Accuphase digital preamplifiers (DC-300, DC-330)
 

Hi Accuphase lovers,
I open this thread because I would like to know more about these "dead end" products that Accuphase seems to have abandoned.

I never listened to them, but I wonder how they sound and why Accuphase abandoned the digital preamplifier route after the DC-330 introduction in 1999.

Is it because the introduction of AAVA volume control that in theory eliminates the typical problems of traditional volume control, like the digital attenuation does, but at the same time doesn't add other problems (noise increase at high attenuation)?

Because by reading the marketing information (ok, they are marketing information after all :) ), Accuphase seemed really hyped for the capabilities of digital preamplifiers towards the end of last century.

I have the Accuphase DC 300 since the year 2000 and it is till today one of my best preamps which I own. And I own a lot of preamps from a lot of High End companys. Sound is cristall clear and workmanship is exceptional good.
And most important, this preamp works since 15 years absolut flawless. This I cannot say for some of my other preamps from other "High end companys".

Best regards

Martin

This is indeed very interesting.
I am wondering if such a digital pre would outperform the current entry-level C-2120...

That´s avery good idea. When we do our next blind test session, I will compare the DC 300 against my C290 and C 2420. Maybe a friend of mine will come with the C3850.

Best regards

Martin

That would be very interesting indeed! Looking forward to the results!

Aside from the differences in level of construction, it would be a "Traditional volume" vs "Digital volume" vs "AAVA" vs "Balanced AAVA" :D

Also the DAC section could play a role.
The DC-300 is a MMB, while the DC-330 is "early MDS". I don't know how thay could compare because my only proper, long, comparison in that sense was between DP-75 (MMB 16x PCM 1702) and DG-58 (MDS 2x ESS 9018).
In the end I preferred the DG-58 for a little more precise soundstage, while still retaining a relaxed presentation.


OT

As a side note, Barsur, how does the C-290 compare to the C-2420 (that I know well)?
I have a second system that I am looking to complete in the early '90 style, like your C-290. But before buying one without listening (they are very rare and I think I'll have to buy online, if I manage to find one...) at least I would like to be sure.
(I had a C-275 that had quite obvious channel mismatch at low volume level, so I couldn't really compare and maybe also other aspects of it were off spec.)

Really looking forward to hear your impressions martin! :thumbsup:

Last weekend, we did do a quick "light" blind test between DC 300, C 290 and C 2420.
The rest of the equipment was Accuphase DP 510, A 70 and Magico S1. Two people listened blind (my son and a member of the Berliner Philarmonie, who have better ears than my ears and I switched the cables).
We heard with 80,0 dB SPL. But I have to admit, that the C290 was slightly louder with 80,2 dB. I couldn´t get the C 290 on exactly 80,0 dB. We made 6 blind test session, so each pre amp played twice. Music was from Jonny Cash and Richard Wagner (the Ring without words from Lorin Maazel).
What was the result? My son and the guy from the Berliner Philarmonie couldn´t detect no difference at all. All three preamps were perfect. Sound was cristal clear, absolut transparent. Bass, mids and highs were absolut the same.
They could not even detect subtle differences. Sorry for this, I kown that there will be now a lot of shitstorm, but this was the result and the truth.

Best regards

Martin

Interesting results, Martin - Thanks for taking the time and sharing!
I did believe that preamps should have a noticeable impact on sound quality, so I thought that a higher-end preamp like the C-290 should be noticeably better, even if its older generation.
It's interesting to hear that you couldn't detect even a subtle change between them. However, I do still believe that a preamp that is built like the C-3800 / 3850 should make a noticeable difference, but this is of course just my humble estimation.. :)

Hi Barsur,
thank you for the comparison! Very interesting. Too bad the 3850 wasn't there, it would have been even more interesting.

I must admit that I am a bit reassured: once reached a certain level of quality, also for me some gear are practically indistinguishable between each other (comparison done with speakers or with good headphones).
But then I read impressions of the "big, noticeable differences" that should be and I am a bit puzzled and a bit let down. So at least now I know I am not alone :)

The only "big difference" (in better) I experienced in all my last gear upgrades are the DG-58 and before that the miniDSP 22D, and also the only difference I could spot almost 100% of the cases in blind tests or even just arriving in the audio room without knowing if the DSP is turned on or off. That is why I almost always suggest a DG-58 (or miniDSP 22) to all those that are unsure if upgrade an already good power amp, preamp or source: much more bang for the buck.

Btw, I don't think there should be any shit-storm: let's keep the thread informative and constructive :)

Very good Quote from you and this confirms all the blind test which we did so far. I am always laughing , when I read from people about the "big, noticeable differences".
Get real, the biggest differences in sound comes from your room.
The seconed biggest differences you will get is from your speakers.
Than you can hear some differences from your FM Tuner.
Differences from your amps are very subtle, for example if I listened to my Linn 242 mk3 speakers you can hear in a blind test very small subtle differences. With my Harbeth speakers there is almost no difference at all. Why?! Because Linn 242 mk3 is a very difficult load to drive and the Harbeth speakers are very easy to drive.
If you have a difficult load, thean the power amp, which is more stable sounds slightly better.

One month ago I heard a demonstration of an Accuphase system, which included the DG58. This is an amazing unit. My congratulation to your purchase!

Best regards

Martin

PD: And if somebody can hear (9 out of 10) in a blind test the difference of two CD Player (for example I have the Accuphase DP 510 and the Mcintosh MCD 301), I will give him a CD Player as a present...

I have one question: what cables did you use?

Martin (aka Brasur), I do not doubt your findings, however, it seems to me that you are over-interpreting them. That is, what you have found applies only in the context of your room, speakers and music. As such your results can not be generalised (even though they may be valid for many people).

One very important limitation in your tests is the speakers which have (very) limited dynamic capabilities. This limitation will prevent you from drawing correct conclusions. The difference between C-24xx and C-28xx pre-amps can easily be heard when playing music exhibiting very sudden and very large dynamic variations. When using a speaker-amp combo capable to properly deliver dynamic variations one will find that the C-28xx pre-amps will sound significantly louder and faster than the C-24xx pre-amps. While the music will not necessarily sound constricted via C-24xx pre-amps, the difference between the soft and loud notes will be significantly smaller on the C-24xx units than on the C-28xx units. These differences will become even larger when using the C-38xx units.

I have mentioned more than once here that (with the C-3800 pre in my system) the meters of my A-65 amp show variations of 300-fold on certain CDs. While I did not do any rigorous tests, I do not recall to have seen such large power variations when I had the C-2810 pre-amp. With the C-2810 pre variations between 150- and 200-fold were not unusual. Now, differences in loudness caused by a 200-fold and a 300-fold increase in power are easily audible and measurable with a dB meter. (I personally appreciate systems with such dynamic capabilities - for me they sound more real.)

I hope my argument above will be received as meant, i.e. constructed criticism.

Paul

Speaker cables are Kimber 8 TC All Clear, interconnects cable are JPS Superconductor.

Best regards

Martin

In my humble opinion, you are absolut right. And we mention this always in our amateur internet page (Home - www.amp-shootout.com). The results apply only in the context of my room, my speakers and which music do I use. I forgot to mention this in my original quote.
Normally we use for the comparison Linn 242 mk3 speakers which have higher dynamic cabilities as Magico S1. But on the other hand Magico S1 are very revealing speakers. Normally we do our "full" blind test with three different SPL levels. For example: 75 dB, 85 dB and 100 dB SPL.
When I said we listen with 80 dB SPL, means I measure everything with a 1Khz sinus tone from a Test CD, with real music than the SPL change for example between 50 dB to 90 dB.
What you mentioned with the "300-fold" depends in my humble opinion extremly which kind of music you are listening. When we heard Wagner without words "Siegfried Trauermarsch" I could see "1.000-fold" on the A 70, from 0,01 Watt to 10 Watt in miliseconds.

Best regards

Martin

Martin (aka Brasur), if one performs incorrect/incomplete experiments chances are he/she will obtain incorrect answers. The point I made in my previous post is that the test you have performed is unable to reveal the dynamic capabilities of the three pre-amps considered. Since (IMO) one of the main difference between entry-level, mid-level and top-level Accuphase units (e.g. pre-amps and cd players) is their dynamic capability (i.e. a characteristic that your experiment does probe), I argue that it is crucial to test this parameter before proclaiming the compared units indistinguishable.

Of course, it is possible that the three pre-amps you have tested have similar dynamic capabilities. In that case, your conclusion (i.e. the differences between them is minimal if any) will be significantly more accurate. However, since your experiment does not provide accurate information about this important characteristic, your over-confident comments (cited below) are not justifiable.



I should also say that your results are certainly not meaningless. They show clearly that if one listens to music without large dynamic variations, or if one is not willing to buy speakers capable of delivering large dynamic variation, then he/she has no reason to invest in the top Accuphase pre-amps (and cd players). I should also say that it is very clear to me that it is not at all easy (in fact it is almost impossible) to perform experiments as the one you have performed in a manner that is 100% rigorous. Even if one manages to take good care of the critical parameters (e.g. speakers, room, amps, test songs, experienced listeners), one still has to test each unit in several areas and at the same time keep the judges (i.e. the experienced listeners) alert, enthusiastic and unbiased during the period of the entire test (i.e. over a rather long period of time). Therefore, I will not be complaining about other relevant tests/parameters that have been neglected in the experiment.

Paul

To substantiate my argument above I have done a basic experiment tonight. Since I do not have an additional Accuphase pre-amp or cd player, I have compared the dynamic capability of my Accuphase DP-720 player to that of my Sony BDP-S790 Blu-Ray player.

This comparison (i.e. a €17k dedicated music player vs. €200 video player) might seem ridiculous, however, the reality is that with quite a few popular CDs (e.g. Diana Krall’s The girl in the other room or AC/DC’s Back in Black) I can not distinguish the two players. When using such CDs as test material, my conclusion is very similar to the one expressed by Brasur above: most people (if any) will not be able to distinguish these two players. It is important to realise, however, that this is not the whole story! For example, if one compares the two players using music that exhibits large dynamic variations the difference between the two players is very large and can be heard by anybody without any effort.

Here are the details of the test I have performed:

Main system (unchanged during the test): C-3800 -> Accuphase A-65 -> Avantgarde Uno speaker (everything was connected to the PS-1220 power supply)

Compared units: DP-720 vs. BDP-s790 Sony (the 2 players were connected to the C-3800 pre alternatively via the same Accuphase ASL-10 interlink cable)

CDs:
1) Audio Physic music CD: Track 16, Die Schlacht bei Vittoria, op. 91 1813 / L. van Beethoven. (The relevant passages for this test can be found between minutes 4:00 and 4:40.)

2) Nordost system set-up & tuning disc: Track 1, Channel check (I used this as a basic check to verify that the two players play at the same volume, i.e. 63 dBs. )

Additional note:
- No unit has been turn off during the test (e.g. when connecting/disconnecting the tested players).
- The interlink cable was connected to the CD input of the C-3800 all the time. The players were connected alternatively at the other end of the interlink (duh...).
- Volume setting of C-3800: -45 dB
- Gain setting C-3800: 18 dB
- Gain setting A-65: -12 dB
- A-65 meters were set on infinite
- The DP-720 and BDP-s790 players were also connected to the PS-1220 unit.


RESULTS:
Maximum output power indicated by the A-65 meters:
---------------------------------------------------------------
- DP-720: 0.055 watt left channel
- DP-720: 0.063 watt right channel
----------------------------------------------------
- BDP-s790 Sony: 0.025 watt left channel
- BDP-s790 Sony: 0.027 watt right channel
----------------------------------------------------
difference: ~ 0.025 watt

DISCUSSION:
Given the extreme sensitivity of my speakers (105 dB) the small difference (~0.025 watt) recorded by the A-65 power indicators was clearly and easily audible. However, while in theory a power variation of 0.025 watts should induce a SPL variation of 3.7 dB (with speakers having 105 dB sensitivity), my dB meter has recorded for the most part significantly larger SPL differences between DP-720 and the Sony blu-ray player, i.e. between 6 and 10 dB. (It is possible that the additional energy generated by the DP-720 player was enough to excite some room modes.) Because the difference between the two players was so significant I am tempted to say that one will be able to hear the difference between the two players via a mobile phone. :)

I hope this little and very rudimentary experiment has demonstrated that:
1) 2 units can sound the same when improperly tested.
2) The same 2 units can sound very very different when "properly" tested.

