Maybe vintage preamps are NOT the way....

Let's cut the arguing here--everyone has their own preferences in audio gear. If you must continue, take it to private messaging please.

 

Rudy my brother, are you serious? For heaven's sake, man...the thread is about vintage vs modern preamps....and just when it starts to get interesting we can't talk about it anymore? What's the difference between the very civil way in which we're discussing Conrad Johnson gear and the pages and PAGES of actual arguing that go on over in music when we're talking about this group or album vs that? Everyone has there own preferences in everything, so what's the use of 75% of the threads on this forum? I'm sorry, but I just don't understand. I ask that you please reconsider your decision and let us continue to get to the meat of the issue. This is valuable information for all. Otherwise, might as well lock the thread because if we can't talk about the subject matter, what's the point?

 

Okay. I understand. Loading rubber bullets now.

 

Folks, I am sorry, I think I started this by being too sensitive and taking things too literally. The next time something touches one of my hot buttons, I will count to 10 before I post.

 

You were fine, bro. Really. I wasn't taking any of it personally. Don't worry about it. If you wish, we can continue to discuss CJ gear vs vintage tube gear, but we can tone it down a bit as Steve suggested. I don't mind pursuing the subject at all.

 

Yep, that was my point--sorry I wasn't clearer. It's OK to debate...not OK to get personal. That's what I get for writing this stuff after a long day...

Thanks for understanding, and apologies for any ruffled feathers there, Tony and Adam!

 

Rudy, No ruffled feathers here.

Audio, I spent three years doing A/B auditions when I shopped for my main system and I have heard several vintage systems, however, I must admit that I did not A/B new versus vintage when I shopped for my system, it was always new versus new. I would love to have a second system that was vintage, but I have no place to put it.

 

I might just as well jump in here some. I hear statements all the time to the effect of the "Vintage Sound" this statement just about always tells me some guy is listening to a bone stock 40 to 50 year old example of vintage gear in its original condition and thinks he is hearing the gear for what it sounded like when it was originally built. Folks this is plain delusional. Then you have the guy's that have some old radio tech install a bunch a toaster oven quality parts in a vintage piece of gear and think they have restored it to its original sonic glory. 25 cent caps don't do it guy's ! In fact there is just about nothing made today that compares in every respect to what these caps and resistors were like back in the 50's and 60's. The caps today are either of much lower quality from a Sonic standpoint or a good measure better. There just is nothing in the middle available but Orange drops are close! Almost all the top quality vintage late 50's and 60's tube gear came outfitted with true film and foil caps. Mostly of the Mylar (polyester) film and tin foil variety. Today's metalized caps are nothing like those caps in anyway. The choices today in film and foil are slim and most are of better efficiency that the ones in the 60's. Then we could get into what 50 year old carbon resistors do to the old circuit. The list could go on and on. Many pieces of vintage gear can easily rival todays gear if rebuilt properly. I personally do prefer modern preamp though. Most of the old vintage pieces had to much gain built in and to many tube stages. The difference in transparency is from the extra gain stages not the tone controls Although at least one a the extra stages is the tone controls on most vintage preamps.

Craig

 

Very good points, Craig. For the most part, I agree with you 100%. Before we start the preamp building project, we are going to experiment with bypassing tone controls on a few vintage pieces and see what we come up with. The CJ PV-2 beats the vintage stuff I have only in transparency. We are upgrading the CJ PV-2 with the PV-2a mod and hopefully things will improve then. Other than it's transparent quality, it falls short....and this Scott 130 I'm running now sure sounds lush!

 

Many reviewers are excited over the V cap from Chris venHaus. Both the V-Cap Teflon film and tin foil and the V-Cap Oil Impregnated Metallized Polypropylene

A number of very experienced listeners (Arthur Salvatore, Response Audio) are calling these either the best caps they have heard, or the best modern-day capacitor. Chris is a really nice guy and will treat you right.

http://v-cap.com/tefloncapacitors.html

http://v-cap.com/oilcapacitors.html

The Teflon caps reviewed here - http://www.responseaudio.com/vcap test.htm

 

The Scott 130 is one of the smoothest sounding preamps there is! But its a classic example of too many gain stages. The preamp can almost power a set of efficient speakers. But I do love the sound of a them babies I just rebuilt one last week. I owned one for a 1 1/2 years and used it daily. I still miss it at times.

Craig

 

Craig,

Where do you adjust the "extra level" on the back? Full bore or at a lower level? I'm running it about half way right now. Yes, the 130 is VERY smooth....there is air around the instruments and imaging is worlds better than the Conrad-Johnson PV-2. However, bass is murky and the preamp lacks dynamics and three dimensional space. To my ears, most of the Scotts I've listened to have this sort of compressed, one-dimensional quality to the highs. Others who've participated in my listening tests seem to agree with me. This 130 is almost the exception, but still sounds like a Scott. It sure is LUSH, though....almost sounds like a SET.

 

I usually ended up running the source level controls at about 30% to get reasonable usage out of the main volume control. I have never had a problem getting great highs out of any of the Scott gear. But this could be a difference on speaker choice also my speakers tend to prefer the highs tamed slightly if you know what I mean . What all have you done to the 130?

Man did I butcher few words in the last post or what I'm busy rebuilding a pair of MC30 for customer that came in from out of town. So just up here checking my mail on the quick.

Craig

 

Prix...did you ever listen to a Berning TF preamp?

 

Sorry, I've not. Are they nice?

 

audio: Well, yes they are...I have one and love it, but just 2 days ago I had a conversation with some people at a shop in Atlanta and they had one at some point, and considered them better than the VTL "Ultimate", quite better than the Sonic Frontiers SFL-1, and its phono stages are outstanding,,,Its a tremendously flexible unit with tons of inputs.

here is a link to a review:

clicky to linky

 

Hello to all.

Would most of the musicality of a tubed phono stage and preamp front end survive after going through a decent, modern, high-powered solid stage power amp, say an Adcom?

 

In my opinion, no. If you want to capture the magic and musicality of tubes and don't want to upgrade your entire separates system at this time...I would suggest that your best option would be to sell the Adcom power amp to finance a good tube integrated amp with a phono stage.

 

Two questions:

A) What do these go for used?
B) Do they come in gold?

 

A great review by JGH himself. I assume the price listed is from 1979, I got a kick out of JGH's closing comment given prices today.

 

FWIW, c-j is now using teflon caps in their gear (see March 2005 Stereophile ACT-2 review). Interestingly they claim you have to play music through them (true burn-in) for about 100 hours before they really sound their best.

 

LOL..yeah...best 600 bucks I ever spent..oh and 650.00 on his old EA-230 amp....amazing what you can get if you shop around...

 

I think so. I say that as a general principle, rather than as a comment on the Adcom as I have no experience with that brand.

When I bought my BAT VK-50SE preamp, there was a month or so period before my Welborne Labs Laurel SETs arrived. I had been using an Arcam Alpha 10 integrated amp for more than a year and I knew the sound of my system very well.

I opened up the amp and flipped a little switch that allowed me to use an external preamp, and slotted in the BAT. The improvement in sound quality was significant. The weak point of that integrated amp is most definitely the preamp - the power section is quite good. All the fine qualities of the BAT came through this system, and when the SETs arrived and were put into the system, the improvement was more subtle.

 

Geoff, You have got to keep in mind that the BAT VK-50SE is not just any old preamp, but one of the best out there. I would expect nothing less than a significant improvement. The set up that Sound by Singer had at HE2004 in NYC using all BAT amplifiers was just incredible.