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 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?


4hannons's avatar
4hannons
187 posts
 

"...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 deHavilland?"

I don’t know how to best answer...I’ve owned mostly solid state, and my best audition of tubes happened last year in LaJolla listening to two set ups, one was all tube Audio Note and one was all tube CJ. If the CJ gear is a 10 (very tubey) then the Audio Note is 8, the deHavilland is 6, Sach is 4, I wouldn’t say the Pass is 0 because it has certain tube-like qualities so I’d give it a 2. And that’s the thing, there are certain nuances that aren’t captured in assigning a number and some ss gear sounds more like tubes than certain tube equipment. CJ and AN gear for my taste is a little too soft, but I appreciate the deep soundstage and sweetness. For my taste of music (rock, pop, country, occasional jazz) and entertaining friends, there’s no way a softer presentation like CJ would work for me right now.



gotog
130 posts
 
My point-to-point wiring comments were based on my understanding that the Sachs was based on the SP14 board from Roy Mottram at Tubes4hifi; whereas the Ultraverve is point-to-point hand wired (no board).  Also, the tube compliment that comes with the Ultraverve contains quality NOS tubes tested and specifically selected for the preamp -- at least mine did.  They are very nice quality tubes.  The 6sn7 will most likely be the only one that you may end up rolling if you are trying to tailor the preamp to your taste.  Mine came with a very nice vintage Sylvania that suits me just fine-- no need for me to roll at this point.  Just curious, what amp and speakers are you using and what type of music do you listen to?
swingfingers OP
48 posts
 

4hannons,

Thanks for trying to place these on a spectrum and giving greater context by including other preamps. I agree that we can’t represent such complex sounds by a number, but in the context of a lot of other details (like those you gave), it can help as another piece of the puzzle.

If you have time for another comment…you mentioned the deHavilland as being “slightly warmer/darker”. Have you found it has more mid bass/low mids OR less treble/high frequencies...or both?  I guess I’m wondering if there is any sense of a veil or muted high end…


More to discover