advertisement


Croft integrated : $phile

Have from time to time been pondering if the £500 Croft RIAA would be an upgrade from my current solid state phono (GSP Reflex). Not that I'm dissatisfied - just tempted.
 
sq225917 said:
I trust their reviews emphatically, if not their personal columns.
Click to expand...
Ah, c'mon sq, you can choose your (ahem) contacts anywhere you please, we're all adults here. The personal columns of SP are no worse than anywhere else, who knows you might do better next time. ;):p
 
hifi_dave said:
I haven't yet found the time to read the write up but I have spoken to Glenn about it and things are not as straightforward as they appear !!!

Best bet is to listen and enjoy Croft products and not worry about measurements.
Click to expand...

it's not clear to me whether JA's measurements match Croft's measurements. i assume not. if not, then either the difference in measurements are inaudible, or the subjective listening tests are invalid, as they were done with a component not operating as it was intended. no?
 
A friend of mine was a compulsive box swapper until he found Croft. That was six years ago and he's still with it; before that, it wasn't unusual for him to go through 2 or 3 different amps every year.
 
kasperhauser said:
A friend of mine was a compulsive box swapper until he found Croft. That was six years ago and he's still with it; before that, it wasn't unusual for him to go through 2 or 3 different amps every year.
Click to expand...

He sounds like me. Now I'm being tempted by the Croft.

I wrote to Glenn, he said it will be stable on Quads 57's since he is a 57 user himself.

I do have one concern - I asked the importer for a dealer list and got ONE name. I've asked if there are more, no reply yet. I'm not nuts about buying a somewhat exotic imported product if there is only one dealer nationally.

We shall see...
 
hifi_dave said:
I haven't yet found the time to read the write up but I have spoken to Glenn about it and things are not as straightforward as they appear !!!.
Click to expand...

In what way exactly?

This would hardly be the first product to measure badly but subjectively entertain.
 
chainrule said:
it's not clear to me whether JA's measurements match Croft's measurements. i assume not. if not, then either the difference in measurements are inaudible, or the subjective listening tests are invalid, as they were done with a component not operating as it was intended. no?
Click to expand...

I guess one could take a very extreme standpoint and suggest either a) Art Dudley and the other subjective reviewer like / actively prefer a contoured response and distortion, or b) John Atkinson's measurements are incorrect*. As such it's a very brave path for a magazine to steer IMO, and I respect them for reporting what they found rather than burying it to save face / for sake of politics. It is a shame Glenn Croft apparently declined the usual right of reply (another strength of Stereophile's review process) as I'd have very much liked to read his perspective too.

* I'm not suggesting either of these statements are true, just that it's one way readers could interpret the data.
 
I would assume that Glenn Croft declined to reply as it subjectively impressed the reviewers to his satisfaction. This review is a nice punchy suggestion that measurements don't tell us everything, but that this unit was made for music - at a cost.
 
i agree that it's a very brave path. i'm very curious as to how the story ends. i hope it hasn't already ended. i think this could be a very interesting "case study" on the whole audio industry from manufacturing to reviewing.

fwiw, i've always like art dudley's writing, though his audio interests and mine have diverged over the years. i have no reason to doubt john atkinson's competence in measuring equipment.
 
Yomanze said:
I would assume that Glenn Croft declined to reply as it subjectively impressed the reviewers to his satisfaction. This review is a nice punchy suggestion that measurements don't tell us everything, but that this unit was made for music - at a cost.
Click to expand...
More likely it tells is that these reviewers like the additionss the Croft appears to make. The RIAA error, in particular, is inexcusable.

Or the measurements do not reflect the unit in actual use. In which case Croft should have explained or queried. Dave's insinuation up thread is counter-productive, put up or shut up, IMO.

Paul
 
Tony L said:
I'm a Stereophile subscriber so have read the review. It's proper audio journalism IMO, a world away from the flowery guff and pretty pictures we usually get sold in the UK. My only slight criticism is that I'd have liked to see JA swap the tubes out, i.e. just a little attempt at diagnosis which I don't think is at all unfair to any tube / hybrid amp (especially those running current production Chinese or Russian tubes that may not be the most consistent or longest lasting). I guess the unwritten rule is to only report on exactly that which you have been sent, but even so it would have been interesting. Getting a second (and as it happens equally positive) subjective appraisal was a great move though, exactly the right approach.

PS There was a parallel here with the Prima Luna tube amp I ran for a good while in that Stereophile loved it subjectively (as did I, it was an excellent amp) though highlighted a very high output transformer impedance and explained it's significance. This is exactly the sort of thing a magazine should do IMO. This is all the more relevant now everyone and their dog can write a perfectly decent subjective review online where it may be actively debated amongst peers. I'd certainly never buy a magazine that didn't measure what it reviewed, I honestly can't see the point of such publications.
Click to expand...

The point is that the Croft is a perfectly wonderful sounding integrated amplifier that has just been euthanised by aspects of its performance that are demonstrably inaudible. No one who read the Stereophile review (which in the US market is the whole US market) would buy the Croft Integrated after it being called 'incompetent' by the person who measured it, despite the praise heaped upon it by the person who actually listened to it.

Personally, as I don't tend to fire up the system and run test tones through it, I'm not convinced of the importance of measurement, except for validating the performance claims of a manufacturer. Otherwise, I've always viewed measurement as a form of willy waving by those who can't write well over those who can.

This review only serves to confound rather than clarify, which is not what a review should do.
 
Evil Emperor said:
demonstrably inaudible.
Click to expand...

Where do you get that from?
I may well buy one since so many people I know like it, OTOH I suspect that the things JH found in Stereophile may well be part and parcel of the pleasing sound rather than inaudible.
I have no problem enjoying a bit of kit that sounds great to me, whatever the reason it sounds that way.
 
F1eng said:
Where do you get that from?
I may well buy one since so many people I know like it, OTOH I suspect that the things JH found in Stereophile may well be part and parcel of the pleasing sound rather than inaudible.
I have no problem enjoying a bit of kit that sounds great to me, whatever the reason it sounds that way.
Click to expand...

The RIAA roll off and the second order harmonic would contribute to that typical Croft sound, but the third and fifth harmonics measured should also be audible and they patently are not.
 
How do you know they patently are not? I haven't seen that proposed by anybody else before over the last 40 odd years.
 
F1eng said:
How do you know they patently are not? I haven't seen that proposed by anybody else before over the last 40 odd years.
Click to expand...

People like the sound of the Croft. People don't like the sound of odd-order harmonics. Therefore the Croft's odd-order harmonics cannot figure in its performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top