advertisement


better power cable

Going back to the Audiolab 8000A example - lots of people were very critical of it, and no one supported the sound. So, is it a bad amplifier, or did people who liked it not want to challenge the many who did not like it, for fear of being ridiculed ?

Over many years there have been a great many comments from many different sources about this particular amp sounding grey and sterile. When it was released I remember that it was promoted as being an exceptionally competent design. I would be very interested to know what causes the allegedly poor sound, in technical terms. Maybe we need a separate thread (in the DIY room) on this?
 
Going back to the Audiolab 8000A example

If we are talking about the 1980's amp, I have never heard it but I have vague memories of reading reviews where it was criticised as sounding 'clinical' and 'sterile' despite it apparently measuring well and having excellent dynamics, detail etc. I remember that the reviews at the time certainly put me off ever wanting to buy one.

The one exception that sticks in my mind was a reviewer I think called 'David' someone, can't remember his surname. He raved about it, and about the separate pre/power version. I remember him saying that it 'comprehensively outperformed' most of the very exotic expensive amps he had been reviewing. If I remember rightly he actually bout the pre/power version for his own system. He had a bit of an odd system, with Celestion SL6's and later SL600's. He raved about those too, whilst most other reviewers were a bit luke-warm to them. He had a turntable with a Fujitsu arm. I remember that he also adopted CD before any other reviewers did, saying that he just could not hear the faults (ie. clinical sounding etc.) that other reviewers could. Does anyone else remember this guy? It takes me back all this...

Pete
 
Over many years there have been a great many comments from many different sources about this particular amp sounding grey and sterile. When it was released I remember that it was promoted as being an exceptionally competent design. I would be very interested to know what causes the allegedly poor sound, in technical terms. Maybe we need a separate thread (in the DIY room) on this?
Hi,
I have the schematic (available on the internet) and the LTP input stage feeds another differential pair, which i think is similar to the NE5532 opamp. The output stage is a complementary feedback pair. I have seen an Elektor amplifier similar to the input stage design too.

I have the amplifier (1991), and since 2010 have used it as the rear surround sound amplifier. When used at the main amp - no issues, and no problem with the sound.

What causes the criticism and why ?. I have not seen the tests, and we probably won't see them as per Audio science review etc, to the detail required. There must be people out there who like them.

Regards,
Shadders.
 
Hi,
I have the schematic (available on the internet) and the LTP input stage feeds another differential pair, which i think is similar to the NE5532 opamp. The output stage is a complementary feedback pair. I have seen an Elektor amplifier similar to the input stage design too.

I have the amplifier (1991), and since 2010 have used it as the rear surround sound amplifier. When used at the main amp - no issues, and no problem with the sound.

What causes the criticism and why ?. I have not seen the tests, and we probably won't see them as per Audio science review etc, to the detail required. There must be people out there who like them.

Regards,
Shadders.


Did it change after its link with Maclaren ? it's been around for a long time so it must have virtues, otherwise they would not sell in worthwhile numbers.
 
Did it change after its link with Maclaren ? it's been around for a long time so it must have virtues, otherwise they would not sell in worthwhile numbers.
Hi,
I don't know. For the 8000A i expect it was just a rebadging exercise, but there may have been changes. The 8300A is stated to be completely redesigned as per their website - so not sure if the redesign is amplifier circuit, or the change in the control with the same amplifier circuit.
Regards,
Shadders.
 
The original Audiolabs and the TAG versions were all but identical. The later IAG versions were cost downgraded substantially, before being replaced.

I had original S and later TAG Q pre and 125m's. Nothing sterile about them into modern Kef Reference 3.2 uni-q. If anything there were a smidge lacking in hf finesse. Certainly not of the absolute quality of my Neurochromes.
 
Over many years there have been a great many comments from many different sources about this particular amp sounding grey and sterile. When it was released I remember that it was promoted as being an exceptionally competent design. I would be very interested to know what causes the allegedly poor sound, in technical terms. Maybe we need a separate thread (in the DIY room) on this?

If we are talking about the 1980's amp, I have never heard it but I have vague memories of reading reviews where it was criticised as sounding 'clinical' and 'sterile' despite it apparently measuring well and having excellent dynamics, detail etc. I remember that the reviews at the time certainly put me off ever wanting to buy one.

When the Audiolab was first launched it was very well reviewed in a number of UK publications. In fact it was arguably lauded beyond its true capabilities, and for several months after the initial flurry of positive reviews, many dealers had a waiting list.

In its favour: it arrived with a certain amount of goodwill extended to Phillip Swift (now Spendor) and Derek Scotland, who were a design partnership for hire in the mould of Bob Stuart and Alan Boothroyd.

The first Lentek product IIRC was an MC phono amp, which was rather good, especially in combination with the Entre moving coil cartridge. The Lentek integrated amp which followed was also critically acclaimed, not least by Paul Benson in HFA (see the current 'Chris Frankland' thread).

