Preamp under a grand
April 30, 2004
Hi Wes,
I have a quick request for you. Could you give me some
advice/options for a sub-$1000 tube preamp? I do not have a dealer in my area that even
sells tube gear, so I really won't do much in the way of auditioning. Also, would you
recommend buying something used like a tube preamp over at Audiogon.com, and if so
consider that parameter in the sub-$1000 list? Thanks for your help!
Aric
For under a grand, your best bet is previously owned.
I'd look for something like a Conrad-Johnson PV-10 or an Audio Research SP-9 -- both
companies have superb service departments that will bring the units up to spec (or beyond
original spec) for a very reasonable fee.
Neither of these units is all that new, but you're probably
not looking for "new and improved," but rather "old and proven" if
you're looking for a glass-bottle preamp. Both of 'em are models that have logged a lot of
miles -- and both hold up really well.
If you're handy with a soldering iron and can read a
schematic, check out Audio Electronics AE-1 kit, which is only around $400 and is really,
really impressive -- or you could buy an assembled AE-1 DJH Signature model for $1200,
with improved parts (and no soldering).
Wilson vs. B&W
April 28, 2004
Hi Wes,
I don't want to waste your time, so I will get right to the
point. I'm not an audiophile, but I am looking at purchasing new speakers somewhere
between $10,000 and $15,000. I seem to have it narrowed down to the Wilson Audio Sophia
and B&W Nautilus 800. I think I have noticed the following differences.
The Wilson speakers are easier to drive, don't go quite as
deep in the bass, and seem to be better at distinguishing between various
instruments when things get complex. Bass guitar is a little easier to follow, and human
voice is not as full, same with piano. I'm not sure, but they are maybe easier to listen
to for a long time, but may be "lean" in the long run. They seem to be a little
more contemporary-looking, and could be harder to integrate with my traditional furniture.
The B&W speakers requires more amp, go quite deep, and
are very full/smooth sounding. Voice is more full and bass lines are harder to follow;
when things get a bit complex, it might be harder to distinguish between instruments. They
are very large, but the wood cabinet may be easier to integrate into my room. They may be
a bit harder to listen to at first, but may be better in the long run. Not sure.
Obviously, the room and electronics will impact my choice.
Can you tell me what difference you may have heard, or what things to consider? What about
quality? Paper cones versus Kevlar drivers?
Any comments would be greatly appreciated as this is a huge
purchase for me.
Rick
It doesn't sound to me as if you need much sorting out
-- if you're hearing the differences you've described, you're ready for your own advice
column. And wowsa -- I guess it is a big purchase!
I'd say that some of the "details" may help you
decide. First, the power question I suspect that properly powering the 800s so that the
bass lines are easier to distinguish (because I suspect that is a power issue) is going to
add substantially to the price of the complete package. That's not a reason not to buy the
800s if you prefer them -- but it's something you should know.
Ask you dealer to put a very powerful amp on them --
something in the 300–500Wpc territory.
The Sophias do have a very modern look, but ask your dealer
to show you the different colors available. Wilson has a ton of paint choices and you'll
be amazed how easily some of them will integrate into your room -- no matter what its
décor might be.
My final comment is that the size of your room will have a
very large role in the choice you make. The Sophias can perform very close to their full
potential in even quite modest-sized rooms, whereas, in my experience, the B&Ws really
benefit from open space around them (and you). In a smaller room, I'd opt for the Sophias.
But, as you point out, this is a big investment, and you're
the only arbiter who matters, so make sure you go with the one that gives you goosebumps.
iPod adjustment
April 26, 2004
Wes,
I recently purchased a 20GB iPod and have a pair of
Etymotic ER-4P headphones on the way. How do you set the iPod to a high-resolution bit
rate as recommended in your column?
Brad
Open iTunes and pull down the menus under the bold
iTunes on the upper left of the screen. Click Preferences and then click Importing.
The highest-quality choices are the uncompressed ones -- either WAV or AIFF -- but, of
course, you're trading storage capacity for sound quality.
Considering how quickly iTunes allows you to swap playlists
in and out of your iPod, I don't think that's such a big deal. Even using AIFF, 20GB ought
to give you about 1500 songs.
Jeff Rowland phono stage
April 23, 2004
Hi Wes,
I wanted to ask your opinion concerning a purchase decision
I made a while back, but first a bit of lead-in might be appropriate. I marked the ending
of almost 30 years at company "X" by splurging (for me anyway) and buying a Jeff
Rowland Concentra II integrated and then a Basis 1400 turntable with Vector tonearm and
Clearaudio Sigma Wood cartridge. I was using an old Sonic Frontiers phono preamp, but it
was starting to give me problems even after re-tubing, so I started looking around for a
replacement. Being a "keep it simple" person, I really liked the idea of getting
the phono cards for my Concentra II -- which I did for $600.
When the cards arrived I was amazed at how small they were.
Roughly 1" x 2" and plugged into sockets on the rear panel at one input. I
understand that any standalone unit would also need power circuits and thus have more
elements, but where do you think these Jeff Rowland cards compare to other phono preamps
in the $1000-$2000 range? And would I find similar cards in other high-end gear that
already has a phono option on board (i.e., is that all that's really needed to
bridge the gap between a line input and a phono input)?
BTW, I can't complain about the performance. I'm just
wondering.
Dave
First, let me say that I envy you. Not only do you get
to live with the Concentra and the Basis, but you don't have to switch 'em out of your
system for long periods of time in order to play around with other components. Can I have your
job?
There are other companies that use card-based
architecture, but I suspect your question has as much to do with the card's small size as
anything else. Don't confuse its smallness with simplicity -- well, it is simple,
because that's a quality Jeff Rowland values, but it isn't any simpler than it needs to
be.
I suspect that Rowland uses surface-mount components in
the phono card (a brief survey of the web-based materials on the Concentra couldn't
confirm this, so take it at face value) -- and that's a good thing because it means that
the devices can be placed closer to one another, which keeps things quiet. That's a good
thing in a phono preamplifier because you're dealing with very small signals, so noise is
your enemy.
Jeff Rowland's designs have always been quiet and
relatively impervious to noise (as you might imagine when you look at the lengths he goes
to in building his chassis out of bulk stock).
So the answer is, yes, there are other designs that put
phono preamplifiers on cards that can be mounted directly to the preamp inputs, but none
that do it the way Rowland Research does. It's sui generis.
And I believe you when you say you're not complaining
about the performance!
EQing
April 21, 2004
Wes,
I am curious about how you feel about adding an equalizer
to a stereo-only playback system. I own two stereo systems in which I switch components
around with from time to time. My amps are an Audio Refinement Complete and a Creek 5250
SER with an A 42 amp added for biamping. My speakers are Triangle Titus XSes and Monitor
Audio Silver 3is and a pair of homebuilt 14-liter sealed enclosures with Morel MW-164s,
Morel neodymium-magnet tweeters, and Leap-designed crossovers. Wires are Mapleshade,
AudioQuest, MIT, and Kimber. Subs are Energy XL-8 and a Monitor Audio FB-110. Source
components are Pioneer Elite PD-65, and Rega P-3 with Blue Point Special.
In and out and around they go. Speakers in, amps out. Wires
in, wires out. And lastly a 30-band Alesis 1/3-octave powered EQ goes in when I want to
fine-tune things even more. I've commented about using an EQ to many a salesperson at
local hi-fi shops and they invariably look at me like I've ruined everything by even
mentioning it. I like what it does, and I really don't hear any degradation in the sound
quality. In your opinion, is there some degradation? It takes a long while for me to hear
the differences in adding or subtracting volume at any 1/3-octave frequency, and setting
things up right, so it's not like I'm tweaking indiscriminately. I know my listening rooms
are horrid, and the EQ seems to bring a balance and coherence to the proceedings.
Purist attitudes apart, I would be interested to hear your
comments about active equalization in a stereo-only system.
John Martin
This is one of those questions that borders on True
Religion. No matter how logically you argue your position, logic won't budge faith.
(Please don't interpret this as a criticism of religion -- I respect faith, but if logic
can overcome it, it ain't faith, in my opinion.)
Back in the early days of high-end audio, tone controls
tended to be crude controls that frequently incorporated really crappy potentiometers that
degraded the sound by their simple presence in the circuit. So classy companies like Audio
Research and Conrad-Johnson built preamps that didn't have tone controls -- and that
eventually became one of the marks of a "real" high-end component: no tone
controls.
It didn't mean that tone controls were evil, simply that
poorly made controls distorted the sound more than they "corrected" it. Some
companies -- such as Quad -- made preamplifiers that had useful tone controls that were
awfully nice to use.
As for equalizers, most people have never experienced a
parametric equalizer that allows its user to affect only a narrow band of sound at a
specific frequency. These can be quite useful -- although even they don't solve acoustic
shortcomings such as a bad-sounding room.
The EQs most people are familiar with are crude graphic
equalizers that employ a brute-force solution to problems that call for a scalpel. Your
Alesis is a graphic equalizer, but one a far cry from those five-band "blunders"
that the salesmen are probably thinking of.
If you like it and enjoy playing around with it, who are
they to roll their eyes at your choice?
However, don't give up on fixing your rooms with
treatment/placement experimentation. The better you can make your room sound, the more
your Alesis can be used to tweak your sound rather than correct it.
Tandberg
April 19, 2004
Hello,
I have come across a gentleman selling a pair of Tandberg
3009A monoblocks with a Tandberg 3018A preamp. He also has available the Tandberg 3016A
amplifier. I know the 3016A has more power, but I wanted to know if the monoblocks would
indeed sound better in terms of soundstaging and other areas.
The monoblocks are rated at 180W and the 3016A is rated at
220Wpc. I believe the 3016A runs quite a bit hotter -- would this be worse for
reliability? He has informed me that he also has Tandberg 3015A reference CD player
available. Have you ever listened to one? I wish I could go and audition the equipment,
but he is not in the same town. Please help. He is the original owner of all the equipment
and has all the literature and boxes that came with the units.
Francesco
Hi,
Do you know where I can buy a used Tandberg 3012 amplifier?
I have one, but it is broken.
Armando
Tandberg seems to be this week's company of the
moment, so I thought I'd answer both of your questions together. As it so happens,
Armando, I do know of a newly refurbed previously owned 3012. Contact the Soundsmith at dm1@edumpster.com.
Francesco, your question is a tad harder to answer.
Tandberg made good gear and I've always really hankered after a TD 20A reel-to-reel -- not
to mention a 3011 tuner. I loved those products.
But Tandberg went bankrupt -- not even making it into
this century. As good as those products are, I worry about maintaining them. As Armando's
experience so vividly shows, even products that don't have moving parts -- like amplifiers
-- can wear out or break down. And Tandberg used MOSFETs that, for all of their sweet,
glorious sound, are extremely hard to come by these days -- and are likely to become even
rarer.
That doesn't mean that I don't think you should buy
those amps, but you must know what you're getting into. If you love the way they
sound and can keep 'em alive (or are willing to pay somebody else to), you should buy
them, assuming the price is right.
As to whether or not monoblocks offer better stereo
separation than a stereo amp the answer is yes, as a rule. As for your question about
running hot, most electronics are happier if they run cooler, so cooler probably does mean
longer lived -- but not always.
Again, let me urge you to go for the passion, if you
really, really want those amps. If you suspect they may be more trouble than they're
worth, you're probably making a mistake if you do. Once again, it all comes down to what
floats your boat -- the rest of us are merely spectators.
