Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

I just received a new tubed preamp which I will not identify (don't want to
get anyone in trouble) except to say that the maker has a hyphenated name (no
I didn't buy it. It was loaned). I don't like to think that people in this
business are purposely ripping the public off, but after looking this thing
over, I think somebody is having an costly joke at the (extreme) expense of
the audiophile community. This particular preamp is comprised of two 6922s
(6DJ8/ECC88) feeding a MOSFET buffer stage to give it a low output impedance.
The unit is divided into two sections, a digital section which uses a
microprocessor (or microcontroller) to handle the remote controllable
switching (5 high-level inputs) volume and balance duties, and of course, the
all important audio section. The audio section is very simple, and very
straightforward. If one would forego the fancy computer control section, one
could copy this circuit, using the highest quality components for less than
$300. There is virtually nothing in it. If there are any analog electronics
engineers reading this (especially those who are familiar with both tubes and
solid-state circuitry, you can probably envision this circuit in your head -
and you'd be right.

Build quality is also so-so (the remote, carved from a single block of
anodized aluminum is nicely made, though). It has a nicely made fascia with
machined plexiglass Art-Deco "covers" over the two tubes (very Flash Gordon).
The front panel is a 1/4" thick piece of gold anodized aluminum, not unlike
similar finishes used on entry-level "high-end" pieces since the old Dynaco
days. The cover is a bent piece of steel very much like that which covers a
$200 Japanese receiver. The back apron sports some nice single mounting hole
WBT style gold RCAs, but is nothing out of the ordinary. What I have
described to you is a preamp that could be built by any manufacturer of
high-end tube equipment and sold for less that $2000 retail. It's that simple
and that ordinary. But here's the reason why I have gone to all of the
trouble to describe this pre-amp to you. It retails for - sit down for this
- TWENTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS! More than many new cars. I haven't actually
listened to it yet, but for that price it would have to be head and shoulders
above anything that I can think of and it won't be, I suspect. Oh, it will be
competent and will likely perform well, but so do many other pre-amps for a
third this one's asking price and most of them look like they cost the money.
This one looks like a preamp costing ONE TENTH the price or less.

Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be
getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this
thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you
understand. 8^)
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] pfjw@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 380
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Sep 24, 8:54=A0am, Sonnova wrote:

Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be
getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this
thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you
understand. 8^)


Who are you calling a 'gentleman'?

That being written, it is a sad, brutal fact that there are but so
many audio circuits and but so many sorts of components to make into
those circuits.

In my opinion, there is no audio component on the face of the earth
with the remote, very distantly remote possible exception of speakers
that justifies a real-world cost of more than $2,000 or so in 2009 US
dollars - and even that is a stretch.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
H Davis H Davis is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
I just received a new tubed preamp which I will not identify (don't want to
get anyone in trouble) except to say that the maker has a hyphenated name
(no
I didn't buy it. It was loaned). I don't like to think that people in this
business are purposely ripping the public off, but after looking this
thing
over, I think somebody is having an costly joke at the (extreme) expense
of
the audiophile community. This particular preamp is comprised of two 6922s
(6DJ8/ECC88) feeding a MOSFET buffer stage to give it a low output
impedance.
The unit is divided into two sections, a digital section which uses a
microprocessor (or microcontroller) to handle the remote controllable
switching (5 high-level inputs) volume and balance duties, and of course,
the
all important audio section. The audio section is very simple, and very
straightforward. If one would forego the fancy computer control section,
one
could copy this circuit, using the highest quality components for less
than
$300. There is virtually nothing in it. If there are any analog
electronics
engineers reading this (especially those who are familiar with both tubes
and
solid-state circuitry, you can probably envision this circuit in your
head -
and you'd be right.


I am just such an engineer, and I am not surprised. I've seen alot of junk
like this on sale in various snob-appeal retail stores.

Build quality is also so-so (the remote, carved from a single block of
anodized aluminum is nicely made, though). It has a nicely made fascia
with
machined plexiglass Art-Deco "covers" over the two tubes (very Flash
Gordon).
The front panel is a 1/4" thick piece of gold anodized aluminum, not
unlike
similar finishes used on entry-level "high-end" pieces since the old
Dynaco
days. The cover is a bent piece of steel very much like that which covers
a
$200 Japanese receiver. The back apron sports some nice single mounting
hole
WBT style gold RCAs, but is nothing out of the ordinary. What I have
described to you is a preamp that could be built by any manufacturer of
high-end tube equipment and sold for less that $2000 retail. It's that
simple
and that ordinary. But here's the reason why I have gone to all of the
trouble to describe this pre-amp to you. It retails for - sit down for
this
- TWENTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS! More than many new cars. I haven't actually
listened to it yet, but for that price it would have to be head and
shoulders
above anything that I can think of and it won't be, I suspect. Oh, it will
be
competent and will likely perform well, but so do many other pre-amps for
a
third this one's asking price and most of them look like they cost the
money.
This one looks like a preamp costing ONE TENTH the price or less.

Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be
getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this
thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you
understand. 8^)


As long as there are gullible audio hobbyists with alot more money that
technical knowledge, these scams will continue. The makers know they won't
sell many of these, but selling only a few will give them a substantial
profit. As it has vacuum tubes in the signal chain, I wouldn't install the
thing in my system even if it were given to me as a gift!

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:17:06 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 24, 8:54=A0am, Sonnova wrote:

Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be
getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this
thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you
understand. 8^)


Who are you calling a 'gentleman'?

That being written, it is a sad, brutal fact that there are but so
many audio circuits and but so many sorts of components to make into
those circuits.

In my opinion, there is no audio component on the face of the earth
with the remote, very distantly remote possible exception of speakers
that justifies a real-world cost of more than $2,000 or so in 2009 US
dollars - and even that is a stretch.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


Well, as for the "gentlemen" part, I must admit that I was giving you all the
benefit of the doubt. 8^)

But I agree with your point. This preamp is OUTRAGEOUSLY PRICED. There is
simply NO way anyone could justify this amount of money for this thing. I've
listened to it today, and it has no bad traits that I can detect and sounds
fine. In fact. I don't notice (yet) any difference between it and my AR SP11
Mk III which is almost 20 years old! One thing that is puzzling though.
According to the user's manual, which I was perusing late last night, the
preamp INVERTs the signal! Now I know that it has an odd number of active
stages (three per channel: two tube gain stages and one MOSFET buffer stage),
but still, I would think that they could have opted for a drain-follower on
the MOSFET and gotten an even lower output impedance (the reason given for
the MOSFET buffer in the first place) without inverting the signal.
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:54:43 -0700, H Davis wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...


[quoted text deleted -- deb]

Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be
getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this
thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you
understand. 8^)


As long as there are gullible audio hobbyists with alot more money that
technical knowledge, these scams will continue. The makers know they won't
sell many of these, but selling only a few will give them a substantial
profit. As it has vacuum tubes in the signal chain, I wouldn't install the
thing in my system even if it were given to me as a gift!


I have nothing against vacuum tubes. In fact my reference pre-amp is an Audio
Research SP11 MKIII and my power amps are VTL 140 monoblocks. My system
sounds GREAT. Tubes and transistors are a means to an end. prejudice against
either merely limits choices in my humble opinion.



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Alan N Alan N is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

I believe that particular model was a LIMITED EDITION release, hence even
higher "premium" pricing on top of the usual "pricey" C-J gear. In todays
economy, the "street prices" for C-J, as well as other "high-end" gear, is
substantially less than "retail." C-J gear is typically highly rated by
critics and consumers alike, and the "cost" of designing, marketing,
distributing, and warranting electronics is a LOT more than the cost of the
components. As long as there is a "market" for extravagant audio gear,
there will be manufacturers happy to oblige!

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
I just received a new tubed preamp which I will not identify (don't want to
get anyone in trouble) except to say that the maker has a hyphenated name
(no
I didn't buy it. It was loaned). I don't like to think that people in this
business are purposely ripping the public off, but after looking this
thing
over, I think somebody is having an costly joke at the (extreme) expense
of
the audiophile community. This particular preamp is comprised of two 6922s
(6DJ8/ECC88) feeding a MOSFET buffer stage to give it a low output
impedance.
The unit is divided into two sections, a digital section which uses a
microprocessor (or microcontroller) to handle the remote controllable
switching (5 high-level inputs) volume and balance duties, and of course,
the
all important audio section. The audio section is very simple, and very
straightforward. If one would forego the fancy computer control section,
one
could copy this circuit, using the highest quality components for less
than
$300. There is virtually nothing in it. If there are any analog
electronics
engineers reading this (especially those who are familiar with both tubes
and
solid-state circuitry, you can probably envision this circuit in your
head -
and you'd be right.

Build quality is also so-so (the remote, carved from a single block of
anodized aluminum is nicely made, though). It has a nicely made fascia
with
machined plexiglass Art-Deco "covers" over the two tubes (very Flash
Gordon).
The front panel is a 1/4" thick piece of gold anodized aluminum, not
unlike
similar finishes used on entry-level "high-end" pieces since the old
Dynaco
days. The cover is a bent piece of steel very much like that which covers
a
$200 Japanese receiver. The back apron sports some nice single mounting
hole
WBT style gold RCAs, but is nothing out of the ordinary. What I have
described to you is a preamp that could be built by any manufacturer of
high-end tube equipment and sold for less that $2000 retail. It's that
simple
and that ordinary. But here's the reason why I have gone to all of the
trouble to describe this pre-amp to you. It retails for - sit down for
this
- TWENTY THOUSAND US DOLLARS! More than many new cars. I haven't actually
listened to it yet, but for that price it would have to be head and
shoulders
above anything that I can think of and it won't be, I suspect. Oh, it will
be
competent and will likely perform well, but so do many other pre-amps for
a
third this one's asking price and most of them look like they cost the
money.
This one looks like a preamp costing ONE TENTH the price or less.

Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be
getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this
thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you
understand. 8^)


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:30:44 -0700, Alan N wrote
(in article ):

I believe that particular model was a LIMITED EDITION release, hence even
higher "premium" pricing on top of the usual "pricey" C-J gear. In todays
economy, the "street prices" for C-J, as well as other "high-end" gear, is
substantially less than "retail." C-J gear is typically highly rated by
critics and consumers alike, and the "cost" of designing, marketing,
distributing, and warranting electronics is a LOT more than the cost of the
components. As long as there is a "market" for extravagant audio gear,
there will be manufacturers happy to oblige!


While what you say may well be true, None of that justifies a $20,000 price
tag. Fact is, it doesn't matter how limited the edition is or how 'highly
rated' the brand is, the unit could have been hand-made, one-at-a-time, with
silver wiring throughout by an aerospace electronics company using MIL-Spec
parts and procedures and it still wouldn't justify a $20,000 price tag! In
fact that was the point of my post. There is nothing in the thing. It was
built using a handful of parts (not counting the digital control circuitry,
which is so cheap these days that even $200 receivers use it) and,
essentially, very simple, cook-book tube circuitry.

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
H Davis H Davis is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:54:43 -0700, H Davis wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...


[quoted text deleted -- deb]

Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be
getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this
thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you
understand. 8^)


As long as there are gullible audio hobbyists with alot more money that
technical knowledge, these scams will continue. The makers know they
won't
sell many of these, but selling only a few will give them a substantial
profit. As it has vacuum tubes in the signal chain, I wouldn't install
the
thing in my system even if it were given to me as a gift!


I have nothing against vacuum tubes. In fact my reference pre-amp is an
Audio
Research SP11 MKIII and my power amps are VTL 140 monoblocks. My system
sounds GREAT. Tubes and transistors are a means to an end. prejudice
against
either merely limits choices in my humble opinion.


Regarding vacuum tubes, please read:
http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm
It is possible for a tube preamp to sound as good as any solid state
preamp - until the tubes degrade, that is. However, if your tube power amp
has an output transformer (and all I know of do), there is NO WAY it could
have the low frequency power bandwidth and freedom from distortion of a
decent direct-coupled solid state power amp.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:44:32 -0700, H Davis wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:54:43 -0700, H Davis wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...


[quoted text deleted -- deb]

Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will be
getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of this
thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you
understand. 8^)

As long as there are gullible audio hobbyists with alot more money that
technical knowledge, these scams will continue. The makers know they
won't
sell many of these, but selling only a few will give them a substantial
profit. As it has vacuum tubes in the signal chain, I wouldn't install
the
thing in my system even if it were given to me as a gift!


I have nothing against vacuum tubes. In fact my reference pre-amp is an
Audio
Research SP11 MKIII and my power amps are VTL 140 monoblocks. My system
sounds GREAT. Tubes and transistors are a means to an end. prejudice
against
either merely limits choices in my humble opinion.


Regarding vacuum tubes, please read:
http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm
It is possible for a tube preamp to sound as good as any solid state
preamp - until the tubes degrade, that is. However, if your tube power amp
has an output transformer (and all I know of do), there is NO WAY it could
have the low frequency power bandwidth and freedom from distortion of a
decent direct-coupled solid state power amp.


I read the article by Howard Davis that you sent me to. When you remove all
of his objections to tubes as electric guitar amps (In my opinion a
solid-body electric guitar is the worlds ugliest-sounding instrument. I
literally hate them), it boils down to his objections to the nonlinearities
introduced by output transformers.

While it is true that low frequency performance is better on solid-state
amps, that advantage goes away as the frequency rises and the degree to which
it occurs in the first place varies with different manufacturers. The poor
low-frequency square wave response and elevated levels of low frequency
distortion are, of course measurable (and the amount and severity of the
problem are highly dependent on how carefully that transformer is designed
and constructed. High-end tube amps generally use ultralinear transformers
that are well designed and well executed), but they aren't particularly
audible because the human ear is fairly insensitive to that kind of
low-frequency non-linearity (in extreme example, it can be heard in doirect
comparison, though). It's a lot like linear-tracking in phonograph tone-arms.
On paper, it looks like a slam-dunk in favor of linear-trackers, but in
reality, once high quality linear-trackers were on the market, it was found
that the difference in actual performance between a linear-tracking tone-arm
and a well designed and executed pivoted arm was, at best, a tertiary effect.
This is true with well designed tube power amps as well. The differences
between the theoretical and measured performance of a high-quality tube amp
and a high-quality transistor amp looks as if the solid-state unit should be
far superior. In reality, good amps of both design philosophies can both
sound very good (and sometimes, surprisingly alike) across the entire
spectrum. In fact, in a recent double-blind shootout between a solid-state
Mark Levinson power amp and a tubed Audio Research amp of the same power,
little to NO difference could be detected between the two from a panel of
experienced listeners. Again It comes down to good design.

Mr. Davis, like most of us, has his prejudices and biases and his comments on
tubed guitar amplifiers might well accurately characterize those devices, I
wouldn't know. But I maintain that these guitar amps have little to do with a
good, modern, high-end tubed power amplifier which is designed for completely
different purpose.

As a preamp, tubes work really well. My AR SP11, for instance, was, when it
was released, hailed as the finest sounding preamp in the world. Today, some
twenty years after the last one was made, it still holds it's own next to
anything you might want to put against it (and measure like new). I know this
because I get sent preamps, both tube and transistor, all the time to review
and that way, I get to keep-up with the progress in circuit design. True, the
SP11 is not 100% tube, as each 6992/ECC88 in the circuit (it has 6) is paired
with MOSFETs which, among other things, keep the tubes biased on the linear
portion of their curves as they age. By the way, I change the tubes in my
preamp every three years.

At the moment, I have the aforementioned C-J in house along with a recent
Krell solid-state unit, a KAV-280p. While both perform superbly, they are no
better than my SP11, which at more than 20 years old is worth more on the
used market than it cost new (and significantly more than this current
Krell). I will say that Krell stuff has come a long way in the last few
years. It wasn't long ago when every Krell component I heard reminded me of a
surgical operating room (or an iceberg). While everything was squeeky-clean
and crystal clear, it was also cold and lifeless, robbing the music of any
warmth or feeling. This seems to no longer be the case.

Now, if tube equipment was obsolete, there wouldn't be so many manufacturers,
all over the world, still making tubed audio gear. Somebody needs to look-up
the term "obsolete". It does not mean "superseded by another technology", it
means "Out of date. Completely replaced. No longer used or made. This is
clearly not the case of tubes. If you want an example of obsolete audio
technology, try wire-recorders or 78-RPM shellac discs!

One other point that I'd like to make is that used tubed audio gear commands
high prices at flea markets and other used audio marts. This is not the case
with most older solid-state gear, even expensive stuff. I only mention this
to point out that while techno-freaks tend to pooh-pooh tubed equipment,
music lovers seem to find that it has a lot of intrinsic value, so don't
count tubes out.
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Ron[_12_] Ron[_12_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

I am a typical consumer of high end audio. I love music and can
appreciate music coming from a great system. My sense of musicality
and need to hear natural sounding music with clarity and detail is
what drives me to high end audio. I am not an engineer and when you
go on about this tube and that circuit I haven=92t got a clue what you
are talking about although I appreciate your ability to understand and
distinguish good design and hardware from bad. I have the ability to
pay for high end equipment but the more I read and inform myself the
less tolerant I am of the prices my local audio store is charging. As
a business man I hate being ripped off and I believe a company must
give value and quality to stay in business for the long term. In
whatever I do I have tried to understand the underlying form of an
object or business to fully appreciate what I am buying and to get a
sense of value. With that said, I am probably your typical high end
audio consumer making my decisions based on listening (which can vary
wildly depending on the room and supporting components), brand, and
the reviews of influential magazines.

I believe the typical high end consumer has a bit of money, not a lot
of time and a passion for the music. What I constantly hear on the
blogs is, as long as the ignorant and uniformed buy high end equipment
the market will exist. Well what is a guy to do? I don=92t have the
time or inclination to get an EE degree so I rely on TRUST....I trust
the manufacturers, marketers, magazines, and sales people. For a
company such as CJ, a long standing and respected brand, to do as you
describe is a gross violation of that trust. Perhaps being ripped
off is part of the high end audio game. I don=92t have a solution to my
problem but thank you for opening my eyes this glaring issue.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
H Davis H Davis is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:44:32 -0700, H Davis wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:54:43 -0700, H Davis wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

Gentlemen, looking at what this unit has in it, buyers, if any, will
be
getting monumentally ripped-off. I am flabbergasted by the price of
this
thing. High-end audio has finally gone TOO FAR. My humble opinion, you
understand. 8^)

As long as there are gullible audio hobbyists with alot more money that
technical knowledge, these scams will continue. The makers know they
won't
sell many of these, but selling only a few will give them a substantial
profit. As it has vacuum tubes in the signal chain, I wouldn't install
the
thing in my system even if it were given to me as a gift!

I have nothing against vacuum tubes. In fact my reference pre-amp is an
Audio
Research SP11 MKIII and my power amps are VTL 140 monoblocks. My system
sounds GREAT. Tubes and transistors are a means to an end. prejudice
against
either merely limits choices in my humble opinion.


Regarding vacuum tubes, please read:
http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm
It is possible for a tube preamp to sound as good as any solid state
preamp - until the tubes degrade, that is. However, if your tube power
amp
has an output transformer (and all I know of do), there is NO WAY it
could
have the low frequency power bandwidth and freedom from distortion of a
decent direct-coupled solid state power amp.


I read the article by Howard Davis that you sent me to. When you remove
all
of his objections to tubes as electric guitar amps (In my opinion a
solid-body electric guitar is the worlds ugliest-sounding instrument. I
literally hate them), it boils down to his objections to the
nonlinearities
introduced by output transformers.


I am the author of that article - it is my website.
Electric guitars can only sound as good as the electronic equipment they
must be used with.
The output transformer is a major problem, but many other defects inherent
in tube technology are addressed as well. Still, if you like it, use it.

While it is true that low frequency performance is better on solid-state
amps, that advantage goes away as the frequency rises and the degree to
which
it occurs in the first place varies with different manufacturers. The poor
low-frequency square wave response and elevated levels of low frequency
distortion are, of course measurable (and the amount and severity of the
problem are highly dependent on how carefully that transformer is designed
and constructed. High-end tube amps generally use ultralinear transformers
that are well designed and well executed), but they aren't particularly
audible because the human ear is fairly insensitive to that kind of
low-frequency non-linearity (in extreme example, it can be heard in
doirect
comparison, though). It's a lot like linear-tracking in phonograph
tone-arms.
On paper, it looks like a slam-dunk in favor of linear-trackers, but in
reality, once high quality linear-trackers were on the market, it was
found
that the difference in actual performance between a linear-tracking
tone-arm
and a well designed and executed pivoted arm was, at best, a tertiary
effect.
This is true with well designed tube power amps as well. The differences
between the theoretical and measured performance of a high-quality tube
amp
and a high-quality transistor amp looks as if the solid-state unit should
be
far superior. In reality, good amps of both design philosophies can both
sound very good (and sometimes, surprisingly alike) across the entire
spectrum. In fact, in a recent double-blind shootout between a solid-state
Mark Levinson power amp and a tubed Audio Research amp of the same power,
little to NO difference could be detected between the two from a panel of
experienced listeners. Again It comes down to good design.


What speakers were used for that evaluation? The reason that many cannot
perceive the audible deficiencies of a tube power amp as compared to a
solid-state amp is that their speakers are far worse than any amp at
frequencies below 50 Hz or so. Also, if the evaluation is done with program
material without substantial content in the bottom octave (16 to 40 Hz or
so), the tube amp deficiencies in this area will not present themselves.

Mr. Davis, like most of us, has his prejudices and biases and his comments
on
tubed guitar amplifiers might well accurately characterize those devices,
I
wouldn't know. But I maintain that these guitar amps have little to do
with a
good, modern, high-end tubed power amplifier which is designed for
completely
different purpose.

As a preamp, tubes work really well. My AR SP11, for instance, was, when
it
was released, hailed as the finest sounding preamp in the world.


"Hailed as?" I for one give no credence to commercials, and I suspect that
many reviewers are influenced by those that give them the equipment to
evaluate.

Today, some
twenty years after the last one was made, it still holds it's own next to
anything you might want to put against it (and measure like new). I know
this
because I get sent preamps, both tube and transistor, all the time to
review
and that way, I get to keep-up with the progress in circuit design. True,
the
SP11 is not 100% tube, as each 6992/ECC88 in the circuit (it has 6) is
paired
with MOSFETs which, among other things, keep the tubes biased on the
linear
portion of their curves as they age. By the way, I change the tubes in my
preamp every three years.


Transistors and ICs need never be changed, unless they become defective. In
properly designed equipment, this very rarely occurs. I know because I have
designed and use such equipment.

At the moment, I have the aforementioned C-J in house along with a recent
Krell solid-state unit, a KAV-280p. While both perform superbly, they are
no
better than my SP11, which at more than 20 years old is worth more on the
used market than it cost new (and significantly more than this current
Krell). I will say that Krell stuff has come a long way in the last few
years. It wasn't long ago when every Krell component I heard reminded me
of a
surgical operating room (or an iceberg). While everything was
squeeky-clean
and crystal clear, it was also cold and lifeless, robbing the music of any
warmth or feeling. This seems to no longer be the case.


Audio reproduction equipment should be totally transparent. If "warmth" or
whatever is added, it is NOT transparent. A little boost of the lower
midrange will "warm" things, but I only want to hear the sounds the
musicians produced.

Now, if tube equipment was obsolete, there wouldn't be so many
manufacturers,
all over the world, still making tubed audio gear. Somebody needs to
look-up
the term "obsolete". It does not mean "superseded by another technology",
it
means "Out of date. Completely replaced. No longer used or made. This is
clearly not the case of tubes. If you want an example of obsolete audio
technology, try wire-recorders or 78-RPM shellac discs!


The fact there is some market demand for something does not mean there is
nothing better available. It means that for reasons of snob appeal, fad
appeal, sales promotion, technical ignorance, etc., some people are
persuaded it is worth buying. As an engineer, I believe otherwise.

One other point that I'd like to make is that used tubed audio gear
commands
high prices at flea markets and other used audio marts. This is not the
case
with most older solid-state gear, even expensive stuff. I only mention
this
to point out that while techno-freaks tend to pooh-pooh tubed equipment,
music lovers seem to find that it has a lot of intrinsic value, so don't
count tubes out.


Old solid state gear, as from the 1970s, often had sometimes audible design
defects. Old tube equipment has nostalgia appeal that makes it desirable to
some - like an old Philco radio - but soundwise? Forget it!

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
JWV Miller JWV Miller is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Sep 26, 1:32=A0pm, Ron wrote:

snip

=A0I have the ability to
pay for high end equipment but the more I read and inform myself the
less tolerant I am of the prices my local audio store is charging. =A0As
a business man I hate being ripped off and I believe a company must
give value and quality to stay in business for the long term. =A0In
whatever I do I have tried to understand the underlying form of an
object or business to fully appreciate what I am buying and to get a
sense of value. =A0With that said, I am probably your typical high end
audio consumer making my decisions based on listening (which can vary
wildly depending on the room and supporting components), brand, and
the reviews of influential magazines.


Sadly, uncontrolled listening conditions are just about worthless for
evaluating audio components. Influential magazines don't appear to be
useful either since many evaluations that they do are also
uncontrolled.


