|
The Concept receiver line was an in-house brand at Pacific Stereo adding audiophile quality to the other in-house lines being offered (i.e. Quadraflex and Reference in-house lines). The first generation Concept receiver's big daddy was the 16.5 which is touted by some as being the finest sounding receiver ever made. It is worthy of a comment or two being a dual mono design with 165 true watts per channel at 8 Ohms and headroom to spare. The first of three generations in the Concept line is reported to have been designed by Richard Schramm and believed to have been built by Fostex (Foster Electronics).
This mid-line Concept 5.5 receiver is a quality build with considerable heft to it, a lovely finish and solid controls. I don't have its big brother to compare it with but will certainly keep watching for a 16.5 to review. At 55 watts per channel at 8 Ohm loads plus a little headroom the Concept 5.5 is no slouch. This term "Head room" reminds me of some lyrics from a 10cc song from the same era "Just give me some headroom, just a little bit of head-room. I need some head-room, just a lil bit of head-room..." It is a good thing to have.
The Concept line reputedly was not submitted by Pacific Stereo for review to any of the publications which led me to wonder if perhaps Pacific Stereo had something to hide, including in the 5.5 model. Well it did, but not what you think...
It seems Pacific Stereo had a line of receivers on the floor that really were "too good." While much of their more expensive and profitable equipment was quite good, this line was good enough to steal sales from the more profitable lines. Well, that is the way the story goes, but I wanted to hear for myself...
I spent two days listening to the Concept 5.5 receiver using a different set of speakers and speaker cables each day. But I stuck to the same NAD 5330 CD player with line level outputs and the same pair of interconnect RCA's each day. I also used the same Thorens TD-165 turntable each day, more to follow on the components and interconnects. For consistency I used the same media each day.
The interconnect from CD player to Receiver was a 3 foot pair I got off e-Bay. They are touted as thick silver plated military spec stranded wire to gold plated RCA "NEUTRIK REAN" connectors. They seem to be of small quantity manufacture. I wanted to try them out, and I have to say they are much more revealing and robust sounding across the audible spectrum than I expected. They are dressed in white and kind of stiff, a little different but not bad looking. I have many other "audiophile" cables I have opinions about and thought it would be prudent to give this review a fresh start.
Decent sound from these interconnects from "Cablebuyer" on e-Bay.
The phono source is a vintage Thorens TD-165 with stock tonearm and head-shell and stock cartridge cable connectors (some day will try some Litz head-shell wire). The cartridge is a Shure M97-HE moving magnet with about 40 careful hours on it. The Thorens TD-165 cable had been damaged in storage so was replaced with another e-Bay item of seemingly small quantity manufacture. An 3 foot pair of cables touting "silver metal Neutrik Rean gold plated RCA connectors" on Synapse audiophile cable by Belkin. Silver solder was stated to be by Cardas, another e-Bay item.
The Thorens rubber platter pad (try saying that three times real fast) has been replaced with felt. There was nothing wrong with the Thorens pad, I just don't like the look of it and wanted to try felt. The belt has also recently been replaced. I have "finer" high end turntable options but I wanted to try out the new phono cable on my Thorens TD-165 and try the new felt pad.
Thorens TD-165 Turntable is on the hearth. Turns out to be a very stable platform. Day 2 of listening was with Vandersteen 1's on either side connected with MITerminator 4 cables by MIT.
Day 1 of listening was with DCM-17 bookshelf speakers and short lengths of Monster Cable 10 gauge Duraflex terminated with Monster Pins.
How does the Concept 5.5 receiver sound?
First, the phono section. I listened to Bob Dylans "Slow Train Coming" on LP and Willie Nelsons cut "Blue eyes crying in the rain" on the "Greatest Hits and some that will be" double LP. I auditioned a few other cuts by Willie but I was really just after the emotional impact the system would elicit from "Blue eyes crying in the rain." Emotional impact for me is more profound with quality sound and is a good measure of how well the original sound is getting through. It gets hard to convey with words what something sounds like, but if the emotional satisfaction meter is moving toward tears I know it is sounding good. If it sounds good it feels good.
By the way I always hear less surface noise and fewer pops after using Discwasher SC2 fluid on their wood handled brush fibers. Just sayin'...
Day 1 ended with listenin' to LP's through the DCM 17's (hardly reference quality but a better than average sound from inexpensive small speakers. ;) I was disappointed when Blue eyes crying in the rain did not move my meter toward tears. It sounded pretty sweet and comfortably warm, melodic, neatly musical but something was missing. The feel that comes perhaps from a little more presence, room ambiance, and who knows what else just wasn't there.
So I tried it again the second day listening this time with Vandersteens. I put the needle to the Vinyl at track #3 "Blue eyes crying in the rain" and "it" was there. I was thrilled when my eyes began to express how I was feeling. Wow, it was nice. So I stuck to the Vandersteens for the rest of the Phono sections review. It made me feel good, and it sounded great too! Instruments stayed where they belonged, front to back staging was perfect, side to side and top to bottom. Soft cymbals shimmered sweetly and audibly, vocal warmth was moving. I kept having to force out of my head the words that kept coming back..."this must be what tubes sound like." I have a couple of Tube Amps but no Phono Tube Pre-Amplifiers yet. I found myself wanting to pull the cover off of the Concept 5.5 to see if it really was all Solid State. I decided against it because I knew it was supposed to be Solid State, and really it did not matter because whether the phono section sounded like it was tube or not was irrelavant, it seemed to me that this is what Tubes are supposed to sound like!
Bob Dylan's "Slow Train Coming" LP sounded great with both the DCM's and the Vandersteens. In fact I caught myself looking over my shoulder several times to see if something unexpected was there, I kept hearing things wide of the sound stage I never heard before. It felt like with the DCM's the full expanse of the soundstage was present. Top to bottom, front to back and side to side. Side to side seemed to have no boundaries as it kept extending beyond reason.
One remarkable aspect of this Concept 5.5 receiver's Phono section is its deep and robust range of low frequency reproduction and natural timbre of vocal ranges. It felt like nothing was missing, especially with the Vandersteens on the upper range. The DCM's paired with this receiver seemed to be much larger and deeper than they are. I could not make sense out of how much bass those small boxes were producing. Both sets of speakers revealed the dramatic dynamics this phono section can muster, and articulate the finer nuances too! The DCM's seemed to be missing something from the upper ranges that the Vandersteens had, but I cant put into words just what it is. The DCM's seemed to have plenty of highs, but I could not very easily tell the size of the recording studio when listening through the DCM's. The Vandersteens seemed to put me there. In other words, the Concept 5.5 reproduces what is there and reveals the limitations of the equipment attached to it quite well.
Using the NAD 5330 CD player to hear Pink Floyds "Dark Side of the Moon" and The Eagles "Hotel California" was a pleasure with both sets of speakers. Using the Concept 5.5 line level tape input I was catching nuances that I never heard before, especially on the Dark Side of the Moon. I had not heard the Eagles for a long while, and I finished the CD feeling that I should not have waited so long. It was a wonderfully nostalgic trip down memory lane, and by the way, the trip never sounded so good!
Dorian's CD Sampler tracks 12, 15, and 16 are my standards for review. Track 12 is a string quartet with piano and the DCM's seemed to produce a bit of a sketchy piano though they handled the lower strings and higher string sections convincingly. The Vandersteens made the piano sound like it should and plucked strings were clear and well placed with the Concept 5.5 receiver. The strings with nuance and all were a dream. Track 15 is a duet with orchestra. Sounded perhaps better than I ever heard it, and I have heard it many times with many different vintage systems. The female vocalist was warmer and not lacking presence, and the same for the male vocalist whose bass notes seemed filled out more than I have heard before. Strings were feathered in places I never noticed before. Track 16 is a Choral arrangement by J. S. Bach with full orchestra and fanfare trumpets. The hall sounds were clearer, the choir more neatly arranged side to side and front to back than I have heard before, and the dynamics were dramatic but less painful and better balanced than usual, again I had to wonder is it Tube or is it Solid State?
I listened with Tone Defeat setting on, or in other units lingo, the term used most often is "direct". Loudness was set to off, high filter off, and just in case I accidentally turned the controls on, I set them to flat. I also tried but could not tell if there was a audible difference between speaker set A or B, did not try C but there is a option for a third set of speakers.
If I choose to use tone controls with tone defeat set to off then I get access to the unique tone controls allowing the levels of bass and mid-bass and the levels of upper mid and high range to be adjusted. It looks like there are only two controls namely bass and treble but at the base of each is an additional control.
There is a pre-amplifer out feature on the back, allowing for another amp to be used, I don't have much use for it though since this receiver's amplifier is more than good enough. But the option is there to add a more powerful amp should someone feel the need. I did not feel the need. It was fine, and I like my music loud enough to worry about what the neighbors will think. Maybe I should have tried some less efficient speakers, but I am content with the two sets I tried.
| 
