Comparisons
I compared the Counterpoint with the McCormack DNA-0.5, which did the better in the comparison. The $1295 McCormack sounded sweeter overall on the SC-IVs—though I did note an occasional brightness in the low treble which hadn't been apparent before, and of which the Counterpoint was free. Both amplifiers performed well on the Holly Cole Trio's Don't Smoke in Bed (Manhattan B21Z-81198), but…
search
The NPS-400A was at a bit of a disadvantage with the Dunlavy SC-IVs, which, with the lean sound noted above—at least in my room—were not particularly good matches for the Counterpoint.
Sidebar 1: Associated Equipment
Loudspeakers used to audition the Counterpoint were Mirage M-7sis, Dunlavy SC-IVs, and Energy Veritas v2.8s. Amplifiers on hand for comparisons were the Krell KSA-300S and McCormack DNA-0.5. Program source was a Krell KPS-20i CD player used as a transport, feeding a Mark Levinson No.35 D/A converter through a Kimber AGDL digital coaxial cable.
Unbalanced TARA Labs Master RSC connected the Levinson converter to a Rowland Consummate preamp. Preamp-to-power-amp interconnects were alternately Monster M1500s and Cardas Hexlink Five Series, and…
Sidebar 2: Measurements
A full set of measurements of the Counterpoint NPS-400A was made in its unbalanced mode, with selected measurements repeated for the balanced configuration. Unless otherwise noted, the results presented are for the unbalanced configuration.
Following the 1/3-power, one-hour preconditioning test, the NPS-400A's heatsinks were very warm, but not unusually so. The NPS-400A is non-inverting in the unbalanced mode; in the balanced, pin 2 is configured as the positive leg, pin 3 the negative.
The NPS-400A's input impedance measured 96.5k ohms at 1kHz (…
Sidebar 3: Specifications
Description: Hybrid amplifier design with class-AB output stage. Rated power: 200Wpc into 8 ohms (23dBW), 400Wpc into 4 ohms (23dBW), 700Wpc into 2 ohms (22.4dBW). Dynamic headroom: 3dB. Rated full-power bandwidth: 20Hz–20kHz. Input impedance: 100k ohms. Input sensitivity: 92mV. Rated THD: 0.5%. S/N ratio: 90dB.
Dimensions: 19" W by 7.4" H by 18" D. Weight: 65lb.
Serial number of unit reviewed: 1NPS432 first, then 1NPS491.
Price: $4395 (1995); no longer available (2021). Approximate number of dealers: 70.
Manufacturer: Counterpoint Electronic…
This review of one of the first solid-state preamplifiers was published in 1968. It includes some of JGH's first thoughts on the ongoing subject of "Accuracy vs. Musicality."
Preview, from July 1968 (Vol.2 No.6): Overall sound extremely good, but phono sounds slightly lacking in deep bass, despite impeccable measurements. Scratch filter judged very highly effective, but tone controls felt to be less than ideal because of excessively coarse action and marked tendency to affect midrange output. Spring-return Tape Monitor switch probably will not appeal to serious tapesters. This preamp is…
And to compound the puzzlement, the other two preamps we checked (the PAS-3x and the Marantz 7) gave almost exactly the same measurements. The difference we were hearing could not be explained in terms of equalization error. What, then, could it be? And in fact, which is the more accurate reproduction of the discs: the fuller bottom of the tube-type preamps, or the somewhat sparser but tighter sound of the PAT-4?
To try and settle the matter once and for all, we spent a couple of days trying to devise an equalizing network which could be connected to a tape machine's outputs and would…
Reviewer's Addendum
Possibly, our sample PAT-4 did have "a noisy front- end transistor" (see "Manufacturer's Comment") but since both channels were equally noisy when using the high-level phono inputs, and since noise was extremely low when using the low-level inputs, we did not get the impression that we were testing a defective sample.
Possibly, our sample PAT-4 did have "a noisy front- end transistor" (see "Manufacturer's Comment") but since both channels were equally noisy when using the high-level phono inputs, and since noise was extremely low when using the low-level inputs, we did not get the impression that we were testing a defective sample.
Dynaco offered us the schematic for an input equalizer like the one we tried to put together, except that this one works. We accept the offer with many thanks.
Further Thoughts, from June 1970 (Vol.2 No.10)
In our report on the Dyna PAT-4…
Manufacturer's Comment
"...but you can't please all of the people all of the time." We'll admit we've had some complaints on the spring-loaded monitor switch—and some of the language has been a bit colorful—but if that's our most grievous error in 14 years, we don't feel too badly. For normal tape listening, of course, the selector switch rather than the monitor switch selects the same back-panel tape inputs. (This facility is not provided on other preamps that have a tape monitor switch.) We feel the arrangement on the PAT-4 is a logical one for most users, who play tapes more often than…
Sidebar: Specifications
Description: Self-powered solid-state preamplifier/control unit.
Price: $89.95 kit; S129.95 factory-wired (1968–1970); no longer available (2021).
Manufacturer: Dynaco, Inc., Philadelphia, PA 19121 (1968); Tyco, Inc., Princeton, NJ (1970); Panor, Inc., Hauppauge, NY (1990s); Dynaco/Radial Engineering, Ltd. (2014 onward). Web: www.dynaco.com.
Jim Austin wrote about the Magico M2 in March 2021 (Vol.44 No.3):
Currently, Stereophile's Recommended Components list includes 19 loudspeakers in Class A (Full Range). As a group, these 19 speakers are, according to the Editor's Note we use to introduce Class A, "sufficiently idiosyncratic and differ enough from one another that prospective customers should read Stereophile's original reviews in their entirety for descriptions of the sounds." True enough, and good advice—yet, in my opinion, the speakers in that class have a few things in common, maybe more than those in the other classes…