I believe the typical high end consumer has a bit of money, not a lot
of time and a passion for the music. =A0What I constantly hear on the
blogs is, as long as the ignorant and uniformed buy high end equipment
the market will exist. =A0Well what is a guy to do? =A0I don=92t have the
time or inclination to get an EE degree so I rely on TRUST....I trust
the manufacturers, marketers, magazines, and sales people.


You don't really need an EE degree but it is hard to find a valid
reason for trust here. From an engineering standpoint, there will be
very little difference in performance between modern amplifiers and CD
and DVD players that are competently designed. Even low-cost units are
likely to be indistinguishable in carefully controlled comparisons.
This also goes for amplifiers in receivers although tuners may have
differing sensitivity and sound quality. I would suspect that most
audiophiles are not overly impressed with modern programming anyway,
especially since it will be somewhat degraded compared to pristine
digital recordings. High-end cables are one of the biggest ripoffs.

=A0For a
company such as CJ, a long standing and respected brand, to do as you
describe is a gross violation of that trust. =A0 Perhaps being ripped
off is part of the high end audio game. =A0I don=92t have a solution to m=

y
problem but thank you for opening my eyes this glaring issue.


You might consider performing careful comparisons of components that
are not as predictable as those components previously mentioned, i.e.
speakers or perhaps turntables. Room conditioning is also a good
investment.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:26:02 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:
Now, if tube equipment was obsolete, there wouldn't be so many
manufacturers,
all over the world, still making tubed audio gear.


There are NOT "so many manufacturers, all over the world" still
making tubed audio equipment. Realize first that the high-end
audio business, relative to the general audio business, is utterly
insiginificant, and only a portion of that insignificance is
involved in making tubed audio equipment.


I beg to differ. There are HUNDREDS of companies all over the world still
making tuned audio equipment, your attempts to belittle that popularity
notwithstanding.

Somebody needs to look-up the term "obsolete".


Okay, I'm up to the challenge.

It does not mean "superseded by another technology", it
means "Out of date. Completely replaced. No longer used
or made. This is clearly not the case of tubes.


From Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, we find:

ob so lete [L from obsole to grow old, become disused]
1 a: no longer in use b: of a kind or style no longer
current


Tubes are still in use and among many audiophiles, are still in style.

From various on-line sources, we also find:

no longer in general use
of a discarded or outmoded type; out of date
outmoded in design, style, or construction

Are tubes "in general use? Are the not an "outmoded" type or
used in outmoded designs, styles or constructions? Are the not
of a style "no longer current?"


You hand-pick your definition, I'll hand-pick mine. 8^)

If you want an example of obsolete audio
technology, try wire-recorders or 78-RPM shellac discs!

One other point that I'd like to make is that used tubed
audio gear commands high prices at flea markets and other
used audio marts.


So do some of the absolutely wrost loudspeakers ever created.

I also have found examples of Scott, MacIntosh, and Marantz
tube equipment discarded as junk at the local transfer station.
And I also found solid state gear that I later sold for obscene
prices on eBay.


Next time you run across some classic Scott, MacIntosh or Marantz tube gear
in a dustbin, send it my way, won't you?

This is not the case
with most older solid-state gear, even expensive stuff. I only mention this
to point out that while techno-freaks tend to pooh-pooh tubed equipment,
music lovers seem to find that it has a lot of intrinsic value, so don't
count tubes out.


But there are also people who are willing to pay ridiculous prices
for expensive watches that simply don't keep time as well as
a $10 digital watch at Walmart. There's no accounting for
taste.


I never said that they did. But those expensive watches are gorgeous and will
last several lifetimes becoming heirlooms.

What is the "intrinsic value" of vanity items like jewelry,
expensive watches, JBL Paragons or some tube equipment?


The tube equipment still sounds musical and the expensive watches represent
real craftsmanship and, as I said before, will last several lifetimes, long
after that $10 Walmart watch you mentioned is part of some landfill. Jewlery,
of course, is worth the precious stones, gold and platinum in it as well as
the craftsmanship that went in to making it.

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:32:42 -0700, Ron wrote
(in article ):

I am a typical consumer of high end audio. I love music and can
appreciate music coming from a great system. My sense of musicality
and need to hear natural sounding music with clarity and detail is
what drives me to high end audio. I am not an engineer and when you
go on about this tube and that circuit I haven=92t got a clue what you
are talking about although I appreciate your ability to understand and
distinguish good design and hardware from bad. I have the ability to
pay for high end equipment but the more I read and inform myself the
less tolerant I am of the prices my local audio store is charging. As
a business man I hate being ripped off and I believe a company must
give value and quality to stay in business for the long term. In
whatever I do I have tried to understand the underlying form of an
object or business to fully appreciate what I am buying and to get a
sense of value. With that said, I am probably your typical high end
audio consumer making my decisions based on listening (which can vary
wildly depending on the room and supporting components), brand, and
the reviews of influential magazines.

I believe the typical high end consumer has a bit of money, not a lot
of time and a passion for the music. What I constantly hear on the
blogs is, as long as the ignorant and uniformed buy high end equipment
the market will exist. Well what is a guy to do? I don=92t have the
time or inclination to get an EE degree so I rely on TRUST....I trust
the manufacturers, marketers, magazines, and sales people. For a
company such as CJ, a long standing and respected brand, to do as you
describe is a gross violation of that trust. Perhaps being ripped
off is part of the high end audio game. I don=92t have a solution to my
problem but thank you for opening my eyes this glaring issue.


You bring up an interesting point. Is being ripped off a part of the audio
game? Unfortunately, in my experience, the answer is that in way too many
cases, the answer is yes. Twenty-thousand dollar preamps that are made with a
couple of hundred dollars worth of parts, $4000/meter interconnect cables,
green pens for edging CDs, cable elevators to keep cables up off the carpet?
Myrtlewood blocks placed on the tops of amps and preamps and CD players?
These are all snake oil sold to the unwary and all of this is seemingly
sanctioned by the High-End press (I'm a reviewer and I refuse, categorically,
to "review" either interconnects or speaker cables).

Fact is that the performance of megabuck preamps and power amps can be
realized at a fraction of the cost most of this stuff sells for. Of course
the audiophile has to give-up a lot of the bling that many manufacturers
impart upon their components; cases machined out of solid billits of
aluminum, cool blue digital displays, and other eye-candy, but if all you
want is the performance, it's available for unbelievably low prices.
  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
bob bob is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 670
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Sep 27, 10:45=A0am, Sonnova wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009 10:26:02 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote


But there are also people who are willing to pay ridiculous prices
for expensive watches that simply don't keep time as well as
a $10 digital watch at Walmart. There's no accounting for
taste.


