Ferrari, I once owned this amp too, and at the time, it was the best amp I'd had thus far. That was early in my audiophile journey however, and I was able to surpass its performance pretty quickly when I moved to a Conrad-Johnson MV-55 tubed amp. I remember the Seventy's strong suit as being bass authority for such a compact, moderately-powered amp. It handily outperformed my previous NAD 2200 in all areas, sounding much more at ease even though it was rated at 30 fewer watts.
But I could never be completely satisfied with this amp, due to its stereotypically 'solid-state' sounding 'cold' or 'hard' harmonic structures, overbearing bass relative to its darkish highs, dodgy imaging (it wandered with frequency), and residual opaqueness that prevented it from resolving fine reverberant details. When I got my C-J (though it has since been replaced, in another big upgrade, by VTL mono's), it was like breathing a sigh of relief, as everything just got much more coherently natural-sounding and open, despite its being rated at only 45 watts (this was all with Thiel CS2.2's). Piano sounded a lot more like a piano, instead of some 'electro-mechanical' reproduction of a piano. Ditto for voices. Instrumental images sounded fully integrated with their acoustic surroundings, rather than artificially detached.
But the Classe was well-built and trouble-free, and I'm guessing it would still beat many mass-market receivers around the price it goes for used in terms of fullness and body. I'll also mention that it was extraordinarily sensitive to a power cord upgrade, and wasn't nearly as listenable until I had done this (at the time, I used a Synergistic Master AC Coupler). I wouldn't call this amp truly 'high end' today, but as an inexpensive knockabout spare for use in a second system or with a subwoofer it'll serve. Obviously, you and I have a fairly divergent assessment of the Seventy's overall musicality, but even so, happy listening! :-) |
FWIW, I believe that the older and generally well-regarded "DR" line from Classe, as well as many of the products they've introduced in more recent years such as the Omega line and its trickle-down descendents, were not primarily designed by the same lead engineer as was the Seventy and its kin, so Bigbry's and my conclusions about those products shouldn't, needless to say, be extrapolated to all Classe gear. The Seventy was after all - as Ferrari pointed out - somewhat of a 'budget' amp in audiophile terms. However, why this model remains fondly remembered, or is still used, by more than a few audiophiles is something of a mystery to me. I mean, Ferrari has been at this since before I was born - do we really hear things that differently? :-) |
Well Ferrari, you did say "for me, this is as good as it gets for class-A/AB amplifiers", which I took to mean all class-A/B amplifiers, which means the vast majority of amps on the market. That's a pretty strong endorsement, even if you limit it to the Seventy's price range, and the other amps you list probably aren't chopped liver. This makes me wonder whether I could ever be happy with relatively inexpensive solid-state sound (something I haven't attempted to survey). For the record, I bought my C-J MV-55 as a demo for about $200 less than the Seventy went for new, so I wouldn't exactly call that tubed amp "esoteric" - never mind costing as much as a luxury car, so I'm not sure where the FM Acoustic comparison comes into play. (BTW, I bought and then sold my Seventy for $450 each time, and would question spending more on this piece.) The MV-55 also has its shortcomings to be sure, though to me they're more tolerable, endearing even, than are the Seventy's. Again, I cannot see why the amp I heard and lived with would ever become a 'cult item' as you say, but as a 'starter' amp like it was for me, I suppose worse could be done for the money if you're stepping up from an NAD or Adcom. Thanks for posting the review and your gracious response to my demuring. |
Tnadu: You asked, "But come on, comparing the Seventy to mass-market receivers?"
What I said above: "...I'm guessing it would still beat many mass-market receivers around the price it goes for used in terms of fulless and body." Well, so would a Krell monoblock - why do you take this to be some sort of slam?
You also said, "You might want to be a little more sure of Classe's history of design before posting." You then go on to say essentially the same thing I wrote in my post, which is that the lead designer for the Seventy was not the same guy as for the DR series or their current offerings - a point I raised in response to Bigbry's post, who's somewhat careless inference about Classe in general (true as his reporting may be for him personally) you also took exception to. Although I had forgotten GG's name since I owned the amp, again, just what is it about my words that you're attempting to call out here?
As to your supposition that I'm simply a tube kinda guy who'll never like SS, I wrote: "This makes me wonder whether I could ever be happy with relatively inexpensive SS sound (something I haven't attempted to survey)." That is as honest and open a statement of my position on the question as I can fathom a way to write. Sure, I like tubes, but that doesn't mean I like just any tubed amplifier. By the same token, don't read more than is there into my wondering about affordable SS - a few of the most accomplished amps I have ever auditioned were solid-state. For instance, I have no reason not to think that Classe's top offerings of today might not surpass the tubed amps I currently use in many ways - indeed quite possibly in all ways - but I don't know from personal experience, which is why I didn't attempt some sort of definitive pronouncement on the relative merits of the two technologies (and would never presume to do so). Rather, my musings were simply a logical extension of Ferrari's finding that he liked the little Classe better than many of the budget (used, I'll assume) SS contenders he's owned/auditioned and listed as such, which by implication might mean I would prefer my budget C-J over them by an even wider margin than I did with the Seventy. But I made sure to qualify that sentiment with my parenthetical statement that I had not surveyed all the competition, and by noting that Ferrari and I seem to hear differently regarding the Seventy's merits and shortcomings anyway.
Tubes vs. SS wasn't the point of my posts, but I felt that readers should be provided with some sort of context about where my comments were coming from. Please don't try to hang me for being forthcoming - all I'm interested in good sound, not which method one prefers to get there. I will happily affirm that the Seventy will beat out any similarly-priced (new) tube amp I know of in terms of bass slam and weight, although not necessarily overall bass musicality (I found its bass wasn't as open - didn't 'breathe' or 'flow' as well and wasn't as transparent - as I might have liked, and tended to somewhat overshadow the amp's mids and trebles in a way that detracted from its overall coherence). My main point wasn't that the amp was terrible, but that I had a different take on it, and have never understood exactly where its apparently persistent lofty reputation comes from. Obviously, I think it is possible to do much better for not a lot more money on the used market.
You call my posts "sad", ask what the point of my writing them is, and conclude that "...it is just critical of what another member has found to be excellent...". All I can say is that Ferrari himself seems to have no such qualms about my contributions, which I can assure you are just as honestly reported as I'm sure his or yours are. You seem to think that I, or anybody with a divergent take, ought to self-censor before posting anything negative following a positive review in an open forum. Now, *that's* sad! |
Fascinating. Maybe I should've held onto mine and sold it for the big bux after everybody reads this thread... :-)
As I alluded to above, it had been a long time since I'd had a solid-state amp in here, and I was curious what might be done today in the way of a moderately-priced one, along the Seventy's general lines. Well, I solved that by going and buying a McCormack DNA-125 from a fellow 'Goner not too long ago. Compact, inexpensive, well-reviewed, power MOSFET's, cult-like following - but almost double the wattage.
This amp was a very pleasant surprise for me. In fact, it showed up some shortcomings with my VTL tube mono's that I ultimately traced to some failing tubes. It's good to have a SS amp around just as a point of reference for consistent performance. I would rate this McCormack much more highly than my Seventy. It's not perfect, but I find it easily more "musical" and "involving" - and just plain competent - than the older Classe. Some of you guys should try to hear one (well warmed-up).
However, after flirting for a few days, when I finally got my tube situation straightened out it became clear that the silicon-hearted amp was never going to tempt me away from my fire bottles. I find it interesting Scanton that you feel tubes always sound rolled-off up top - I've never heard a sub-mega-buck SS amp that sounded as open through the treble to me as an above-entry-level tube amp usually does. It's also interesting that the oft-expressed sentiments about 'musicality' and 'involvement' are being turned by you against tubes, because that's usually exactly what people who love tubes argue to those SS'ers who complain about specs and bass...
Anyway, to answer your question about how long it originally took me to "adjust" to tube sound in my system? - About 30 minutes..."honest"! |
Guess I owned the wrong speakers (hell, the wrong system) to go with my Seventy...enjoy your 'new' system! ;^)
Seriously, I still find it impossible to beleive that the amp I knew could make sound to draw such raves - *unless* something was wrong with mine unbeknownst to me (it certainly didn't seem so ; the sound seemed about appropriate to what the amp was [better than the NAD it replaced], it looked beautiful inside, and it never gave me a lick of trouble otherwise), *and* we accept the notion that a properly-functioning Seventy *really is* capable of top-rank sound with no excuses (a proposition I would find dubious even if I had never owned one, being as there's no apparent reason for suspecting it to be true). System synergy can trump a lot of things in some areas, such as tonal balance or soundstaging, but IMO it's tough to give a lot of credence to the implication that system synergy could grant superior resolution, purity, imaging, or harmonic structure (as examples of other areas where I thought the Seventy wasn't strongest) to a group of components whose weaker links are known to fall short in those respects when heard in other contexts. And especially when the partnering speaker in question should be stressing the amp much more than the Thiel CS2.2's I used mine with (a pretty kind 4 ohm load of average sensitivity, and not a speaker reputed to wildly prefer the tubes which beat out my Seventy).
I'm curious: Was your independent opinion of the audition combo quite as high as your prospective buyers'? Does the Seventy beat out your own reference amp(s) in this application? If you leave the speakers and amp set up as is but swap out 'better' wires and sources, does the sound not improve? The only scenario I can think of here is that the amp/speaker cable/speaker combination, taken as a sub-system, represents a fortuitously copacetic mixture of electrical properties, that the front-end balance perfectly complements that of the back-end, and that you have the speakers perfectly set up in a room nearly ideal for them. Either that, or your customers can't hear. Or the Seventy, against all odds and reason, is one of the very greatest amps ever made... |
I believe mine had the blue filter caps - certainly not red anyway. Couldn't tell you about the serial # or transistors (if I had to guess I'd probably say Motorola, but that's far from certain). Does anyone know if the blue cap iteration is assumed to be earlier or later?... |
