[gkinberg]

Has anyone compared these two preamps. I have heard good things about the 2100 with respect to feature list and value/dollar. While, supposedly, the 750 is critically acclaimed. The base management of the Parasound makes it very attractive but wanted to get thoughts.
Thanks, Garth

[Elizabeth]

The 2100 retails for $649 and includes a phono section. The Adcom is a much older design, was retail from $1,000 when first introduced up to $1,499. later.
The Adcom was (with the blue circuitboard) a class "A" contender in passive mode. (quite a feat for a cheaper preamp)
So now you could buy used an Adcom 750 for about the same $650. as your new Parasound.
The Adcom is a Nelson Pass design, if designers' names mean anything.
I used an Adcom 750 for many years, and just moved up to a Bryston BP-26 ($4,200 retail)
I would say if you want  the quality item. Get the Adcom. I have never heard the Parasound, so cannot say if it worth the same money as a used Adcom.

[Nuance]

So I'm curious, Elizabeth: how do you know the 2100 isn't also a "quality item?"  You yourself said you haven't heard it, so I am interested in an explanation.

I mean no offense, by the way. 

I haven't heard both units (only the 2100), so I am not qualified to answer the question.  Hopefully someone who has heard both will chime in. 

[Elizabeth]

Well, $650 does not buy much "quality' in way of "SOUNDQUALITY" if 'magically' the $650 Parasound was equal of something that in todays' market would retail for $2,500. I would think it would be RAVED about and you would NOT even be able to find one for sale the demand would be so hot. (Like the VPI Classic turntable is)
Since the Parasound includes a phono in its' chassis, that $10 phono chip is just that, a ten dollar toy.
Sorry to vent, but comparing a current production item that costs $650 to an item produced ten years ago for up to $1,500. and well received at that, would not make sense. (No one make a cheap product that beats expensive products except perhaps in cables. which is half fantasy and half Voo Doo anyway.)
I gues I expect folks to understand there IS NO FREE LUNCH. better costs more. Period.
The ONLY comparo is the fact that you CAN buy a USED Adcom for about the same price as a new Parasound, which makes the Adcom a real bargain.
So you see, IMO I do not need to even hear the Parasound to compare it. NOW if you asked about a used Audio Research pre like a SP-9, or an LS-5 compared to the Adcom.. THEN it would be tough. That IS a real comparison. They are different, but comparable. in price AND quality.
I just bought a Bryston pre for $4000. I do not know what a $650 pre is supposed to offer, nor would I bother to listen to one, except as a guest if someone I knew owned it. I DO know what the Adcom offered and used it for a long time. It was a good preamp. NOT as clear as my new Bryston, but a nice product..
And I would say buy a used preamp. Ther are PLENTY of brands of preamps available for around $650. that are MUCH better than a new $650 preamp. You'd be getting a preamp that eight to twenty years ago cost much much more and is still a good piece of equipment. AND will still be worth what you paid for it in five more years.
If I were you I would look at Conrad Johnson, Audio Research for the best long term values in a used preamp.
The Adcom is about as good as those brands worth about the same in the used market, IF you use the Adcom in passive mode. Those brands WILL have a different sound, but just as good in quality.

[Nuance]

Elizabeth,

We couldn't disagree more.  This hobby in no way follows the "you get what you pay for logic."  I am very surprised to see you say something like that. 

When I began searching for a pair of speakers that could tide me over for 10+ years I often found pairs many thousands less in cost that sounded better than the more expensive ones.  I auditioned dozens of speakers, preamps, amps and transports, with the best sounding ones making an in-home audition over a weekend.  Once again, the more expensive components didn't always sound better. 

I am in no way knocking you, but if you have been in this hobby long enough one of two things will happen to you: 1) You'll continue to get suckered, or 2) You'll realize that extra cost doesn't guarantee better sound.  Whichever category you fall into - good for you.  However, completely misleading and flawed statements such as yours will not go unnoticed, and will most likely be questioned and/or challenged.  This hobby is too subjective to make blanket statements like yours, let alone write off a piece of gear because its too cheap.  That's just snoody, or perhaps ignorance at play.

For what its worth, there are many 2100 owners on this forum,  and even more at AVS.  In fact, there is a 2100 owners thread at AVS.  Its also worth noting that I compared the 2100 to half a dozen other preamps in the $2000 or less price range; the 2100 came out on top above 4 of them, one being the Proceed Pre.  So you see, this hobby is too subjective to make blanket statements.  If you want to continued believing that cost equates to SQ, go ahead.  But you couldn't be more wrong (Salk Sound speakers is proof of this, for example).  You need to get out more girl!   If you're ever near Milwaukee I'd be happy to take you around to some of the Hi Fi shops and show you what I mean.

Anyway, I hope I am not coming across as someone who just wants to argue; that's not it at all. 

[Nuance]

And yes, I own the Parasound 2100 and would pit it against the older Adcom any day of the week.  It completely redefines its $699 price category (I too thought it wouldn't hold a candle to the more expensive name brands...I was wrong).  To each their own. 

