AudioNervosa

I realize that some do not use a pre-amp, for various reasons. But if you do, what do you use? What do you like about it? What don't you like about it? Is there a pre-amp you lust over? What features do you want or need?

(This could be interesting..or be so boring it might fizzle)...but let's try it!

WEEZ

Tough for me since I sell them.  But honestly, if you're a tweaker, the Korato's make an exceptional platform for a top quality pre for a reasonable price.  

If you're at RMAF, you'll hear it.

Bryan

I'm looking *hard* for a pre-amp that won't negatively affect the wonderful clarity and openness I get with my Transporter connected directly to the amps.  Taking my previous pre- (a Placette Audio RVC) out of the system proved revelatory, as did the removal of my DAC (a twice-modified ack dAck!).

Still, I never tried the Placette after all the SB2, PS and Transporter mods were complete (I stupidly sold it  :oops: ), and now I wonder if it might be the answer I'm seeking now.  I fellow I trust in NYC has some ideas, so I'll probably take a chance on one of his suggestions.

I didn't see the Korato on either of your sites, Bryan...did I miss it?  I doubt it's for me since I'm not a tweaker, but congrats on being the first US dealer.  :D

-Jim

I like the ARC Ref 3. It is really easy to use with remote, I can see the numbers without glasses on from 20 feet away, and it sounds incredible. It adds fire and light and joy to any music you put through it, without making a noticeable 'audible' change. Music still sounds crystal clear and 'transparent" but just better in an undescribable way. It is an audio love box. No not glove box. I know it adds dynamic energy as all good high gain preamps do, but there is more to it. It definitely improved the sound and pace of every track on my demo CD.

I heard it with ARC ref 110 amp and WATTpuppy7, boy I can't wait to hear it with speakers that have some soul.

I did hear the top dog Placette active pre at RMAF with the new Moscode amp, and that was a very clear open sound. Very impressive, I spent some time in there, one of my top 3 rooms at the show. I used to think that was the way to go, as uncolored as possible just like the textbook says, until I heard the Ref 3 and fell in love and forgot the rules. I would try the Placette at home before I bought anything else. It is awesome too.

I would also like to hear the VTL preamps some more. I heard the 6.5 at RMAF but the new Thiel speakers were very aggressive, maybe not broken in yet.

Then there is Steelhead, AVA UltraEC, ModWright, BelCanto DAC3, it goes on and on... Thank goodness!
Rich

Richi - I have a funny feeling you will be VERY welcome here.

Well, if you're wanting to leave the sound of the system exactly as you have it right now, then maybe a passive transformer based pre is the way for you to go.

You didn't see the Koratos because I'm still working out the website and some of the other brands I'm going to be carrying.  At RMAF, I'll be in with Mike at ACI.

Bryan

Quote from: bpapeWell, if you're wanting to leave the sound of the system exactly as you have it right now, then maybe a passive transformer based pre is the way for you to go.

I agree, but it isn't that I'm necessarily wanting to leave it exactly as is ...I just don't want made worse.  So far, nothing I've added (DACs, even power conditioners) has improved the sound (either changed it for the worse, or added layer of :?: between us and the music).  

If the pre- can improve the sound without adding a veil*, I'm all for it.

*My apologies for using a vague, overly-used term, but it is the most appropriate word I could find in my limited vocabulary, and it works here  :oops:

i have been thru eight preamplifiers in the past three and a half years.the last three of which have been of the tubed variety. the Anthem Pre 1L was followed by the Balanced Audio Technology VK 3i and then finally the Odyssey Candela. the Candela is very fast ,clear and clean. it does a very good job at conveying the sound of the source and best off all it responds very well to tube rolling which can make it easy to taylor it to a variety of systems. it also sounds really nice with my SFS 80 tube amplifier.

Quote from: miklorsmithRichi - I have a funny feeling you will be VERY welcome here.

Thanks Miklor!

I'm a believer in using tubes in the line stage. A good tubed preamp will almost always make the system sound more relaxed and open, and still not call attention to itself. The sense of air and space is really evident...but a good one won't scream "Toobs" at you.

I think there are more 'good' preamps available today than ever before.

WEEZ

BTW, this is the one I use:

www.wyetechlabs.com/preamps/coral/coral.html

It's the 'runt' of the litter :)

WEEZ

Well, there have been around 10 people who I have done some testing with my 11A, using different methods and different speakers.

Some, I suggested that they should hear a difference when I take the 11A in and out of the system. I don't know how I could have made a suggestion any clearer and shot myself in the foot.

I stated to one or two that I was going to make a change to the 11A itself and it should sound different. That should also have killed what I was hoping for, no difference.

I asked others to just listen with the pre in and out. Check for any differences, width, depth, soundstage, focus, bass, treble etc. Whatever.

Not one has been able to tell the difference when I had it in the system and out.

The 10A is almost as close.

Hi Steve
Just to play the idiot here for a minute (nothing new), I mean this more as a technical question than as a wisecrack, although I know it will sound more like the latter:

If you can't hear the difference with a preamp in or out of the system, why do I need it? Especially if I know I don't need any additional gain?

Again, not meant to rock the boat, but a technical question phrased particularly poorly. ;)
Thanks
Rich

Quote from: richidoo on July 02, 2007, 10:02:32 AM
Hi Steve
Just to play the idiot here for a minute (nothing new), I mean this more as a technical question than as a wisecrack, although I know it will sound more like the latter:

If you can't hear the difference with a preamp in or out of the system, why do I need it? Especially if I know I don't need any additional gain?

Again, not meant to rock the boat, but a technical question phrased particularly poorly. ;)
Thanks
Rich

I Rich,

     Not a wisecrack at all Rich. A line preamp allows one to select what source and give voltage gain and then feeds to the amplifier, hopefully without colorations or distortions.

My preamplifier does this without altering the sound, coloring it. One has to be concerned with alot of sonic traits, such as dynamics, tonal balance, texture, focus, depth, width, soundstaging etc.

With the testing done so far, the 11A is so pristine and pure that what music goes in, exits the preamplifier without being altered. What goes in comes out the same without colorations, distortions. In otherwards, it is extremely clear, transparent, without adding any colorations, affecting dynamics etc.

Why do you need a preamp if you do not need the gain? "Especially if I know I don't need any additional gain?"

I was responding to DU. "I just don't want made worse."

You don't since you are using an integrated amplifier, as your active preamp stage is incorporated into the amplifier itself. Why add an extra stage to a system that doesn't need it?

There are two drawbacks with an integrated amp.
1) Frequency dependent feedback through the power supply.

2) The manufacturer designs the amp first, then make the included preamp fit. The quality of the entire assembly is dependent upon the quality of the amp.

