deHavilland UltraVerve vs. SAS Audio Labs 10A

earlmarc · « **on:** 2 Apr 2004, 05:39 pm »

After much research into preamplifiers for my Carver ZR-1600 modded amplifier, I have concluded that there are two tubed preamplifiers that are head and shoulders above the rest: deHavilland Ultraverve and SAS Audio Labs 10A. Bound for Sound just released a comparison of these two preamplifiers. I have not read the comparison as of now, but plan to very soon. The SAS Audio Labs 10A preamp sells for $1495 vs the $2495 deHavilland Ultraverve. This comparison should be a great read. I can't wait to read the article.

earlmarc · « **Reply #1 on:** 2 Apr 2004, 09:55 pm »

Well folks, I have read the comparison of these two preamplifiers. I think you'll be surprised to find out that neither was declared better than the other. I quess it comes down to personal taste and cost. The SAS was declared the more accurate of the two and also more emotional and liquid sounding. The Ultraverve was thought to be truer to the source of music with its neutrality. Each was excelllent in their uniqueness of sound according to Martin Dewulf. This is a brief summary. I recommend you read the article. I will try to compare them both. But since the SAS 10A is $1000 cheaper, I'm inclined to go in that direction.

JoshK · « **Reply #2 on:** 3 Apr 2004, 12:29 am »

not to pick on semantics but how can the Ultraverve be truer and at the same time less accurate? That seems like a contradiction.

earlmarc · « **Reply #3 on:** 3 Apr 2004, 01:06 am »

I agree Josh, but you should read the article in the context of how the words accurate and true to the musical source are used. What I drew from the review was that the Ultraverve was transparent and neutral without the classical emotion and smoothness of tubed preamps. The SAS 10A had more of the classic tube traits and managed to also be very accurate. Accurate in this context means more emotionally accurate if you will.

DARTH AUDIO · « **Reply #4 on:** 3 Apr 2004, 03:11 am »

earlmarc, I'm not sure what is meant by "classical emotion and smoothness of tubed preamps. What is the rest of the reviewers system? I have the deHavilland Superverve and it has plenty of tube "Emotion & Smoothnes" And a HUGE(Wide & Deep)Soundstage. When I hear "classical emotion" used to describe tubes, I think of slow, rolled off highs, flubby bass. That' not the deHavilland. I bought mine to go with my Spectron Musician III. This combo is sooo "Smooth Sounding". IMHO..

Do you have a link to the review? Are you sure it was the UltraVerve and not the Verve? Just wondering.

Good luck with your choice,

GLP

earlmarc · « **Reply #5 on:** 3 Apr 2004, 05:08 am »

It is the Ultraverve. There is no link because Bound for Sound charges 3.50 for the article. Your perception of Classic tube sound is correct, however, the SAS 10A doesn't have flubby bass or rolled off highs and was considered to provide more emotion than the Ultraverve. I havn't listened to either preamp. I'm recalling what I read.

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #6 on:** 3 Apr 2004, 06:08 am »

SAS Audio Lab 10A Bound for Sound review Jan. 20004 -> http://www.sasaudiolabs.com/bfs2.htm

Steve · « **Reply #7 on:** 3 Apr 2004, 09:26 pm »

Hi Guys,
I am Steve from SAS Audio Labs. I just wanted to make a technical comment, if I may, that might help some or all involved.

One of the things I do is use a test "jig" where I can compare a preamplifier design (say, under development) vs a "straight wire".

This involves using a high quality low powered amplifier that is directly coupled to the source and speakers. Thus no passive preamp, or any volume control is necessary as the sound level is at a comforatable level.

After listening to the "direct wire connection", I then insert a preamp and look for sonic differences. Since the speaker, amp, source, ICs, speaker wires are common, they cancel out of the equation. Depending on the preamp connection arrangement, another IC, or simply wire, may be inserted with the preamp, so it could be a source of some slight sonic degradation, depending on the quality of the IC or wire.

When I notice no sonic differences between a preamp in circuit and out of circuit, then I think I am very close to perfection.

I would make sure the input Z of the amp is within a "normal" range and the source out Z can handle the input Z of the preamp.

Hope this may help some in their own evaluations of components.

earlmarc · « **Reply #8 on:** 3 Apr 2004, 09:47 pm »

Steve can you comment about the sonic characteristics about your preamp? I have read information about your preamp. in comparison with the deHavilland Ultraverve and others. What is the goal of the 10A and do you feel it would be compatible with solid-state amplifiers? For example, Kara Chafee designed the Ultraverve because she was not satisfied with other preamps she used with her tube amplifiers. Customers rave about the synergy of the Ultraverve with solid-state amplifiers. I am not asking you to compare your preamp with the Ultraverve as there is a current review by Martin DeWulf in Bound for Sound with this comparison. I would like to know what you feel your preamp offers?

Steve · « **Reply #9 on:** 3 Apr 2004, 10:11 pm »

Hi Earlmac,

The 10A is designed to be totally accurate, and neutral sounding. It is almost as if the 10A were "invisible", it adds no sonic signature of its own. I believe the test I mention above really takes the guess work out of knowing whether a preamp is accurate or whether it isn't. Any sonic flaw in a design seems to appear during this test. The 10A tests so well, I have to say it truly is "invisible".

One of the nice things about the 10A is its ability to work into low Z loads. The Pass X250, has an input Z of only 22k ohms, yet the 10A works just as nice with 100k ohms input Z of a typical tube amplifier. I can't comment on every amp of course, but so far, the 10A seems to work well with everything connected to it. Of course room acoustics, other components etc affects the sonics of a complete system.

I hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily. If you have any others, please feel free to ask.

tvyankee · « **Reply #10 on:** 3 Apr 2004, 10:29 pm »

Hello.

Can someone post a picture of the back panel so i can see the lay out?

Thank You.

zybar · « **Reply #11 on:** 3 Apr 2004, 10:54 pm »

Steve,

Can you comment on your flagship preamp (can't remember the model number) vs the 10a?

Is there a reason you don't do balanced inputs/outputs?

Thanks,

George

Steve · « **Reply #12 on:** 4 Apr 2004, 01:15 am »

Yes, tvyankee.
http://www.sasaudiolabs.com/picture4.htm should now have a picture of the back panel.

__________________________________

Hi zybar. The 11A line preamp is currently being upgraded, things I can't try, for physical reasons, in the 10A chassis I can in the 11A. Of course, the 11A already has slightly better channel separation, being dual signal chassis and dual power supplies.
I hope with the upgrades, that the 11A will be the best in the entire audio world of preamps. I should find out in 2 to 3 weeks or so. I can let you know more later if you wish.

I don't use balanced ins or outs because of:

1) increased complexity of design, and
2) more parts required.

These requirements can deteriorate the sonic quality, especially in the small signal arena.
Of course, I must also consider output Z and other areas too.

I hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily. Take care.

zybar · « **Reply #13 on:** 4 Apr 2004, 01:26 am »

Thanks for the reply Steve.

I will contact you for more info and to see if your product might work for me.

Thanks,

George

tvyankee · « **Reply #14 on:** 4 Apr 2004, 01:33 am »

Hi Steve.

Is it possible for the 11a to have a after market power chord?

Also is their a face plate you can get that dosen't come with holes to
rack mount it?

Thanks.

Steve · « **Reply #15 on:** 5 Apr 2004, 01:15 am »

Hi Tv,
I am looking into it. One needs a special punch to produce a hole in the chassis to mount the AC receptacle. It must be specially made, not sold over the counter. Cost looks to be from $250 to $500 for the punch, if the company decides to make one for me.

Several years ago, I looked hi and low for a descent chassis, regardless of price. Expensive and minimum quantities seem to be the order. So this chassis seems to be it.

I have been thinking about a wood cover, but it won't help with what you are concerned with, and there could be an over heating concern too, so I ruled that out. So right now, I am just going as is. Maybe later, something can be done.

Wish I could be of more help but the AC receptable idea does look promising.

Take care.
Steve

OBF · « **Reply #16 on:** 5 Apr 2004, 07:08 pm »

Steve,

Thanks for answering questions here. Your products seem very interesting and I would have never heard of them before reading this thread. Here's another question for you:

Sounds like the 10A doesn't have any problem driving the low Z Pass, but I imagine it might have a problem with a 7k digital amp?

Also, do you find remote volumes to compromise your ability to design a transparent pre or is it more of a cost issue? I've been looking for a while for a tube pre that can drive a VERY low input impedance and has a remote volume, but I might have to sacrifice the remote......

Steve · « **Reply #17 on:** 6 Apr 2004, 04:38 pm »

Dear OBF,

Good questions. 7k is getting quite low and the bass will suffer, which would also thin the mids too. Unless you have an excess amount of bass, I don't think it would be a very good match.

I do offer a 45 day money back guarantee, so if you would want to try it, you could. However, the upgrading will probably take a month or so, got to do alot of testing to make sure things are just right. Unfortunately, it looks like the price will go up, but don't know how much yet.

The main problems with having a remote, in my case, are two fold.

1) Cost
2) Physical limitations of the cabinet.

So I doubt if I will ever incorporate a remote into my designs, at least in the near future.

Thanks.

earlmarc · « **Reply #18 on:** 9 Apr 2004, 10:03 pm »

Here is a direct quote from Martin Dewulf from Bound for Sound on the comparison of these two preamps: "Each has its positives and negatives, and declaring one over the other is more a choice of priorities (and tastes) than ultimate truths. Which is not to cop-out on the matter as much as it is to refuse to designate one of two evenly matched components as better when no clear cut advantage exists."

Steve · « **Reply #19 on:** 15 Apr 2004, 01:46 am »

Hi Marus,

I think there are two aspects that may shed some more light on the subject.

1) The 10A is tested vs a straight wire. By that I mean the CD player is directly connected to the amp and then the preamp is inserted. Thus one can gauge the different between a direct connection and with the preamp inserted. (I use a special test jig so another IC isn't inserted into the equation.)

2) Martin DeWulf used a SS amp for testing. Rich Weiner's review is forthcoming in the next issue of BFS, from what I have been told. He uses a tube amp. Should be an interesting comparison between a SS amp and tube amp.