[srb]

And yes, I own the Parasound 2100 and would pit it against the older Adcom any day of the week.  It completely redefines its $699 price category (I too thought it wouldn't hold a candle to the more expensive name brands...I was wrong).  To each their own. 

Do you think that price defines relative sound quality within the same manufacturer?  In other words, within Parasound, should the Halo P3 at $849 sound better than the New Classic Model 2100 at $649?
 
The Halo P7 at $1999 and the Halo JC2 @ $3999 are 3X and 6X the price of the Model 2100, so they should be expected to be better.
 
Or is the Model 2100 an engineering anomaly in sonic value, even with its output stage using opamps instead of discrete components?
 
Steve

[Nuance]

Good question, Steve.  I do feel as one moves up in a manufacturer's product line that performance gains are usually achieved.  There are exceptions, of course, but yes, to my ears the P7 and JC2 are clearly better.  Although, sometimes the simpler design sounds better (highly subjective of course).  Take passive preamps for example.

In regards to my original statement, though, less expensive gear doesn't always sound worse.  This is one of the only hobbies that the "you get what you pay for" philosophy holds no truth.

Just my $0.02 and YMMV.

Concerning the 2100, I just don't know.  I was ready to drop $2500 or so on a pre, but when I started auditioning I learned cost was a misleading factor.  This lead me to my local Parasound dealer, at which I got to compare Parasound to Lynn, Bryston, Rotel, Cambridge Audio, Cary, etc.  The 2100 was something I hadn't plan to audition, but the dealer pushed me, and I had heard it briefly at a friend's so I said why not.  In short, it got outclassed easily by the Bryston and Audio Research preamp, but was as good as a couple others and better than a handful.  That's just my opinion, of course, and I don't expect anyone to take it as more than that.  So I left the dealer that day perplexed.  Well, long story short,  a friend of mine spoke to Richard Schramm of Parasound and was told the 2100 was designed to sound almost as good as the P7,  minus the bells and whistles (including multi-channel capabilities).  Mr. Schramm felt they had achieved that goal, and I tend to agree with him.  I'd still take the P7 if I had a choice, though.   In fact, I am still looking for a better preamp for around $2000;  not because I am not happy with the 2100,  but because my head keeps telling me it can't be a good performer for its asking price.  Forum members say the same thing, so that doesn't help. 

Anyway, you get the point. 

[floresjc]

Never heard the Adcom although based on what I've read of it, no doubt it is a good preamp. I own the 2100 and it is quite good for the price and has an extensive feature list. Parasound is a great company to deal with. If it were me, I'd probably get the 2100, because its a new item with warranty. Compared to my AVA preamp (which is excellent and 3x the price) the 2100 holds its own.

Spending $1k a few years ago vs spending $700 today is no big schtick, maybe if the Adcom were made in the 1980's or the early 90's. The bottom line is they are both entry level high performing preamps at the time they were introduced, and as far as I can tell, both sound great. The Adcom may indeed perform a little better in a comparison test, or maybe the 2100 would, but its not like ones a rubber duck and the other is a brand new Ferrari.

[Nuance]

^ LMAO at the last sentence. 

[floresjc]

Do you think that price defines relative sound quality within the same manufacturer?  In other words, within Parasound, should the Halo P3 at $849 sound better than the New Classic Model 2100 at $649?
 
The Halo P7 at $1999 and the Halo JC2 @ $3999 are 3X and 6X the price of the Model 2100, so they should be expected to be better.
 
Or is the Model 2100 an engineering anomaly in sonic value, even with its output stage using opamps instead of discrete components?
 
Steve

You have to be really wary of judging components by price. In the cable world, people would think that 1k a foot cables are far and away the best, whereas the most of us mortals would do just fine with 50 cent a foot Belden, or heck, even 30 cent a foot lamp cord at Home Depot. Even if there was a difference in sound, its likely not representative of the $999.50 difference between the botique and Belden brand. In other words, no rubber duck and Ferrari situation.

Preamps, sources, speakers etc, all have to be measured in the same way, and you have to evaluate why something costs what it does. I paid 2k for a pair of Rockets some years ago, and they are pretty decent speakers, yet no one out there would claim they are high end, or uber quality, or would hold a candle to other well known high end brands like Salk with offerings in the same price range. I've seen the same Rocket speakers I own go full 5.1 setup for under a thousand bucks, so what gives? Price doesn't equal quality, it can, but not always.

I'm not saying that the 2100 is the best preamp in the world, its clearly not. But Parasound as a brand has shown it can deliver quality as good or better for similar or cheaper prices than many of its competitors. So it would not be an accurate description to say that a $1k component is better than a $700 component, without at least giving them a listen. I've said numerous times when people ask me about my system, asking what they should get. I quite frequently recommend the 2100 over the AVA preamp, despite its cost. Depending on what features you are looking for, what kind of setup you have to put it in, it just makes sense to select one over the other, even though on the absolute scale of how the preamp sounds the 2100 might be 95% of AVA's benchmark.