Separates allows one to design the preamp first, as it is the only component that can actually be compared to a straightwire. Then the amp is designed afterward. This results in less compensation, thus better synergy.
I do not know any other company that does this.

ps. Here is a comment Martin made in issue 177 before the PBN Olympia-L preamp (12 grand) landed on the scene. It involved the system using the 11A, and using the new LessLoss power cords.

"The Big Rig had become something better, more musically truthful than any system I had ever heard... anywhere... anytime."

Hope this helps.

My neighbor has a Krell CDP/Integrated amp and Sonus Faber speakers.  The amp has a feature that allows an outboard preamp.  I took my Modwright over there when I had it.  We both were bowled over with how much it improved the sound.  I left the pre with him for a couple of weeks.  Over that time he had another buddy over and tried many tests with it.  At the end he decided it didn't change the sound much at all vs. the integrated by itself.

I didn't have opportunities past the first one to compare, but I know what I heard that one time - the tubes were Very Welcome.  I can't fault his longer-term opinion either.  Who knows about such things?  The Moddie is certainly on the clean/fast end of the tube pre spectrum.

I generally want my preamp to add a little space/tone, but everyone's got a spin.

Quote from: miklorsmith on July 02, 2007, 10:55:48 AM
My neighbor has a Krell CDP/Integrated amp and Sonus Faber speakers.  The amp has a feature that allows an outboard preamp.  I took my Modwright over there when I had it.  We both were bowled over with how much it improved the sound.  I left the pre with him for a couple of weeks.  Over that time he had another buddy over and tried many tests with it.  At the end he decided it didn't change the sound much at all vs. the integrated by itself.

I didn't have opportunities past the first one to compare, but I know what I heard that one time - the tubes were Very Welcome.  I can't fault his longer-term opinion either.  Who knows about such things?  The Moddie is certainly on the clean/fast end of the tube pre spectrum.

I generally want my preamp to add a little space/tone, but everyone's got a spin.

Hi miklorsmith,

I agree with you that the Moddie is on the fast end of the tube pre spectrum. I spent some time with one and it does tilt towards the sterile side compared to a straightwire.

To me, it was more "tube" than nothing or SS, but certainly not euphonic in the stereotypical (heh) sense.

Quote from: miklorsmith on July 02, 2007, 01:02:36 PM
To me, it was more "tube" than nothing or SS, but certainly not euphonic in the stereotypical (heh) sense.

Hi Mik,

I did some testing vs a piece of wire and the instruments come off as washed out, kinda like a ghost half vaporized in a movie. It was not grainy and it was dynamic, which is good. But the instruments/voices certainly did not sound as organic as a piece of wire. It really was not that close in that department.

I certainly didn't have that impression, but it's long gone now so I can't confirm.  Maybe it didn't like your amp somehow.  I definitely would like to hear the tube-rectified version or even better, the 36.5.

Quote from: steve on July 02, 2007, 08:32:18 AM
Well, there have been around 10 people who I have done some testing with my 11A, using different methods and different speakers.

Some, I suggested that they should hear a difference when I take the 11A in and out of the system. I don't know how I could have made a suggestion any clearer and shot myself in the foot.

I stated to one or two that I was going to make a change to the 11A itself and it should sound different. That should also have killed what I was hoping for, no difference.

I asked others to just listen with the pre in and out. Check for any differences, width, depth, soundstage, focus, bass, treble etc. Whatever.

Not one has been able to tell the difference when I had it in the system and out.

The 10A is almost as close.

You mean you tricked me. :shock:  :rofl:

I have used my 10a with 3 VERY different amps (ss-tube/ss-tube) and it has sounded superb with each.
I guess I like preamps, maybe sometimes more IS more(?).

Lin

Quote from: miklorsmith on July 02, 2007, 02:09:42 PM
I certainly didn't have that impression, but it's long gone now so I can't confirm.  Maybe it didn't like your amp somehow.  I definitely would like to hear the tube-rectified version or even better, the 36.5.

I hope it will be closer to the music, but it will be only an estimation.

That is because all manufacturers use "voicing", which simply means they listen to the new component in their own reference system. But how accurate is the rest of their system? When one hears the differences between DACs, let alone speakers, it is hard to tell what is 'on' and what is not.

Others don't actually use several different methods (this to insure the results are accurate) when evalulating the component vs a wire.

There is no problem with the amp as the input capacitance is very minimal, along with low capacitance of the ICs. The source, CD player, saw the same input Z in both the pre and amp. Of course, the amp saw the same speaker.

I am not surprised at the differences in sound between different preamps, and between preamps and a straight wire. The main problem is that no one actually does any actual testing. So it is no more than a crap shoot if it sounds like a wire.

Opnfld, thanks.

I believe that a low distortion system is most enjoyable, even over romantic sweetness. 'Real' is amazing and awesome, which is where my head wants to be.

That's why I was intrigued by this thread about your 11A preamp with no sonic signature which is completely transparent except for gain. The reason I am so curious is because like many of us, my system already has too much voltage gain. My weakest source (in voltage output), SB3, has an external linear power supply making 2A @5V which enhances bass and body tremendously, as expected changing from the stock POS, oops... I mean PS... ;)   I run SB at 3/4 throttle max. My tuna runs at 1/5 throttle, as does my phono pre, all with their own volume pots coloring things up. These are all low output impedance (~220-600Z) driving my Manley Snapper monoblocks with 450kohms input impedence directly through Grover's interconnects with very low resistance and capacitance. They all sound awesome except for some digital crap from the SB with the digital VC, and I'm not sure that's not imagination anyway. So, I can't understand how these sources would need any additional voltage or current gain to drive these amps to their potential.

And Yet ! when Stereofool or Carlman bring over their Mac or AR preamps, the sound seems to be fuller. It is even a little fuller sounding than the built in 6922>6SN7 preamp in my integrated amp. Is this fullness and body that their preamps add actually a coloration deliberately added as a voicing preference of the designer, or is the fullness a function of the preamp actually enabling better signal transfer from source to amp resulting in a sound that is actually truer to the recording?

Passive resistive, optical and magnetic volume controls are growing in popularity because they are cheaper than high quality active stages (no expensive PS to build), and they provide the functionality of a controller with volume control and switching. But are passive users missing something? Concensus among cognoscenti seems to be yes. But I would like to know what a truly transparent preamp is doing to the source signal (while also attenuating it to a lower level) that makes it a "better" signal for the amplifier. I guess a resistive attenuator will restrict current as it lowers voltage so providing a current gain source is valuable after the VC. But with magnetics you don't have that problem, and yet Promitheus is still selling a tube buffer stage for his TVC and apparently it makes a big difference. Is it artistic voicing, or basic physics? I'm sure it sounds great whatever the reason... ;)

Even the better phono preamps where 60dB of voltage gain is really needed are often separate components now, offering their own 2V+ low impedance signal. On the other hand, the Altmann BYOB amp I have been reading about has <10k inputZ and lower gain than normal due to battery PS, so there is still a case for voltage gain in a preamp. Since 11A is reviewed as one of the very best preamps available for sound quality, I'm sure you will have some insight into my confusion. Thanks for playing along Steve! :) Fun thread!
Rich

I've listened to my Red Wine amps for a long time with basically no preamp.  Overall, the sound is not fleshed out enough.  The system transforms into a butterfly with my Lamm preamp.

