Preamps & my Accuphase C-200

[davstev]

Hi all,

Yesterday in an AK forum exchange it was suggested to me that my Accuphase C200 (circa mid-70s) preamp was a weak link in my system (I have a nice TT/Cartridge and the C-200 is sending a signal to a Kenny 700M and then to Tannoy Golds). This opinion surprised me- I've always thought the C200 sounded good, if not really good, and it's pretty well reviewed. The fella I was conversing with suggested that preamp design has come a long way since then, even if my C200 was awesome for its era. Is it true that top 70's preamp designs pale in comparison to today's above average (1K-2K range) preamps, solid state in particular? (NB. I know I should re-cap my C200 but I am talking more about design).

I don't have the means to try out a bunch of modern design preamps in my system without purchasing them so I'd love to hear opinions rather than spend a million bucks trying out competitors to my C200. Also, specifically what makes modern preamp designs superior to vintage designs (if you think that's true).

Much appreciated.

David

 

[for_p1]

Hi all,

Yesterday in an AK forum exchange it was suggested to me that my Accuphase C200 (circa mid-70s) preamp was a weak link in my system (I have a nice TT/Cartridge and the C-200 is sending a signal to a Kenny 700M and then to Tannoy Golds). This opinion surprised me- I've always thought the C200 sounded good, if not really good, and it's pretty well reviewed. The fella I was conversing with suggested that preamp design has come a long way since then, even if my C200 was awesome for its era. Is it true that top 70's preamp designs pale in comparison to today's above average (1K-2K range) preamps, solid state in particular? (NB. I know I should re-cap my C200 but I am talking more about design).

I don't have the means to try out a bunch of modern design preamps in my system without purchasing them so I'd love to hear opinions rather than spend a million bucks trying out competitors to my C200. Also, specifically what makes modern preamp designs superior to vintage designs (if you think that's true).

Much appreciated.

David

You can stay with Accuphase brand, just get newer models. C290 is nice, as are C24x0 models. Both use plug in phono modules which are interchangeable. They are not cheap though. I use C2400 with phono module of the same vintage and quite happy with it.

 

[davstev]

Thanks for the tips. Yes, I am happy with Accuphase. Nicely Built! At this point I'm wondering more about the actual sonic benefits relative to the more current designs vs. 70s designs, before I dish out the big bucks.

 

[Binkman]

Dave don't get bent out over of a grain of salt opinion. What sounds good to you in your layout/ seup, etc. is most important. Hell I'd like to have most of the stuff the i.e. many posters say 'they were not impressed with' one model or another !

 

[davstev]

Thanks for the input. Like any audiophile, I have a tendency to wonder if there's something better out there. Having said that, I'm pretty happy with my setup, still enjoying the music. The main reason for my post was to try to figure out if preamp design has in fact come a long way in the last 40 years, or not. If so, I would surmise that this could (but not necessarily), result in better sounding preamps. Theoretically....

 

[FootFungus]

The designs have come a long, long way. However, if you haven't recapped your C-200 yet, I highly suggest doing so. There's not many in that unit. Just replacing the power supply caps should reduce the noise levels a good bit. Its a cheap upgrade.

 

[mad shadows]

I used a Kenwood Supreme 700C until recently (partly restored). It´s a sibling to your Accuphase.
I have since moved on to a Hovland HP-100. I find the sound quality of the Hovland vastly superior to the Kenwood in every way.
But can miss the versatility of the Kenwood at times.

 

[ghamilton]

Replace ALL electrolytic caps in that preamp!!!! I suggest Panasonic FM caps if you can find the correct values. When you can't find the correct ones in FM, then FC is a great cap. If your preamp is bright sounding and you want to warm it up (so to speak) then use the ELNA Selmic II in the signal path. The FM/FC is better for the pwr supply. I think you will hear a BIG improvement!

 

[EchoWars]

Back in the day, we expected TOTL preamps to have every feature imaginable, thus the signal path was quite long and the potential for problems amplified (yes, a pun). Nowadays it's expected that the signal flow path is as short and simple as possible. It's simply two very different design objectives. But I'll happily put a properly rebuilt 700C or C-200 up against any new preamp.

The biggest problem with either of these preamps is the use of some known 'bad actors' in the form of some transistors that are well known to go bad or get noisy. And the C-200 just about always needs the regulated supply board stripped and repopulated with new parts.

ghamilton, there are zero electrolytic caps in the main signal path in the C-200 (there's a 10uf e-cap in the feedback loop on the tone board, but I change these out to a film cap). And most of the e-caps in the C-200 are axial caps anyway and proper practices mean that they should be replaced with another axial cap (Vishay/BC Components parts), so there's really no place for a Panasonic or Elna cap. If someone wanted to go whole-hog on the C-200, the original mylar signal caps could be replaced with polypropylene.

RE: Kenwood 700C. If it hasn't been restored and had all the electrolytic coupling caps replaced with film, you haven't begun to see what that preamp is capable of.

The C-200 and 700C are two of the best full-featured preamps ever built, but both need real attention to realize their potential. The raw material is there, it just needs a bit of love to bring out their best.

 

[davstev]

Back in the day, we expected TOTL preamps to have every feature imaginable, thus the signal path was quite long and the potential for problems amplified (yes, a pun). Nowadays it's expected that the signal flow path is as short and simple as possible. It's simply two very different design objectives. But I'll happily put a properly rebuilt 700C or C-200 up against any new preamp.

The biggest problem with either of these preamps is the use of some known 'bad actors' in the form of some transistors that are well known to go bad or get noisy. And the C-200 just about always needs the regulated supply board stripped and repopulated with new parts.

ghamilton, there are zero electrolytic caps in the main signal path in the C-200 (there's a 10uf e-cap in the feedback loop on the tone board, but I change these out to a film cap). And most of the e-caps in the C-200 are axial caps anyway and proper practices mean that they should be replaced with another axial cap (Vishay/BC Components parts), so there's really no place for a Panasonic or Elna cap. If someone wanted to go whole-hog on the C-200, the original mylar signal caps could be replaced with polypropylene.

RE: Kenwood 700C. If it hasn't been restored and had all the electrolytic coupling caps replaced with film, you haven't begun to see what that preamp is capable of.

The C-200 and 700C are two of the best full-featured preamps ever built, but both need real attention to realize their potential. The raw material is there, it just needs a bit of love to bring out their best.

Echowars, thanks for the insight on design philosophies. I knew you'd stand up for the C-200! Point well taken about the recap/transistor replacement. You've laid it out nicely, I am strongly considering doing this now. I've always kept it in mind. To be honest, I think my system sounds a little flat despite some nice and supposedly complimentary gear; I know it's capable of more and I am trying to figure out the weak links without making expensive or lateral moves. Especially concered with lateral moves since my gear looks like it belongs together and comes from the same lineage; it'd be a shame to put in a Conrad-Johnson or Adcom or other modern preamp in the mix just for sound's sake unless it was actually a sonic improvement. My 700M is mostly fully recapped (by myself with your help back in 2014/2015), and while this is another discussion entirely, I think it might have actually lost a little of a certain character that it had before the recap, contrary to what I was expecting. Still sounds great, (& looks great) but just a bit less of the wow factor, possibly a little more generic sounding. The C-200 unit I have I think maybe could also use a bit more sparkle, and I think this can be restored to this unit after a recap. And, I think recapping Accuphase units of this era is pretty simple from what I've heard, because of the way the boards are situated and removable. As a side note, I don't think elna Silmic ii caps are preferable; I used them abundantly in a Marantz 2270 and I thought it made it sound quite soft and imprecise, albeit what might be called "warm" in abundance. Thanks again for your input.

 

[davstev]

I used a Kenwood Supreme 700C until recently (partly restored). It´s a sibling to your Accuphase.
I have since moved on to a Hovland HP-100. I find the sound quality of the Hovland vastly superior to the Kenwood in every way.
But can miss the versatility of the Kenwood at times.

Interesting to note. Thanks. The Hovland is quite a bit more $$ I think than the Supreme 700C. Too rich for my blood! Sure it sounds heavenly though...

 

[ghamilton]

I know nothing about the 200c. Listen to echowars!!!! As always,...THANKS EW!

 

[slimecity]

I would be gutted if the views originally given to you were correct - I love my C200. Although those views sound a bit "ageist" to me. I've never heard phono sound so good for one thing. I've always personally considered that "flatness" (well, my interpretation of it anyway) is an indicator of a recap being required. Its a very straighforward task in the C200 as EW states.

 

[davstev]

I would be gutted if the views originally given to you were correct - I love my C200. Although those views sound a bit "ageist" to me. I've never heard phono sound so good for one thing. I've always personally considered that "flatness" (well, my interpretation of it anyway) is an indicator of a recap being required. Its a very straighforward task in the C200 as EW states.

I be keepin' the C-200, mon. (No idea why I just went Jamaican).

It's such a beauty. I know Echowars has his biases towards the Kenwood/Accuphase camp, but I do think it's a solid opinion based on ears and huge knowledge too, and it's backed by many others. I think a fine unit like the C200 just deserves a recap, that's all. I am sure that there are better sounding preamps, but the high-end contemporary gear that might rival or better the C200 is in the $2000-3000 range. I can't do that. I am just not that rich, or foolish, depending on your view.

 

[for_p1]

Thanks for the tips. Yes, I am happy with Accuphase. Nicely Built! At this point I'm wondering more about the actual sonic benefits relative to the more current designs vs. 70s designs, before I dish out the big bucks.

Main benefit will be when you get a unit with unique Accuphase volume control circuit which effectively is a discrete reverse ladder DAC. Their implementation of tone controls is very good too. These are all late 1990s and newer models.

 

[davstev]

Main benefit will be when you get a unit with unique Accuphase volume control circuit which effectively is a discrete reverse ladder DAC. Their implementation of tone controls is very good too. These are all late 1990s and newer models.

Notable. Thank you.

 

[ginetto61]

Hi ! i think that the more modern minimalist approach can pay dividends in preamps. Now you get a selector > attenuator > preamp circuit and ... no much else. No tone controls, no eq ...
it is a different way of approach the task