Croft integrated : $phile
- Thread starter Cato
- Start date
Not quite that simple, and I speak as a Croft owner (phonostage). Both Dudley and a colleague loved the amp, but the technical review was one of the most damming I have seen....phrases such as 'incompetent' are used, and John Atkinson reports a 6db roll-off within the audible frequency range on phono, and persistent distortion. This, of course, raises the age-old issue of how tech stuff relates to what we hear.
Glenn Croft told me he believed some of the technical issues were problems with the measuring equipment; he told me he measures each amp before it leaves his workshop. He was offered a right of reply but decided not to use it.
So, strange and a little worrying. But there's no doubt that the reviewers adored the sound. They also praised the low prices. To be honest, I don't know how to reconcile the poor technical performance with the fine sound. As I said, classic audio dilemma. If you get the chance, read the review and the technical section. See what you make of it all.
hermit
Aye, right.
I am a very happy owner of a Croft Twinstar amp. In terms of sound quality, there is a very positive review by Haden Boardman which can be found on the Croft website here. He describes it as 'a truly endearing power amplifier' but also notes that 'this amp does not measure well'.
To my mind there is no dilemma here. I don't listen to measurements. I listen to music. Glen Croft's amps sound great. End of story. All IMHO.
Fair enough, but it would be good if people had actually had the chance to read the review. The issues are pretty stark , with suggestions of technical incompetence ('at best,').
I like Croft stuff, I buy it, but technical issues can matter; a 6db roll off in the audible frequence range would be unacceptable, surely? Being some sort of subjectivist (I am) doesn't mean anything goes does it?
The review is worth a read, because the central issues of measurement/hearing is presented so clearly. World class reviewer adores the amp, world clas technical editor thinks it poor.
IMO this was no incompetent or unfair review. After reading it I was more than a little surprised with the measurements but very impressed with its overall fairness. Dudley loved the sound but the darn thing measured really poorly. Atkinson was concerned about the discrepancy and so asked another reviewer to have a listen. Both reviewers liked the sound a lot and this was clearly noted with no pot shots taken. However, the measurements were also left as measured, again with no additional comment or editorial advantage taken.
On this site and others you will read some members commenting about reviewers loving everything and seemingly being beholden to manufacturers. That certainly wasn't the case here and, for myself, I can't understand why Croft didn't take the opportunity to respond and perhaps explain.
Finally, having read Stereophile for many years, my experience is if they later find a problem with how the measurements were made or some rational reason for that particular piece of equipment to measure in that manner, it will be mentioned in a later issue as a follow-up.
On this site and others you will read some members commenting about reviewers loving everything and seemingly being beholden to manufacturers. That certainly wasn't the case here and, for myself, I can't understand why Croft didn't take the opportunity to respond and perhaps explain.
Finally, having read Stereophile for many years, my experience is if they later find a problem with how the measurements were made or some rational reason for that particular piece of equipment to measure in that manner, it will be mentioned in a later issue as a follow-up.
ArtK
Lovin’ life!
Excellent post.
Agreed. I find reading the subjective reviews alongside the measurements to be informative--the only real reason I subscribe to Stereophile.
ArtK
Lovin’ life!
As it should be.
An excellent post, I feel the reviewers gave an extremely fair and balanced appraisal based upon their findings
sq225917
Bit of this, bit of that
Its a straight enough review, no falling over themselves to kiss ass as happens elsewhere. If there are corrections to be made you can be sure they will be made crystal clear. Stereophile is the last even handed English language HiFi magazine. I trust their reviews emphatically, if not their personal columns.
Review is now up on sphile website for all to read - and completely agree with everyone thatthis is a classic listening vs measurements review. JA is very competent for sure but generally hates the way 300b and most other valve amps measure, but to many they still sound good.
I certainly wouldnt think about the measurements if I liked what I heard - off to Walrus soon to give it a whirl
You will not regret listening or buying this amp as I believe it is that good. I bought mine from Walrus and it was a good experience.
I should say listen to music through my Croft amp.
Tony L
Administrator
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.
Yet again the old question rears its head.
Does it sound good despite the measured shortcomings or does it sound good because of them?
Would everybody like the sound or would it appeal more to the single ended vinyl playing enthusiasts? (The line input was fairly flat only rolling off a touch early, the RIAA was very tailored).
I am tempted to buy one just to hear it for myself, particularly since I am currently very much enjoying an amp JA found exceptional technically...
I also find Stereophile by far the most sensible magazine with reviewers with all sorts of taste and competant, thorough technical evaluations.
Does it sound good despite the measured shortcomings or does it sound good because of them?
Would everybody like the sound or would it appeal more to the single ended vinyl playing enthusiasts? (The line input was fairly flat only rolling off a touch early, the RIAA was very tailored).
I am tempted to buy one just to hear it for myself, particularly since I am currently very much enjoying an amp JA found exceptional technically...
I also find Stereophile by far the most sensible magazine with reviewers with all sorts of taste and competant, thorough technical evaluations.
I have thought for a while that the favourite components have a particular flavour. LP12s are hardly neutral, nor are Naim amps, even if both are now heading that way in their latest incarnations. See also the Tannoy honk, the ESL rolloff, the warmth of some valve layouts or indeed tranny amps.