With the Yamamoto amp, tone enhancement is less needed and in fact less present but overall I don't want an invisible preamp.  If I did, I'd probably buy a TVC passive.

Yeah, that's what I hear too, and mine is not modded beyond the PS. Sounds better on a good tube pre, but how does it compare to what's on the disc? The disc sounds thin on systems without a preamp, like car stereo, ipod, etc  A-HA!  Maybe they are the true reference?   :lol:

H Richidoo,

Oh boy, you brought alot of questions.

"I believe that a low distortion system is most enjoyable, even over romantic sweetness. 'Real' is amazing and awesome, which is where my head wants to be.

That's why I was intrigued by this thread about your 11A preamp with no sonic signature which is completely transparent except for gain. The reason I am so curious is because like many of us, my system already has too much voltage gain. My weakest source (in voltage output), SB3, has an external linear power supply making 2A @5V which enhances bass and body tremendously, as expected changing from the stock POS, oops... I mean PS... ;)   I run SB at 3/4 throttle max. My tuna runs at 1/5 throttle, as does my phono pre, all with their own volume pots coloring things up. These are all low output impedance (~220-600Z) driving my Manley Snapper monoblocks with 450kohms input impedence directly through Grover's interconnects with very low resistance and capacitance. They all sound awesome except for some digital crap from the SB with the digital VC, and I'm not sure that's not imagination anyway. So, I can't understand how these sources would need any additional voltage or current gain to drive these amps to their potential."

It seems everyone is adding gain, but then adding circuitry adds profits. I wish the different manufacturer's of different parts of the system would just design what is required and not add the extra's.

"And Yet ! when Stereofool or Carlman bring over their Mac or AR preamps, the sound seems to be fuller. It is even a little fuller sounding than the built in 6922>6SN7 preamp in my integrated amp. Is this fullness and body that their preamps add actually a coloration deliberately added as a voicing preference of the designer, or is the fullness a function of the preamp actually enabling better signal transfer from source to amp resulting in a sound that is actually truer to the recording?"

Probably neither. They probably do just a "voicing" session with their reference systems. I don't read where they do any exotic testing of any kind. Correct me if I am wrong though.

"Passive resistive, optical and magnetic volume controls are growing in popularity because they are cheaper than high quality active stages (no expensive PS to build),"

Actually, the optical, magnetic actually need a ps to work. Power has to be supplied to the lighting circuitry in the optical and magnetics to work.


"and they provide the functionality of a controller with volume control and switching. But are passive users missing something? Concensus among cognoscenti seems to be yes. But I would like to know what a truly transparent preamp is doing to the source signal (while also attenuating it to a lower level) that makes it a "better" signal for the amplifier."

It really does nothing to the source signal, just passes it with some gain. The differences one hears is the other preamps coloring the music.


"I guess a resistive attenuator will restrict current as it lowers voltage so providing a current gain source is valuable after the VC. But with magnetics you don't have that problem, and yet Promitheus is still selling a tube buffer stage for his TVC and apparently it makes a big difference. Is it artistic voicing, or basic physics? I'm sure it sounds great whatever the reason... ;)"

Not a current gain as you mention earlier in the sentence. The buffer stage is probably "colored" sounding if it changes the sound. The high input Z of the amp should not load a cd player at all, unless it goes quite low.

"Even the better phono preamps where 60dB of voltage gain is really needed are often separate components now, offering their own 2V+ low impedance signal."

And how good is their buffer stage? I would check their line preamps to get an idea.

"On the other hand, the Altmann BYOB amp I have been reading about has <10k inputZ and lower gain than normal due to battery PS, so there is still a case for voltage gain in a preamp."

I wish the input Z was higher, but their design may preclude such. For instance if they use a bipolar transistor, the input Z is quite low. If they lower the current through the transistor to raise the input Z, the transistor sounds different and that is what they might want to stay away from.

"Since 11A is reviewed as one of the very best preamps available for sound quality, I'm sure you will have some insight into my confusion."

In general, I find audio becoming a mixed bag with alot of manufacturer's competing for every part of the system. If the dac has alot of gain, why; and why so much gain in the amplifier? Now phono stages are coming up with their own schemes with more gain so as to crowd the line preamp market.

Only problem is that in such configurations, how does one check these extra stages vs a straight wire? Very difficult. I wonder if the phono makers actually check out the "preamp" stage(s) first before designing the phono stage itself? I doubt it.

Quote from: miklorsmith on July 02, 2007, 03:16:37 PM
I've listened to my Red Wine amps for a long time with basically no preamp.  Overall, the sound is not fleshed out enough.  The system transforms into a butterfly with my Lamm preamp.

With the Yamamoto amp, tone enhancement is less needed and in fact less present but overall I don't want an invisible preamp.  If I did, I'd probably buy a TVC passive.

Wouldn't it be better to have an invisible preamp and a source, amp, and speakers that were more accurate, not sterile, so the synergy would be better, and more organic and live sounding?

I would think compensating a sterile system with patch work would not satisfy in the long run?

"Yeah, that's what I hear too, and mine is not modded beyond the PS. Sounds better on a good tube pre, but how does it compare to what's on the disc?"

"The disc sounds thin on systems without a preamp, like car stereo, ipod, etc  A-HA!  Maybe they are the true reference?   :lol: "


Well, that is where some work comes in Rich  :-P. Once the "invisible" pre is installed (remember it sounds fuller than one thinks), the preamp is one less component to worry about. Now one just has to audition the other components in one's system and continue working out the details. Remember, the components you have already tried sounded thin in your system, so you have already eliminated some already. Only 10,000 to go. :rofl:

I hope I am not insulting anyone. If so, my apologies.

Theory?  Sure.  Reality/experience?  No.

The Zu Definition Pros are not warm speakers, but they're far from sterile.  They relay what comes in quite faithfully.  Some folks have said the Red Wine Signature amps are SET-like.  Some have called the RWAs "warm", but I disagree with that.  In fact, I always thought the Definitions were inherently warm speakers until I ran the Lessloss direct to the RWA's.  I agree with the SET description in their smoothness and liquidity but not regarding the Big Tone that SET amps pull off so easily.  

The Lessloss DAC setup I'm using now is what I think folks would call invisible.  The Lessloss direct to the RWAs is quite a sound, deserving of respect but not engendering love.  How it is that good preamps can put the rosin on strings and the sonorous vibration of instrumental wood I do not know, nor do I much care.

Flipping the question around, if "no sound" is the goal, why use tubes or any active circuitry?  Rich is right, gain certainly isn't an issue in most systems.  I'd go with a TVC or even resistive passive with hi-gain sources and be done for cheap.

Alas, I can't see going that direction.

Great discussion, folks.

Hey Steve, your "power supply" is certainly not sagging under the load of the inquisition here. Thanks for stepping up and having some fun with us. You are a sport.  Sorry about the load of questions. Mostly rhetorical when I get to ranting like that.

No need to worry about stepping toes here. We love the straight talk, but watchout you might get some back! hehe

I need to read and think about what you and Mike have offered before I embarrass myself further.

Funny enough, a friend is bringing his new CJ preamp over tonight. Straight wire with gain - NOT! But I can't wait to hear it. Don't remember which model.
Rich

Quote from: richidoo on July 02, 2007, 04:05:04 PM
. . . a friend is bringing his new CJ preamp over tonight. Straight wire with gain - NOT! But I can't wait to hear it.

CJ is definitely of the Voiced camp - betcha love it!

"Theory?  Sure.  Reality/experience?  No."

I don't know what you mean by that. Two responses. Are you saying live sounding music is not organic, or good? Or.

I don't understand how one could say that reality and experience counts when one cannot prove, or knows, what a single or combination of accurate components sounds like. By the way, I have done it, so it isn't theory.

"The Zu Definition Pros are not warm speakers, but they're far from sterile.  They relay what comes in quite faithfully."

But how do you know? I am not trying to pick on them, or you. But how do you know how the speaker actually sounds?

"Flipping the question around, if "no sound" is the goal, why use tubes or any active circuitry?  Rich is right, gain certainly isn't an issue in most systems.  I'd go with a TVC or even resistive passive with hi-gain sources and be done for cheap."

I don't understand your question? You mean listen live?

Done on the cheap. But does it sound optimal?? I guess each has to reach his own goals of satisfaction.

Quote from: richidoo on July 02, 2007, 04:05:04 PM
Hey Steve, your "power supply" is certainly not sagging under the load of the inquisition here. Thanks for stepping up and having some fun with us. You are a sport.  Sorry about the load of questions. Mostly rhetorical when I get to ranting like that.

No need to worry about stepping toes here. We love the straight talk, but watchout you might get some back! hehe

I need to read and think about what you and Mike have offered before I embarrass myself further.

Funny enough, a friend is bringing his new CJ preamp over tonight. Straight wire with gain - NOT! But I can't wait to hear it. Don't remember which model.
Rich

Should be interesting. Will you let us know how it comes out?
I will keep my back covered.  :)
I probably should not have critiqued another brand pre.

i Started with an Anthem Pre 1L for my first tube preamplifier which sounded pretty euphonic with NOS Amperex 7308's. it was kind of like a woman who painted herself with makeup to hide flaws in her complection. since then i have progressively gravitated to cleaner ,faster sounding preamplifiers as they are my preference. Steve Sammet's SAS Audio Labs 10A linestage  reminds me of a beautiful woman who does not use or need makeup and her skin is bare because she is a natural beauty. the 11A must really be stunning.thanks....WCW III  :yay2:

Quote from: Bunky on July 02, 2007, 05:00:10 PM
i Started with an Anthem Pre 1L for my first tube preamplifier which sounded pretty euphonic with NOS Amperex 7308's. it was kind of like a woman who painted herself with makeup to hide flaws in her complection. since then i have progressively gravitated to cleaner ,faster sounding preamplifiers as they are my preference. Steve Sammet's SAS Audio Labs 10A linestage  reminds me of a beautiful woman who does not use or need makeup and her skin is bare because she is a natural beauty. the 11A must really be stunning.thanks....WCW III  :yay2:

Thanks Bunky. I probably overstepped my bounds and will probably pay for it. Please accept my apologies.

Quote from: steve on July 02, 2007, 05:07:22 PM

Quote from: Bunky on July 02, 2007, 05:00:10 PM
i Started with an Anthem Pre 1L for my first tube preamplifier which sounded pretty euphonic with NOS Amperex 7308's. it was kind of like a woman who painted herself with makeup to hide flaws in her complection. since then i have progressively gravitated to cleaner ,faster sounding preamplifiers as they are my preference. Steve Sammet's SAS Audio Labs 10A linestage  reminds me of a beautiful woman who does not use or need makeup and her skin is bare because she is a natural beauty. the 11A must really be stunning.thanks....WCW III  :yay2:

Thanks Bunky. I probably overstepped my bounds and will probably pay for it. Please accept my apologies.

Steve,there is no need to apologise. Audionervosa has only two rules #1 No religious posts #2 No Politics. you seem highly Qualified to give your opinions on any topic concerning Audio and most people here welcome your input.  various brands of gear have been openly criticized here several times and we can just agree to disagree and move on to the next topic.no biggie  8) WCW III

Quote from: steve on July 02, 2007, 04:47:58 PMAre you saying live sounding music is not organic, or good?

No, I'm not saying that.  What I'm saying is that either so-called neutral systems do not recover the rich, organic flow of music, or that this character does not survive digitization and has to be infused at the playback side.  Vinyl is another matter for another discussion.

Quote from: steve on July 02, 2007, 04:47:58 PMI don't understand how one could say that reality and experience counts when one cannot prove, or knows, what a single or combination of accurate components sounds like. By the way, I have done it, so it isn't theory.

What is an accurate component?  What are the dimensions of accuracy?  I aim for what sounds to me like accurate portrayal of instruments.  This requires a balancing of component voices.  For instance, If I were running a 2A3 or 300B amp, I would likely want a clean, clear preamp.  If I had a Krell amp, I would almost certainly be looking for a pre with PFAT tone. 

I'm sure Krell says their stuff is accurate, as do many of the SS guys.  All Krell will drive me from the room.  To me, terms like accurate and neutral do not describe what their proponents are intending.

Quote from: steve on July 02, 2007, 04:47:58 PM"The Zu Definition Pros are not warm speakers, but they're far from sterile.  They relay what comes in quite faithfully."

But how do you know? I am not trying to pick on them, or you. But how do you know how the speaker actually sounds?

This is a Great question.  The Reality of my Experience with my speakers informs me.  I've had several different preamplifiers, many amps, numerous digital devices, and lots of cables through these speakers.  One of the preamps was a TacT unit and I became intimately familiar with in-room frequency response.  Triangulating between all the data points with lots of gear has given me fair confidence that I know how these speakers sound "in isolation", even though this concept is impossible.  I'm an enigma within in a quandary wrapped in a paradox blanket.

Quote from: steve on July 02, 2007, 04:47:58 PM"Flipping the question around, if "no sound" is the goal, why use tubes or any active circuitry?  Rich is right, gain certainly isn't an issue in most systems.  I'd go with a TVC or even resistive passive with hi-gain sources and be done for cheap."

I don't understand your question? You mean listen live?

Done on the cheap. But does it sound optimal?? I guess each has to reach his own goals of satisfaction.

My question was merely, if one wants a preamp with NO signature, a TVC is a cheaper way to achieve that goal than a fully active unit.

It's great to have you involved in this discussion, Steve.  You bring a perspective that I don't think any of the rest of us here have.  You bring your views of what makes a great piece into your work and I have no doubt the 11A is outstanding.  I hope to hear some one day.  It would be instructional to do a side-by-side with my Lamm . . . Hey, mca, what are you using for a pre right now.   :rofl:

Hi Mike,

"No, I'm not saying that.  What I'm saying is that either so-called neutral systems do not recover the rich, organic flow of music, or that this character does not survive digitization and has to be infused at the playback side.  Vinyl is another matter for another discussion."

I think you would be better served if you had a reference point, a foundation. The preamp is the only component that can be tested vs a wire. If I used one method of testing, I certainly could not make a substantial case for myself. But in fact I have three methods, so I can check for any discrepancies. So far none, so I think I have a strong case.
You could have a poor component, or several, compromising components the sound of the CD.

I am able to convey, from a CD, a near perfect (I hate to say perfect) replica of the Peoria symphony orchestra when they performed the Overture to Russlan and Ludmilla by Glinka a couple of months back. Pretty cool to compare a live event to a recording. No problem with a lack of organic flow from my system.

"What is an accurate component?  What are the dimensions of accuracy? I aim for what sounds to me like accurate portrayal of instruments.  This requires a balancing of component voices.  For instance, If I were running a 2A3 or 300B amp, I would likely want a clean, clear preamp.  If I had a Krell amp, I would almost certainly be looking for a pre with PFAT tone."

But is the "accurate portrayal of instrumet" optimal across the entire audio spectrum? Sounds like we have the same goals, wanting realism. But one needs a foundation to work from.
The only problem with haphazardly chosing components is that one sees hundreds of components for sale on audiogon, so alot of dissatified customers using that technique.

"I'm sure Krell says their stuff is accurate, as do many of the SS guys.  All Krell will drive me from the room.  To me, terms like accurate and neutral do not describe what their proponents are intending."

It is difficult with amps, speakers and sources. Those are variables. But the discussion had to do with preamps, and with an accurate preamp a person is one step closer to realism with one less component to worry about. At least one has some sort of a foundation to work from. I found, from experience (47-48 years), that using a sterile preamp with a full sounding amp, or visa versa, always causes problems somewhere in the sound. The less compensation needed, the better the synergy.

"The Zu Definition Pros are not warm speakers, but they're far from sterile.  They relay what comes in quite faithfully."

>But how do you know? I am not trying to pick on them, or you. But how do you know how the speaker actually sounds?

"This is a Great question.  The Reality of my Experience with my speakers informs me.  I've had several different preamplifiers, many amps, numerous digital devices, and lots of cables through these speakers.  One of the preamps was a TacT unit and I became intimately familiar with in-room frequency response.  Triangulating between all the data points with lots of gear has given me fair confidence that I know how these speakers sound "in isolation", even though this concept is impossible.  I'm an enigma within in a quandary wrapped in a paradox blanket."

I have 48 years experience and knowledge as well. But my foundation of a truly neutral preamplifier helps immensely. It is all a guessing game without some sort of foundation to work from. Something always seems to suffer.

"Flipping the question around, if "no sound" is the goal, why use tubes or any active circuitry?  Rich is right, gain certainly isn't an issue in most systems.  I'd go with a TVC or even resistive passive with hi-gain sources and be done for cheap."

>I don't understand your question? You mean listen live?

>Done on the cheap. But does it sound optimal?? I guess each has to reach his own goals of satisfaction.

"My question was merely, if one wants a preamp with NO signature, a TVC is a cheaper way to achieve that goal than a fully active unit."

Are you sure?

1) One has hysterisis loses in the core which cannot be changed unless different cores are utilized.
2) One also has to deal with non linearities at small signal levels, unless possibly some special circuit is devised.
3) TVCs have self resonant issues, both parallel and even series; from internal and from outside sources (ICs, input cap of device). The result is ringing, or slope deformed. One has to optimally damp those rings at each tap setting on the transformer.

TVCs are not perfect devices by any means.

Then there is the concern of how good is the active "preamp" stage that has been placed in the amplifier? What good is using a good volume control if the active stage is inferior?

"It's great to have you involved in this discussion, Steve.  You bring a perspective that I don't think any of the rest of us here have.  You bring your views of what makes a great piece into your work and I have no doubt the 11A is outstanding.  I hope to hear some one day.  It would be instructional to do a side-by-side with my Lamm . . . Hey, mca, what are you using for a pre right now.   :rofl:

Jon L compared the entire 10A to his Bent, and Martin compared the 11A to the Sonic Euphoria. I think both favorably. A whole preamp vs a volume control, which excluded the next gainstage. Check the following gainstage and the results wouldl favor the active preamp.

When I discussed this yesterday, I had completely forgotten that you had just become a reviewer. I certainly did not mean to try to tear you down Mike, and I hope you do not take it that way. I do hope this discussion will help broaden your horizons further than it already is. All my best Mike.

ps. I also found the 10A to be a little more neutral, organic than the Moddie.

Hey, no worries!  I can argue stuff impersonally all day.

I've tested my system with a wire, as you say.  No likey.  Different folks have different visions of truth in sound.

Matching gears is always haphazard, no matter how great they all look on paper.  It sounds like you design your systems around your preamps.  That's cool.  I design mine around my speakers.

On TVCs, Srajan commented in either his Music First or Bent review (maybe both) that he couldn't hear any difference with the unit in or out of the system.  Then, he wound up with a high-gain tone monster of a tubed preamp as his reference and commented that invisibility is not his ultimate choice for a preamp.

I have arrived at the same conclusion on my own road.

Again, I'm sure yours is an excellent unit.  I have not read negative ink spilled anywhere about you or any of your products.  Hopefully I will have a chance to hear one some day.

I've made my thoughts regarding pre-amps pretty well known on this forum (and others) and while I've never had the honor to hear an SAS pre-amp...I agree with Steve's comments regarding pre-amps in general..(notwithstanding his shill for the 11a :duh)  :)

Remember folks, a good pre-amp will provide a high impedence interface for your source(s); source selection; volume/balance control; and most importantly..voltage gain and current drive for your amplifier.

Aside from "neutrality".. :roll:..to me, the issue of 'gain' is the reason that many have tried to abandon a pre-amp in their system. ( many times with regret...).

The SAS pre-amps are what I would call high gain. (23db according to the website). For many...this is way too much. But if I understand correctly...SAS power amps are 'low gain'.....12db. So used together the total gain is just about right for most systems/rooms. (32-35 is usually about right).

Steve, you and I have had this discussion over at AC. The problem today is, IMHO, that the market is flooded with high gain sources and high gain amplifiers. So with a pre-amp in the system...the volume control(s) are barely cracked open before it gets way too damn loud...hence the trend toward eliminating the pre-amp...sometimes with dismay in the sonics department...leading to frustration.

When will there be some sort of standardization, I wonder.

WEEZ

"I've made my thoughts regarding pre-amps pretty well known on this forum (and others) and while I've never had the honor to hear an SAS pre-amp...I agree with Steve's comments regarding pre-amps in general..(notwithstanding his shill for the 11a :duh)  :)

I know. I saw bpape's post, so I took license.

"Aside from "neutrality".. :roll:..to me, the issue of 'gain' is the reason that many have tried to abandon a pre-amp in their system. ( many times with regret...)."

You are right Weez. So many adding gainstages to their components, but the extra stage only deteriorates the sound? 

"Steve, you and I have had this discussion over at AC. The problem today is, IMHO, that the market is flooded with high gain sources and high gain amplifiers. So with a pre-amp in the system...the volume control(s) are barely cracked open before it gets way too damn loud...hence the trend toward eliminating the pre-amp...sometimes with dismay in the sonics department...leading to frustration.

Yes, I know Weez. It is like the manufacturers are all thinking the same thing.

"When will there be some sort of standardization, I wonder."

I don't know Weez. It seems everyone is adding stages of gain to knock out the preamps, and able to charge more. How good those added gainstages really are is very questionable imo. It takes alot to make a super stage of gain (check out the physical size of other great preamps) and then inspect the physical size of integrated amps, dacs, etc. There simply isn't enough room to really do an extra gainstage justice. Compromise, compromise seems to be the name of the game these days.

"As far as "Matching gears is always haphazard, no matter how great they all look on paper."

Respectfully I have to disagree. With three different ways of testing and no discrepancies, I don't think you have any case.

True with SS, the input capacitance varies all over the place and so can the input Z. There could be a possibility as the input capacitances are different. But we are not talking SS only.

Tube amps have very little input capacitance (a few pf) and the resistance is constant and high. Unless the tube is gassy, there is no issue.

As far as using a monster preamp and invisible being bad, if we are seeking the same goal, which we already agreed we are, then the tonally colored preamp is compensating for an abnormality somewhere else in the system. No way is the compensation going to be perfect, so there are going to be other problems with the system.

I mean what are the odds that a colored sounding  preamp is going to perfectly compensate for the weaknesses in the rest of the system?

Wow, this has been wonderful just catching up from where I left off. Great discussion.

I am in the "lower distortion is better" camp. I strive for that and whenever I replace a component that has audible distortion with another that is lower I can listen into the music more deeply and it is overall more rewarding to me. It is true for any part of the system. The trick is that there are many products which go for the zing of pleasant distortion instead of the low distortion approach which as Steve suggests requires exact science and execution to reach precision, rather than tasty sauce poured over toast to make a winning recipe. Example, a speaker wire I recently tried has a nice fat resonant round sound which makes you want to dance around to everything, even Bach organ dirge. It is very "musical" and of course in the right system, that speaker wire is gonna make the listener very happy. It has full extension and sounds powerful and very high quality. But another speaker wire I also listened to this week takes a different approach, reducing distortion, stripping out all that resonance and "make up" as Bunky might call it :) and delivering the signal to speakers as true as possible. At first this does not sound as good when the brain is used to the flavorful sauce. It initially sounds dull in comparison. But once you settle in and start listening, you find that you mind can sink much deeper into the music than the more "musical" sounding wire would allow, and you can choose what you want to focus in on without the zing dragging you over the the spotlighted area. Details are gently just sitting there for you to notice or not, but they are precise and natural. If you want to listen to echo bouncing off the back wall for a whole movement, it is easy and crystal clear. To me the thrill of listening to low distortion system far outweighs any kind of euphonic spin. (No it is not the anticables.  :rofl:  )  Maybe such cables and preamps are intended for and/or voiced using components that are not as low distortion, transparent as could be and thus are made to compensate by adding zing and when the zing is the wrong match for a different amp or a low distortion system the zing is always in the way.

My point is that I can see the logic of the preamp imitating the straight wire. But my question remains If I already have enough gain, and the preamp sounds like a straight wire plus more gain, why am I not just buying tennis lessons instead? I still don't understand technically, electronically "what is a preamp" doing to the signal if "nothing" is the ultimate goal. As WEEZ suggests and I think Steve agreed, if the pre is providing current into a big load where the source is incapable of doing that, then I understand. But when the source has plenty of current (2ma?) and speed to drive the preamp at 50kohm input, then it should be more than happy into half megohm input tube. How does a discreet preamp handle this any better?

I agree with Steve's assessment of TVC in general, but again it is a good example of how resonance can make the system sound more dancy while masking details and inevitably the potential for greater listening enjoyment. But they do have the benefit of being truly passive, needing no power supply other than the signal, and do increase current drive with increased attenutation. If current drive of an active preamp were its major benefit, then TVC would beat any active preamp which had resolution lower than the hysteresis and resistance of the TVC. This has proven to be the case since there are many mediocre preamps out there in the $1000-2000 range and the TVC craze is well underway, starting at $320 plus plane fare from Malaysia. They are cheap and low tech, so fit the budget audiophile's requirements to a tee. Sonic Euphoria autoformer attenuator was reviewed by "Bound for Sound" to sound marginally better than Steve's 10A. There is certainly merit in that approach when only attenuation is desired. Autoformer might be better than transformer types for attenuator duty based on the limited reading I have been able to find on the matter. Less influence of the core hysteresis? I dunno.

Sorry for the length.

I'm back!  :roll:

My friend Henry came over with his CJ PV-15 preamp. We had a fun time listening. It is a great sounding preamp when cold. Once it warmed up, one of the Mullard 6C4s started spitting and made it unlistenable. This is a genuine 1970's NOS Mullard tube made in Britain, sounding like a dynamic mic out on a windy day. My friend has about 50 hours on it and was very dissapointed that a brand new, dealer bought, high end component would give him grief so soon. He is a ML man from way back recently converted to tubes and loving/hating it. We swapped the two tubes and the sound moved with it, so easy fix. He will ask CJ to mail new tubes.

