Old Cambridge Amps
RED
I have been using a pair of Cambridge Power and Pre Amp for around 10 years
now. My father got it from a show room as ex-demos back in early 90s. I
couldn't find anything about these Amps on the web. As they are British, I
wonder if i could get some history about these Amps here.
It says C75 at back of the pre-amp
and P75 and the back of the power-amp.
on the face, it doens't say Cambridge Audio but just 'Cambridge'
Any comments? History? and users around?
HUNG
Hong Kong
Andy Farrall
form ARCAM ???
"RED" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9cne8$1qqk$1...@news.hgc.com.hk...
Keith G
"Andy Farrall" <a...@hello.net> wrote in message
news:vbk6ptp...@corp.supernews.com...
> Is this the company that merged with AR (Acoustic Research I believe) to
> form ARCAM ???
Don't think so. I believe Cambridge Audio is owned by Richer Sounds and is
still producing decent budget gear.
(My first decent amp was a P50 - wish I still had it now!)
RED
It didn't mention that in Cambridge's Web-page tho.
"Keith G" <kei...@dsl.pipex.com> 在郵件
news:3eba3191$0$4843$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com 中撰寫...
Keith G
> You mean Cambridge Audio is same as Cambridge?
>
> It didn't mention that in Cambridge's Web-page tho.
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Cambridge Audio
stems originally from 'Cambridge'. Along with my Cambridge P50 I also
happened to have a pair of AR 4xa's. These were Acoustic Research which
(IIRC) were an American company with a factory in Dunstable Beds - this much
I do know as I have seen it myself. I don't think either of these companies
have anything to do with Arcam.
If the Arcam geezer see this he will be able to confirm this or put me
right.
Clive Backham
wrote:
>"RED" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b9cne8$1qqk$1...@news.hgc.com.hk...
>> It says C75 at back of the pre-amp
>> and P75 and the back of the power-amp.
>>
>> on the face, it doens't say Cambridge Audio but just 'Cambridge'
>>
>> Any comments? History? and users around?
>Is this the company that merged with AR (Acoustic Research I believe) to
>form ARCAM ???
No. ARCAM is the company formerly known as Amplification and Recording
(Cambridge). In the early days they were known as "A&R".
Cambridge Audio has a long history, and I don't know much of it.
During the 1980s it was run by Stan Curtis, who designed some
innovative CD players (which sounded great while they were working),
but there were serious quality control problems.
(I briefly owned a CD1 twin-box CD player which had a gorgeous
"analogue" sound, but it went wrong twice within a fortnight and had
to go. I then had a brief argument with Mr. Curtis via letters, in
which I pointed out that bad QC would kill his company. He didn't
agree. A year or two later the company folded).
Prior to that, I don't know who ran the company, but they made some
well respected amps and tuners in the "old British tradition",
competitive with the likes of Sugden and Quad. I think, but am not
sure, that the C75/P75 combo is from the 1980s, so they are presumably
Stan Curtis designs.
The brand has since been resurrected by Richer Sounds, and is now a
sort of "good quality budget" brand rather than the "affordable
audiophile" stuff it used to be.
I never heard anything about AR (Acoustic Research) merging with
another company. Did they?
Andy Farrall
called Cambridge something which merged with Acoustic Research to form
ARCAM. There were a number of HIFI concerns around the Cambridge area at
the time.
"Keith G" <kei...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3eba3191$0$4843$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Andy Farrall
back of a match box !!!
"Clive Backham" <cl...@capita.nildram.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3eba4a24....@supernews.nildram.co.uk...
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
> Dear all group users,
The 'Cambridge' name has appeared and dissappeared. The C75/P75 are circa
1987. Not sure, but I suspect that Stan Curtis was involved in the designs.
Around the 270 UKP level each at the time according to a review I have.
P75: 100 Watts per channel into 8 Ohms, output impedance around 0.1 Ohms.
Input 700 mVrms into 47kOhms.
C75: mm and mc inputs
-77dB SNR CCIR (mm 1.5mv/47kOhm/120pF)
-63dB SNR CCIR (mc standard 0.15mv/100Ohms/1nF)
aux, etc, 100mV 15kOhm
All above values taken from the review.
