[John Stone]

On 10/1/09 5:24 AM, in article ,
" wrote:

On Sep 30, 7:30=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:


That too is true, but the poster who asked about reasonably-priced gear
stated quite clearly that he was not interested in going THAT route.

Point being - and the following opinion is based on observed fact as
recently as yesterday - that a great deal of moderately priced Chinese
Junque is not much better than rank-amateur build quality using
minimally-specified parts with most of the emphasis on exterior
appearance. High-gloss stained Zebra Wood or Walnut with laser-etched
markings is elegant. Too bad more effort was not spent in how the
capacitors are secured in the chassis... as one very obvious example.
Too bad that the burn-marks in the wire insulation extending right
down to the strands was not repaired as another. That this wire in the
observed case is carrying full B+ makes things even more interesting.

I'm assuming that what you observed yesterday was a single example of a
Chinese built audio product that demonstrated questionable construction
quality. But how you can extend this into a generalization of build quality
in Chinese audio products is beyond me. China has a pretty large number of
such manufacturers with widely varying quality. I personally have seen
numerous examples of beautifully constructed Chinese vacuum tube audio gear.
An example I saw at CES, was an absolute perfect "blueprinting" of an HK
Citation 1 preamp, right down to producing caps, resistors, and controls,
that looked virtually identical to the original. It's hard to imagine the
work that went into that thing.


Point being that even as lowest-common-denominator vintage equipment
such as a Dynaco SCA-35 designed in 1962 is kilometers ahead ('new'
currency used out of respect for the Chinese) in every aspect of build-
quality, serviceability and layout from its modern-day Yaquin-or-equal
EL84-based integrated amp - which, as it happens, does not have a
phono stage.

Using any Dynaco product as a standard bearer for quality is a joke. And the
SCA 35 was especially bad, even for Dynaco. First off, the huge majority of
them were built as kits. So the build quality depended strictly on the
ability of the assembler. And having serviced countless numbers of these
amps, I'd say the general build level was exactly what you would expect from
a hobbyist: lousy. Second, the active circuitry was all built on cheap
phenolic circuit boards full of high tolerance carbon resistors that fried
to a crisp in short order due to lousy heat ventilation. The whole thing got
hot as blazes, causing the boards themselves to ultimately crumble.
Cheap switches, jacks, controls, the list goes on and on. I've had one
sitting in my garage for over a year waiting for work. I don't look forward
to it.


Point being that the Yaquin-or-equal design uses a quite fussy bias
system that is not particularly user-friendly whereas the 40+ year-
older design uses a quite elegant self-bias system with a quite user-
friendly hum-pot to achieve measurably better results, again from an
simple cook-book circuit.

You say "elegant", I say "cheap", as it is exactly the same biasing scheme
as you find in a cheap 5 tube table radio. And it also compromises
performance in a non-class A amp like the Dynaco. Many of the better
integrated amps of the day using EL84's or 7189's used a proper separate
bias supply, allowing for fine tuning of the individual tube, giving lower
distortion and more power from the amp. And unlike the Dynaco, they all used
DC to heat the phono preamp tubes. I'd also point out that Dynaco only used
this bias scheme in the SCA35 and the ST35 separate power amp. All others
used the "non elegant" dc bias supply. Rating the SCA 35 at 17-1/2
watts/channel was a fantasy. And the phono stage, with its superimposed dc
scheme over an ac heater was just a cheap compromise for controlling hum. At
least the PAS preamps had proper dc heater supplies.


Point being that it is ineffibly sad that a company with the
reputation of Conrad-Johnson should engage in flim-flamming its
customers as is apparently reported here. I HAVE NOT SEEN the pre-amp
in question,

This is not the first ultra expensive "reference" preamp from C-J. It's
hard for me to understand why anyone would be suddenly so up in arms over
what is nothing more than yet another "flagship product" from a "high end"
audio product company, well known for expensive vacuum tube based products.
As for flim-flamming, what proof do you have of that? At least go to the
website and look at what they say. All I see is a relatively straightforward
explanation of what the product is. How many people do you think are going
to inadvertently fall into a trap and drop 20,000 large on a preamp they
don't need or want? Whatever happened to "caveat emptor"?

but I do know what a brown-paper-bag of very high-quality
electronic parts would cost me, what a very good blank metal chassis
would cost me, what sufficient NOS Euro/US tubes would cost me, what
the wire, ceramic mil.spec. sockets would cost me, what turreted
wiring boards would cost me, what very high-end mil.spec. controls
would cost me - and about how many hours it would take me to put the
whole shebang together. Oh, any-of-many proven, reliable, super-quiet
circuits would cost me nothing as they are readily available from
multiple sources. And even if I were paying myself $200/hour including
every task up to licking the stamp on the final credit-card bill
payment - not really but you get the picture

So you think C-J is a one man show that simply runs out of a basement
somewhere? Because that is the basis of comparison you are using here.
There's far more to the cost of a product than the cost of the parts or the
labor to build it. That said, I also personally think that $20,000 MSRP for
any preamp is way beyond ridiculous. And C-J is by no means the only one
selling such items. Just look at what Ayre is selling in a solid state
preamp for nearly the same price, which to me has even less justification.
That said, having worked for B&O for 8+ years, I can tell you on good
authority that there is a market out there for such high priced, exclusive
goods. And the people who buy them do so for reasons neither you nor I can
relate to. In any event, it's their money, and I couldn't care less how they
spend it.

As most everyone here will understand by now, I am VERY MUCH a vintage-
electronic-equipment person - the most modern stuff (excepting
speakers, of course) I have are two CD players from the early part of
the present century - and from there stepping back at least two
decades to the next layer. And I have about equal numbers of systems
in solid-state and tube and very much enjoy them both as much for
their differences as anything else. BUT - I will not allow equipment
of any nature in the house that I do not deem ready for polite society
- which includes cats, grand-children on frequent occasion from 9
weeks to 6 years, kittens, puppies and adults. So, failure-prone,
badly designed, poorly executed, potentially dangerous equipment from
whatever area of the world has no place here.

And yet you find old Dynaco tube products to be worthy of your trust? I
wouldn't leave one of those things switched on unattended for even a few
minutes for fear of burning down my house. Have you ever seen a UL label on
a Dynaco product?

High-end is a factor of how things sound - not of how much they cost.

Unfortunately, "high-end" has pretty much lost any real meaning, where audio
is concerned.