With this I rest my case.

Paul

p.s. of course, anyone is welcome to perform this simple experiment to convince himself/herself of the validity of the "results" I have reported above.

Dear Paul, thanks a lot for the detailed describtion of your test. In my humble opinion, you missed the most important point in a blind test. You have to listen to the different equipment with exactly the same SPL. This is the most important topic!!! For that reason I called the blind test between DC 300, C2420 and C290 a "light" blind test, because I couldn´t get the three preamps on the same SPL (C 290 had 0,2 dB more SPL).

Which methods do you have to achieve the same SPL?! We have two methods, the best is I measure the output line voltage (I have a HP measurement equipment). This is the most exact way to do it. Or seconed method, which I use for a "light" blind test, I take a test CD with a 1khz sinus tone and measure with a microphone the SPL from the different equipments, that at the end you have the same SPL Level (normally we allow 0,1 dB difference).

What you heard in your test is only the differnt output voltage from the Accuphase DP 720 against the Sony BluRay Player because according to your Quote you let the preamp with -45 dB Output Level.
But CD Players have different output Level.
I give you some examples:
I had the Accuphaese DP 700, there I measured an output voltage of 2,5 Volt (Hifi & Records measured 2,45 Volt).
The guy from the Berliner Philarmonie has the Accuphaese DP 720, there we measured an output voltage of 2,7 Volt (Hifi & Records measured 2,63 Volt). So this is a very "loud" CD Player!
I have the Accuphaese DP 510, there I measured an output voltage of 2,5 Volt (no Hifi & Records measurements).
I have also the Spectral SDR 4000, there I measured an output voltage of 1,3 Volt (Hifi & Records measured 1,22Volt). This is a CD Player which is not very loud.

If you want to do a comparison between these CD Players you have to level them with your preamp to get the same SPL for a fair comparison.

I think, I upset you with my words "I am laughing...if I read about big differences". I want to apoligize for this.
My english is a little bit bad, for that reason this weren´t the right words.
What I wanted to say is: I am a little bit surprised if people talk about BIG differences from amps and CD player.
In my humble opinion:
you can hear sound differences from speakers and rooms
you can hear "sublte" sound differences from amps
you can hear "almost" no differnces at all from CD Players.

And don´t missunderstand me; I love this hobby. According to one of my dealers I am one of the biggest collectors in Germany with ca. 400 High End Units which I own.

Best regards

Martin

Dear Martin (aka Barsur),

the volumes of the two players have been "equalised" at 63 dB. To achieve this the level meter of the DP-720 was set at -3 dB. In my initial draft the numbers in the results section were organised like in a table. Because this “table” was not conserved after pasting everything in the AA page I had to edit my post a few times. It seems that when doing this I have deleted by mistake the crucial information about the DP-720 level setting (which was situated one line above the “RESULTS section”). I am sorry for this silly typo, it was 01:00 hours...

I could easily repeat this test and equalise the volume from the pre-amp and thus leave the DP-720 level to 0 dB (which probably will be slightly more "precise”). However, since I "compare" cd player my results will, in the end, neither confirm nor infirm your conclusions about the three Accuphase pre-amps - they may have similar dynamic capabilities. All I am arguing is that you can not proclaim the three pre-amp identical unless you test properly their dynamic abilities. As I have mentioned before, IMO opinion this characteristic is a crucial difference between various Accuphase pre-amp from different classes.

Paul

p.s. I refer to you as "Martin (aka Barsur)" because there is a 2nd Martin here (aka meltemi)

Wow, very nice discussion. Very informative indeed.

Barsur (also Mattia), I have repeated my experiment and this time with some very unexpected results (at least for me). Basically, I was not able to reproduced the result I have obtained yesterday. In fact, I have repeated the experiment several times and each time I have obtained (slightly) different values!

To pinpoint the problem I have changed the setting of the A-65 meters from infinite to the “1 second” setting. I have recorded repeatedly the indications of the A-65 meters during a 10 second long music passage that exhibits rather large dynamic variation without changing any settings in system. To my dismay the A-65 showed each time slightly different values. For example, if I was back-forwarding 30 seconds before the beginning of my reference passage the meters indicated power variations from 0.005 to 0.063 watts (during the reference passage), whereas if I was back-forwarding 20 seconds the meters indicated power variations from 0.005 to 0.048 (during the same reference passage).

The funny thing is that this type of results have convinced me a long time ago, while still a student, to pursue a theoretical/computational (as opposed to experimental) path as a physicist. Already then it was clear to me that it is much easier (at least for me) to reproduce computational results than experimental results. Even funnier, is the fact that about 6 months ago I have decided that maybe I should try my hand again in the lab and, as such, I have spent €200k of my research money on a spectrometer that should arrive next week. Hopefully my PhD student will be better than me at this. :)

Nonetheless, do you guys have any reasonable explanations for these strange results?

I look forward to hear your thoughts!

Paul

I considered purchasing another accuphase cd transport to connect with my DC-37. I am coming to the conclusion it would not be cost affective. I visited Accuphase yesterday and spoke with Mr. Tozuka, international rep. I asked him if I could purchase a old cd transport like the dp-77 and connect to the DC-37. He advised against it because the newer components don't match well with the older components. In other words it would degrade the potential of the system. After reading the tests between the ultra expensive components and the modest expensive components, I am thinking a cost-effective oppo will be the best match for the DC-37.

OK, I have found an explanation! I have found online a service manual for the A-65 amp and therein it was mentioned that the uncertainty of the meters when indicating values of 0.020W is +/-50%.

Dear Paul,

in my humble opinion you are relying to much on the power meters from the Accuphase A65. I own A60 and A 70 and I know that these power meters reading are the best in the whole hifi industriy but I am not sure if these power meters show the exact amount for low power. My suggestion, do it the way, I explained in one of my quotes. You have two choices:

1. You measure the output voltage, but you have to take care with your extrem sensetive speakers, that you have the exact amount of voltage from both equipments.

2. Take a 1khz test tone, measure the SPL from both equipments and equal the SPL (Maximum difference 0,1 dB). Of course you need an exellent microphone and good software to do this.

In my humble opinion and please don´t be upset, something went wrong so far in your experiment, because it is absolut impossible that one equipment sounds 10dB louder than the other as you explained when you leveled them on the same SPL before.

I asked also a good friend of mine, who gave me years ago the idea and the right procedure for the blind test (He worked in the past for the Frauenhofer Institut and was part of the MP3 blind test. But better I don´t tell you, which results they achieved...). He told me again that in a "correct" blind test it is absolut impossible the results and differences in SPL which you achieved.

Good luck and best regards

Martin

Oh sorry Paul, I saw to late your newest quote. This could be an explanation as I described before.

Best regards

Martin

Every engineer knows:

"Who measures a lot, measuers a lot of sh..."

It means;
The individual setup of a measurement/test environment will influence the results. (Similar to: I only believe into statistics I have falsified myself).
This is why a large number of measurement procedures are fixed in international, national or industry standards (i.e. IEC, IEEE, EIA, DIN, IHF, AES/EBU and more).

A plausibility check is necessary to help to determine, whether the measurement results are relyable or whether you need to apply changes to your measurement/test setup.

In addition, all measuring equipment has tolerances. The measured value has therefore to be understood as value +/- tolerance.

These are essential basics for everyone who measures/tests.

Martin

I like this quote very much and I often mention it to my students. Most often they understand its meaning only after a whole year of hard work.

I like this quote very much. It's funny and true. I often tell it to my students, and usually they need to work on real world research projects for more than a year to appreciate it.

I reopen this topic because I'm waiting for a DC-300 to arrive so I can finally try it out by myself and compare it to the C-2420. If for me there are no perceivable differences in noise and general audio quality, I'll have the added benefit to be able to use the DG-58 in a digital loop, and to connect many more digital sources to the DC-300, all equalised, compared to go digital to the DG-58 (with fewer inputs) and then use the C-2420 preamp basically just as an expensive volume control (since I only use 1 source).

I've chosen the 300 and not the newer 330 because I ideally like the multibit approach (16x PCM 1702 as the DP-75), I think it has a better, no compromise, construction regarding PSU (digital+ analogue-R + analogue-L separated PSU) and beefier filter section, it has more inputs without having to acquire extra option boards and I like the simpler style.
It is overall simply more interesting to me.

What is also interesting, is that on the used market a DC-300 is valued 1/3 or max 1/2 the price of a C-290V, even if his price in Japan, at the time, was exactly the same (980'000¥).

This fact alone maybe can partially answer my original question on the first post: the "DC-3xx" line of preamplifiers was probably never updated (also) for lack of clients interest and then sales.

The subsequent 2xxx line, with AAVA, seems in fact to try very hard to push the fact that the AAVA is analogue. It is repeated a thousand times everywhere in the promotional material. Evidently, many Accuphase customers perceived the digital volume of the DC-3xx as something obviously and surely inferior to Good Old Analogue (maybe, as often is sadly the case, without having the possibility to properly test out and compare).

Barsur,
just a quick question.

In the light blind test you performed and mentioned before, how was the DP-510 connected to the DC-300?

It was connected to the analogue inputs or digital? Because if connected in analogue (so with another AD/DA passage in the signal path) the DC-300 was as transparent as the others, that would I think be an ulterior testament of his quality.

And to further abuse of your patience: do you find any difference (regarding CD material obviously) in going digitally from the DP-510 to the DC-300 versus going analog?

My DC-300 is normally in the following sysem: Accuphase DP 90 digital into DC 300 in Accuphase A100 and than to Harbeth P3ESR. This is one of my beloved aystem which I own. Absolut wonderful.

For the light blind test, I had following configuration: Accuphase DP 510 analog in DC 300 in Accuphase A 70 and than to Magico S1. I used the analog input for comparison reason, because C290 and C2420 doesn´t have digital inputs.

I compared (no blind test) the digital input against the analog input of the D-300 and the digital input seemed a little bit more transparent. But ofcourse without blind test this statement has no value at all.

If you know what is playing than comes normally a psychologic effect. Typically for example, if people know that they are listening to tubes. In one of our last blind test, I compared a Mcintosh tube amplifer against a solid state Mcintosh amp. People thougt they would here to the Mcintosh MC 275 because I told them so, but instead they were listing again to MC 452. But everybody told me how much "warmer" the music is now with the tube amp. But I didn´t switch the amps, they were listing in reality again to the solid state amp. They were shocked how big the psychologic effect is in audio.
Best regards
Martin

In a review of the C-290V in (german) Audio 5/1999, Accuphase allegedly said, that the C-290V would be the last of it's kind and the future would be digital (i.e. DC-300, DC-330).
One of the reasons for this might have been the fact, that Panasonic was no longer producing the 4x pots Accuphase was using in their top analog pres since the C-280V (December 1990).

Since a pre is essentially a volume control, the methods implemented have a great impact on overall quality:

1) When using pots (or an array of fixed resistors) you change the input and output impedance of the circuits. This has a negative effect on several parameters as distortion, phase and s/n figures. When setting low levels, you lose musical detail.

2) Digital volume controls reduce the number of bits available at the output. Attenuating 24dB on a 16bit system reduces the number of available bits to 12. On a 24bit system you still reduce the number of available bits to 20.
The latter may be more acceptable than the former, but it is still likely to somewhat deteriorate the music signal.
In addition, using a digital volume control in an otherwise analog pre necessitates the use of ADC/DAC conversion, which does not go without some losses either.

3) AAVA is an analog solution, but does not have any of the negative effects of 1) or 2) above. However this method requires considerable effort and know-how and is a pretty costly solution.

Accuphase introduced the C-2800 with the first generation of AAVA in July 2002. The current generation of AAVA is the third for C-2xxx and the fourth for C-3850.

Martin

Martin (Barsur)
thank you for your clarification. Wonderful system indeed by the way :)


Martin (meltemi)
thank you as usual for the explanation, with some extra "period" information!

Regarding point 2, the fact that for DC-300/330 Accuphase allegedly uses 48-bit with noise shaping (for volume, tone, balance, etc) does not mean that only at insanely high attenuations you have loss of signal resolution for original 16/44 material?


AAVA is obviously the best solution: safe from cost, space and complication, it has no drawbacks.
I wonder if the "digital preamplifier solution" was a stop gap or possibly a "Plan B" to have a viable exit path form the Panasonic pot, if the "AAVA" project was not feasible.

Hello all,

I’d appreciate some advice on DC-330.

My current set-up is DP500, DG48, E350, with a single digital source (Sonos). My speakers are Sonus Faber, Cremona M.

I am thinking of upgrading to A70, and use my DP500 as a preamp. But my local Accuphase dealer (I live in Paris) says he has a «*great opportunity for me*» (that always makes me a little bit suspicious given I feel there is a inbalance in technical knowledge between us, so I am not able to judge whether what he is telling me is 100% correct).

His proposal is for me to acquire a second hand DC-330, which he says will be much better as a preamp than using my DP500, especially when I acquire a second hand A-70, and since I got rid of all my CDs, I don’t need the DP500 and could sell it.
Apparently I could hope to sell the DP500 for 2,500€ and the price he is offering for the DC-330 is 3,800€. So the net cost would be rather limited, and he says I will have an immediate and material upgrade between the preamp function of the DP500 and the DC-330.

What do you guys think about this?

Thanks for any advice,

Olivier

Sorry I meant using the E350 as a preamp of course, not the DP500. So in the initial stage my set up would be DC-330, DG-48 and E350 (that I would use as a power amp). And when I upgrade to A70, I would resell the E350. And be left with DC-330, DG-48 and A-70. I hope that is clearer.

IMHO you should do a comparative listening with A-70 as power amp and DC-330 against one of the current analog preamps (C-3850 would be the ideal match to A-70).

The DC-330 came to market in November 1999 (18 years ago) and since then, there was a lot of progress in both the digital and the analog domain.

In addition, the input configuration of the DC-330 is almost fully dependent on the option boards mounted. Only one Cinch line input and one digital input/output were standard.
No HS-Link and no USB available.

Personally, I would think of replacing the E-350 with a current integrated amp like the E-650 (instead of a combo with the A-70) and the DP-500 with a DAC-50 board for the E-650 or a DC-37.
A very cost effective solution with fully balanced AAVA (like C-3850) and fully sufficient power to drive normally sensitive speakers in a home environment.
If you really want to go for a combo, the preamp will finally decide, what you will get out of the A-70. And the overall investment will rise considerably.

Martin

hs-link is available plus full sacd-compbility at dc 330 -even a phono-option board is available but it´s right: no usb ......

http://www.accuphase.com/cat/dc330_e.pdf plus later on DO2-HS1 2000.12, DI2-HS1 2000.07 - so you can directly connect a dp-100, dp-800 etc.:banana::music:

Thanks Meltemi, that’s really useful. I can see that buying a product that’s 18 years old is not really such a great idea, when there are other, and cheaper, options available. I will folllow your advice and sell both the DP-500 and E-350 and upgrade for the E-650 with a DAC-50 board !
Olivier

Good decision. I'm sure you'll love it.

The E-650 surely is a super fine and trouble free solution! Congrats.


I would not, however, so easily dismiss older gear sound just because "is older", "they improved", etc.
Yes, they improved, but sometimes they went from "perfect" to "more perfect". In other words, honestly, it is *really* difficult if not impossible to tell them apart.

Granted, there are people who evidently can ear 0.5uV noise differences and tell that they are "big".
I think otherwise.


If it is in proper shape (and that is THE big if, you never know how it was used!), a good older unit may perform surprisingly well.

Barsur, here in the thread, did a comparison between some different eras Accuphase preamplifier and they were indistinguishable between each other.

I recently did the same with my (recently restored) C-280V (1990), C-290V (1998) and C-2420 (2012) and found the same as Barsur: basically they are all just perfect to me. And the C-280V (with restoration) and C-290V, together, cost to me way less than C-2420.