|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
61.88.234.97
In Reply to: Quicksilver Phono Stage - How good after tube rolling? posted by mitch s. on May 1, 2007 at 18:23:14:
Having modded a couple of Quicksilver amps for a friend and looked at the designs of some of the rest of their stuff I would not counsel buying any of their products.Maybe go with HH's suggestion - I'm not familiar with Wright Sound but can vouchsafe for Hagtech. All of Jim Hagerman's stuff is extremely well designed.
Follow Ups:
Superb reliability--not a single problem with full function pre-amp, 6 tube 5417 amps or silver monos. Amps were used with moderately low impedance speakers, as well (Magnepan and MartinLogan). Musical as could be.
You owe it to owners and the manufacturer to be specific. I'm sure you can be specific as stated that you "modified" some QS gear and "looked at" others. Maybe that makes you a better designer than Mike Sanders.
A blanket statement like your advising someone to avoid QS gear without being specific as to why is nothing more than a cheap shot.
Prove me wrong.
The work to which I was referring was done some time ago and I don't have my notebooks with me at the moment so I can't give specific details.I must have been in a very negative mood yesterday, I do not normally criticise a designers efforts. Given this and the fact that I cannot offer the proof you seek, you may discount my "cheap shot". If you have had good experience with QS gear, good luck to you.
I would point out that I specifically said "I would not counsel buying" in the context of Henry's advice regarding alternatives. I do not resile from my opinion that given a choice between Quicksilver and Hagtech I would advise buying the Hagtech product. I may or may not be a "better designer" than Mike Sanders but there is no doubt in my mind that Jim Hagerman is.
for not recommending QS gear, specifically his observation about reliability vs. design.
We all have opinions and as long as presented as such, should be considered, not put down as a cheap shot. Just my opinion, though.
Henry
He did not give his reasons at all. He advised not to buy Quicksilver in a blanket statement and failed to be specific as to why the poster should not buy it.
What exactly did he discover while modding and examining QS gear? Why are the designs flawed, etc.? What does he know that the designer(s) of QS gear do not?
Still waiting for the Audio Guru to reply and until he does, it is a cheap shot regardless that he also dislikes ARC gear.
hurt someone's feelings.
Henry
Focus on my message not on what I own. I could not care less if someone dislikes my choices. MK publicly advised against buying QS gear. That's my point.
His opinion is ok. But unsubstanciated dismissal of a company's products to 43,000 people (reportedly the Asylum population, but that could be wrong) without details is wrong and out of character for MK.
If you were a Quicksilver employee you would see it differently.
and we all have a right to them and express them.
Henry
nt
why you don't like the QS. It was always been a reliable and basic unit, and while it is made in the US, their prices have been relatively very modest. Just my opinion, of course, but I am always open to other opinions.
Stu,this is just my opinion; when I work on a piece of equipment I feel that I get a sense of what the designer was thinking - there's a "footprint" left on the design, if you will.
I was somewhat underwhelmed by the thinking that went into the Quicksilver units I modified. The reason I modified them was that they had failed in service and I felt that that failure was due to design issues more than anything else. I changed the design to one which ran somewhat more conservatively.
Based on limited experience, I would not advise anyone to buy them. Again, this is my opinion and nothing more should be read into this. Hey, I don't even like Audio Research gear, everyone else seems to love it.
I've owned my pair of Quicksilver 8417 amps since 1992 without a single issue. As long as the amps are used to drive suitable loads they have behaved well (in marked contrasts to some other tube/hybrid designs of US origin which have had stability issues, at least in my hands).
Yeah, Mike sticks to the basics, but that's why I find his designs interesting. No fancy regulation, just plain ol' plain Jane layouts with very basic designs. No blacked out transistors like ARC. Simple, and easy to mod, actually, since they are so basic. His first full function preamp was a bit more ambitious, with a PS that seemed more suitable for a power amp.Well, I guess with everything in life, to each their own. I would definitely agree with you in that every designer has his particular 'mark' on every product they design.
oh i dont know, I dont like audio research gear as a rule at all. I had the sp-14 line stage for a long time and it was the sleeper i thought, because it was a fet line stage with a tube phono. After a few mods it was a really good value. But I have generally foiund a lot of their stuff to be soft in the bass when it's tube design and tizzy in the highs when it's not. Basically the thing that bugs me about them is that the stuff cost a lot of money, but of course audio stuff usually gets so devalued that some of it is a bargain by now.
Mark,
Check your e-mail. I sent one.
I'm on webmail which is very flaky. Nothing from you has arrived.I'll be home tomorrow night (my time) so I'll check then.
Works for me.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: