to Navy training, I can get a far less expensive piece of gear, mod the heck out of it, and it will sound as good as the Manley for a fraction of the price, and better than the Marantz. If the looks are more your ball of wax, do not change due to the yells of others, for you will surely be sorry you did later! YMMVBest Regards,
Don't forget you can still possibly find a bargain on the Marantz 7.
One that needs service and / or is purchased from an estate sale or the like represents instant appreciation. This gives it a further lead financially. Their is something about engineering and aesthetics that stand the test of time. Bill
Purely an aside, but I've always felt the Marantz 7 is the most beautiful preamp ever designed by a large margin. It is the classic Doric order, the visual Parthenon of audio gear in general and of preamps in paticular.
James,
If the ultimate audio reproduction were the last word on this subject. Just hire the orchestra to live in your house to listen to. I believe that the point of diminishing returns and the beauty of vintage equipment makes this decision easy. STAY VINTAGE!
Just my opinion, Ron
Well interesting post for me,I've just gone through what you are considering. While a music lover in my earlier years ( concerts & bar bands) the demands of a career and family have short circuited much of my ability to enjoy the live music events I did in the past. In fact I had about $20k worth of audio equipment in storage for 13years up until about 2 years ago as the job and family were developed.
I'm sort of a vintage nut with the marantz 7, 8b, Citation II, quads all on hand and more. I love the look and sound of some of these vintage pieces...stuff I lusted for when I was a kid and could never afford .. Much of it past me by when I got old enough or got far too expensive. I have however given way to a modern source for vinyl. I found that within the amplifier realm vintage holds its own. With some modern upgrades to capacitors these old amps really give up very little to their similiarily powered modern counterparts. I have an old futterman amp that is not shamed by any means to similar type amps of today.
Having said all that, I put the Marantz 7, ARC SP3&8 on the shelf for a Aesthetix Io signature phono stage which is in the same price range of the pres that you mention. Is it $10,000 better than the Marantz or ARC ? well only you can justify that. It is better...for a far greater price. The Marantz is a classic that I could easily live with even with it's limitations..its also a beautiful piece.
Please don't modify it keep it stock ... Its value lies in its purest form without modifications.
I would keep the model 7 preamp. It is a great preamp and is not nearly as bad as has been suggested. It is the most sought after stereo tube preamp of all time and its circuit has been copied by many. Keep in mind that the 7 was designed for a music lover. Newer preamps are designed for the obsessive audiophile. Once you start trying to obtain the absolute best sound possible you are in trouble. You're better off just getting some good equipment (which you all ready have) and enjoying the music.
Mike
but as I see the other responses, it's obviously not. I thought people would be saying you MUST keep a vintage pre-amp or you must buy a $14,000 replacement. But so far, the responses have been way more open-minded, which is really good to hear, especially in a vintage forum. Now for my two cents worth. Every review of the Steelhead that I've ever read has been a rave, but have been written by people who have been known to have "lean" and "cold" systems. Secondly, I also agree with the other posts that $14000 could be better spent by taking the wife and going to Europe (great record shopping there); donating to charity; pay off some bills, etc. I know, I know, I'm going to get a post from a man who makes so much money as a lawyer, a doctor, or as an owner of an asbestos factory that he can afford $14000 on a pre-amp and do all those other things. Well, to answer it before it's asked, I think the donation to charity comes in there - there's a lot of people in the world this Christmas morning whose stomachs are growling from hunger. Maybe folks should get that into their Steelheads. On a brighter note, the Audio Advisor still has the Parasound NOS pre-amp for $250 and it has a real nice MM phono stage. If you take the cover off, you'll see it's loaded with designer parts like those used in much more expensive pre-amps. I have one and I use it with every kind of vintage tube amp you can think of - it sounds good and it's trouble free. And for $250, you can the leftover money for charity and a trip to Europe (in coach, though).
James:Good post! I understand the sentiment and also the importance of aesthetic appeal. I agree that the Quattro and Steelhead are probably not the most optimal choices. If for no other reason, the cost.
In any case, in the thread below you asked for some suggestions. High on both the performance and value scales are the DIY JE Labs preamps. See this link:
http://users.starpower.net/je2a3/jelphono.htm
Of course that requires you to source the parts and build the preamp (or find someone to build it for you). If you don't want to go the DIY route, you could look into the Supratek preamps (see link below). Even the least expensive model is supposed to be very good and it's available with MC phonostage.
There are others, but the above is a good start.
Gerry
Remote Control.Seriously, thanks to the posters here, I settled on an Adcom preamp to go with my restored tube amps. Wonderful, great, and I'm tickled pink.