I never said that they did. But those expensive watches are gorgeous and =

will
last several lifetimes becoming heirlooms.


But Conrad-Johnson is under no more obligation to offer "value for the
money" than is Patek Philippe. In neither case do their retail prices
bear any relationship to their manufacturing costs. And while you may
think that a luxury watch makes more sense than a "luxury preamp,"
that is not really for you to say, as you are not buying either.

Now, the difference is that the watch buyer certainly knows he's
buying bling, and is probably well aware that the luxury version
doesn't tell time any better than a Timex. The buyer of a $20K tube
preamp, on the other hand, may well believe he is buying something
that really does perform better than a $2K tube preamp. But whose
fault is that? I doubt C-J is making any refutable technical claims
about its product. And it's certainly not C-J's job to tell you they
could make the same amp for $2K if they wanted.

So whose fault is it? I would place the bulk of the blame on the
audiophile press, which, while claiming to represent the interests of
the consumer, is in fact just an extended advertisement for the
overpriced mediocrity which dominates the so-called high end today.

bob



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Ron[_12_] Ron[_12_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

All I am concerned about is performance for the money. Where does one
start? Obviously I am in the wrong circles when my local audio dealer
tries to sell me a $20K tube pre-amp, the press I am reading raves
about how great it is despite the price, then I find out the item is
made from $400 worth of parts. I am a fairly technical person
(computers) but don't think I have the time or inclination to get down
to DIY kits. Does an audiophile community exist out there that
stresses performance and value over bling and vanity items? Are these
local communities and is this philosophy championed any specific
companies (Outlaw Audio perhaps???). You would think there is a lot
of money to be made in this niche.

It may be too late for me to benefit from this info (Wisdom Audio,
ML32, Krell, etc..) but I have many friends which I have converted to
high end that are currently assembling their systems.

Thanks
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:49:48 -0700, Ron wrote
(in article ):

All I am concerned about is performance for the money. Where does one
start? Obviously I am in the wrong circles when my local audio dealer
tries to sell me a $20K tube pre-amp, the press I am reading raves
about how great it is despite the price, then I find out the item is
made from $400 worth of parts. I am a fairly technical person
(computers) but don't think I have the time or inclination to get down
to DIY kits. Does an audiophile community exist out there that
stresses performance and value over bling and vanity items? Are these
local communities and is this philosophy championed any specific
companies (Outlaw Audio perhaps???). You would think there is a lot
of money to be made in this niche.

It may be too late for me to benefit from this info (Wisdom Audio,
ML32, Krell, etc..) but I have many friends which I have converted to
high end that are currently assembling their systems.

Thanks


Their are GREAT audio bargains out there and decent performing new components
at reasonable prices, but - and here's the rub - you really have to look for
them.

How about a great performing MOSFET 150+ Watt/channel stereo power amp for
$200?

How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mono
design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies (including
separate power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wired,
gorgeously finished for under $700?

How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of the
famous Marantz 7 for about $250?

How about a quiet, FET preamp (and a copy of an older Nelson Pass design)
with a decent phono stage for $200?

How about a 24-bit/96KHz DAC that perform superbly for @$100?

All of this and more is available, but you won't hear about it in the audio
press. Of course speakers are different. They are largely a matter of taste
(as none are even close to perfect). That's where the bulk of your money
should go. But there is gorgeous stuff out there, mostly made in China or
Taiwan that are real bargains. How long they'll remain that way is unknown,
but right now, is great time to be an audiophile. There's fine equipment
available at great prices for those who look for it.
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Rob Tweed Rob Tweed is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On 30 Sep 2009 01:36:46 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

It may be too late for me to benefit from this info (Wisdom Audio,
ML32, Krell, etc..) but I have many friends which I have converted to
high end that are currently assembling their systems.

Thanks


Their are GREAT audio bargains out there and decent performing new components
at reasonable prices, but - and here's the rub - you really have to look for
them.

How about a great performing MOSFET 150+ Watt/channel stereo power amp for
$200?

How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mono
design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies (including
separate power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wired,
gorgeously finished for under $700?

How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of the
famous Marantz 7 for about $250?

How about a quiet, FET preamp (and a copy of an older Nelson Pass design)
with a decent phono stage for $200?

How about a 24-bit/96KHz DAC that perform superbly for @$100?


.....and of course now we all want to know the names of the gear you're
referring to! :-) I can guess a few (I believe I have at least one
of the items).

It's a shame it's such hard work for the bargain-hunting audiophile to
find such products. In the ideal world that's what the hi-fi press
should be doing. There's a clear gap in the market for someone to
occupy and create a trusted place where such recommendations can be
found.

By the way another example of totally unecessary expenditure must be
the CD transport, some of which sell for ludicrous amounts of money.
I wish more people would realise that:

a) pretty much any modern cheapo CD/DVD/BD player from your local
supermarket, connected by SPDIF to your DAC will work just as well and
sound identical;

b) why use a CD player at all when you can rip the music to lossless
disk images and have the convenience of playing them back via, eg
iTunes into your DAC.

I've yet to see any hi-fi magazine in the UK do anything other than
wax lyrically about these devices instead of berating them as
pointless expensive bling, which I suppose pretty much sums up where
their loyalties and priorities lie.

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Harry Lavo Harry Lavo is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

"Ron" wrote in message
...
All I am concerned about is performance for the money. Where does one
start? Obviously I am in the wrong circles when my local audio dealer
tries to sell me a $20K tube pre-amp, the press I am reading raves
about how great it is despite the price, then I find out the item is
made from $400 worth of parts. I am a fairly technical person
(computers) but don't think I have the time or inclination to get down
to DIY kits. Does an audiophile community exist out there that
stresses performance and value over bling and vanity items? Are these
local communities and is this philosophy championed any specific
companies (Outlaw Audio perhaps???). You would think there is a lot
of money to be made in this niche.

It may be too late for me to benefit from this info (Wisdom Audio,
ML32, Krell, etc..) but I have many friends which I have converted to
high end that are currently assembling their systems.

Thanks


Ron, I'd be just a bit cautious. While the overall level of mid-level and
upper mass-level components has improved to a level inconceivable 30 years
ago, they often sound a bit "grey" and "mechanical". Real high-end
components often do sound just a bit better (livlier, more
transparent)....enough to make the difference between "fine sound" and "you
are there". But prices have gotten largely out of whack.