ARCAM were a different company at that time, but I have no idea of any
subsequent history.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
RED
"Clive Backham" <cl...@capita.nildram.co.uk> 在郵件
news:3eba4a24....@supernews.nildram.co.uk 中撰寫...
RED
Wharfedale 8.1s in my small room. It used to be partnered with a pair of
Harbeth HL comapct prior to that in the sitting room. the Harbeths are
still around but I think they need new drive units and cross over.
"RED" <r...@hotmail.com> 在郵件 news:b9cne8$1qqk$1...@news.hgc.com.hk 中撰寫...
Fleetie
> Is this the company that merged with AR (Acoustic Research I believe) to
> form ARCAM ???
Dunno but I think it was led in the 80s by a couple called
Stan and Angie Curtis. Apparently Stan did some time in the slammer
for some kind of fraud or other white-collar dodginess. BUT I AM
NOT 100% SURE ON THIS SO DON'T SUE ME! I seem to remember I got that
gossip from a Hi-Fi shop trade rag in the late 80s.
I still have a dead P55 sat here partly in bits. I used it to drive
a mains transformer in reverse (step-up voltage) to drive a home-made
electrostatic loudspeaker. Evidently it didn't enjoy the low resistance
and _highly_ inductive load.
They also made a P40 amp. Both P40 and P55 were well-known integrated amps.
The C75 and P75 were a more expensive pre-power combo contemporary with the
P40 and P55, ISTR.
Oh yeah, they made some expensive CD players in the mid- to late-80s;
the CD2 was the one I saw, absolutely crammed with chips, IIRC, with a
very primitive (even for the time) red LED 7-segment display, selling for
about 600 pounds at the time, which made it pretty pricey.
Beyond that, dunno. I am still not sure if it's the same Cambridge
that Richer Sounds ended up acquiring.
Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk
Rob
on the MC input, which means they're all in the loft at the moment. I had to
replace a transformenr about a year ago - phoned up the number on the old
one and they are still in business and put one in the post for £7. I think
they sound superb in general with huge, solid bass. Much better than my
audiolab. Just one curiosity with the stereo image - it seems vague compared
with other amps I've had/tried. I don't know why.
Anyway, I bought mine originally about 12 years ago at the time of the
demise of Cambridge. I think Richer Sounds own the company that carried
forward the name.
I've got original manuals if you'd like a copy by email - they don't say
much, but do go beyond 'very basic'.
Rob
(reply to ng)
"RED" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9cne8$1qqk$1...@news.hgc.com.hk...
Clive Backham
<fle...@fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Dunno but I think it was led in the 80s by a couple called
>Stan and Angie Curtis. Apparently Stan did some time in the slammer
>for some kind of fraud or other white-collar dodginess. BUT I AM
>NOT 100% SURE ON THIS SO DON'T SUE ME! I seem to remember I got that
>gossip from a Hi-Fi shop trade rag in the late 80s.
<gossip>
I've heard the same thing. The story that I heard (and I stress that
this is just "alledgedly", as they say on the telly) is that there
were so many returns of faulty CD2s that there was no way the company
could cope, so a burglary was "arranged" so they could be got rid of
and paid for by insurance.
</gossip>
>Oh yeah, they made some expensive CD players in the mid- to late-80s;
>the CD2 was the one I saw, absolutely crammed with chips, IIRC, with a
>very primitive (even for the time) red LED 7-segment display, selling for
>about 600 pounds at the time, which made it pretty pricey.
The CD2 was a very innovative design at the time, using 4 sets of the
then 4x oversampling Philips DACs to achieve 16x oversampling. As far
as I recall, there was no final stage filter, relying instead on the
all aliasing crap being up around 600kHz and more (and hence
inaudible). Whether this posed problems for wide bandwidth amplifiers,
I have no idea. But the problem was quality control. I heard 4
different samples of the CD2, and every one of them sounded different.
(The best of the bunch was beautifully sweet, possibly the best CD
player I had ever heard at the time). Also, most of them had
operational problems with the display going bonkers, buttons doing the
wrong thing, etc.
RED
It would be very nice of you if you could send me a copy of the manual via
e-mail
here we go
Cheers.
I think mine was approx 12 years ago too.
"Rob" <no...@email.com> 在郵件 news:b9fnmu$iumpf$1...@ID-162945.news.dfncis.de
中撰寫...
> I've got 2x C75 and 2x P75. Only one pair works properly, except for noise
> on the MC input, which means they're all in the loft at the moment. I had
to
> replace a transformenr about a year ago - phoned up the number on the old
> one and they are still in business and put one in the post for ?. I think
tony.a...@gmail.com
If you look on the Cambridge Audio website they have a feature on the 50 year history of the company, including the C75/ P75 https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/gbr/en/about-us/our-history
Tony
tony.a...@gmail.com
RJH
anyone that wants it.
--
Cheers, Rob
RJH
--
Cheers, Rob
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
> Odd thread! I had the C75/P75 - marvellous. I can email the manual to
> anyone that wants it.
http://ukhhsoc.torrens.org/upload.html
:-)
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
RJH
> In article <pg5u3i$i6m$1...@dont-email.me>, RJH <patch...@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Odd thread! I had the C75/P75 - marvellous. I can email the manual to
>> anyone that wants it.
>
>
> How about sending us (UKHHSoc) a copy via the webform on
>
> http://ukhhsoc.torrens.org/upload.html
>
> :-)
>
I've got any that you're missing.
--
Cheers, Rob
Woody
<tony.a...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:549a681f-d9a1-427f...@googlegroups.com...
speaker that they also made. Could shake windows at 10 paces those
things!
--
Woody
harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
Phil Allison
>
> > Hi
> > If you look on the Cambridge Audio website they have a feature on
> > the 50 year history of the company, including the C75/ P75
> > https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/gbr/en/about-us/our-history
>
>
> Curious that there is no mention of the superb R50 transmission line
> speaker that they also made.
>
> Could shake windows at 10 paces those things!
>
http://www.hifiloudspeakers.info/speakertalk/viewtopic.php?p=5507&sid=daff456dc34bf6619dca667bcecb757c
Friend of mine owned a pair of the smaller R40s, same KEF woofer bit much cheaper mid and tweeter.
..... Phil
Woody
"Phil Allison" <palli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:705d40e5-963a-4909...@googlegroups.com...
text, no pictures. It was necessary to dig a bit deeper for that.
They say the R50 was 7ft tall. If that is the case then it must have
been the R40 that I had here - only about 4篆t - although they are not
mentioned as such. I had previously had a pair of the Arthur Bailey
designed TLs from Wireless World 1972 which used the same
speaker/crossover line-up and would also shake windows at 10 paces
although their imaging was not quite so good. When I checked the R40s
I found that, unlike mine, the B110s were not reverse wired onto the
crossover. I did the change in the R40's and it made a noticable
difference (IMO improvement) to the overall sound and I think the
imaging improved as well (it was about 20 years ago!)
Brian Gaff
Brian
--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
Phil Allison
>
> >> Curious that there is no mention of the superb R50 transmission
> >> line speaker that they also made.
> >>
> >
> >
> > ** Err - it's right there on the first page.
> >
> >
> >> Could shake windows at 10 paces those things!
> >>
> >
> > ** Essentially a KEF Concerto in a plus STC tweeter in a tall TR
> > box.
> >
> > http://www.hifiloudspeakers.info/speakertalk/viewtopic.php?p=5507&sid=daff456dc34bf6619dca667bcecb757c
> >
> > Friend of mine owned a pair of the smaller R40s, same KEF woofer bit
> > much cheaper mid and tweeter.
> >
> >
>
> Indeed you are correct Phil although I only noticed a comment in the
> text, no pictures. It was necessary to dig a bit deeper for that.
>
> They say the R50 was 7ft tall.
The R50 had a transmission line that was 7 *feet* in length.
> If that is the case then it must have
> been the R40 that I had here - only about 4篆t - although they are not
> mentioned as such.
Early ones used the KEF Concerto driver line up while the R40-2, like my friend bought, substituted a Philips 5inch woofer for the B110 and a odd looking tweeter for the T27.
See second pic in Ebay listing:
https://www.ebay.com.sg/itm/Cambridge-Audio-R40-MK-II-Speakers-pair-/122615129113
Disappointed with the sound, my friend bought a pair of Philips 2inch dome mids and had me fit them. Worked OK but no great improvement.
http://tmraudio.com/product/pair-vintage-philips-2-soft-dome-midrange-speakers-ad-0210-sq8-0211-sq-8
.... Phil
Jim Lesurf
wrote:
> > In article <pg5u3i$i6m$1...@dont-email.me>, RJH <patch...@gmx.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Odd thread! I had the C75/P75 - marvellous. I can email the manual to
> >> anyone that wants it.
> >
> >
> > How about sending us (UKHHSoc) a copy via the webform on
> >
> > http://ukhhsoc.torrens.org/upload.html
> >
> > :-)
> >
> All done.
> I've got quite a few others - when I get a moment I'll see if
> I've got any that you're missing.
items I've not yet got the round tuits to have added to the site. There are
also *lots* of items we lack, but I don't want to waste your time on
duplicates.
Cheers,
Richard Jones
audio testing of the amplifiers but I can't say I was greatly impressed
by them. There was also a (tiny in comparison) set of Richard Allan (I
think) speakers that were so much better in just about every way, except
bass extension and absolute SPL of course!
Dave Plowman (News)
> I was working at CA at this time. We had a set of R50's on hand for
> audio testing of the amplifiers but I can't say I was greatly impressed
> by them. There was also a (tiny in comparison) set of Richard Allan (I
> think) speakers that were so much better in just about every way, except
> bass extension and absolute SPL of course!
not so much in favour since watts became cheap.
--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
> > Not sure a TL speaker has any merits other than raising the efficiency.
> > So not so much in favour since watts became cheap.
> Have you ever listened to one Dave?
Of course.
> I would have said the BIG advantage is bass extension and power. Big TLs
> go deep man real deep. I remember being well impressed by IMF TLS 80s
> back in the day, very impressive in those days.
My main memeory was of a rather confused sound stage.
--
*Strip mining prevents forest fires.
Richard Jones
>> Not sure a TL speaker has any merits other than raising the efficiency.
>> So not so much in favour since watts became cheap.
>
>
> Have you ever listened to one Dave?
>
> go deep man real deep. I remember being well impressed by IMF TLS 80s back
> in the day, very impressive in those days.
>
>
Indeed. The TDL's (proper ones not the later versions sold though Richer
Sounds) were lovely speakers. Had a loan pair of Studio 1's for a while
back in 92 I think and they were great.
RJH
> In article <pg65qd$5jp$1...@dont-email.me>, RJH <patch...@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>> On 17/06/2018 17:08, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> In article <pg5u3i$i6m$1...@dont-email.me>, RJH <patch...@gmx.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Odd thread! I had the C75/P75 - marvellous. I can email the manual to
>>>> anyone that wants it.
>>>
>>>
>>> How about sending us (UKHHSoc) a copy via the webform on
>>>
>>> http://ukhhsoc.torrens.org/upload.html
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>
>> All done.
>
> Thanks. Now have them. :-)
>
>> I've got quite a few others - when I get a moment I'll see if
>> I've got any that you're missing.
>
> OK, if convenient, please email me if you can first. Afraid I have a lot of
> items I've not yet got the round tuits to have added to the site. There are
> also *lots* of items we lack, but I don't want to waste your time on
> duplicates.
>
--
Cheers, Rob
RJH
> In article <570a176...@davenoise.co.uk>,
>> In article <pg86a7$3eu$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Richard Jones <ne...@rgjones.screaming.net> wrote:
>
>>> I was working at CA at this time. We had a set of R50's on hand for
>>> audio testing of the amplifiers but I can't say I was greatly
>>> impressed by them. There was also a (tiny in comparison) set of
>>> Richard Allan (I think) speakers that were so much better in just
>>> about every way, except bass extension and absolute SPL of course!
>
>> Not sure a TL speaker has any merits other than raising the efficiency.
>> So not so much in favour since watts became cheap.
>
>
> Have you ever listened to one Dave?
>
> I would have said the BIG advantage is bass extension and power. Big TLs
> go deep man real deep. I remember being well impressed by IMF TLS 80s back
> in the day, very impressive in those days.
>
nice bass, deep and controlled, and unflustered loud. Quite cheap
drivers - a Seas bass/mid and a T27. I remember auditioning them next to
some AR18s (then the go to budget speaker) in the early 80s - much
preferred the LNBs.
PMC make some very nice sounding, and well regarded, TL speakers today.
--
Cheers, Rob