|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.126.241.148
In Reply to: Re: Here is your explanation. I own the Precision Fidelity C7 Preamp, your predecessor.... posted by bjh on December 16, 2005 at 06:47:52:
Follow Ups:
From Arthur Salvatore's Recommended Components...PRECISION FIDELITY C-7 (LATER MODELS)
I sold this model when my store opened back in 1981. How I could have forgotten it until now is something I would prefer not to dwell on, but it should have been here from the beginning. This is a "classic preamplifier", with a design far ahead of not only its own time, but even up to today. In fact, our current audio market is begging for an updated version of it.The C-7 was essentially a high quality (tube) phono-stage with two volume controls, a couple of extra (passive) inputs and no line-stage. This is "the dream design" of today's audiophiles who have phono-centric systems, like me. (My own preamplifier, the Jadis JP-80, was heavily modified to copy the basic design of the C-7.)
It's been some time since I heard one of them, but I remember their sheer natural quality and the cleanness and quietness that is consistent with no line-stage. The people who bought them, if they could live with the low-gain, loved them. (I'd love to hear a modified version, with the best caps available today. I would love even more to hear an all-out modern version of this design.)
I remember that the original C-7 had some design problems that translated into sonic problems, so look for the "A" or "Revised" versions. I don't know if the original can be converted. The C-7 should be modified with better capacitors, just like all the other preamplifiers from this era. They also require a high quality step-up device for low-output moving coils.
Recent- One reader just purchased a C-7 based on the above recommendation. His take:
"...soundwise - Wow! Lumi is taking a long rest. This thing sounds a bit dark (like most passives in my system, probably the amp), but it is so dynamic, immediate, transparent, and not greasy or euphonic or juicy. I'd venture to say it is rather accurate. Of all medium priced preamps that I've tried, and I've had many, including many Bruce Moore designs, this one is by far the best sounding, with great MM phono. It beats Magus by a wide margin and phono is a lot quieter (uses two solid state regulators). Thanks for a great suggestion..."
Bottom Line- If I was on "a strict budget" for a preamplifier, and with the choice of ANY model ever made, the C-7 (modified) would be my first choice.
I have posted the url on a response to Garth down below.I have the TAS article somewhere, but then again I am not sure I will ever be able to find it. He compared the PF C7 to the CAT tube preamp which at the time was considered the top of Class A. I believe this review was authored by Harry Pearson.
Question was circuit specific.Answer was a non-sequitur about something else entirely.
Now you cite some fluff-work from a couple of the major cranks in audio to support your non-sequitur.
Brilliant.
Admit it, you are out of your comfort zone on this matter.I never gave technical advice, just a historical perspective of the circuit design.
More than you provided by the way.
Please take the year off now, no one wants to hear your opinion any more.
views on Salvatore very far from universal. That said, you've every right to your opinion of course.However, I must admit that the exchanges here seem to have little bearing on proposed relationship between the C-7 and Jolida JD9. Could you comment on that, as a JD9 owner I'm interested in the connection.
You may agree with Salvatore or disagree with him, his opinion is simply a starting point for research.Anthony Cordesman, Harry Pearson and others also commented on the C7 and C7A designs, I just did not have their reviews handy last night.
Basically, Precision Fidelity was among the early designers to utilize hybrid technology for amps and preamps. The goal was to produce the best overall sound quality in the most natural sense.
Several of the current phono designs use just a single tube, with each section of the tube feeding the two channels.
I have heard great things about the Jadis, and I hope it brings you years of enjoyment.
That's it! Well let me remind you that in the post where you implied a relationship between the C7 and JD9 you also wrote ... "Back in the day, when CAT and Audio Research were duking it out for the best vinyl sections on earth, a little company called Precision Fidelity released the C7 and C7A preamps...".Well I don't know when the C7 was released relative to ARC SP9 but I can tell you most definitively that the SP9 is also a hybrid design (I owned a SP9 MK II for almost a decade), the first gain stage in the phono section is SS (FET based I believe), the second tube based.
So much for the strength of the relationship if the fact that they're both hybrid designs is *it*.
I wonder how many poor souls have actually wasted their hard-earned dough on "T4's" "expert" advice.The archives are beginning to burst at the seams with erroneous assumptions, useless tweaks, and bald-faced self-promotion that would make that fitness infomercial guy with the blonde ponytail blush.
Cmon, what's advice, really, but telling everybody else what your imagination tells you ?
And then swearing up and down you've got pretty serious experience to back it up ??(and then shutting up real quick if they figure it out)
Let's approach this without those nagging doubts presented by so-called "reality" .... okey dokey ?
You would remember that I have told everyone here at the asylum that I have no agenda, I am a musician first and an audiophile second. I have a DIY kind of personality and I love to tweak.So if I enjoy some very well designed and engineered vintage stuff, why degrade me personally?
I don't care what you own, as long as you like it FINE.
I buy things that have value, tweakability, and have the ability to sound like real live music.
When someone has a serious question about how a circuit works,try letting your imagination rest unless you have a serious, evidence-based answer .......
Do not try and imagineer an answer to a technical question -----
---just on the off-chance that someone else might really know.
Your answer here displayed a spectacular ignorance of the circuit, and the specifics at hand.
Grow up and become an adult.
Or give us another adolescent reply.
Just curious!
...a small fraction of those who were suckered into buying that squeaky little AT OC9 POS you used to tout ad nauseum.
Poor soles! Oh, well! Such is life!
.
.
Hey Fretless, I've got a challenge for you. I'll trade you my DRT XV-1 for your XX-2. I'll even send you my XV-1 first and you can mount it and listen to it. If you like it, simply send me your XX-2 for an even trade. If you don't like it, send it back to me. If you have any balls, send me your mailing address in email and I'll send you my XV-1 immediately.
Afterwards, when we're all done laughing our asses off.
How many hours do you think it has on it?
Lets take this off-line: Mail sent.
I received your email. It does not have your name or mailing address. It only asks me how many hours I have on my XV-1. I can tell you that I have way, way less hours on my XV-1 than what you claim to have on your XX-2.I can not send my cartridge to someone named Fretless with no mailing address. Either you have the balls to send me your name and address or you don't. Personally, I think you are totally full of bullshit. But, if you have any balls and want to trade an almost new XV-1 for a much more used XX-2, simply send me your name and address and I will mail my cartridge to you. It seems to me that you have nothing to lose but your identity.
If you want to take this off-line, simply send me your information or else quit.
Fretless and JD just like to criticize others opinions and recommendations. Then they try to impune our experience and our motives.
I'll send you my address.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: