Soundcraftsmen SP4002 vs. PE-2217

[PB_Audio]

For those who are familiar with both, I'd like to hear your opinions as to the relative merits or shortfalls of either Soundcraftsmen Preamp/equalizer.
Especially sonic quality, reliability, and ease of servicing, including any parts availability issues.
I know the SP4002 is a slightly more recent model. They are very similar. The PE-2217 has the gold face, while the SP4002 has a the black front that became popular in the late 70's, early 80's.
Anyone with strong feelings on either, good or bad, please chime in.
I'm considering a purchase...go figure.
Thanks,
Jay

 

[BMWCCA]

I think they're relatively the same with updated packaging on the SP4002 and the addition of the cartridge matching phono section, more AC outlets and maybe an extra input. You might also look into the later generation DX4002 which may gain some improvements in controls and sound, more inputs, more range in the octave sliders, and a better phono section with those cartridge-matching capabilities. If you move up to the Pro-Control Four and Pro-EQ 44 you'll be at the top of the Soundcraftsmen heap and have far better sliders that won't stick and C-MOS digital controls.

I've owned a PE-2217 since new and two DX4200s since nearly new. Both models have been near-flawless in operation and still work fine today. I find the volume pot on the early models to not produce equal right-to-left output at low levels. That's not a problem in the later pots with the detents on the DX4200 or the silky-smooth lighted volume control on the Pro-Control Four. And the Pro-EQ 44 is a third-octave EQ.

IMHO, of course.

 

[PB_Audio]

Thanks for the info BMWCCA.
I've also been using a PE-2217 for years. My experience matches yours on the 2217, but I'm setting up another system and was considering a newer model. It sounds like there have been subtle inprovements, but nothing major.
Actually, while I originally liked the utility of the equalizer, the acoustics in the room I'm currently using the preamp in allow me to bypass the EQ altogether. The preamp seems quieter with the EQ bypassed.
You know, I want to try out the newer model; but I'll probably bypass the EQ again. I've been using a receiver in the livingroom, and with the drapery and the wall to wall carpeting, the acoustics seem O.K. Additionally, I won't be setting up a turntable, so the improved phono preamp really isn't a consideration.
Given all that, any reason to pay up for the newer model? Aside from the improved sliders on the Pro Model, it sounds like your PE-2217 has been as reliable as mine.
I guess I was just looking for an excuse to buy something new.
The question becomes one of relative price for a clean used piece.
Given the way I plan to use the preamp, would you just go for the lesser expensive model; which I presume would be the older PE-2217?
Or...should I buy the newer SP4002 or DX4002?
Life is full of may 'difficult' decisions.
Help!

 

[Jailtime]

What amp are you running? If it's the Soundcraftsmen MA5002, go with the SP4002. Perfect visual match, and it sounds great. I really like the cartridge matching capabilities.

 

[motorstereo]

+1 on using the sp4002 if you have a ma5002. I might have better sounding combos but I don't own any better looking combos than that pairing.

 

[PB_Audio]

Actually, I was looking at several eBay Auctions. My inclination was, in fact, to opt for the newer SP4002, as I already have a PE-2217, from new, as well as a 'parts unit'.
Well, I bid on one SP4002 and lost in the last 5 seconds. It was a little rough around the edges anyway.
But then, a nice PE-2217 came up for auction, and then another SP4002. Only the SP4002 was being auctioned by what looked to be a pawn shop, and the same SP4002 had apparently been auctioned off on eBay 4 times and never paid for. The piece is clean, and I was very tempted to go for it; but something just didn't smell right.
It's a good looking SP4002. Take a look:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150584929780

With 4 days to go in the auction, and 8 bids in, the SP4002 is already up to $255. Well, I could use the black face SP4002 in my main system, almost everything is black there. I'd have to move everything, again.
But, I took a chance and put in a 'low' bid on the PE-2217...
and I won. Only $134.03 + another $28. for UPS. Can't complain about that.
Yes, I am crossing my fingers. I don't think this eBay Seller deals in Audio much, so the packing of the preamp in its case will be a nightmare, no doubt. I plan on a little chat with the seller, BEFORE I send PayPal payment.
I'm not too unhappy about missing out on an SP4002, although I wanted it.
The PE-2217 will be used in a smaller livingroom system, paired with a Marantz 250 amp and Model 20 tuner that I recently acquired, also on eBay, that I absolutely love.
I have tuners up the wazoo. The Model 20 Marantz is my new favorite tuner.
Mind you, this is compared to Marantz Models 120, 150, 125, Accuphase T-101, Mac MR-78, Sansui T-919, etc. These are all nice, but the Model 20 just sounds right. IMHO.
The gold face of the PE-2217 will be a better match in the livingroom system compared to the black faced SP4002. Its got to look 'right' in the livingroom. My significant other will be happy!
Any way, while I have a very clean Marantz Model 3300 that I put in service from time to time, Its never turned me on, although I prefer the look, especially compared to the later 3600 and 3800, with the bigger window, or 'dial', on the face.
In the end, eventhough I won't even be setting up a turntable in the livingroom or even using the EQ on the 2217 (EQ-OUT) my experience with Soundscaftsmen over the years has made me really like the PE-2217, sonicly. Very neutral, especially with the EQ-OUT. Seems a shame to waste all those extra fearures though.
While I can possibly see an SP4002 in my future, it won't be this time around, sorry to say...
Thanks for the input.
Jay

 

[BMWCCA]

If you want to stick with Soundcraftsmen then look for the Pro-Control Four. It is superb. A great improvement to either the PE2217 or my (two) DX4200s. I bought one then moth-balled all the old ones and bought a second Pro-Control Four for my second system. If you don't want EQ then you don't need to buy the Pro-EQ 44. If you do want EQ (and I use it only for low-level loudness compensation Fletcher-Munson style) then the Pro-Control Four has a "direct" switch that bypasses the tone controls (yes, it has "bass" and "treble" controls) and anything in the loop circuits.

It's a great pre-amp and further proof that Soundcraftsmen was the TOTL in USA quality before they disappeared. I'm proud to have a full set of their last and best! (not my pic, though!)

 

[PB_Audio]

Damn! See, I didn't even know Soundcraftsmen 'disappeared'. That is a shame. My only direct experience with Soundcraftsmen has been with the PE-2217. After all these years, it's still a great preamp. IMHO.
For the most part my interest in home audio waned when I left PLAYBACK (a retail stereo chain mainly in the mid-west, now defunct) in the late 70's. Consequently, I'm not very up to speed on the business. Seems I'm interested again though.
I'm happy to say, AK is a great knowledge base. My compliments, all.
I'm hearing, mostly here on AK, that the Soundcraftsmen power amps (e.g. the MA5002), although very good sonicly, are a 'PITA' to work on.
Between you and me, when it comes to amps, I'm a dyed in the wool Marantz fan.
250, 510, 510M and 500. With a couple Mac's strictly for back up. 2100 and 2205.
If I look further to another amp, which is doubtful, it's likely to be another 510M, or
maybe a Mark Levinson ML-3, Conrad-Johnson, or, if I hit the lottery, I'll take a look at Pass Labs...maybe the XA30.5. Yah, in my dreams.
Back to reality, the Model 250 I just set up in my livingroom, even using a Marantz 2270 as the preamp, temporarily, with a Model 20 Tuner sounds good to me.
But then, I haven't stepped into a stereo store in close to 20 years. So what do I know. I'm an old dog. No new tricks here.
Thanks for all the info. You know, for the first time in 25 years, I'm loving my audio equipment again. THANK YOU AK!
Jay

 

[BMWCCA]

Agreed, the PE2217 is a great piece of equipment. Outdated in many ways with foibles that continued into its replacement series. The "Pro" series of pre-amps and EQs was a further development using modern technology and discoveries and changes based on the experience from issues uncovered in the early stuff after years of use. Even the later Pro-Power amps are improvements over the older amps, though perhaps even more similar to their predecessors than are the pre-amps. I have a Pro-Power Four. Used it a few times, then packed it back in its box in favor of the Crown products I've used with great success for over forty years. Nothing wrong with it. I bought it to complete a Pro-Control, Pro-EQ, Pro-Tuner all-Soundcraftsmen period system, out of respect for that company and its "Proudly Made in USA" heritage . . . that is no more.

 

[Elliot Thompson]

Hi.


MTX purchased Soundcraftsmen around 1990-1991 and, and marketed primarily to wards the DJ Market branding an MTX/Soundcraftsmen emblem. By the late 90’s MTX discontinued Soundcraftsmen.

Although a good product, the home audio market wasn’t too keen on Soundcraftsmen. I would imagine it wasn’t flashy enough for home audio. I do recall seeing more Soundcraftsmen (before MTX purchased them) amplifiers selling in DJ shops focused on large sound systems than home audio stores.

The company may have been too ahead of their time in their early years for the Home Audio Market and, too far behind in the Pro Audio Market in terms of wattage by the late 1990s.

Best Regards,

 

[PB_Audio]

Yes, my limited experience with Soundcraftsmen was very positive. It is certainly sad to learn of their demise. Thank you for the history, BMWCCA and Elliot.
I'm beginning to wish I had opted for the SP4002 preamp, because, I'm now interested in the MA5002, in spite of the difficulties when working inside the amp, as others have mentioned elsewhere on AK.
BMWCCA, I'm wondering what Crown amp and preamp you are referring to. I've had experience with two DC-300A amps and an IC-150 pre. While built to work hard, I've never felt they competed with Marantz amps or the PE-2217 preamp sonicly.
Any issues, sonicly? I would have expected you to prefer the PRO Soundcraftsmen equipment over the Crown. Yes? No? Now you've got me wondering.

 

[BMWCCA]

BMWCCA, I'm wondering what Crown amp and preamp you are referring to. I've had experience with two DC-300A amps and an IC-150 pre. While built to work hard, I've never felt they competed with Marantz amps or the PE-2217 preamp sonicly.
Any issues, sonicly? I would have expected you to prefer the PRO Soundcraftsmen equipment over the Crown. Yes? No? Now you've got me wondering.

You need to get out more!

The IC150 was always a point of debate. Never owned one. I wanted an EQ so the PE2217 was my ideal pre-amp. I bought it new in a local store. By the time I wanted to replace it with a DX4200, there were no local dealers but Soundcraftsmen was more than willing to sell to me direct at 25% off list. I still have the letter apologizing for not being available locally and making that offer complete with the entire product range price list.

I started using a Crown D150 with my Mac C20 tube pre-amp after tiring of replacing tubes in my Fisher SA1000. The Crown was superb with my JBL 030s. I upgraded over the years to D150A-II, DC300A-II, PS200 and PS400. I firmly believe the later Series-II and PS series amps are still fine amps today when paired with any of my JBLs. If you want an excellent Crown pre-amp to dispel the old thoughts about the IC-150 then try to find a SL-2, if you can afford it. If you find a nice black one, send it to me!

As for the PE2217, I said I loved it for years but the DX4200 and especially the Pro-Control Four have put it back in the box—probably forever.

 

[Elliot Thompson]

PB Audio,

The Crown DC 300 was an industrial amplifier. It wasn't designed for home audio although many used them.

To appreciate what the DC 300 (and Soundcraftsmen) offers you really need to have large speakers since the DC 300 like the Soundcraftsmen Pro Power 4 are high current amplifiers. Although Marantz makes nice receivers, there is a reason why Crown & Soundcraftsmen were accepted more in the sound reinforcement world while Marantz amplifiers were not.

If you are thrilled with Marantz and disappointed with the DC 300, chances are your speakers cannot withstand the power the DC 300 could deliver without some type of negative side effect. There are times a lower power unit is best especially when you are using small speakers.

One would not put a 300-pound wrestler in the ring with a person weighing 130 pounds. No matter how delicate the 300-pound wrestler tries to be, he will toss the 130-pound wrestler around like a rag doll.

Do keep that in mind.

Best Regards,

 

[PB_Audio]

While a 70 Watt rated Marantz 2270 receiver was never meant to compete with, say a Crown DC-300A or Marantz 510M or 500 amp (which, by the way, was in reality a commercial grade amp), it always did an admirable job driving a moderately efficient 12in. 3-way speaker pair to uncomfortable volumes, for hours. Reviewers in the 70's routinely measured the true output of the Marantz 2270 at 103W/ch-RMS @ only .03% THD. Amazing. The power race had not yet begun. Thus Marantz advertised specs were extremely conservative.
Personally, I like the Marantz 250 (125W/ch-RMS) with even a pair of small Infinity Primus P163 speakers. These are 6 1/2 in. 2-way. This combo works remarkably well. At the volumes I would want to listen, and beyond, I see no sign of taxing the little Infinities. What you get is superior transient response, as the amp has sufficient headroom to avoid clipping, even on very loud transients. I wouldn't 'waste' the potential of a Marantz 500 or 510M driving the Infinity P163 pair; but I wouldn't necessarilly be concerned with the speakers either. At the levels I'd listen to, the Marantz 250 or 500 wouldn't be pushing any more volts than a moderately powered receiver. I just wouldn't have to worry about clipping. The VU meters (fast, peak reading, that is) tell the story. Most of the music demands little power from the amp. It's only the loud transients that require the power. Truth be told, more speaker voice coils are blown when a lesser power amp is pushed to clipping; while the larger amp would have provided a clean signal. This has always been my feeling, and why I like power. Of course, my Bose 901 Series I are well known power hogs. My AR-11s love the power as well.
Think Bruce Lee against the 300 pound wrestler.
Oh, it is definitely true, I need to get out more. I'm definitely out of touch, since about 1979 or so.

 

[BMWCCA]

The Crown DC 300 was an industrial amplifier. It wasn't designed for home audio although many used them.

Back in the early '70s Crowns were sold in many hi-line audio stores right alongside McIntosh and the rest. The place I bought mine had sold my Dad my JBL 030 system twenty-years earlier. Whenever I took my Mac to the old Mac Clinics I took along the Crown. The Mac techs were always impressed with how it exceeded its specs.

Too much amp power can't hurt anything but your ears. Common practice is to double the rated power range of your speakers with your amp for headroom to avoid distortion that can hurt your HF drivers. My 030s were about as efficient as they come and whether powered by Crown 75wpc, 90, or 200, they always sounded sweet and musical. Nothing industrial about Crown other than their solid build quality and dependability. Professional would be a better adjective. :thmbsp:

 

[Elliot Thompson]

Back in the early '70s Crowns were sold in many hi-line audio stores right alongside McIntosh and the rest. The place I bought mine had sold my Dad my JBL 030 system twenty-years earlier. Whenever I took my Mac to the old Mac Clinics I took along the Crown. The Mac techs were always impressed with how it exceeded its specs.

Crown only became recognised when they left the home audio scene and moved to wards the sound reinforcement market.

Bear in mind the SA-2 was the last amplifier crown offered to the home audio market and, they acquired better sales once they changed the input connectors, called it the PSA-2, then market it to the sound reinforcement world. This is why Crown doesn't comment much about their early years in the home audio enviornment. It is also the reason the SA-2 is
rare compared to the PSA-2.

The DC 300 was designed for Laboratory use (hence having the title Laboratory Power Amplifier embroider on the faceplate) and would easily offer frequencies ranging from DC (hence the DC model) to 100,000 kHz. This is way beyond what a home audio user will need.

Too much amp power can't hurt anything but your ears. Common practice is to double the rated power range of your speakers with your amp for headroom to avoid distortion that can hurt your HF drivers. My 030s were about as efficient as they come and whether powered by Crown 75wpc, 90, or 200, they always sounded sweet and musical. Nothing industrial about Crown other than their solid build quality and dependability. Professional would be a better adjective. :thmbsp:

All loudspeakers have limits. Those limits are based on how loud they can go before thermal and mechanical breakdown will come into play.

When a speaker achieves too much power, in which it cannot manage it will distort. Loudspeaker distortion applies to all speakers however manufactures don’t publish those specs for they can show how terrible the loudspeakers perform under the given conditions.

One would need to design loudspeakers to find those types of measurements for, off the shelf loudspeakers rarely if ever offer that type of information.

Best Regards,

 

[Elliot Thompson]

While a 70 Watt rated Marantz 2270 receiver was never meant to compete with, say a Crown DC-300A or Marantz 510M or 500 amp (which, by the way, was in reality a commercial grade amp), it always did an admirable job driving a moderately efficient 12in. 3-way speaker pair to uncomfortable volumes, for hours. Reviewers in the 70's routinely measured the true output of the Marantz 2270 at 103W/ch-RMS @ only .03% THD. Amazing. The power race had not yet begun. Thus Marantz advertised specs were extremely conservative.

You may not know but the Crown DC 300 was spec at 0.05% THD. It also offered a wider bandwidth (0 Hz - 100 kHz) than any Marrantz product.

The key behind the DC 300 was the 1 kwa Transformer which enable the amplifier to double it's wattage from 150 @ 8 ohms to 300 watts per channel @ 4 ohms.

Even @ 4 ohms per channel driven hard for 10 - 12 hours non-stop the transformer would only be warm.

Marrantz was not designed for that type of abuse since they don't make industrial amplifiers.

Truth be told, more speaker voice coils are blown when a lesser power amp is pushed to clipping; while the larger amp would have provided a clean signal. This has always been my feeling, and why I like power.

That is only true when the amplifier is overdriven, which home audio amplifiers offer no visual indication. A lot of power can stress a loudspeaker to the point it can thermally and mechanically fail with the amplifier far from clipping.

If you biggest amplifier is 200 to 500 watts per channel, you may beg to differ. Once you move more towards 800 watts and above per channel you will find loudspeaker failure is not based on not enough power but too much power.

Best Regards,

 

[PB_Audio]

No problem, although the example definitely stretches the point. 800 watts???
Just don't twist the preamp volume knob too far to the right; and as an added precaution, at relatively loud volumes, one might consider rolling back the bass EQ, just a tad. At volume, you won't miss the bass, and the amp won't work as hard producing that flat frequency curve into the bass extremes. As I'm sure most of you know, a fairly deep bass note, at a given sound pressure level, requires dramaticly more power to reproduce compared to a note in the midrange. The Crown DC-300A, in particular is a good example, being designed specifically to produce a wide frequency range (0 Hz to 100 KHz, relatively flat).
As already discussed, the Crown DC-300A was designed primarily as a laboratory amp, eventhough it was somewhat popular, for a time, in home systems, where price per watt was at issue, and one was driving inefficient speakers.
The DC-300A would not be a good choice to drive my little 6 1/2 inch, 2-way Infinity squeakers. To be sure.
The Marantz 250, though, no problem.
Notice the blue VU meter to the upper left...that's a Marantz 500 driving the Bose 901 Series I speakers to very high volume levels, as I recall. Notice how 'little' of the amps' reserve has been tapped. The pointer is still far to the left, and nowhere near 0 VU.
Yo!

 

[Elliot Thompson]

No problem, although the example definitely stretches the point. 800 watts???

Why not!

Having second thoughts on putting your loudspeakers on an 800-watts per channel amplifier should be the same thought pattern using any amplifier exceeding the loudspeakers continuous average (RMS) rating. There are plenty of home theatre users who have moved towards 2500 – 3000 watt amplifiers who are not into vintage audio.

What I am basically saying is the variability’s are far too great to assume that any loudspeaker can handle more wattage than the manufacture suggest. If the manufacture recommends a particular wattage they will know more than the end user for he/she designed, tested, and, destroyed many loudspeakers before it was distributed to the public.

Unlike amplifiers in which you can tell by touching if it is getting too hot, loudspeakers are sealed inside a wooden enclosure with components that elevate in temperature the more power you feed them in addition to how long you drive them at high levels.

Those who like power are not playing their speakers at low volume levels for if that were the case, they would be happy with a 20-watt amplifier.

The DC-300A would not be a good choice to drive my little 6 1/2inch 2-way Infinity squeakers. To be sure.
The Marantz 250, though, no problem.

Exactly!



The longevity of ones speakers is not based on the amplifier power, but how high the user raises the volume knob. If a person moves from a Marantz 4240 to a DC 300, they are looking for more volume than the Marantz 4240 can offer.

Best Regards,

 

[PB_Audio]

Elliot, we're going round and round here.
You see, I'm NOT..."assuming that any loudspeaker can handle more wattage than the manufacture suggest".
I am suggesting, to listen to music and get clean transients, you need POWER.
Personally, I am NOT looking to play the music louder just because I use an amp that is rated at 125W/ch RMS, and my speakers are rated lower. That was your assumption. Certainly not mine.
This is academic in my case, actually. Here are the specs for my Infinity Primus P163B speakers:
Frequency Response (±3dB) 49Hz - 20kHz
Recommended Power Amplifier Range 10 - 150 watts
Sensitivity (2.83V @ 1m) 90dB
Nominal Impedance 8 ohms
Crossover Frequency(ies) 3,000Hz; 24dB/octave
Low-Frequency Driver 6-1/2" (165mm) MMD®
High-Frequency Driver 3/4" (19mm) MMD®
Dimensions (H x W x D) 14-3/4" x 8-1/4" x 11"
Weight 16.1 lb (7.3kg)
Notice the recommended power range in the manufacturer specs.
What I've mentioned, yet will repeat...
many speakers are damaged by lower powered receivers by those who risk turning up the volume such that the amp will produce more power than its rating. This happens all too often. A 30 Watt (rated) receiver will actually make far more than 30 watts. Do you know what happens then? And likely to the speakers? I've seen lots of speakers come back into the store with blown voice coils, invaribly by young kids who thought you could turn the volume knob all the way to the right (clockwise).
How often have I explained that before?
I am suggesting that, if you want 'Hi Fidelity', which includes clean reproduction of the transients, you need power. Truth is, by merely using a lower powered amp, one can NOT assume it is safe to turn up the volume knob as far as you like.
***NOTE CAREFULLY, that statement is just as true when using a high powered amp.
When you play loud, you ask your equipment to work harder, and indeed find the limitations of either the design or the condition of your equipment.
A Ferrari is designed to drive fast; but that doesn't mean you won't crash in a Ferrari when you drive fast.
You may also crash while driving your mom's Buick.
If you're going to play music loud, and throw caution to the wind, you need to be careful to not exceed the limits of your equipment.
This is true regardless of the rating of your amp or speakers.