Happy with Focus Audio and Musical Fidelity
April 16, 2004
Dear Mr. Phillips,
I recently, after 20 years of endless search and upgrading,
settled down with a Musical Fidelity Tri-Vista 300 integrated amp and matching Tri-Vista
SACD/CD player. I found these electronics to suit my personal tastes in music, which
ranges from the subtlety of classical to the soul of blues.
I first listened to the Tri-Vista pair with the very
imposing B&W 800 speakers. Somewhere, somehow, I failed to connect with these speakers
-- although I felt the Tri-Vistas indeed acquitted themselves well during the audition. To
make a long story short, the sales agent suggested we try Cardas Golden Cross speaker
cables and matching interconnects. By golly, the sound on the B&Ws improved by leaps
and bounds!
The experience led me to seek out a speaker manufacturer
who uses Cardas wiring inside their products. My search led me to purchase a pair of Focus
Audio FS-888s. My audiophile life after acquiring this system has been the happiest! Then
I came upon your
review on the FS-888, and felt very elated you compared the speakers with your
reference Wilson Audio Sophias. May I ask your very candid appraisal on how the system
performed using the associated equipment -- Musical Fidelity 300 integrated amp and
Tri-Vista SACD in your evaluation?
Regardless of whatever opinion you may have, please be rest
assured that seppuku would not be my option should you feel contrary to the bliss I
am currently undergoing.
Dr. Lorenzo
I loved the Focus FS-888/Tri-Vista combination. The
"subtlety of classical music to the soul of blues" -- I couldn't have put it any
better myself.
Speakers are engineering (and it's a very important part,
too), but it also takes a lot of art to make a great speaker. The B&W 800s are a great
loudspeaker, but you're under no obligation to love 'em.
I happened to fall in love more than just a little with the
FS-888s -- it sounds as if you did as well. I could live with them quite happily,
especially in concert with the Tri-Vistas. I'd say you're a lucky man -- to have found
something you like so much and for being smart enough to seize it when it came your way.
Wilson Audio, Sonus Faber or Dynaudio?
April 15, 2004
Dear Wes,
I truly need your help here. I'm looking for speakers to
replace my Vandersteen 2CE Signatures. I've narrowed the list to the following, all of
which I've already heard:
Wilson Audio Sophia
Sonus Faber Amati
Dynaudio C4
Which one of them would you recommend considering that my
room dimensions are 12' x 13' and my plan is to move the system later on to a larger room
(15' x 20').
I can afford each one of them, so money is no consideration
here and I'm willing to adjust all other components to the new speaker.
Which one would be ultimately best?
Mike
Those are all very fine speakers, but they are also all
quite different -- how on earth did your short list end up as those three? Never mind --
I'm like that, too. Better strong passion that foolish consistency!
In the short term, I suspect the Sophias will mesh best
with your small room. The Sonus Fabers and Dynaudios need a lot more room behind them --
and you -- to develop their sound. And, while you are willing to and can afford to change
all of your components to best match your speakers, the Sophias won't make you do so, as
David Wilson demonstrated at CES 2004. They'll reflect the improvements in your chain, but
they don't necessarily force them on you.
But that's all begging the question. There is no
"ultimate" best loudspeaker except the one (well, two) that makes you grin from
ear to ear -- the one that makes "practical" considerations beside the point.
When you've just got to have a pair of speakers, even if they don't fit in your room, your
budget, your décor -- well, that's the speaker for you.
You've chosen three extremely fine speakers -- now make
sure one of them is the one you can't live without. Then you can make 'em work in your
room(s).
Infinity or Shahinian?
April 12, 2004
Dear Wes,
I'm a young lad of 25 and have started on the upgrade path.
Currently I have an Audiolab 8000C preamp, Yamaha MX1 power amp, a Linn
LP-12/Ittok/Goldring analog rig, and a basic Yamaha CD player. I live quite far from a
town, let alone a decent hi-fi listening environment -- especially for speakers. Most
places nearby have gotten rid of their listening rooms.
So, resorting to eBay and thorough research, I purchased a
pair of Infinity Renaissance 80 speakers for £390, including shipping -- not a bad deal,
since they're in excellent condition.
The dilemma: There was a set of speakers on eBay that I
thought had eluded me and have since been offered back through a private sale -- an old
set (early '80s) of Shahinian Obelisks. This certain lovely German fraüline wants £390,
including shipping to UK. Is this worth it? I know I'd have to upgrade the drive units to
the latest SEAS units (I can do this myself, I think) and buy the latest crossovers, which
would cost around £200. I've read great reviews of the Obelisks and wondered how they
compared to my Infinity speakers, which are power gluttons! The Infinity speakers have (to
my ears) fantastically clear treble and mids from the ribbon drive units and the MX1 power
amp provides enough juice to make the bass unit "do a jig" satisfactorily.
Would be great to hear your point of view as I'm just
starting out and need to stop upgrading before my girlfriend thinks I'm having an affair
with the hi-fi shop. Any advice is appreciated!
Richard
You may indeed be a "young lad," but it sounds
like you've got the hi-fi bug -- and that's for life.
You ask a hard question -- one made more difficult by the
distance between you and the fraüline. I'm a sucker for the Shahinians. I think they're
very musical and natural.
But they sound very different from the Infinity speakers,
which emphasize the top end quite a bit more than the Obelisks. If you like the
Renaissance 80s for their hihg-frequency clarity, the Shahinians might sound somewhat dull
to you. Or maybe not -- your inability to hear them before buying them is not an
inconsiderable problem.
Nor do I know how comfortable you are at tackling the
upgrade part of the project. If you're good with a soldering iron and screwdriver, it may
be another part of the proposition that lends it appeal. A lot of audiophiles really love
taking on a fixer-upper.
These are questions you'll have to answer before
proceeding. Stick with speakers you like or take a chance on a pair you think you might
love? It's a hard call for me to make.
But it does come with the territory. Welcome aboard, matey.
It's a pirate's life for me -- I mean, audiophile's!
Good tuners
April 8, 2004
Hi Wes,
I would appreciate your recommendation on tuners that have
excellent AM and FM performance.
Tom
Like you, I'm a little leery of the AM performance of
just about all contemporary tuners. I haven't really found any that do it for me. Of
course, part of that is that radio stations now routinely compress their signals to the
point where they all sound like crap and.... Oh, sorry -- I'm going into my cranky-old-man
rant again.
The best advice I can give is to buy a tuner for its FM
performance and get a good table radio for AM -- I have a few of the Kloss Model Ones
around the house. I also have a 20-year-old Proton, which is what I listen to Yankees
games on. Since AM has been around for so many decades, there are a ton of good used AM
radios out there -- and they're generally cheap.
If money's no object, consider a real classic like one of these.
Digital or analog with Tact?
April 6, 2004
Dear Wes,
I have a Tact RCS 2.0 AA. I'm going to be using a Classé
CDP-10 CD player. Should I connect with the balanced outputs from the Classé into the
Tact's analog inputs, or should I go the digital way (i.e., digital out from the
Classé into the digital input on the Tact)?
Willem
I'm not sure the relevant question is which is better,
but which you prefer. In terms of data integrity, the answer is simple: using the
Classé's digital out and the Tact's digital input should prevent any signal loss, which
can occur in analog connections, even balanced ones.
But one reason for purchasing the CDP-10 is that you
like the way its DAC sounds. You may or may not prefer the sound of the Tact's DAC.
Of course, on the other hand, the main reason for
purchasing the Tact is its room-correction system, which operates in the digital domain.
That would mean that you'd be converting the digital signal to analog in the Classé,
transmitting it to the Tact where it would be converted back to digital, processed, and
then converted back to analog. That extra D-to-A/A-to-D conversion is a sticking point.
Theoretically, you'd be best off keeping everything in
the digital domain until the Tact does its final processing. That doesn't necessarily mean
that's what you'll prefer, so I'd try it both ways and see what sounds best to you.
|
