Manley Stingray Integrated amp.

What are you currently using?

Source: Denon DVD-5910
Speakers: 6-ohm Sonus Faber GP Home (small floor)
Preamp: Jeff Rowland Capri
Amp: Jeff Rowland model 102

Is the Stingray reliable?

I bought one brand new (when it first came out) and in about a year I sent it back to have a selector switch replaced. They did it for free but I have heard others needed the same thing done.

I imagine it has been at least 6 years or so since that happened so maybe they have fixed it by now.

fwiw - It actually drove my Maggie 1.6 pretty well so it is a robust amp.

I had the Stingray and a Mapleshade modified Scott vintage amp. The Scott sounded better in my system. It had better tone (both use EL84 tubes, which I love), and lacked a bit of tube glare that I could not ever totally get rid of with the Stingray regardless of tube rolling. I used both with Audio Physic Virgo speakers and Quad 2805. The Scott also seemed more powerful, even though I think the Stingray had a higher output power rating.

In terms of reliability, I think the Stingray would be the better bet. The Mapleshade Scott amps are a bit fragile and idiosyncratic with connections, etc. And the Stingray is much better looking and has better functionality.

Dave

You have a really good preamp. If you are simply looking to make a change to hear tubes with your SFs, I would consider trying the Music Reference RM10MKII, which sound great, is extremely reliable, and uses the wonderful EL84 tube. It gives you 35 watts per channel, don't know if that is enought for your speakers - not sure. All for $1,995 new!. Occasionally they might come up used for $1,200 or so, but you don't see them up for sale that much. Oh, and they get 10,000 of power tube life to boot. Now, if you are looking for an integrated for some reason, that is another issue. I do think the Stingray is one of the better sounding units out there, but there are other options.

I had the same experiance as Dave , I bought a Stingray to replace my Scott 222 based on reviews. I loved the Mapleshade Scott 222 but it was low powered and tended to run out of headroom with the speakers I was using at the time. That being said, that little amp was capable of some truly sublime listening experiances.

Once I removed the Scott and replaced it with the Stingray I was dismayed with the presentation , the bass was weak , I played several tracks that I knew should have more sonic impact but the amp omitted them.

But what was much worse was the way this amp narrowed the soundstage of my recordings.It was like I was getting about 70% of what was on the CD/record. The Stingray could see deeply into a very narrow portion of the music if that makes sense. It was like a beam of light that lit up a small portion of the night sky (good , but where was the rest of the sky!)

In the end I put it up on Audiogon and got my money back.

This was a disturbing learning experiance as I could only conclude that the "reviews" were worthless. I had verifiable sonic proof that a 40 year old amp with half the rated power of its competitor, blew away in no uncertain terms, a piece of equipment that was voted "Integrated Amp of the Year by Dick Olsher"!

Dominic