deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 3646 times.

SteveFord

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6387
  • The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.
deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« on: 26 Jul 2016, 12:02 am »
I was wondering if Emil (or any other owners) would be so good as to share their opinions?
I'm specifically wondering if the Mercury offers increased resolution as I know that's where the UV is lacking that last little bit.


Maritan

Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #1 on: 26 Jul 2016, 01:30 am »
The UltraVerve lacks something? Don't say that! I can ill afford a different component.  :nono:

JakeJ

Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #2 on: 26 Jul 2016, 02:40 am »
Pop off an email to Kara and ask her what she has to say about it.  My guess is yes.

Emil

Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #3 on: 26 Jul 2016, 11:49 am »
This quote from Enjoy the Music review of the Mercury 2 is spot on.

You should know that my favorite preamp tube has been the 6SN7, and specifically, its military specification RCA VT-231 due its big tone sound. Since deHavilland was and still is a supporter of the 6SN7, you might get the impression that the 85's sonics are pretty much cast of the same mold. That is definitely not the case. The 85 insists on greater tonal neutrality, lacking the 6SN7's robust upper bass and lower midrange. To my ears the VT-231 generates a vintage romantic balance that complements the power range of an orchestra and does wonders for the foundation of a jazz combo. The 85, on the other hand, excels in the areas of harmonic textural delicacy and clarity. As a result, the Mercury offers an exceptionally clean window on the soundstage. It gives the soundstage the "Windex" treatment. The chronic veiling that afflicts lesser line stages vanishes like smoke with the Mercury in the chain. There's a purity of expression that makes it possible to resolve low-level detail even at low-volume levels.

I initially was disappointed wondering where the punch was in some familiar recording but the more I listened, the more I came to appreciated the more neutral presentation of the Type 85 over 6SN7 tube

A very happy camper with my Merc 3

richidoo

Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #4 on: 26 Jul 2016, 03:26 pm »
A very happy camper with my Merc 3

Glad to hear it!  :thumb:


It MUST be good if it can make Dick Olsher even slightly diss the 6SN7!

Emil

Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #5 on: 26 Jul 2016, 06:38 pm »
Pop off an email to Kara and ask her what she has to say about it.  My guess is yes.

I did just that a few moths ago. She was honest enough to say that some people still preferred their UV3 to the Merc  due to the 6SN7.

Kara is one of the good gals in audio

SteveFord

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6387
  • The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.
Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #6 on: 26 Jul 2016, 09:29 pm »
Thanks, Emil.
It sounds like one of those that I'll have to listen to myself as it seems there's no night and day difference.


Emil


marvda1

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1857
  • freelance reviewer: The Sound Advocate
Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #8 on: 8 Mar 2017, 12:51 am »
if you want increased resolution in the v3 replace the caps with mundorf silver, gold and oil caps.

SteveFord

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 6387
  • The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.
Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #9 on: 11 Mar 2017, 10:05 pm »
Cap upgrade is more feasible than a preamp switch at the moment.
I'm currently working on a motorcycle deal - one or maybe even two out the door, one in. 
Retirement is coming up soon so I want the stable to be over and done with.

Seamaster

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 8
Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #10 on: 12 May 2017, 07:47 pm »
I bought my UV3 last year with Kara installed Mundorf silver gold in oil caps, love the sound! It made McIntosh C22 (new version) into shame. I also love the tube possibility with 6SN7 type, sky is the limit. I don't find UV3 lacks transparency or detail by any count. The best part of UV3 is the bass, it is quick with wonderful decay, deep, and hard kicking, which is really unbelievable for a tube preamp. 
« Last Edit: 18 May 2017, 03:04 pm by Seamaster »

tipatina

Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #11 on: 18 May 2017, 02:31 pm »
I have an Ultraverve which I love. I wonder if anyone who understands the design can tell me how the preamp achieves stereo separation with just one 6SN7 in the gain stage?

JakeJ

Re: deHavilland UltraVerve versus Mercury
« Reply #12 on: 19 May 2017, 12:24 pm »
The 6SN7 is a twin triode tube.  One triode is used for one channel and the other for the other channel.