Adcom GFP 750 - Any opinions?

daddyjt

This came up on local CL here, and I am considering... Does anyone here have experience with one of these units? Impressions?

http://missoula.craigslist.org/ele/5206661881.html

hochpt21

Never heard one myself, but these were all the rage a couple years ago here on this forum.

Seems like the price may be a hair high? Maybe $750 would be better. Although it looks pretty minty.

There are some guys here who have/had one, hopefully they chime in.

pitdogg2

Worth every dime but unless that one has been recapped, price too high IMHO. 600.00 would be more in line.

daddyjt

Thanks, guys! I think I'll offer $700. Recapping is not a problem - Unless it uses caps that are no longer available (Usually, that's only supply caps in amps though). I found a few on Ebay north of $1k....

Nightfall

Things seem to go for crazy prices on eBay. I've seen my Yamaha CA-1010 sell for $500 and up!

gudnoyez

That one was on E- bay about a month ago. I also want one and have been looking as I have a couple of Adcom amps and preamps but would love that one, if you could get it for less that would be great, then send it off to Big Sky Audio and have it serviced. I do believe there was one on sale on the forum but the guy didn't have enough posts to sell here.

F1nut

It's a fairly decent, smooth sounding SS pre amp.

GlennDog

Since the CLister is in MT and so is Big Sky, my guess is that it has been gone-thru, or should have been due to age (and that asking price)
If not, ask him to have it evaluated by them

daddyjt

Thanks for the input, guys. I'm passing on this for now, as I just dropped $500 on my first (of many) set of MIT cables...:-)

F1nut

Since you already own the PRE AMP, you should have bought the cables. There will be other opportunities at those cables in the future. Good luck.

F1nut

Serious question, what would be the sound difference between using MIT cables and a graphic or parameteric equalizer with good quality, well designed generic cables?

A lot less noise.

For me, I would rather have my "tone controls" in my electronic gear and not in the cables.

It's got nothing to do with tone controls. It has to do with signal integrity.

tonyb

xcapri79 wrote: »

For my money, that is the direction I would choose. For me, I would rather have my "tone controls" in my electronic gear and not in the cables.

Your opinion, but I wouldn't. Tone controls add noise, which is why most don't have them anymore and went to software based tone controls.....if that's what you mean.

Whatever way you feel you want to alter the sound to your liking, by tone control, different tubes, pre amps, dacs, amps, equalizers....you still have to get it to the speakers and in-between gear used. It boils down to matching up sound characteristics that you like, to your ears, from source through all your gear and speakers until it reaches your ears. Everything in the mix alters the sound to some degree and that includes cables.

If you don't subscribe to that, great....you just saved yourself some dough. If you do, then the rabbit hole awaits.

daddyjt

xcapri79 wrote: »

daddyjt wrote: »

Thanks for the input, guys. I'm passing on this for now, as I just dropped $500 on my first (of many) set of MIT cables...:-)

If I didn't already own the amp, I would have taken it and passed on the cables. But that was your choice. There will be other opportunities at that amp in the future. Good luck.

Didn't mean to start a battle here...

I don't know about the rest of you, but every couple of months, I get the "bug" to do something for my system(s). About the time the "bug" hits, I've got a chunk of $$ to drop on something.

I already have a few solid, dead quiet preamps in the stable, so the Adcom would have been a duplication, and possibly an upgrade, but I doubt a significant one.

Based on the overwhelming comments from you (almost)all, I feel that I need to venture out and at least TRY some true high end cables. I am convinced that I have nothing to lose here, as based on what I've seen, I'll have little trouble selling these, should I feel the need.

I am a true cable skeptic, but hey - I was skeptical about vinyl and FLAC too... I will share my cable journey here, and post my honest interpretations of what I think.

motorhead43026

I was a cable skeptic as well. I can attest they do make a difference. Is it night and day, no. Yet it is enough of a difference I feel it was money well spent.

daddyjt

I actually have a MiniDSP 2x8 (With U-mic) that I bought for a future active bi-amp project. I think it has extensive equalization options, with the correct software...?

Toolfan66

I have had a lot of Adcom gear come and go, and the only piece I regret selling is the GFP-750..

If another one in excellent shape comes along with the right price I will own it again...

audiocr381ve

Toolfan66 wrote: »

I have had a lot of Adcom gear come and go, and the only piece I regret selling is the GFP-750..

If another one in excellent shape comes along with the right price I will own it again...

+1

F1nut

Have you considered, digital signal processing for equalization and room correction?
I think that is the more optimal modern solution and that was a key point for me.

Optimal modern solution? Definitely not. I was able to achieve even better sound by installing MIT speaker cables after using DSP and room correction.

[Deleted User]

I'd be interested in knowing if you have played Quiet Riot thru those systems.

xcapri79 wrote: »

For me, these specs concerning noise of the MA6900 integrated with equalization controls for example are below what is practicably audible. Is it not?

A-Wtd. Signal-to-Noise Ratio
Phono: 90dB below 10mV input (84dB IHF)
High level: 100dB below rated output (90dB IHF)
Power Amp: 110dB below rated output.

[Deleted User]

I'll be on the looksee for a Adcom GFP 750 after this thread.
I have a Carver C4000 in the closet. Should I not bother?
Thanks!

tonyb

I like to keep my 2 channel with the least amount of fudging with the signal as possible. To my ears anyway, DSP.... it can add some pleasant things, but also subtract from the overall sound. Always seemed more helpful in HT than 2 channel to me. If it floats your boat though, use it. We all enjoy our music in our own ways.

F1nut

Excellent point on the 2 channel. My experience above was with HT.

heiney9

No equalizer type made now, in the past or in the future can attenuate the incremental nuances tube swapping or cable swapping can provide. Eq's are far to broad in the spectrum of tones they attenuate. Not to mention the addition of noise to the signal.

Never found a tone control or eq that was worth a damn for 2 channel use. YUCK

H9

audiocr381ve

heiney9 wrote: »

No equalizer type made now, in the past or in the future can attenuate the incremental nuances tube swapping or cable swapping can provide. Eq's are far to broad in the spectrum of tones they attenuate. Not to mention the addition of noise to the signal.

Never found a tone control or eq that was worth a damn for 2 channel use. YUCK

H9

Hey now - EQ has its place. All those fantastic albums you love are most likely using EQ on absolutely everything. Every instrument, every vocal, every master - EQ is applied. EQ in the digital domain can work wonders in the context of 2 channel. No extra noise is added to the signal that way. It's true that tubes & cables can attenuate nuances but it's also true that they absolutely cannot do what an EQ does. Elevating tubes & cables above EQ is interesting. EQ can absolutely attenuate nuance and be used to tailor sound, fix issues, and it's free if you're using a computer based system.

I know some of you DSP guys can chime in here.

acmf74

Going back to the original question..

I personally have one (blue board) and it has been rock solid.

It sounds great AND the HT bypass feature works phenomenal.

heiney9

I also loved my GFP-750. But tubes rule so I did end up selling it, only because it didn't have tubes. Great SS pre, very well built, excellent sound and you can't beat the used price.

As far as the EQ discussion, what most consumers use is nothing like what a recording engineer with mutli-tracks in the studio uses, so don't even attempt to go there.

I have yet to hear a plug-n-play EQ for a 2 channel system that does any good. Room treatments, proper set-up, gear matching, cables, and if you have tubes, can all be used to a better advantage than a plug-n-play EQ. DSP for multi channel is NOT what I'm talking about.

Everyone wants to take the subject outside the scope of the initial discussion, and sometimes it's annoying. Of course EQ is used to make the recording, but that's not at all what we are talking about. Nor is the average consumer able to do. I think we are talking (I am atleast) about post-recording plug-n-play type EQ.

H9

Nightfall

My dad, growing up, had this DBX 10/20 or 20/20 (can't remember) EQ that he bought in Germany along with the rest of his gear. It had a microphone that you plugged into the EQ, sort of like todays AVR's, that would "test" the room and adjust everything automatically including the timing of sound IIRC. I don't remember if it was any good, I was little, but it sure looked impressive with its dancing lights.

pitdogg2

Nightfall wrote: »

My dad, growing up, had this DBX 10/20 or 20/20 (can't remember) EQ that he bought in Germany along with the rest of his gear. It had a microphone that you plugged into the EQ, sort of like todays AVR's, that would "test" the room and adjust everything automatically including the timing of sound IIRC. I don't remember if it was any good, I was little, but it sure looked impressive with its dancing lights.

I always lusted after one of those to try. Even used they command high prices, and most of the time never include the microphone. Guess I must of outgrown that as now that I have the money I do not even consider it nessesary.

[Deleted User]

I THINK the thread is about the Adcom GFP 750 and someone mentioned that they would prefer a more pure direct connection from A to B. So the price seems o.k. but what are you trying to achieve? I bought my first pre to try the "holographic" sound and the second to try tubes in a easy way (warm up the sound)

audiocr381ve

heiney9 wrote: »

I also loved my GFP-750. But tubes rule so I did end up selling it, only because it didn't have tubes. Great SS pre, very well built, excellent sound and you can't beat the used price.

As far as the EQ discussion, what most consumers use is nothing like what a recording engineer with mutli-tracks in the studio uses, so don't even attempt to go there.

I have yet to hear a plug-n-play EQ for a 2 channel system that does any good. Room treatments, proper set-up, gear matching, cables, and if you have tubes, can all be used to a better advantage than a plug-n-play EQ. DSP for multi channel is NOT what I'm talking about.

Everyone wants to take the subject outside the scope of the initial discussion, and sometimes it's annoying. Of course EQ is used to make the recording, but that's not at all what we are talking about. Nor is the average consumer able to do. I think we are talking (I am atleast) about post-recording plug-n-play type EQ.

H9

Maybe you're just a hair irritable, Brock. Do you interrupt a conversation at the dinner table when it organically shifts direction? This is all good talk if the OP is cool with it.

Since you're responding and adding to the discussion - I'll respond too. And I'll "go there" because we're a community who values each others opinions and experiences :P

As far as the EQ discussion, what most consumers use is nothing like what a recording engineer with mutli-tracks in the studio uses, so don't even attempt to go there.

Haha bogus. Do consumers not have a "bass" and "treble" knobs in their vehicles? Is EQ not built into home receivers, 2-channel integrateds, computers, even Spotify in some way!? An EQ in the studio is used in the same way that an EQ at home is used. To add and subtract from the frequency spectrum. It's purposes are the same in both environments. None of use are recording with our 2 channel rigs but we are all listening to loudspeakers.

My point is the argument cannot be "cables over EQ" or "EQ over tubes." They all have their place. Fine if you have a preference - but saying "YUCK" as if they're the plague is ridiculous!

heiney9

Right Shane, a rudimentary "bass" and "treble" knob is the same as a multi-thousand dollar recording console. "Tone" controls on consumer gear are nothing like on a professional board. No matter how many times you say it, it's not the same.

And yes, IMO, YUCK on rudimentary tone controls and add on EQ's