Before the tube went psycho, we listened for about 15 minutes. It plays very deep and very high. Freq range is very extended. As with all visiting preamps in my system, there was a presence in it that was different from the straight wire sound I am used to. It makes me insane wndering what they are doing and why, but I am dropping that one for now. The CJ was very pleasant to listen. It was indeed a shiny, slightly coppery mirror on the music, but not so far from natural that you would notice. It did not seem to be an entirely EQ based deviation from wire, but probably harmonic distortion manipulations designed to "enhance your pleasure." Not enough time to try out my various musical tests to listen for certain aspects of performance, but some challenging stuff was handled with ease. Seemed like 5k and 50Hz were slightly bumped with very low Q humps.
Rich

"Wow, this has been wonderful just catching up from where I left off. Great discussion."

Yes, it certainly has been interesting. It just surprised me when I stated that testing and finding the Moddie sterile would raise such a stir. I also forgot, I can guarantee Mike performed the wire test differently than I did. It is tedious, plus I have 2 backups methods to check for any discrepencies or errors.

"But once you settle in and start listening, you find that you mind can sink much deeper into the music than the more "musical" sounding wire would allow, and you can choose what you want to focus in on without the zing dragging you over the the spotlighted area. Details are gently just sitting there for you to notice or not, but they are precise and natural. If you want to listen to echo bouncing off the back wall for a whole movement, it is easy and crystal clear. To me the thrill of listening to low distortion system far outweighs any kind of euphonic spin."

I agree Rich. It is amazing to hear true inner detail, rather than artificially flavored sound. I think one problem is that one equates accurate/neutral/wire to sterile when it just sounds like the instrument, natural like you stated. If one finds a live instrument in a orchestra to sound sterile, I think the consumer needs to know that up front. I am not against euphonic as the consumer likes what he/she like. I personally like natural though.

Hearing the echoes off the walls in the recording studio, as you mention, I find that quite gratifying. It helps me in the realism aspect. Normally, from my experience, it seems one has to settle for either sterile and hear inner detail, or natural/organic and miss the details. Not always the case, but often. I want detail and natural/organic.


"Maybe such cables and preamps are intended for and/or voiced using components that are not as low distortion, transparent as could be and thus are made to compensate by adding zing and when the zing is the wrong match for a different amp or a low distortion system the zing is always in the way."

I agree. 

"But my question remains If I already have enough gain, and the preamp sounds like a straight wire plus more gain, why am I not just buying tennis lessons instead?"

That is a problem Rich. I think the other components in the system need to rid of their inferior sounding gainstages, CD players, integrated amps included; so a superior gainstage can be installed, thus improving the naturalness.

I think one of the problems is that there are so many inferior preamps on the market that adding a gainstage to a dac, or integrated amp, sounds no worse. Budget and a mass market also does not help as it is less expensive in the short run to eliminate and external preamp. But there just isn't enough space in a dac or integrated amp to design a superior preamp gainstage. In the long run, Audiogon is alive and well.

"I still don't understand technically, electronically "what is a preamp" doing to the signal if "nothing" is the ultimate goal."

It simply allows switching sources and controlling voltage gain. Actually the preamp is in the signal path in all systems Rich. It is just a matter of where, physically, it is located and if that physical location allows for maximizing the quality of the gainstage. One could consider the op amps in cd players a preamp stage. Certainly, the first stage in an integrated amp is a preamp stage since it immediately follows the volume control, just like a real external preamp.

Recently, I see terminology has been changing. One advertisement actually stated their amplifier had a passive preamp built in. What happened to the active preamp gainstage?
Actually it is still there, they just changed the name to amp stage. But the impression I got, and probably others, was that the company somehow eliminated a gainstage from the system. 

"As WEEZ suggests and I think Steve agreed, if the pre is providing current into a big load where the source is incapable of doing that, then I understand. But when the source has plenty of current (2ma?) and speed to drive the preamp at 50kohm input, then it should be more than happy into half megohm input tube. How does a discreet preamp handle this any better?"

The preamps are "coloring" the sound to compensate for an inferior source, say a cd player. Whether op amps (which leave alot to be desired), to inferior parts and design of the player itself, or even tube analog stages installed in the player; there just isn't room to really do the analog stage justice. I wish cd players would rid the analog stage itself so one could direct feed to a high quality external preamp to begin with.

"I agree with Steve's assessment of TVC in general, but again it is a good example of how resonance can make the system sound more dancy while masking details and inevitably the potential for greater listening enjoyment. But they do have the benefit of being truly passive, needing no power supply other than the signal, and do increase current drive with increased attenutation."

I think one has to concentrate on the following gainstage as well Rich. That is the key. When one compares those two stages vs the best external active preamp, one then has an apple to apple comparison. One cannot leave out the gainstage following the tvc and have a fair comparison.

"Sonic Euphoria autoformer attenuator was reviewed by "Bound for Sound" to sound marginally better than Steve's 10A. There is certainly merit in that approach when only attenuation is desired."

I was surprised how good a complete preamp, with active gainstage, sounded compared to just a volume control, the following gainstage (in the amp) left out. Martin mentioned it was  apples to oranges comparison.

"Sorry for the length."

No problem with the length. Good discussion.

If I can add my 2 cents....

To me, the replication of a straight wire  is a nice philosophy, but in reality, it is rarely what is actually desirable. WAAAAY less than even a few % of the hardcore audiopohiles have associated components that when used together are even close to neutral..

Next, a true straight wire will not be sterile - it will be neutral.

Lastly, the idea that one can put together a system of all neutral components and that should be the ideal is just not realistic - sorry.  First there are budgetary issues - 'nuff said.  Then there is the rest of reality.  Most people have rooms that will better support one sort of speaker or another.  Placement is compromised and almost always will be.  So, now we have a suboptimal pair of speakers set up suboptimally in a suboptimal room.

Now, maybe in hopes of getting something that works better in that room, we've selected something that places special requirements on the amplifier (the interfaces and interactions between an amp and different speakers is an entire 'nother subject).  Let's say that in order to get the best imaging, we've compromised optimal room coupling - or we have one that is a very reactive load - or dips down to 2+ohms in places.  So, now we select an amp that will really grab hold of the bottom end, is stable down to those loads, and has that nice 'solid bottom end' (another eupony for sure - but again, realistic).

So now, we have a less than 'wire with gain' amp, driving speakers that aren't set up perfectly for everything (impossible), in a room that isn't built for audio, and....  well, you get the point.

Now, after all that, why is the preamp so special that it shouldn't be used to 'tune' the overall system performance?  Is it the 'royalty' of the system that deserves special treatment?  I think not.

What I think some are saying (I could be totally wrong) is that IF we can have a neutral preamp, then we should be better able to find sources that have the sound we want in our systems and we should be better able to find amps that interact optimally with our speakers.