The Lentek amp looked like a motorcycle engine - the look was deliberately different – and, for a British manufacturer, was built to a standard probably never seen outside SME at that time. Fit & finish, feel of control knobs and switches were up to the standard of anything the Japanese could muster.

It managed to dig out a level of detail on records that was very unusual, especially given it was extremely smooth-sounding (but not soporific) and easy to listen to.

Unfortunately, it had two problems, 1] the build quality made it very expensive with a relatively low power output compared to its competitors, and 2] while it worked extremely well in combination with some speakers – I was fond of it in combination with Mordaunt Short's flagship Signifer – there were some systems where it just died on its arse. I do remember one demo where it was hooked up to the then highly acclaimed B&W801 – which I already considered something of a rotting corpse – and that lasted maybe 10 minutes tops.

Anyway, it proved to be something of a Marmite product, and Lentek unfortunately failed in the market.

Our two heroes then re-appeared with the original Audiolab, which retained much of the high quality industrial design and quality knobbery, but at less than half the price of the Lentek. And it made an A&R A60 look like something out of a 1950s council house.

Great moments in bad timing perhaps, whereas the Lentek was tonally vibrant and very dynamic in the right system, the Audiolab was more obviously a budget product. At the time there was a trend emerging among speaker manufacturers which I always think of as 'the Cyrus sound,' all leading edges and detail, but without a lot of body.

So couple a 'best buy' Audiolab with one of the emerging generation of 'best buy' fizzy speakers and you could have done very well as a paracetemol supplier. I was never a huge fan of the Audiolab stuff in general terms – although there were some good combinations – my feeling was that the designers had swung too far the other way in trying to address the Lentek's perceived shortcomings. Most systems I knew based around Audiolab amps were quite fatiguing to listen to. Ironically for a 'futuristic' product, the audiolab probably paired better with old school speakers where the result wasn't quite so relentless.

If it hadn't originally been so hyped, there probably wouldn't have been quite the backlash. FWIW, I sold a lot of Meridian 101/103Ds to disgruntled Audiolab owners.

I think the first Tag McLaren variants of Audiolab products were slightly tweaked versions of the original designs. I did hear a couple and remember thinking they seemed brighter than the originals, which probably doesn't help the Audiolab's reputation.

I assume the IAG models are a different design, but in truth, don't know, don't care, I'd still rather have a Sugden a21 than any of them... does that answer any questions about power cables? ;-)
 
Last edited:
The one exception that sticks in my mind was a reviewer I think called 'David' someone, can't remember his surname. He raved about it, and about the separate pre/power version. I remember him saying that it 'comprehensively outperformed' most of the very exotic expensive amps he had been reviewing. If I remember rightly he actually bout the pre/power version for his own system. He had a bit of an odd system, with Celestion SL6's and later SL600's. He raved about those too, whilst most other reviewers were a bit luke-warm to them. He had a turntable with a Fujitsu arm. I remember that he also adopted CD before any other reviewers did, saying that he just could not hear the faults (ie. clinical sounding etc.) that other reviewers could. Does anyone else remember this guy? It takes me back all this...

You might be thinking of David G. Prakel, who posts here occasionally. I have a vague recollection of him taking a shine to the original Audiolab. If it is him you're thinking of, he didn't have a turntable with a Fujitsu arm (neither did anyone else) but he did have a Linn with a fidelity Research Fr64fx, which I must admit always made me raise a quizzical eyebrow - superb arm in the right place, but I'd never be convinced the right place was bolted to Glasgow's finest. Still, each to their own. DGP had a 2 box Marantz CD94/DAC and if memory serves was more into classical music than most of the Haymarket reviewers, JMH aside.

Don't recall ever hearing the combination, but yes, I'd imagine the Audiolab gear would probably partner quite successfully with the Celestions.

I don't know what kind of power cables might have been involved (trying to drag things vaguely back on-topic).

At one time, What HiFi had an entire 'reference' system based around Audiolab components in a room built in homage to the acoustics of a typical aircraft hanger. That probably didn't do much for Audiolab's reputation in the trade either.
 
You might be thinking of David G. Prakel, who posts here occasionally. I have a vague recollection of him taking a shine to the original Audiolab. If it is him you're thinking of, he didn't have a turntable with a Fujitsu arm (neither did anyone else) but he did have a Linn with a fidelity Research Fr64fx, which I must admit always made me raise a quizzical eyebrow - superb arm in the right place, but I'd never be convinced the right place was bolted to Glasgow's finest. Still, each to their own. DGP had a 2 box Marantz CD94/DAC and if memory serves was more into classical music than most of the Haymarket reviewers, JMH aside.

Don't recall ever hearing the combination, but yes, I'd imagine the Audiolab gear would probably partner quite successfully with the Celestions.

I don't know what kind of power cables might have been involved (trying to drag things vaguely back on-topic).

At one time, What HiFi had an entire 'reference' system based around Audiolab components in a room built in homage to the acoustics of a typical aircraft hanger. That probably didn't do much for Audiolab's reputation in the trade either.

