In praise of older hi-fi

Hi Data,

I run a D200 (Mk II) in my system.

What would you like to know?

If you're thinking about the comparisons that some reviewers have made with this amp against valves, I'd add IMO what I think is a clarification of that stance. The GamuT is good at reproducing the trailing edge of the note and portaying harmonic richness, just like an achitypal (sp?) valve amp does. However, the GamUT isn't inherently warm or soft sounding, it is both accurate and musical, but can be pushed in either direction depending upon partnering equipment used with it. If you really want accurarcy with more warmth and organic feeling, then a GamuT with valve pre might well suit the DAC64 better. The GamuT is derived from a studio power amp design, so it is by nature going to be transparent.

I don't see why your MF A1000 shouldn't give you the results you're after with the DAC64. IMHO, a look at different speakers would be money better spent, somethiing efficient and old, or maybe a modern Spendor?

 

a1000 yet to arrive....with a studio aim, I thought it may be a bit hifi and accurate rather than nice to listen to?

 

Data

I've heard the D200 on the end of a Nuvista CDP/DAC64/EAR 864 and into Tannoy TD10s. I was auditioning it against an Aloia pre/pwr combo and the ESLab DX-S4. The Aloia was slow but majored on harmonic richness and timbral qualities. The ESLab was lightning fast (it is Class T, after all) but was rather sterile. The Gamut captured the best of both worlds - it was fleet of foot, light of touch and captured the inner beauty, the soul, of the performance. Magic.

Beware that there were several running revisions to the D200 during its life, so an early Sirius D200 will sound nothing like a late Gamut D200.

reg

 

Well, for me and in my system, I definitely find the D200 "nice to listen to", no quibble. It's accurate, but not ruthless or at the expense of over analysis or losing out on the musical message. I have no plans to upgrade at this point in time and I've had it for about 2 years now. This is something I couldn't say about the active ATCs I use to run before, yes with the "right" recording they could be very engaging, but for me they did have a tendency to slip into "talking shop" a bit too often for my liking - they were studio monitors and engineer's "tools" no matter how I looked at them - which is why I ended up ditching them in the end.

 

I've just acquired the EAR 834L pre-amp of Ian (Sideshowbob) - thankfully the man (of impeccably good taste, it has to be said) has no more hi-fi to sell. And, since it was 13th. salary time (we Schweizers get a 13th. salary in November) and since the Quads are said to be valve-sounding, I wanted to try out a valve thingy.

The EAR 834L is a gorgeous-looking piece of equipment (Ian's was the super-dooper one with the chromed front panel). With a slight sadness, I replaced the venerable (20-year old) Quad 33 with the EAR and off we went with comparison tests against the 44/405-2, the EAR playing through a Net Audio-modified Quad 303. And the results? Well, the EAR setup was better, no doubt about it. Switching from the EAR to the 44 was like turning the tone control of an old-fashioned amp from the middle position to the bass position. The 44/405-2 just sounded duller, with less mid-range detail. However, the interesting thing was that the EAR/303, while better, wasn't THAT much better. It makes you realise that a refurbished Quad33/303 represents amazing value for money.

 

Glad you like it. You're ruining your reputation for deafness, mind you - you're not supposed to hear any difference!

-- Ian

 

A very nice unit, Ian. I'm sitting listening to it strut its stuff on Pinnock's Handel's Water Music on vinyl at the moment, knowing that Titian is doing likewise in solidarity down in Oberarth (I've just been talking to him on the 'phone) - except he's doing it on CD, as his turntable is currently in bits.

P.S. I've just given it an acid test - Gould's Goldbergs. The better the amp, the more obtrusive Gould's groanings along - the groans were very obtrusive indeed!

 

The logical conclusion being that you want inaccurate speakers...whatever floats yer boat I guess.

 

James, all I have to say here is, Henry has one of the most accuarte systems I've heard, and I feel you would need to listen to it before making such a statement. Wm

 

Hi WM

I drew my conclusion from what he had written (obviously) rather than hearing his system, which I haven't. If we are not looking for accuracy in hi-fi, what are we looking for?

 

Linn LP12= accurate

 

lol

 

James, I listen for music, which is more than often coloured however to call either an LP12 or a cds2 accurate is seriously stretching the bounds of reality, by a sodding large margin.
DCS gear may not be ultiamtely musical, but accuracy it more than show 95% gear the way home. Wm

 

Completely off topic:


ARGHHH!!!

 

james,
who's version of accurate are you listening to?
the artists?
the recording engineers?
the producers?
the record executives?
the manufacturing engineers?
the builder of the recording venue?
the manufacturer of the recording equipment?
the manufacturer of the manufacturing equipment?
the manufacturer of the equipment you are listening to?
of yours?

out of all of these i'd rather listen to something that i liked than something i didn;t. does this make my equipment inaccurate? depends on your point of view really. as for citing the recording incident at your place i'm sure the mere fact that the same room distortions being added together twice produced a measurably different replay than the origional, hardly accurate but you seemed to enjoy it so that's all that matters. did anyone actually try measuring the differences between the master tape and the master tape replayed through your system? other than subjectively that is.

cheers


julian

 

Fair comment.

I remember a recording engineer remark in an interview once when asked what he thought the main difference between studio monitors and domestic hi-fi speakers were, and he said "'Hi-fi' speakers are designed to make music sound beautiful".

So yes, in that sense, I tend to make equipment choices which aim for a certain amount of accurarcy, but on the other hand I don't want a warts'n'all presentation which I'd find distracting (meaning detracting from my enjoyment of the music) on some of the less than perfect recordings in my collection. Coloured, euphonic, call it what you will, I think most of us have a certain amount of it in the signal chain at one point or another.

 

What Ju said.

 

Quite so, RdS, but it does make a good test record! The better the hi-fi, the more unplayable it is (unless you're a Gould fan, that is).

 

Hi julian, yes I've heard live band in my room versus recording of same through my system in varying resolutions.

I know how accurate it is (subjectively), and I also know the limitations of the red book CD format. I was shocked at how much is missing from the CD master, in comparison to the high res master.

Throwing money at CD is a waste of (IMO).

CDS2 is a very good CD player, LP12 is a very very good deck.

 

james,
i'm sure that there is degradation in quality from the master however the recording engineers decision as to how to record the piece can have a lot of influence here. for example if he records at 88.2 khz and then downsamples to 44.1 or records in 44.1 then i'd expect the sound to be much better than if it was recorded at 48k, 96k or 192k which seem the norm nowadays as decimation will be a lot more symetrical. also how was the cd vesion generated? was it downsampled in real time from the master tape or was it downsampled off line and then played back?
all i'm saying is that the claim that a particular system is accurate will always beg the question - accurate to what?
cheers

julian