View Full Version : Croft integrated review in Stereophile
Anybody seen the review of the Croft integrated in October Stereophile?
It brought out a big smile from me. The reviewer absolutely loved it but the measurements were weak, particularly the massive treble roll off and significant bass boost of the phono stage. The distortion levels were high too.
It was given to another reviewer, since the measurements meant it would be audibly "inadequate" to quote the editor, and he absolutely loved it too...
Hi Frank,
Anybody seen the review of the Croft integrated in October Stereophile?
It brought out a big smile from me. The reviewer absolutely loved it but the measurements were weak, particularly the massive treble roll off and significant bass boost of the phono stage.
Lol - doesn't sound like any Croft amplifier or phono stage I've heard - least alone mine... Must be a special American model? ;)
Marco.
Strange, since Croft's phono eq is normally spot on to within half a db (+/- 0.25db).
As for distortions, if they're mainly harmonic in nature and not based on intermodulation effects and crossover distortion, it shouldn't be a problem. The £500 favourite from the Southend area doesn't measure spotlessly either as I recall from HFW ;)
Hi Frank,
Lol - doesn't sound like any Croft amplifier or phono stage I've heard - least alone mine... Must be a special American model? ;)
Marco.
Hi Marco,
I guess it raises the age old question "do they like the sound despite the shortcomings or because of them?" The model reviewed is the "Croft Acoustics Phono Integrated". The phono stage has the classic old downtilted response, but more so... +1.8 dB at 20 Hz sloping down to +1 dB at 100 Hz then sloping down more slowly to -1dB at 5kHz then sloping fairly rapidly above that, -3dB at 10 kHz and -6 dB at 20kHz.
this is Crofts least expensive product I would imagine and that curve may well match the sort of cartridge appropriate for its price rather well. I wonder what cartridge was used to voice it?
The distortion is pretty high (0.2 to 1% into 8 ohms, 0.5 to 2% into 4 ohm) but as DSJR writes, mainly harmonic.
The output impedance is amazingly high for SS, meaning its FR will be very speaker load dependant.
Anyway the reviewers raved over the sound and recommended it very strongly.
I read that review the other day and I was also struck by the disparity between the measured and subjective findings in the Croft review.
The LFD NLE was measured at 0.6% distortion at 10kHz. It isn't the amount of distortion that matters, but the nature of it. An extract from the NLE review:
"However, the unusual distortion residual was dominated by innocuous second harmonic and barely changed in harmonic structure with signal level changes, a good sign as the ear hears changing patterns rather than steady harmonics. So in spite of poor figures the power amplifier may well sound clean and easy on the ear."
Strongly suspect similar is true of the Croft.
The LFD NLE was measured at 0.6% distortion at 10kHz. It isn't the amount of distortion that matters, but the nature of it. An extract from the NLE review:
"However, the unusual distortion residual was dominated by innocuous second harmonic and barely changed in harmonic structure with signal level changes, a good sign as the ear hears changing patterns rather than steady harmonics. So in spite of poor figures the power amplifier may well sound clean and easy on the ear."
Strongly suspect similar is true of the Croft.
It always amazes me when reviewers test harmonic distortion at such high frequencies. At 10kHz I would imagine that even a lot of distortion would be inaudible with the first harmonic product being at 20 kHz and others still higher!
Measuring distortion at 250 Hz or even lower makes much more sense to me, in terms of audible effect. It is not far from middle C (ie not a high frequency at all for a fundamental) and the harmonic distortion would colour the normal harmonic structure of musical instruments, if audible.
Hi Frank,
I guess it raises the age old question "do they like the sound despite the shortcomings or because of them?" The model reviewed is the "Croft Acoustics Phono Integrated".
Ah, don't have any experience with the integrated. I've only really played around with the stand-alone preamps in the current range, and of course the older stuff.
The phono stage has the classic old downtilted response, but more so... +1.8 dB at 20 Hz sloping down to +1 dB at 100 Hz then sloping down more slowly to -1dB at 5kHz then sloping fairly rapidly above that, -3dB at 10 kHz and -6 dB at 20kHz.
this is Crofts least expensive product I would imagine and that curve may well match the sort of cartridge appropriate for its price rather well. I wonder what cartridge was used to voice it?
That's a good question and might explain the rather odd measurements, particularly as a lot of cartridges these days, IME, have a rather falsely 'pumped up' sound, with a distinct treble emphasis, especially at the budget end of the scene. Therefore, perhaps Glenn has taken that into consideration and attempted to ameliorate the effect?
The measurements are certainly interesting and bear no resemblence whatsoever to those of my own amp. When Anthony put my modified Charisma-X on his test bench it measured flat to at least 100khz, and down to a few hz at the bottom end. However, it's been designed to act as much as an 'open window' onto recordings as possible and be a neutral sounding device, rather than a glorified tone control, as I simply wouldn't have it any other way.
Anyway the reviewers raved over the sound and recommended it very strongly.
I guess that this shows how relatively meaningless measurements are, in the final analysis. Still, I'd never use a preamp like that, as it's not a neutral enough tool for my requirements, and the phono stage certainly wouldn't suit the cartridges that I like. However, I'm sure that Glenn knows what he's doing and that the integrated amp will find plenty of fans using it in the appropriate context :)
Marco.
Interesting how many Stereophile guys have now reviewed the Croft Integrated. Another review by the same magazine came in May 2014.
That will now be 3 people on Stereophile having reviewed the Croft Integrated.
All 3 reviews were extremely positive.
I wonder what they would make of the Croft Pre and power amps, especially those further up the ladder!:)
hifi_dave
12-09-2014, 12:31
When that Stereophile review came out, I asked Glenn - what was that about ? His reply, as usual, just one word, was "politics"
Make of that as you will but I am still selling them to many satisfied customers.:thumbsup:
Firebottle
12-09-2014, 13:00
Copied from another thread that you may not have seen:
Well I've finally found time to try the Croft EQ network, with some very interesting results.
If you recall the Stereophile plot of RIAA error for the Croft Phono integrated:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/1013Croftfig01.jpg
I have used the EQ network found in the 25R but installed in my Firebottle phono circuit, using different and higher gm valves to those that Glenn uses.
I have adjusted the series resistor to allow for the differences in the first stage source impedance to level the playing field.
I get the bass lift under 100Hz, but do NOT get the treble drop off as shown above, in fact the hf performance is excellent.
Whether the difference is down to the use of ECC83s in the Croft integrated I don't know but I have a certain regard for Glenn's EQ network as it makes use of readily available capacitor values, namely 10 nF and 1 nF.
The loss through the network is a little higher than the traditional all in one passive network, but when using high gain valves that is of little consequence.
All good stuff,
Alan
I don't understand measurements relating to amplifiers in any way at all. I post on Hi-Fi Forums and don't even know what bass roll off is ! But having box swapped for years and settled on Croft gear, as genesis sang, I know what I like !
System, music, ears to brain and then to soul and heart. Numbers, yaaaawn.
Not much of a contribution I admit, but from the heart ;-)
When that Stereophile review came out, I asked Glenn - what was that about ? His reply, as usual, just one word, was "politics"
That’s an interesting comment, Dave, and if it means what I think it does, makes my blood boil!
Marco.
P.S Nice to hear from you again, Ian. Hope you’re well :)
http://www.stereophile.com/images/1013Croftfig01.jpg
Blimey! I guess that through most systems it's only (only!) 1db out across most of the spectrum - I would expect the subjective result to be like a tilt tone control, a bit more oomph in the bass and down at the top. It's a very interesting design decision and compares starkly to many solid state designs that will have a very much flatter response.
I guess the reason the Croft has garnered so much interest is because it Neatly encapsulates the whole objective V subjective debate. By modern standards of technical achievement it is a country mile from what even very modest gear can achieve. Yet the poor measurements are not translated into poor subjective performance. So that beggars the question, what purpose do the measurements serve etc.
It is as Frank said earlier, does the croft sound 'good' despite its poor technical performance or is that precisely the reason it is subjectively liked.
Can anyone tell me if Glenn has substantially changed the phono stage over the years? My old 4PP doesn't like the phono stage loaded by a typical tape deck record circuit, despite an inline resistor on the record output. Glenn has altered this in current product, but don't know if the riaa eq would have changed as a result, as the older phono stages were pretty accurate to within half a db or more. The scale as shown in the pic is 'stretched' a bit and IMO looks worse than it actually is, as a division in output used to be 5db, not 1db as plotted.
Can anyone tell me if Glenn has substantially changed the phono stage over the years?
That would appear to be the case, because as I wrote earlier in the thread:
The measurements are certainly interesting and bear no resemblence whatsoever to those of my own amp. When Anthony put my modified Charisma-X on his test bench it measured flat to at least 100khz, and down to a few hz at the bottom end. However, it's been designed to act as much as an 'open window' onto recordings as possible and be a neutral sounding device, rather than a glorified tone control, as I simply wouldn't have it any other way.
‘Nuff said!
Marco.
I think it's a bit harsh to describe the integrated measured as a glorified tone control - but those measurements posted do suggest that an element of that is true.
I would agree, but knowing what I know about Glenn, and how he likes to design equipment, I simply can’t get my head around why he would choose to significantly alter the response of the circuit in the phono stages/amplifiers he’s currently producing, compared with those he once built….. :scratch:
Marco.
Phone stage in my Micro II sounds lovely - when I bought it & I sent it to Glenn in 2009 or 10 (I think) to fix the regulator circuit, he asked if I wanted OP stage brought up to latest spec, which I did. After a few more DIY mods to it, I can never see me changing it...except to maybe house it in a more stylish case :)
rubber duck
14-09-2014, 22:16
It is as Frank said earlier, does the croft sound 'good' despite its poor technical performance or is that precisely the reason it is subjectively liked.
I simply cannot believe the Stereophile measurements are representative of the Croft amp. According to Croft: The Phono Integrated is basically a Series 7 amplifier but with a Micro 25 phono stage. I've just listened to Coltrane (on Prestige) on the OJC reissue LP through the Croft 25 (used as phono stage only) followed by the same CD from the Prestige Albums box set. Both LP and CD versions sound the same in terms of tonal balance. No boosted bass or rolled of highs on vinyl. If anything, the LP sounds more extended and open on top. For me the subjective/objective debate may be a red herring. Who knows what the story is at Stereophile but "politics" wouldn't surprise me at all.
What politics - they are hardly putting the boot in if every subjective review they do says it sounds great?
rubber duck
14-09-2014, 22:38
Or conversely, great subjective reviews are undermined by a poor set of measurements.
The Croft Integrated has only a passive pot. Sure the phono stage will sound great but the line stage will be lacking with impedance mismatches.
That doesn't make any sense to me. I've read criticism of Stereophiles subjective reviewing complaining of bias but I've never read any suggestion that their measurements are biased or fixed in any way.
rubber duck
14-09-2014, 23:17
No, I don't get it either. Simply speculating here. You'd be deaf not to hear that sort of HF roll off, and I'm sure the reviewers aren't deaf. I find it hard to believe JA wouldn't have had a listen, if anything just to check his reviewers weren't deaf.
That doesn't make any sense to me. I've read criticism of Stereophiles subjective reviewing complaining of bias but I've never read any suggestion that their measurements are biased or fixed in any way.
Well, whatever way you cut it, the measurements simply aren’t tallying with the listening experiences of the respective owners of the product, and as Jeff says, you’d need to be deaf not to hear that sort of HF roll-off.
Something doesn’t add up…
Marco.
P.S In terms of ‘politics’, I’d like to know what Glenn was referring to when hifi dave quoted him earlier!
Well as far as I can tell, nobody here who has commented has actually heard this integrated? There seems to be a general assumption that it will be just like the amps that other Croft owners have but if it uses a passive pre (as suggested earlier) it's not.
Did you miss this earlier from Jeff:
The Phono Integrated is basically a Series 7 amplifier but with a Micro 25 phono stage. I've just listened to Coltrane (on Prestige) on the OJC reissue LP through the Croft 25 (used as phono stage only) followed by the same CD from the Prestige Albums box set. Both LP and CD versions sound the same in terms of tonal balance. No boosted bass or rolled of highs on vinyl.
I can confirm that the emboldened text is true, as apart from power supply arrangements, Glenn doesn’t radically alter his phono stages, least of all their response curves, so the disparity between the measurements quoted on Stereophile and what users, such as Jeff, of essentially identical products to the integrated in question are hearing, simply doesn’t tally.
Marco.
No, I didn't miss it - unless he says he listened to it - which he doesn't.
So it's a Micro 25 phonostage connected via a passive pot to the power amp stage of a Series 7 - that's not what Jeff, or you, or anyone else on this thread actually listened to is it?
Look, if Glenn Croft thinks the measurements are wrong I don't see why he can't send in his own - manufacturers have the right of reply with Stereophile and I've seen other manufacturers posting their own measurements in the past.
No, I didn't miss it - unless he says he listened to it - which he doesn't.
So it's a Micro 25 phonostage connected via a passive pot to the power amp stage of a Series 7 - that's not what Jeff, or you, or anyone else on this thread actually listened to is it?
But the basic phono stage circuit is the same, Mark. There’s nothing suitably different about the design of the phono stage in the integrated unit that would explain the level of disparity we’re discussing. *That* is the point.
Look, if Glenn Croft thinks the measurements are wrong I don't see why he can't send in his own - manufacturers have the right of reply with Stereophile and I've seen other manufacturers posting their own measurements in the past.
I sincerely hope he does that, and gets to the bottom of the matter, as something stinks as far as I’m concerned.
Marco.
P.S On another note, the mats you requested returned are on their way and should be with you today :)
I got from Glenn via hifi dave that they didn't measure it properly. Not deliberately, just not the way Glenn does it. Maybe if they could have checked it via the speaker terminals, as 'we' do when listening, the results might have been different than taking a feed off the tape-outputs into gawd knows what loading impedance. Just a thought, that's all.
The Colloms review of the original Micro showed excellent RIAA matching to around half a db maximum, with a slight hf LIFT from 18k, rather than the droop as measured by stereophile.
I got from Glenn via hifi dave that they didn't measure it properly. Not deliberately, just not the way Glenn does it. Maybe if they could have checked it via the speaker terminals, as 'we' do when listening, the results might have been different than taking a feed off the tape-outputs into gawd knows what loading impedance. Just a thought, that's all.
Now we get to the facts of the matter…. Question is, was that done deliberately, in order to skew the results and facilitate the ‘politics’ previously mentioned? I guess we’ll never know! I certainly have my suspicions.
Magazines, like Stereophile, will always be biased towards pushing the ultra high-end, so when a ‘maximum SPPV upstart’, such as the Croft integrated enters the equation, which sonically can compete with some rather more expensive kit that has, shall we say, a ‘more desirable badge’, I wouldn’t put it past them to hobble the ‘upstart’!!
Politics, eh? ;)
Marco.
Firebottle
15-09-2014, 08:33
Now that to me is a plausible explanation 'taking a feed off the tape-outputs into gawd knows what loading impedance'.
From my experiments I would be amazed if there is actually anything amiss with the integrated Croft,
:cool: Alan
hifi_dave
15-09-2014, 09:03
Now we get to the facts of the matter…. Question is, was that done deliberately, in order to skew the results and facilitate the ‘politics’ previously mentioned? I guess we’ll never know! I certainly have my suspicions.
Magazines, like Stereophile, will always be biased towards pushing the ultra high-end, so when a ‘maximum SPPV upstart’, such as the Croft integrated enters the equation, which sonically can compete with some rather more expensive kit that has, shall we say, a ‘more desirable badge’, I wouldn’t put it past them to hobble the ‘upstart’!!
Politics, eh? ;)
Marco.
A good point - why would a mag give a good review to a one man band when it's competition for the large company taking out pages of lucrative advertising ?
I don't know what happened with those measurements - all I know is that three experienced listeners, loved Glenn's amp and that's what matters.
A good point - why would a mag give a good review to a one man band when it's competition for the large company taking out pages of lucrative advertising ?
Well your guess is as good as mine, Dave. Reviews in these magazines are always totally unbiased and fair, aren’t they? ;)
<Cough>
I don't know what happened with those measurements - all I know is that three experienced listeners, loved Glenn's amp and that's what matters.
Indeed, I couldn’t give a tinker’s cuss about the measurements. As has been ably demonstrated here, those are far from being infallible, so the ol' lugs strapped to the sides of your head win again!
:exactly:
Marco.
A good point - why would a mag give a good review to a one man band when it's competition for the large company taking out pages of lucrative advertising ?
I don't know what happened with those measurements - all I know is that three experienced listeners, loved Glenn's amp and that's what matters.
As I mentioned way back the reviews in Stereophile were all very positive even though the technical measurements they obtained were curious.
Was this engineered to create a more interesting review?
Discounting the technical aspects, the subjective listening reviews by all three Stereophile journalists gave the Croft Integrated a very good review, one chap even suggested it narrowly missed his product of the year!
Maybe the fact that 3 guys reviewed the Croft was down to the fact that their ears told them something completely different from the measurements, however flawed these may have been.
If they provided their methodology as to how the technical reviews were done, it may shine a light as to the reasons the amplifier measured poorly in their judgement.
There seems to be a suggestion (more than a suggestion) by some contributing to this thread that Stereophile falsified the Croft measurement and worse, that they did this in order to mollify larger (unspecified) manufacturers with larger advertising budgets. Quite frankly such suggestions smell strongly of rather desperate politicking! I've read loads of positive Stereophile reviews for products made by small companies just like Croft, there just isn't evidence to support such suggestions of underhand practice. A copy of the review is sent to the manufacturer before publication so that they can have the right to reply (the Manufacturers Comment section) and the testing methodology is pretty clearly explained and transparent. I've seen manufacturers respond with their own measurements (quite recently) and I've also seen second samples submitted for measurement. In all, Stereophile seem very conscientious regarding their technical testing and if Croft disagreed with any of it they could have said so! Imagine what you lot would have said if the result had been it sounds like crap but measures fantastic - then imagine the reaction if they had printed three reviewers saying it sounded rubbish, honestly!
Lol - I always enjoy an emotive outburst. It shows you have passion! ;)
That aside, the fact of the matter is that if Stereophile have measured the Croft, in the way described by hifi dave, instead of the way usually employed by its designer (Glenn Croft), then that explains why the measurements are both incorrect and don’t correspond with the listening results.
Such a discrepancy could have an adverse effect on sales of the Croft amplifier in question (as there are folk out there daft enough to judge equipment solely on measurements), so perhaps Stereophile will have the decency to acknowledge that fact in the forthcoming addition of their magazine, or even better still, re-measure the amplifier in the correct manner and then report the results for clarification purposes?
Marco.
hifi_dave
15-09-2014, 14:28
Fortunately, it doesn't appear to have diminished sales of Croft amps. Indeed, I have had several Croft customers commenting on the Stereophile review and still buying, because they trust their ears rather than a set of measurements.
:lolsign:
And quite right they are, too!
Marco.
:lolsign:
And quite right they are, too!
Marco.
Indeed ;-)
A well known designer on another forum did say that a mosfet hybrid amp will not measure well,but will sound lush.
Ah well, now, define "lush"......? ;)
Does the phono stage in my Croft preamp sound "lush", judging by what that word conjures up to me? Erm, no.
Marco.
Ah well, now, define "lush"......? ;)
Does the phono stage in my Croft preamp sound "lush", judging by what that word conjures up to me? Erm, no.
Marco.
Sorry incorrect meaning :)
Lush for me always meant beautiful,northerners eh
Oh and the designer never said lush that was my bad interpretation.
Errrr can't remember what he said. Sweet top end and lively mids, more natural. Something along those lines .....
Hehehehe... Ah, *that* sort of lush! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Maybe the fact that 3 guys reviewed the Croft was down to the fact that their ears told them something completely different from the measurements...
...which of course proves that measurements, in audio, only ever tell *part* of the story. That is the lesson to be learned here!
Marco.
Yes, that would be a significantly more constructive stance on this matter rather than clutching at the idea that Stereophile are so corrupt that they chose to falsify the technical review of this one component!
It's prudent to cover all bases ;)
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.