Vintage High End Tube amps list

David Hafler never tried to build the best gear around. He was always trying to get the best sound for low cost. He did this with the Stereo 70 for tube gear and the Hafler DH-200 for solid state gear and both live on today as excellent examples of value for the money when bought new. High end, not really, great sound, sure but there are upgrades and tweaks available for both amps making them considerably better so I don't consider them high end. Still wouldn't mind having a Stereo 70 to go along with my DH-200s. Be a nice David Hafler amp selection.
I don't know about the ST 70s, but my Mark IIIs with my Tung Sol Black plates, its superior iron, and my Pas2 just sound better than McIntosh whatever.

I guess Dynaco is the working man's amp.
 
Well considering At the time of design, then production David Hafler"s {formerly of Accrosound...excellent trafo's}Dynaco Amps were considered the"poor mans McIntosh"
and his early MKii/MKiii/MKiv mono's gathered a huge following as is apparent by the numbers sold and available to this day.I very seldom happen upon a dynaco tube product that still to this day doesn't sport its original OPT's or Trafo's after all these yrs, a testimony to their build quality!Were there some penny pinching in Haflers products of the day..im sure...but his Ultralinear circuitry incorporated in his amps and Trafo's were well respected. He both sold Kits and factory assembled Amps to the audiophile mass's and made hi-end sound available at a lower price point.
If you consider the Hafler designed tube products "second rate" id say that's not bad!!!In my experience In a blind test against period matching tube mono blocks from Mac and Dynaco all things being equal wpc/preamp/speakers/and source your ears or mine would have a hard time decerning the difference,there are tube amps that measured "better " in square wave/bandwidth exc ...sure,doesnt always mean the product is inferior when considering end "sound".
All in all if meeting Hi end tube amp criteria is amps that produce a richness of tone,sweetness across the audio spectram then yes in my opinion Dynaco can be included on this list.

hunter

Oh good. There is intelligent life on the board.
 
You are more than welcome to declare loudly and often that the Dynaco ST70 is a high-end amplifier.

I think what he said was the term high-end was irrelevant and otherwise dorky wrt the topic at hand. No offense to the OP of course, as high end is part of the thread title. But to question whether or not Dynaco gear belongs in the discussion?

I'd rather talk about them than hear someone brag about their tootie fruity BMW, that's for sure, but hey, that's just me.
 
Last edited:
Mac Clinics were pretty impartial re their bench testing against spec, tho' they'd freshen up their own tube products to exceed spec at no cost to the customer. In the tube days, not that many tube amps met published spec, as implied, on the bench, McIntosh and Marantz usually did.
In the solid state era, many amps had no problem meeting specs. Bob Carver's new Phase Linear 700 did just that on Mac's clinic bench when introed in 1971, for instance. Transistors leveled the numbers playing field, features and price distinguished the brands.
 
Last edited:
In my experience dynaco belongs on another list. A Dynaco st 70 in stock form does not put out 35 watts per channel with both channels driven. I have personally verified this. Even with a brand new set of tubes the 70 is a 25 watt per channel amp, when hooked to the dummy load and my hewlett packard distortion analyzer. For comparisons sake I hooked a rusty, all original McIntosh MC30 (specs claim it's a 30 watt 6l6 amp) to the same analyzer, and it made 45 watts at about 1%. People have opinions and that's fine, we all have different ears. If your opinions are based on published specs, please attempt to verify those specs before presenting your opinion as fact. It's pretty well known that Dynaco fudged the specs. High end gear exceeded specs, and that performance is verifiable with the right equipment.
 
If you call $1099 over priced I don't know where are coming from. Of course today they are very pricey. But rebuilt they sound better than a 2301 and only 143 were built. so like a Duesenburg the rarity contributes to the price. At the time working for a Mcintosh dealer I could have gotten a pair for a real deal. Just like I got my matching pair of 275's. But the idea of having 4 to bi-amp my speakers and later on 6 to tri-amp just seemed ridiculous. So I bought Crown amps and eventually went back to Mac 207 amps which I use today. Why didn't I buy 3500's when I had a chance. Well they all needed continue monitoring and service. And I got tired of having to service the few we sold in the field, its also why I got rid of my other Mac tube amps. I could have made a fortune if I had kept the 275's and 240's longer, but I didn't. If I won the lottery tomorow I still wouldn't have a tube anything, opps well I would have one. Ampex MR-70-4 using nuvistor tubes. They built very few of those, too.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind a pair of vintage MC75 for tube amps. Light enough to move, not too complicated to service and keep going.
 
I don't know about the ST 70s, but my Mark IIIs with my Tung Sol Black plates, its superior iron, and my Pas2 just sound better than McIntosh whatever.

I guess Dynaco is the working man's amp.

Dynaco amps are very good.
I used to have a ST70 and a PAS2 and I really liked them.
But now I have a MX110Z and a 2A3-Triode with 3W power.
I like them a lot more.

BUT of course...everyone can be totally happy with Dynaco amps.
 
I would just say, that I once owned one of those sought after amps with the extra large transformers, large power tubes, and fantastic finish, with a "wow" factor, rebuilt them for reliability, but was quite disappointed in the sound (and I have rooms full of all makes of speakers, so it was not a match up problem). I sold them (they were mono blocks) to someone who was very impressed with their looks, but I kept several Dynaco gear that was more enjoyable to listen to. Today, I am very skeptical of claims of superior sonic merit from owners of those amps I sold off. It could just be that our ears are different. I also have HH Scott, Eico, Heathkit and Fisher gear that i am keeping. If I buy anything new, I would like to try the 45 tube or 2A3 tube amps.
 
Can we define what high end means?

To me high end just means expensive. That's a simple definition. A simple answer is was it, say, two or more standard deviations from the mean. So, it would be the most expensive 15% of the market. Very high end gear would be three deviations out. So, you're talking about the last 3% of the market. High end vacations just mean expensive vacations, high end accomidations or real estate simply mean expensive real estate and all that is implied by that. But expensive is part of the equation, no matter what if you're going by the street definition of the word. Cristal champagne is high end, not matter if you like it or it's well made or not.

Is a Mazda Miata "high end"? It sure is a fun car to drive. Is it a Ferrari? No. Is it better for a lot of people? Yes. What about high end cables? Does it mean very expensive parts? Does it mean better yield or does it just mean expensive? In audio high and can also be a synonym for crazy to people who are not Illuminati. There may be benefits in the last 3% of the price spectrum but to the uninitiated it just seems ludicrous.

There seems to be some struggle here with what are the best, or best designed or highest level components. Generally high end means expensive to people.

What are the best made vintage amps, or what vintage amps sound best? Those are different questions.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom