2. amps-preamps
  3. 136177-87441

Don Sachs 2 vs. deHavilland Ultraverve 3

There seem to be quite a few discussions and reviews on these preamps, but I haven’t seen any direct comparisons (I have done several searches).

Both are octal / 6SN7 tube line stages, include similar inputs/outputs, have similar features including optional remotes, place the tubes above the case, and are similarly priced. I would be grateful to hear about how they differ regarding their:

  • Sound (reviews of both say they are detailed and also include aspects of the traditional/warm tube sound, but I can't tell how they compare to each other) and

  • Design and Performance (ie the impact of design differences such as 4 6SN7 tubes in the Sachs as opposed to 1 in the deHavilland or the 48 step Khozmo remote ($200) vs the 32 step deHavilland remote ($500), etc.)

I have seen at least one thread where a member discussed experiences with both preamps, but I could not see any comparisons (such as the Sachs was more [fill in the blank] than the deHavilland).

Obviously it would be great to hear from members that have heard both preamps. There may be members that have not heard both, but may have insights into the potential impact of their design differences, and I'd be interested in hearing from them also.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts!!

swingfingers
swingfingers OP
48 posts
 

4hannons,

Thank you very much for the possibility of an invite! Unfortunately, I live on the east coast so it’s too far to do at this time - but still much appreciated.

Your impressions were interesting to read. What I gathered from your posts was that they sound extremely similar (detailed, clean, smooth, nice presentation, etc.) except that the deHavilland may have a bit more of a delicate, relaxed sound. Is this about right?

Would it be possible for you to give any more thoughts on how the 2 differ? In other words, is one more detailed or transparent than the other? Which do you think has stronger dynamics, better bass “slam”, or is more holographic? Thanks in advance for anything you can add to distinguish the two!


4hannons's avatar
4hannons
187 posts
 

East coast, oh well.

Fair warning, I might repeat myself from the post. I’m not a professional reviewer and don’t consider myself particularly adept at describing audio differences. I hear what I hear and try to put it into words.

One thing I didn’t mention in that post, (did I mention?) the deHavilland has a NOS 1944 Sylvania 6SN7, the Don Sachs has stock tubes. Mine might not be a fair comparison as the NOS tube improves imaging, space, detail, depth -- pretty much everything. I’ve only heard the Don Sachs in stock form, and haven’t yet purchased better tubes until I fully commit to keeping it -- I currently have too many pre-amps.

You summed up my comparison perfectly. The deHavilland exhibits more of the classic tube characteristics; Don Sachs closer to solid state with slightly more punch.

I didn’t notice any difference in bass slam, perhaps because I’m pretty much maxed out on bass using two Vandy 2Wq’s in my setup.

Dynamics are where the Don Sachs excels. It is right there with the Pass XP-10. I like my music to have impact and a percussive element, I want to feel it when the music gets loud. Don Sachs edges out the deHavilland here.

As far as transparency and holographics, both are deep, big and wide, wider than Pass, probably an advantage of tubes vs. solid state. Don Sachs is more transparent.

I’m probably a bigger fan of the Don Sachs for it’s dynamics, the deHavilland slightly warmer/darker.

I hope this helps, as with everything this is all system dependent. You can click on my name and see my room and associated equipment that might help you make a decision. If you have more questions, let me know.





gotog
130 posts
 
Not exactly answering your question but thought I would share my experience with the Ultraverve 3.  First let me state that I don't think you can go wrong with either choice.  I too was deciding between the Sachs and Ultraverve and went with the Ultraverve because I got a deal on a 6 month old unit that is black on black (very cool looking in a stealth kinda way).  I also really like the retro look of the Sachs unit.  My experience with the Ultraverve is very similar to what 4hannons described.  I would also like to add that I have higher sensitivity Tonian Lab speakers and the Ultraverve 3 is perfectly quiet-- even with my ear right up to the speaker.  This is so important to me as I am very sensitive to any background noise.  The Ultraverve presents music on a nice black background.  It is also responds well to changes in the 6sn7 tube -- and the really nice thing is that you only need one.  So if you want to splurge on a Tung-sol round black plate you don't need to worry about getting multiple matched tubes.  I also find that the modest 12 db gain on the Ultraverve is nice in a high sensitivity system.  In the past have always had issues with too much gain.  And finally, for whatever reason, I have always been biased towards point-to-point wiring -- the deHavilland has 100% hand wired point-to-point circuitry in the audio as well as the power supply circuit.  I am not saying that the Ultraverve is better than the Sachs in any way.  I know Don is extremely responsive to customers and can tailor his product to meet your exact needs.  Just wanted to share my experience with the Ultraverve in case it may be helpful to you in any way.
swingfingers OP
48 posts
 

4hannons,

THANK YOU very much for all the details! It is definitely helpful.

I must admit I'm intrigued by your description of the Sachs.  Like you I'm big on dynamics and "punch".  OTOH, I do want some real tube sweetness and holigraphics, etc. 

I am curious about your impressions on the extent of the differences between your 3 units. In other words, if on a spectrum of “tubey-ness” where solid state, or the Pass, is 0 and super tubey is 10, where would you place the Sachs and deHavviland?

It is interesting that the Sachs has 4 6SN7 tubes vs only 1 for the deHavilland, and yet it is the deHavilland that you feel exhibits more of the classic tube characteristics. I wonder why?

I hear you about the potential effect of different model tubes installed. If you have any interest, I wonder what your impressions would be with one of the Sachs stock tubes in the deHavilland; this could be closer to an apples to apples comparison (even if the deHavilland tube was in the Sachs, it would only be 1 of 4).

Thanks for noting your gear – nice system btw! I also have a McCormack amp, although mine is a stock DNA 0.5 deluxe.

Thanks again!


swingfingers OP
48 posts
 

gotog,

Thank you very much for your response. I appreciate the comments.

I also like a black background with very low noise so it is nice to hear the deHavilland can provide that.

Regarding point to point wiring, is the Sachs not point to point? My understanding was that both units were all point to point, but perhaps the deHaviland is hand wired all the way through and the standard m2 Sachs is not?

You raise an important issue re the number of tubes.  With 4 octals on the Sachs and only 1 on the deHavilland, does that make the Sachs more expensive to maintain? Or would the other tubes on the dHavilland even things out? Or is the real issue ensuring all 4 octals match on the Sachs?


More to discover