My first choice to tell your friends is "used quality", particularly with
regard to preamps and tuners. With the market having swung to home theatre,
there are dozens of excellent ARC, ML, Krell, C-J etc. preamps, Onkyo and
Carver tuners, etc. on the market at affordable prices. Team these with,
let us say, Outlaw Monoblock amplifiers (200 true wpc) and you have all the
electronics you need short of a CD player. There are several good CD
players (Arcam, Cambridge, NAD) and SACD players (SONY), even blu-ray
all-in-one-combos (OPPO) that can form satisfying front ends. Many good
turntables, arms, and cartridge combos available from Project, Music Hall,
and even Thorens for less than $1000, if vinyl is desired. For speakers, I
find used Thiels hard to beat. They are unfailingly musical, and for less
than $1200 a pair, used 3.5's and 2 2's offer wonderful sound. There are
also fine NHT's, Snells, and PSB's out there at quite reasonable prices.

If vintage is appealing, don't overlook older Dual Turntables (the 700
series in particular) which are available reasonably cheap and can be
reconditioned if need be...and when in top shape rival the new stuff up to
the $4000 level. In speakers, stacked Large Advents can hold their own
against most modern speakers....at $150 each used, four will set you back
only $600.

I'd say redirect your friends interest in this direction, and at least some
of them will thank you later. Others may well decided to pay current prices
and get good sound.....just at a much higher price.

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] pfjw@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 380
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Sep 29, 9:36=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

[ excess quotation snipped -- dsr ]

All of this and more is available, but you won't hear about it in the aud=

io
press. Of course speakers are different. They are largely a matter of tas=

te
(as none are even close to perfect). That's where the bulk of your money
should go. But there is gorgeous stuff out there, mostly made in China or
Taiwan that are real bargains. How long they'll remain that way is unknow=

n,
but right now, is great time to be an audiophile. =A0There's fine equipme=

nt
available at great prices for those who look for it.


And for a fraction of even Chinese prices, one has the ability to DIY
any number of fine designs using high-quality parts and transformers
from any of several sources including the US and Europe. Many are
simple cook-book recipes requiring little other than decent soldering
skills. HOWEVER, and it is a big one, there may be considerable time
involved depending on the level of finish and elegance desired.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:25:49 -0700, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 30 Sep 2009 01:36:46 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

It may be too late for me to benefit from this info (Wisdom Audio,
ML32, Krell, etc..) but I have many friends which I have converted to
high end that are currently assembling their systems.

Thanks


Their are GREAT audio bargains out there and decent performing new
components
at reasonable prices, but - and here's the rub - you really have to look
for
them.

How about a great performing MOSFET 150+ Watt/channel stereo power amp for
$200?

How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mono
design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies
(including
separate power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wired,
gorgeously finished for under $700?

How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of the
famous Marantz 7 for about $250?

How about a quiet, FET preamp (and a copy of an older Nelson Pass design)
with a decent phono stage for $200?

How about a 24-bit/96KHz DAC that perform superbly for @$100?


....and of course now we all want to know the names of the gear you're
referring to! :-) I can guess a few (I believe I have at least one
of the items).

It's a shame it's such hard work for the bargain-hunting audiophile to
find such products. In the ideal world that's what the hi-fi press
should be doing. There's a clear gap in the market for someone to
occupy and create a trusted place where such recommendations can be
found.


I agree with you 100%. This IS what the Hi-Fi press should be doing, but the
truth is that a lot of reviewers are - there's no other word for it - jaded.
They can't get interested in gear unless it's frighteningly expensive and
exclusive. That's why modern Hi-Fi magazines are filled with $20,000 preamps.
$100,000 (+) speaker systems, $60,000 CD players, and $15,000 turntables.

By the way another example of totally unecessary expenditure must be
the CD transport, some of which sell for ludicrous amounts of money.
I wish more people would realise that:


That's a fact

a) pretty much any modern cheapo CD/DVD/BD player from your local
supermarket, connected by SPDIF to your DAC will work just as well and
sound identical;


That's been my experience. DACs might sound different from one another, but
I've never heard a fancy CD transport (like the TEAC Esoteric) make any
difference.

b) why use a CD player at all when you can rip the music to lossless
disk images and have the convenience of playing them back via, eg
iTunes into your DAC.


Because a lot of people are intimidated by computers and the process and
don't trust the HDD medium. OTOH, there is, among some, the same reluctance
to give up that tangible jewel box that many LP collectors felt when asked to
give up that big, colorful album cover for that same tiny jewel box.
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] pfjw@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 380
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

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.

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.

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.

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, 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 - I doubt very seriously
that I would have more than $2,000 in the entire exercise. Send it
down the street to my wood-shop, spend $200. Send it further down the
street to a custom-jeweler for the silver and gold inlays and jeweled
indicator lights, spend another $1,500. And I am doing a onesie/twosie/
all-retail-parts. Not engaging in a production exercise with on an
established, experienced production line using bulk-purchased parts.

Point being that we are most of us in the wrong business if the C-J is
worth even 5% of its nominal price. And spare me the c**p about 'list'
vs. 'actual' prices. C-J would not put a $20,000 'suggested' price on
anything unless they expected it to get at least half that, and even
that a factor of 10X what it is demonstrably worth.

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.

High-end is a factor of how things sound - not of how much they cost.
And the disconnect between the former and the latter is getting
broader each day - again, very sadly.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 03:24:01 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

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.


True. But I have several pieces of said equipment that are excellent. Of
course, one has to be careful. For instance, a very nice Chinese Tube power
amplifier is available on E-Bay from a couple of sources. One can buy it very
inexpensively directly from Hong Kong, or pay a bit more and buy it from a
Canadian source who guarantees it and who says that they completely inspect
and test the amps before shipping them out. Obviously, spending the extra $50
or so to buy from the Canadian source (with whom one has recourse in case
things aren't right) is a no-brainer and the amount is trivial in the long
run.

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.


I have the Yaqin KT-88 based amp and it is excellent. Superb build quality,
it sounds excellent and the point-to-point wiring is very well executed. As
to "lowest-common-denominator vintage equipment" being kilometers ahead, I
disagree. When one buys an old Dyna, Marantz, Fisher, Scott, Harman-Kardon,
etc. amp or preamp, one has one's work cut out for one. The resistors, being
carbon-comp are noisy (especially in phono circuits) the capacitors are often
dried-out and need replacing and the potentiometers, likewise carbon, are
often scratchy and worn. Also, the power supplies in vintage equipment are
often not as robust as their modern counterparts - even the Chinese ones.