Yes that's him, thanks! I've often wondered what became of him as he suddenly seemed to disappear from reviewing. And yes you are quite right about the arm being a Fidelity Research (not Fujitsu!). It always struck me as odd because I'd never heard of it before and no other reviewers seemed to use it. He struck me as an interesting guy because he didn't seem follow the herd as it were.

As far as power cables go I don't remember there being a great deal of debate about them back then. I do remember a Linn/Naim dealer I used to visit selling a 4 way mains block that had apparently been 'designed' by The Chord Company. But it was just a 4way Duraplug block with the light removed and some thick mains cable attached!

Pete
 
Off topic I know, but as JMH was mentioned does anyone know whatever became of him? I used to lap up everything he said back in the old days. I stripped out all the filling material from my KEF Coda II's and replaced the drive unit screws with bolts through the cabinet because of him. Completely ruined the bars*ards - they never sounded right after that!

He had a pair of big Impulse horn speakers and also used some cheap 'modified' A&R Cambridge bookshelf speakers which he seemed to regard very highly, although no-one else did.

Pete
 
Yes that's him, thanks! I've often wondered what became of him as he suddenly seemed to disappear from reviewing. And yes you are quite right about the arm being a Fidelity Research (not Fujitsu!). It always struck me as odd because I'd never heard of it before and no other reviewers seemed to use it. He struck me as an interesting guy because he didn't seem follow the herd as it were.

As far as power cables go I don't remember there being a great deal of debate about them back then. I do remember a Linn/Naim dealer I used to visit selling a 4 way mains block that had apparently been 'designed' by The Chord Company. But it was just a 4way Duraplug block with the light removed and some thick mains cable attached!

Pete

No, well we are going back 40 years. At that point, specialist cables were still pretty thin on the ground, although HFN (of all titles!) had published Jean Hiraga's article on the audible effects of cables a couple of years earlier IIRC.

The first inkling I had there might be something up was an Audio Technica speaker cable which I remember being bidden listen to by the founder's grandson (I think) on his inaugural visit to the the UK. Since he'd just given me one of their electronic stylus gauges as a gift, I wasn't going to risk a breakdown in Anglo-Japanese relations by not trying it out. Before that, there'd only been crap like Monster Cable and a couple of broadly similar products which had crossed my path.

Can't recall anybody having an after-market power cable in the UK at that time, although of course the 'extreme' Japanese audiophiles who'd largely prompted Hiraga's article were already off down that route.

Given that was the point at which I was essentially retiring from the hifi industry, I didn't really pay much attention after that for quite a long time.

Best part of 20 years in fact. Where does the time go?

If you'd told me then I'd be sitting typing this shite 40 years later, I'd have bet very good money against that ever being the case. And no, I wouldn't have thought it probable I'd own several grand's worth of cable by one of said extreme Japanese audiophiles either.
 
Last edited:
Yes that's him, thanks! I've often wondered what became of him as he suddenly seemed to disappear from reviewing.
Pete

I think he moved to reviewing music primarily for a while (Gramophone?)

But I might just be making that up, long time ago.
 
Hi,
I have the schematic (available on the internet) and the LTP input stage feeds another differential pair, which i think is similar to the NE5532 opamp. The output stage is a complementary feedback pair. I have seen an Elektor amplifier similar to the input stage design too.

I have the amplifier (1991), and since 2010 have used it as the rear surround sound amplifier. When used at the main amp - no issues, and no problem with the sound.

What causes the criticism and why ?. I have not seen the tests, and we probably won't see them as per Audio science review etc, to the detail required. There must be people out there who like them.

Regards,
Shadders.

So loads of feedback then.
OMG I've mentioned the "F" word. Hope that doesn't start another bunfight :)
 
So loads of feedback then.
OMG I've mentioned the "F" word. Hope that doesn't start another bunfight :)
Hi,
I have the NCC200 schematic too, uses a 27k versus 1k in the feedback path, and the Audiolab uses 2.7k versus 100 in the feedback loop. So both have 28dB approx feedback - do you agree ?

If the above is correct, then loads of feedback in the Naim clone is ok, yet the same for Audiolab is not. This perhaps shows that hifi folklore is a bad thing and warps discussion and perspective.

Regards,
Shadders.
 
Hi,
I have the NCC200 schematic too, uses a 27k versus 1k in the feedback path, and the Audiolab uses 2.7k versus 100 in the feedback loop. So both have 28dB approx feedback - do you agree ?

If the above is correct, then loads of feedback in the Naim clone is ok, yet the same for Audiolab is not. This perhaps shows that hifi folklore is a bad thing and warps discussion and perspective.

Regards,
Shadders.

The amount of feedback is the open loop gain divided by (subtracted from in dB) the closed loop gain. The figure you calculated from the global feedback resistors is the closed loop gain.
The Naim circuit does have fairly high feedback. The NCC200 has less open loop gain due to the emitter degeneration in the LTP.
 


advertisement


Back
Top