Don Sachs 2 vs. deHavilland Ultraverve 3

4hannons,

Thank you very much for the possibility of an invite! Unfortunately, I live on the east coast so it’s too far to do at this time - but still much appreciated.

Your impressions were interesting to read. What I gathered from your posts was that they sound extremely similar (detailed, clean, smooth, nice presentation, etc.) except that the deHavilland may have a bit more of a delicate, relaxed sound. Is this about right?

Would it be possible for you to give any more thoughts on how the 2 differ? In other words, is one more detailed or transparent than the other? Which do you think has stronger dynamics, better bass “slam”, or is more holographic? Thanks in advance for anything you can add to distinguish the two!

gotog,

Thank you very much for your response. I appreciate the comments.

I also like a black background with very low noise so it is nice to hear the deHavilland can provide that.

Regarding point to point wiring, is the Sachs not point to point? My understanding was that both units were all point to point, but perhaps the deHaviland is hand wired all the way through and the standard m2 Sachs is not?

You raise an important issue re the number of tubes.  With 4 octals on the Sachs and only 1 on the deHavilland, does that make the Sachs more expensive to maintain? Or would the other tubes on the dHavilland even things out? Or is the real issue ensuring all 4 octals match on the Sachs?

4hannons,

THANK YOU very much for all the details! It is definitely helpful.

I must admit I'm intrigued by your description of the Sachs.  Like you I'm big on dynamics and "punch".  OTOH, I do want some real tube sweetness and holigraphics, etc. 

I am curious about your impressions on the extent of the differences between your 3 units. In other words, if on a spectrum of “tubey-ness” where solid state, or the Pass, is 0 and super tubey is 10, where would you place the Sachs and deHavviland?

It is interesting that the Sachs has 4 6SN7 tubes vs only 1 for the deHavilland, and yet it is the deHavilland that you feel exhibits more of the classic tube characteristics. I wonder why?

I hear you about the potential effect of different model tubes installed. If you have any interest, I wonder what your impressions would be with one of the Sachs stock tubes in the deHavilland; this could be closer to an apples to apples comparison (even if the deHavilland tube was in the Sachs, it would only be 1 of 4).

Thanks for noting your gear – nice system btw! I also have a McCormack amp, although mine is a stock DNA 0.5 deluxe.

Thanks again!

4hannons,

Thanks for trying to place these on a spectrum and giving greater context by including other preamps. I agree that we can’t represent such complex sounds by a number, but in the context of a lot of other details (like those you gave), it can help as another piece of the puzzle.

If you have time for another comment…you mentioned the deHavilland as being “slightly warmer/darker”. Have you found it has more mid bass/low mids OR less treble/high frequencies...or both?  I guess I’m wondering if there is any sense of a veil or muted high end…

Gotog,

I get your comments now regarding the deHavilland’s wiring. Apologies as I think my question came from ignorance. Your post helped me to understand so thank you for that!

BTW, do you know if the deHavilland has anything that can help the user know where they are in the volume ladder (the Sachs has a digital readout for this)?

My amp is a McCormack DNA 0.5 deluxe and my speakers are Gemme Audio Tantos. (I'm a bit of a noob at hifi.)  For music, my first passion is jazz (Miles, Coltrane, Jarrett, etc.), my second is classic rock/blues/folk, and I also love classical and a lot of other, diverse stuff.  How about you?  Also curious if there is a genre (or speaker type) you find especially suited to the Ultraverve?

gotog, Thanks for your comments! Sounds like you have a great taste in music ;-] . It seems strange to me that there is no way for the user to know where he is on the volume ladder of the UV – but I’m sure there is some reason for that design choice, and perhaps I am in the minority desiring such a feature?  I hear you regarding complimenting my gear and room. It’s tough to know how something will sound before actually installing it so it is very helpful hearing other members’ experiences.

jsm71, I appreciate your observations and thoughts.  I have heard how responsive the deHavilland is to tube changes – interesting that it is possibly the nature of all (or most?) 6SN7 preamps.  I found your comments regarding coupling caps very intriguing. Perhaps my biggest goal is adding some of the “magic” that tubes can give but without creating any sense of veil or haze. (I don’t want to reduce any high end as my speakers are already pretty smooth). I’m pretty uninformed regarding caps. I know there are different kinds and brands but don’t grasp the concept of minimizing or eliminating them. Could you elaborate??