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.


Agree to that, but since my beloved VTL monoblocks have a similar system, I'm
used to it. Also it has some advantages over simple self-bias in that it
allows one to keep-up with tube aging long after the self bias tubes must be
replaced because they are "out of range".

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, 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 - I doubt very seriously
that I would have more than $2,000 in the entire exercise.


Take it from me that when we're talking about the audio section of the C-J
alone, it would be considerably less than $1000!

Send it
down the street to my wood-shop, spend $200. Send it further down the
street to a custom-jeweler for the silver and gold inlays and jeweled
indicator lights, spend another $1,500. And I am doing a onesie/twosie/
all-retail-parts. Not engaging in a production exercise with on an
established, experienced production line using bulk-purchased parts.

Point being that we are most of us in the wrong business if the C-J is
worth even 5% of its nominal price. And spare me the c**p about 'list'
vs. 'actual' prices. C-J would not put a $20,000 'suggested' price on
anything unless they expected it to get at least half that, and even
that a factor of 10X what it is demonstrably worth.


In my experience, there is no difference between C-J or Krell, or Audio
Research, et-al's list prices and their street prices. This stuff is sold at
"manufacturer's suggested retail price" everywhere. And, in the case of the
C-J GAT, the British price, in Pounds Sterling is the same number as the
American Price in Dollars even though a British Pound is about US$1.60.
Meaning that the Brits get to pay roughly 60% more than we do for this this
thing!

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.

High-end is a factor of how things sound - not of how much they cost.
And the disconnect between the former and the latter is getting
broader each day - again, very sadly.


I couldn't agree with you more on that assessment.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA



  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Roger Kulp Roger Kulp is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Sep 29, 7:36=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mo=

no
design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies (inclu=

ding
separate =A0power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wi=

red,
gorgeously finished for under $700?

How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of t=

he
famous Marantz 7 for about $250?


What might these be ?

Roger


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 21:20:09 -0700, Roger Kulp wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 29, 7:36=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:

How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp that is a dual mo=

no
design, with 5 pairs of line-level inputs, separate power supplies (inclu=

ding
separate =A0power transformers!) and ceramic tube sockets and all hand wi=

red,
gorgeously finished for under $700?

How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a virtual copy of t=

he
famous Marantz 7 for about $250?


What might these be ?

Roger


Check out "Amplifiers" on E-Bay and you'll see lots of interesting stuff.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 21:20:09 -0700, Roger Kulp wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 29, 7:36=A0pm, Sonnova
wrote:

How about a fine sounding 65 Watt/channel KT88 tube amp
that is a dual mo= no design, with 5 pairs of
line-level inputs, separate power supplies (inclu= ding
separate =A0power transformers!) and ceramic tube
sockets and all hand wi= red, gorgeously finished for
under $700?

How about a marvelous tube preamp that's circuit-wise a
virtual copy of the famous Marantz 7 for about $250?


What might these be ?

Roger


Check out "Amplifiers" on E-Bay and you'll see lots of
interesting stuff.


The "Marantz 7" clones I see on eBay are obvious frauds, if you audit even
simple things like the tube count,

Compare the detailed views to a schematic of the real thing.

I would chacterize what I see as being more like a somewhat degenerate
Conrad Johnson CJ-4 or 5. Significant absences - cathode follower buffers
on both the tape and main outputs. Signficiant excess - what appears to be a
silicon state power regulator.

  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
John Stone John Stone is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

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.
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] pfjw@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 380
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On Oct 3, 10:50=A0am, John Stone wrote:

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?


John:

I will distill it down for you. When I am done with a Dynaco product
*today* and deem it ready for polite society, it has been
substantially rebuilt down to the boards if necessary. That would
include resistors, caps, tube sockets, wiring, connectors & plugs,
even controls if required. Various modifications developed over the
years will be included as well. And I will also typically de-rate the
load on the power-supply - because - absolutely 17.5 wpc (or 35 wpc
from the 70) is patently absurd. But then and at those levels the
difference between the 'real' 12 watts or so and the rated output is
of negligible sonic value. The going rate for a SCA-35 with good iron
these days is under $200. For about $150, one may rebuild it right
down to the boards and sockets and have a quite nice little amp that
is extremely reliable and sounds as well as any other similarly-rated
tube amp whether from Yaquin or elsewhere. One thing Hafler did do was
use good output iron. Perhaps his power transformers are a bit edgy,
but the number that have survived over the years suggests that they
were at least adequate.

As to the single example - yes. But the 6550-based amp mentioned in
this thread was sitting right beside it - and its innards were no
better than the pre-amp. Elegant on the outside - but about what one
might expect of a hobbyist with his Dynaco wiring on the inside.
Really.

I dunno - I find Dynaco products to be very well laid out and very
well designed. That they were also designed to be resilient enough to
withstand an amateur assembler and work very much most of the time is
a good indicator as well. Now, my Scott LK150 is a quantum-leap better
all the way around - also a kit. But not something I would have put in
inexperienced hands. Today, I cannot imagine what its functional
equivalent would cost.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Rob Tweed Rob Tweed is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Just received a new conrad-johnson GAT preamp

On 2 Oct 2009 04:19:52 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

And, in the case of the
C-J GAT, the British price, in Pounds Sterling is the same number as the
American Price in Dollars even though a British Pound is about US$1.60.
Meaning that the Brits get to pay roughly 60% more than we do for this this
thing!


Yep, an all too common and very irritating fact of life here in the
UK. We know it as "rip-off Britain". Totally unjustifiable but so
long as punters cough up the cash, the rip-off merchants continue to
get away with it.

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
conrad-johnson pv5 preamp [email protected] Tech 3 February 16th 08 08:11 AM
FS: CONRAD JOHNSON PV-8 (PV8) TUBE PREAMP [email protected] Marketplace 2 August 8th 05 11:03 PM
FS: CONRAD JOHNSON PV-8 (PV8) TUBE PREAMP [email protected] Marketplace 0 July 15th 05 04:56 AM
WTB Conrad-Johnson EF-1 phono preamp [email protected] Marketplace 0 March 26th 05 10:01 PM
WTB Conrad-Johnson EF-1 phono preamp [email protected] Marketplace 0 January 22nd 05 03:24 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"