You can add remote control to any vintage preamp or integrated amp by buying a vintage AR SRC remote control unit. This is a two piece set, one is the remote, the other is a box that you connect to the Tape Out and Tape In on your existing preamp or integrated amp. Remote has Power On/Off, Volume, Balance, and Mute controls. It even has a Sleep Timer feature, and one AC plug on the back to plug in you amp so it'll be powered on/off as well. Can also be used as a stand-alone passive preamp, too, with 3 inputs.These were a sleeper audiophile quality product. When introduced by AR in the 70s, the audio press pretty much ignored them. I think that they were uncomfortably close in sound quality to too many expensive preamps, and the magazines were probably afraid of upsetting their advertisers by telling the world about this inexpensive product. I think the retail on these was about $150.
In the 90s, Chase Technologies did it all over again with a similar unit. They goofed, though. Their unit was based on an IC that was designed for high end car audio units, and it had a non-defeatable loudness contour. Many users hated them because of the way they boosted the bass and treble. Sound City ended up with Chase Tech's remaining stock, and had trouble getting even $20 each for them. I bought three, discovered the aggravating loudness contour, and resold them.
I have had the AR unit for a year now, and I love it. Bought it on eBay for $40, I have seen them sell for as little as $25, and once in a while one sells for almost $100.
There are two of these in Completed Auctions on eBay at the moment. Just search for AR remote, both have pictures.
When the Stealhead is as old as the 7 it too may command a premium but that is not the real issue. For $14,000, I'd rather keep the 7 and take my wife on a cruise around the world. Also, if I had that money I could burn on a toy, I'd get more pleasure donating some 30 computer systems to the local grade school or something similar. At 55, while loving my music, I find less and less thrill in searcing for the holy grail of sound and more fun in rescuing vintage equipment, getting it going and giving it to retirement holes, etc for others to enjoy than sitting in isolation. Also, how many tickets to live performances could be bought for $14,000 plus the interest accruing on it in the bank?As for the car thing. I grew up in the auto parts industry and appreciate older cars. I owned amongst many others a MGB - today, give me a Miata, a Mini - today, I'd rather have a the new Mini, a 53 Vette - today no why - give me a 2004. These oldies are good for the collector/investor but for daily use for which thay were designed - the newer stuff is better, at least for me.
great points!!!!!!!!!!! money is to share....
With (what I consider unfortunate) name of "Steelhead", I would considr the resale value of that pre to be just about zero right now. How is that for prejudice? :)
In one of my posting, I also mentioned about modern pre-amp and vintage power amp combo(the vintage transformers are spectacular) but the sellers owning the vintage pre-amp would never agree.I did not own too expensive vintage pre-amp's; Eico HF 85 now torn into parts after rebuilding a power supply, a Quad 22 with restored MIT coupling cap and Elna cathode cap and sold to a happy buyer in Korea, another Mcintosh C20 quite crappy in appearance, with rebuilt power supply electrolytics and nearly all ceramics cap's replaced by Wima black box and sold to another happy German buyer. These buyers also felt that these amps were better than stocked ones.
The recent score was Fisher 80C that worked pretty well in the line stage but never got the tone/even loudness right for phono input from Technics 1210 II TT with Shure V mm cartridge. For line stage, it's pretty good especially warm/fleshy mid-range when coupled to Quad II or Dynaco III driving a pair of Tannoy Reds 12" but still not on par with my modern tube pre-amp Joule electra LA 150 wrt sound stage, clarity and dynamics. At least, the Fisher amp quenched my thirst in restoration hobby.
My Joule electra amp did not have a phono input, a separate phono amp from the same mfy would be required.
Not sure whether there are many modern tube pre-amp's with phono section and there is a review in this asylum on CAT Ultimate, a used one would be around $3500. For very low voltage mc, a head amp is still required.
I'm ambidextrous wrt modern and vintage equipment and for vinyl, I used solid state Ayre K1 with phono input. Even it claimed to work with low voltage mc cartridge, I did find the music was laid-back so I put on an Ortofon mc pre-pre amp and driving solid state Mark levinson amp with B&W speakers.
Vintage gear does offer access to the audiophile hobby without the huge cost for some items. I believe the real bargains are some of the vintage tube amps. If one has the knowledge to repair & modify as required, the bargain is even better.
I think so, that's the beauty of vintage equipment, elegant and easier to work with. When working with the equipment, I always had a dream that whoever built this might have passed away and I was in continuation with his work or spirit.Sometimes, I cannot put up with those hard to source can type electrolytic especially the Dynaco III, just acting like a bomb.
Besides, I didn't spend more than one grand for each piece of equipment. My quad II, dyanco III, Mcintosh 240 fell into such category whilst my Fisher 80C was only $400 per pair.Though not mandatory, it would be an advantage to know some simple repair when indulging in vintage equipment, problems arise from time to time, unless the electronics have been fully restored.
With advance in technology in cartridge, the phono section(MM) of vintage pre-amp has been outdated. A modern phono amp for low output mc cartridge would be required and it's an obvious course of action.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: