Which Hafler amps are any good?
bozo
I see these on e-bay all the time, and they're as cheap as the Alesis,
Behringer, and Samson amps:
DH-200, DH-220, DH-500
XL-280, XL-600
P-125, P-500
SE-120, SE-240
Pro 2400, Pro 5000
P1000, P1500, P3000, P4000
P7000 (usually sells for less than P3000, why?)
TA-1600
9300 THX, 9303 (rare)
9505 (more expensive)
Are there any underrated gems or sleepers in this list? How do these compare
to the cheaper Adcoms, e.g., GFA-535x? Or the older Brystons (2B, 4B)?
Dr. Dolittle
bozo wrote:
> ...and which are the ones to avoid?
>
The ones made in China.
Nothing against China, but these are their low cost crappy models.
John L Rice
"bozo" <nob...@nonesuch.net> wrote in message
news:B51Rf.3454$k75....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I think any of the P series are particularly well respected for studio use.
I have a P1500 and it works well for small Tannoys etc but I think the P3000
is THE one most people get/recommend.
John L Rice
William Sommerwerck
Zigakly
I'm familiar with the DH and P series Haflers, as well as the Adcom 535 and
currently use a Bryston 3B, all of which I consider to be professional grade
reference amplifiers suitable for studio monitoring. As for which is best,
it's difficult to qualify an answer since not all amps were used on the same
speakers, but I chose the 3B for its neutrality. All the others gave me the
impression that they were sweetening the bottom end a bit, which may be
incorrect because of using different speakers like I said. In all cases it
was nothing I couldn't work with, but I'm more confident with the 3B that
I'm hearing the true low end instead of some added harmonics and/or
saturation.
Another amp I'll add to that bang-for-the-buck list is the Nikko Alpha
series, apparently a minor mod to the negative feedback circuitry makes them
dead-ringers for Brystons. I used an unmodded Alpha 220 for a while, again
suitable but not quite as transparent as the 3B.
If possible, you should really bring your monitors to a shop that carries
Hafler and Bryston for a taste-test.
William Sommerwerck
designed by Acoustat's honcho. (Can't think of his name.) They use an
altogether topology (at least, the early ones did).
Scott Dorsey
The one that designed the direct-coupled tube amps for electrostatics,
which blew up and shot pieces of glass around the room?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
William Sommerwerck
>> designed by Acoustat's honcho. (Can't think of his name.) They use an
> The one that designed the direct-coupled tube amps for electrostatics,
> which blew up and shot pieces of glass around the room?
Presumably the same guy. I never heard that particular story, though.
bozo
e-bay. If I read everything correctly,
1. The Chinese Haflers are the TA1100 and the TA1600. I heard one a while
ago and I didn't think it was _that_ bad. Pretty good sounding actually even
playing next to a QSC.
2. The newer Transnovas aren't really Haflers at all. A quick google search
says that a certain Jim Strickland designed them.
3. Despite #2, the P-series Transnovas are good amps anyway and many people
use them. I wonder if the 9505 is worth the extra money?
4. The XL-280 is way underrated and the standout in the bunch. One sold for
$286 on e-bay yesterday.
5. There are a few other good cheap ones like the GFA-535 and the Nikko
Alpha. Any others?
Again, thanks!
William Sommerwerck
> search says that a certain Jim Strickland designed them.
Thank you. Jim Strickland was one of the founders of Acoustat.
When I bought model Six Acoustat speakers 20+ years ago, I also bought the
TransNova amps and preamps. They used an oddball feedback network. After
about a year of ownership, I decided I didn't like the overall tonal balance
of the system (pace, Arny), and replaced the power amps with Hafler XL-280s.
(The preamps were Denons.) The 280s had no trouble with the Acoustats. And
the tonal balance was closer to what I considered "neutral".
Mike Rivers
bozo wrote:
> 1. The Chinese Haflers are the TA1100 and the TA1600. I heard one a while
> ago and I didn't think it was _that_ bad. Pretty good sounding actually even
> playing next to a QSC.
"Chinese made" isn't the stigma that most people here attach to it. But
"Chinese designed" is still a little suspicious. It depends on who
designed what. Many US manufacturers don't go beyond sending a
schematic and panel drawing to China and let them do the industrial
engineering. Some do a good job, some do a poor job - just like in the
US. But those who do a poor job usually have higher failure rates due
to too much cost cutting and lack of control. Those who do it right
have a good track record for build quality.
> 2. The newer Transnovas aren't really Haflers at all. A quick google search
> says that a certain Jim Strickland designed them.
Life goes on. Hafler built their reputation 20 or more years ago.
Hopefully they've kept it up, but we need more than a designer's name
in order to know this.
William Sommerwerck
search
> > says that a certain Jim Strickland designed them.
> Life goes on. Hafler built their reputation 20 or more years ago.
> Hopefully they've kept it up, but we need more than a designer's name
> in order to know this.
My point was that the Jim Strickland amps probably aren't as good as the
David Hafler amps.
Paul Stamler
> Thanks guys, for all the advice. I'll keep an eye for some of these on
> e-bay. If I read everything correctly,
>
> Alpha. Any others?
The Parasound HCA1000A is better sounding than most of the pro amps I've
tried. It's not a Hafler, but it's decent. Unbalanced RCA inputs, but you
get two of them, which can be useful.
Peace,
Paul
Paul Stamler
news:IpWdnS_Uc7k...@comcast.com...
The David Hafler amps & preamps were designed by other people, notably Erno
Borbely. David Hafler still owned the company then, though. I think the last
thing he actually designed had a Dynaco label on it.
Having listened to the Hafler P4000, I'd say it's at least as good as
anything I've heard from the early Hafler amps. In fact, it's a very
impressive amplifier.
Peace,
Paul
Bob Olhsson
>...David Hafler still owned the company then, though. I think the last
> thing he actually designed had a Dynaco label on it.
>
Ed Gately owned the company. David Hafler was a consultant and allowed
his name to be used for a line of consumer amplifier kits and later on
the company name.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
Scott Dorsey
>Paul Stamler wrote:
>
>>...David Hafler still owned the company then, though. I think the last
>> thing he actually designed had a Dynaco label on it.
>>
>Ed Gately owned the company. David Hafler was a consultant and allowed
>his name to be used for a line of consumer amplifier kits and later on
>the company name.
Because the Gately name was already associated with broadcast consoles
that broke out into random oscillation?
TheBenevolentU...@gmail.com
> Bob Olhsson <o...@hyperback.com> wrote:
> >Ed Gately owned the company. David Hafler was a consultant and allowed
> >his name to be used for a line of consumer amplifier kits and later on
> >the company name.
>
> Because the Gately name was already associated with broadcast consoles
> that broke out into random oscillation?
> --scott
I always get a chuckle out of Scott's encyclopedic knowledge of tragic
equipment failures. I think Scott could (and should) write a book about
the many pieces of gear he's seen abused, mishandled, mangled, and
blown-up over the years. It would probably be even funnier than the
Mixerman diaries. :-D
Scott Dorsey
>
> I always get a chuckle out of Scott's encyclopedic knowledge of tragic
>equipment failures. I think Scott could (and should) write a book about
>the many pieces of gear he's seen abused, mishandled, mangled, and
>blown-up over the years. It would probably be even funnier than the
>Mixerman diaries. :-D
Nahh. ANYONE that has had to clean up after college radio students could
probably do as well or better.
I'll say, though, that as much as I may bash Mackie and Behringer and the
rest of the flimsy MI store junk sold today, in a lot of ways the stuff is
more reliable than a lot of the sixties and seventies equipment, and certainly
cheaper to replace.
Geoff@home
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dv7mt8$kf8$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Bob Olhsson <o...@hyperback.com> wrote:
>>Paul Stamler wrote:
>>
>>>...David Hafler still owned the company then, though. I think the last
>>> thing he actually designed had a Dynaco label on it.
>>>
>>Ed Gately owned the company. David Hafler was a consultant and allowed
>>his name to be used for a line of consumer amplifier kits and later on
>>the company name.
>
> Because the Gately name was already associated with broadcast consoles
> that broke out into random oscillation?
Why not - Rupert did.
geoff
Scott Dorsey
>>>Paul Stamler wrote:
>>>
>>>>...David Hafler still owned the company then, though. I think the last
>>>> thing he actually designed had a Dynaco label on it.
>>>>
>>>Ed Gately owned the company. David Hafler was a consultant and allowed
>>>his name to be used for a line of consumer amplifier kits and later on
>>>the company name.
>>
>> Because the Gately name was already associated with broadcast consoles
>> that broke out into random oscillation?
>
> Why not - Rupert did.
Cruel, cruel blow. Accurate, though.
Jay Kadis
wrote:
You know, I wonder if spurious ultrasonic oscillations linearize zero-crossing
distortion in amplifiers like they do in hysteretic magnetic recording? (I'd
put a smiley here if I believed in them...)
-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Arny Krueger
news:jay-8F71D1.0...@news.stanford.edu
> You know, I wonder if spurious ultrasonic oscillations
> linearize zero-crossing distortion in amplifiers like
> they do in hysteretic magnetic recording? (I'd put a
> smiley here if I believed in them...)
I've seen that work. The high frequency bias sort of turns the amp into a
small-scale PWM system. Dither noise works, too. Dither is probably the
preferred solution in most cases.
Bob Olhsson
> Because the Gately name was already associated with broadcast consoles
> that broke out into random oscillation?
Aren't you thinking of Gates? I never heard of a Gately console, just
their little suitcase mixers and mixer kits.
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Because the Gately name was already associated with broadcast consoles
>> that broke out into random oscillation?
>
>Aren't you thinking of Gates? I never heard of a Gately console, just
>their little suitcase mixers and mixer kits.
They did some bigger versions of the suitcase mixers (possibly as kits).
Lots of 301s, and not much decoupling.