rubber duck
22-10-2014, 15:42
First of all, apologies to Alan for how long this “review” has taken. Second, apologies for using this to flag a wider issue related to the review process. Finally, apologies to everyone for the length of this piece. I have been struggling to write about the Firebottle phonostage for some time now but something didn’t feel quite right, despite having had a long enough loan to form more than a passing impression. It wasn’t just about writer’s block but also a nagging sense of unease that the review process wasn’t quite right. I’m now glad I held off writing that original “review” and am in a better position to now share my experiences.
After all that I’ll get straight to the point. The Firebottle is a very good phono stage, and at the current price, may well be one of hi-fi’s best kept secrets. It sounds sweet and open, detailed and fluid, yet very focussed and precise. It is possibly a touch lean and clean, and light tonally (even with the Shure M97xE, my current preferred cartridge) but still able to capture and convey differences in the timbre of musical instruments and recordings. So a piano sounds like a piano and different pianos sound different. Not only are instruments and the recording acoustic properly reproduced, but perhaps more importantly, the integration and delivery of individual sounds into what we hear as music is sweet and unforced, but without the trade-off which sometimes occurs; the Firebottle comes across as precise, defined and quick, aided I suspect by a lightness and an ultimate lack of authority and heft.
When the Firebottle arrived, I briefly inserted it into my (revolving) system which then comprised the Croft Micro 25 pre with Series 7 power amp, in part to be able to compare it with the 25’s built-in phono stage. I was aware this set-up would favour the Croft in terms of synergy not to mention the additional pair of interconnects required for the Firebottle. Still, the Firebottle sounded good from the onset, with both phono stages sharing a very similar tonal balance and presentation. From my discussions with Glenn Croft, I was aware that Croft preamps do not like being run from the “line out” into power amps with passive volume pots, so I avoided that route. To facilitate comparisons, the bulk of my listening was with my Unison Research S2K, a single-ended integrated amp running one 6550 valve per channel.
While the Micro 25 sounded good enough into the Unison, the Firebottle was better. The Croft was arguably more earthy and rhythmic, more rock’n’roll if you like, but the Firebottle was cleaner, more precise, better defined and as a result, more articulate, particularly in the lower frequencies, allowing you to more easily follow bass lines or complex drumming during dense rock or jazz passages. The Firebottle was more incisive yet refined and delicate compared to the Micro 25’s rounder and broader brush strokes.
All this was quite surprising and disappointing. Surprising because I wasn’t expecting the Firebottle to compare with my Croft 25 Basic (which wasn’t used) let alone the Micro 25. Disappointing because I consider myself a loyal Croft user (yes, I wanted the Croft to sound better) and could hardly justify buying another (a fifth) phono stage. After I posted the Firebottle to the next lucky AoS member, I rotated my system again (as one does) and listened to a Cambridge Audio 640P into a Muse T-amp just for the hell of it. Then I thought why not try the Micro 25 from its “line out”. I had almost forgotten that this could not work and was clearly reminded why: the CA640P destroyed the Micro 25. The Croft sounded sucked out, thin and anaemic with no flesh to the music.
Obviously it should be clear as day to most people hearing this that something is seriously wrong – not with the Croft but with system interaction, and specifically, an impedance mismatch. Simply put, the “line out” on the Croft pre has too high an output impedance especially on phono to work properly into a passive pot. These were Glenn’s exact words to me which was why I sent my 25 Basic to him to modify a year ago. Needless to say, I hastily packed my Micro 25, emailed Glenn, and sent the pre off to him for the same operation. But this got me thinking … was it possible that the Micro 25 could have been compromised when used as a phono stage with the Unison integrated amp? A quick email to Glenn confirmed this: ‘The 25 phono stage would have been compromised’. (I should clarify that Glenn has no knowledge of what I was up to and I had not been in touch with him for a year.)
So despite my best efforts to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the Firebottle, an important comparison with the Croft was fundamentally flawed. Had I posted my initial findings of the Firebottle (in part based on comparisons with the Croft) this would have been misleading, not to mention a great disservice to Croft. I guess in the context of a forum, I could have easily posted an update of my impressions, which I hope to once my Micro 25 returns from Glenn. But this nonetheless highlights the pitfalls of inserting one component for another into an existing system, and then passing quick judgement, what more when little thought or care is taken to level the playing field. While this is harmless enough in a sea of opinion on forums, it is sloppy and even dishonest when it comes to proper magazine reviews. (Sorry, been meaning to get that one off my chest.)
So, the verdict on the merits of the Firebottle in relation to the Micro 25 needs to be put on hold until a rematch can be arranged. But that comparison was only part of this “review” as I don’t consider comparisons between Product A and Product B sufficient indication of what either product is really like. My main findings of the Firebottle on its own remain unchanged. It is a very good phono stage and one which I sorely missed and seriously tried to justify buying. Thanks to Alan for this opportunity and for his patience. I have no doubt he is a very talented (and modest) designer and look forward to hearing his other products.
After all that I’ll get straight to the point. The Firebottle is a very good phono stage, and at the current price, may well be one of hi-fi’s best kept secrets. It sounds sweet and open, detailed and fluid, yet very focussed and precise. It is possibly a touch lean and clean, and light tonally (even with the Shure M97xE, my current preferred cartridge) but still able to capture and convey differences in the timbre of musical instruments and recordings. So a piano sounds like a piano and different pianos sound different. Not only are instruments and the recording acoustic properly reproduced, but perhaps more importantly, the integration and delivery of individual sounds into what we hear as music is sweet and unforced, but without the trade-off which sometimes occurs; the Firebottle comes across as precise, defined and quick, aided I suspect by a lightness and an ultimate lack of authority and heft.
When the Firebottle arrived, I briefly inserted it into my (revolving) system which then comprised the Croft Micro 25 pre with Series 7 power amp, in part to be able to compare it with the 25’s built-in phono stage. I was aware this set-up would favour the Croft in terms of synergy not to mention the additional pair of interconnects required for the Firebottle. Still, the Firebottle sounded good from the onset, with both phono stages sharing a very similar tonal balance and presentation. From my discussions with Glenn Croft, I was aware that Croft preamps do not like being run from the “line out” into power amps with passive volume pots, so I avoided that route. To facilitate comparisons, the bulk of my listening was with my Unison Research S2K, a single-ended integrated amp running one 6550 valve per channel.
While the Micro 25 sounded good enough into the Unison, the Firebottle was better. The Croft was arguably more earthy and rhythmic, more rock’n’roll if you like, but the Firebottle was cleaner, more precise, better defined and as a result, more articulate, particularly in the lower frequencies, allowing you to more easily follow bass lines or complex drumming during dense rock or jazz passages. The Firebottle was more incisive yet refined and delicate compared to the Micro 25’s rounder and broader brush strokes.
All this was quite surprising and disappointing. Surprising because I wasn’t expecting the Firebottle to compare with my Croft 25 Basic (which wasn’t used) let alone the Micro 25. Disappointing because I consider myself a loyal Croft user (yes, I wanted the Croft to sound better) and could hardly justify buying another (a fifth) phono stage. After I posted the Firebottle to the next lucky AoS member, I rotated my system again (as one does) and listened to a Cambridge Audio 640P into a Muse T-amp just for the hell of it. Then I thought why not try the Micro 25 from its “line out”. I had almost forgotten that this could not work and was clearly reminded why: the CA640P destroyed the Micro 25. The Croft sounded sucked out, thin and anaemic with no flesh to the music.
Obviously it should be clear as day to most people hearing this that something is seriously wrong – not with the Croft but with system interaction, and specifically, an impedance mismatch. Simply put, the “line out” on the Croft pre has too high an output impedance especially on phono to work properly into a passive pot. These were Glenn’s exact words to me which was why I sent my 25 Basic to him to modify a year ago. Needless to say, I hastily packed my Micro 25, emailed Glenn, and sent the pre off to him for the same operation. But this got me thinking … was it possible that the Micro 25 could have been compromised when used as a phono stage with the Unison integrated amp? A quick email to Glenn confirmed this: ‘The 25 phono stage would have been compromised’. (I should clarify that Glenn has no knowledge of what I was up to and I had not been in touch with him for a year.)
So despite my best efforts to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the Firebottle, an important comparison with the Croft was fundamentally flawed. Had I posted my initial findings of the Firebottle (in part based on comparisons with the Croft) this would have been misleading, not to mention a great disservice to Croft. I guess in the context of a forum, I could have easily posted an update of my impressions, which I hope to once my Micro 25 returns from Glenn. But this nonetheless highlights the pitfalls of inserting one component for another into an existing system, and then passing quick judgement, what more when little thought or care is taken to level the playing field. While this is harmless enough in a sea of opinion on forums, it is sloppy and even dishonest when it comes to proper magazine reviews. (Sorry, been meaning to get that one off my chest.)
So, the verdict on the merits of the Firebottle in relation to the Micro 25 needs to be put on hold until a rematch can be arranged. But that comparison was only part of this “review” as I don’t consider comparisons between Product A and Product B sufficient indication of what either product is really like. My main findings of the Firebottle on its own remain unchanged. It is a very good phono stage and one which I sorely missed and seriously tried to justify buying. Thanks to Alan for this opportunity and for his patience. I have no doubt he is a very talented (and modest) designer and look forward to hearing his other products.