Personally, I find the 1,000s (10,000?) of possibilities of component combinations daunting.
How could I ever find the combination that will make ME happy?
For this reason I like it when reviewers* and forum members, that seem to have similar tastes as myself, have the same amp/speakers/CD player/preamp (pick one or two) as myself. Then when they try new components with the one that I own, their experience can help narrow down the field for me and it may just be a placebo, but it has worked out good more often than it has failed.


as always YMMV,
Lin :)

NOTE: the word "IF" is a big word.......and sorry for the OT.
*BFS is one that comes to mind, I have really liked every thing I have bought from Marty's recommendations, even so, we do disagree sometimes :duh (single drivers and tube amps :drool: for example).

OK, now I'm starting to get it.  [-o< Thank goodness.  The idea is to pile as much of the voltage gain in the system into one box which is highly optimized for that purpose. This will reduce distortion compared to what cost and space-compromised source output stages can provide. A single, dedicated gain circuit is more efficient in price/performance than the circus we have now, with layers of compromise (CD player volume controls) stealing the thunder of the preamp and hurting system performance.  Eliminate as much of the poor sounding gain in the system as possible and move it to a clean sounding active preamp. With sources relieved of gain (and attenuation) duty, they can focus only on sounding good at 0.5Vpp with moderate output impedance.

Preamps fed by sources with compromised high gain output stages and built in volume control pots must add pleasant distortion to paint over the less pleasant sounds coming from the source. But when the preamp is voiced to sound 'good' on all sources, then details are lost with the intentional blurring of added pleasant distortion whether resonance, harmonic distortion or EQ filtering. If the source signal can be cleaned up by removing the source's output stage which is necessarily compromised by cost and space then the system's active preamp can be rid of its 'voicing' compromise and offer low distortion gain and preserve detail.

So, is the simple solution to this to bypass the output gain stages of our sources as done by many digital source modders and run them into a transparent active preamp? It is starting to make more sense to me. Thanks Steve, that is great idea to think about. You really are a voice in the wilderness though aren't you?
Rich

OK.  Then I'm getting more confused.  If we're shooting for only one gain stage, then the preamp should provide zero gain - correct?  The amp will always provide gain - that's it's purpose.

Bryan

You're right Bryan, but you're still hung up on that pesky reality. You gotta get over that and demand perfection where it is completely impossible!!  :rofl:  Decent audio power amps are pretty transparent, even at relatively low prices because they are focused on low distortion amplification as their purpose. Preamps are focused on changing the signal to make it sound better, and sources use gain which sounds worse than what the dedicated preamp would do. The goal would be to eliminate those problems by making the preamp the voltage gain. From reading Steve's white papers, I believe he is suggesting that the preamp would be the ideal voltage gainer to maximize S/N and low distortion in the critical voltage gain. Then the power amp would provide only current to power mechanical speakers which need watts. Steve says that what we think of as power amps, actually have a preamp stage built in when they ad 26dB of voltage gain. They should ideally by focused on being a current gaining powersupply to be modulated by ultra precise full voltage signal from the preamp.  In that case though, pre would need to make 60dB+, is that practical? I guess mc phono and ribbon microphone preamps already do it with nice results, but not outputting the kind of absolute voltage that a current only power amp would need (60V?). Changing the low voltage interconnect from pre to amp into high voltage signal would lower noise and lower the cost too, but better shielded wires would be needed from source to preamp with no source output stages. So in today's reality a power amp sharing the gain seems to make sense as long as it is low distortion, not trying to mess with the signal transparency. That's my take, and I am likely at least partly still confused but don;t know it, so take it FWIW.. I hope Steve will chime in here and correct me.

Quote from: bpape on July 04, 2007, 09:34:56 AM
OK.  Then I'm getting more confused.  If we're shooting for only one gain stage, then the preamp should provide zero gain - correct?  The amp will always provide gain - that's it's purpose.

Bryan

As you know, if we take the source's output, we need x amount of gain for our system to reach full volume.
Traditionally part of the gain was in the active preamp (which provides switching and volume control) and part was in the amplifier.
Now many companies are putting all of the gain in the amplifier, which is now an integrated amp by definition, even though it may not have source switching or a volume control. Many companies try to lead us to believe they have eliminated a gain stage because no active (gain) preamp is required, but the gain is in the amplifier. How good is the added gain stage(s) compared to a good active pre?
Same with the source, say a CD player that puts out 2 volts, if the gain in the output is eliminated we now need an active preamp to drive the amplifier to full power, again how good is the extra gain in the CD player compared to an active preamp?

Lin


Steve or anyone, feel free to point out any errors (if any) in the above comments. :roll:

Can the "integrated preamp" contained in a modern power amp provide as good signal as a dedicated pre when it shares its power supply with the output stage which is optimized for power? I guess they know what their doing, some modern amps sound pretty darn good  8)

Digital amps are interesting in this because they draw the high voltage speaker level waveform using the output device. Voltage and current created simultaneously, at least that's how I understand Hypex to work. There is an input buffer though.
Rich

Quote from: opnly bafld on July 04, 2007, 08:40:23 AM


For this reason I like it when reviewers* and forum members, that seem to have similar tastes as myself, have the same amp/speakers/CD player/preamp (pick one or two) as myself. Then when they try new components with the one that I own, their experience can help narrow down the field for me and it may just be a placebo, but it has worked out good more often than it has failed.


I see this as one of the true values of our forums  8)! Especially when you know how one (or more) of our members 'hears' what they are listening to. This knowledge can help one build a list (or weed one out) of possible candiates, for new equipment or accessories.

Maybe even limiting 'Nervosa' and potentially finding 'Nirvana'  :lol:!

A real purist approach, is to have as few gain stages as necessary to achieve the desired volume with the speakers you own in your listening space. Usually, this means a total of around 32-35db (certainly no more than 40db). Usually, this can be accomplished with (3) stages. It is desireable to have the first stage (pre-amp) separated from the driver stage and output stage with it's own power supply to minimize feedback; distortion; and other nasties, as Steve pointed out.

What I was pointing out (I think) is that in most of today's equipment, we are getting high gain from our digital source (some dacs put out as much as 8 volts; at least 2V) and from amplifiers that have as high as 30db of gain in and of themselves (requiring only maybe .7V to 1V to reach full power). All or most of the gain is in the wrong place, and maybe not of the highest quality

Regardless of that, however, and IMHO, a pre-amp is still beneficial in that it 'conditions' the system and drives the cables and amplifier much better than a CD player or dac can. (or a tuner or video player or tape deck, or even a phono amp)

Ralph Karsten's amps (Atmasphere) for example, have only one gain stage. I'm not sure about Steve's amps...but my guess is that they have only one also. Gain is added in the (separate) preamp.

Most of us who use preamps don't need all the gain they provide....but the system benefits from the buffering and current- drive they provide.

My amp has around 26db of gain. It will play loud enough with my CD player and a passive volume control. However, the performance is not satisfactory. Tonally, it was okay..not great, but okay. But the system lacked dynamic ability and definition. For background music it would have been okay. But there was simply no 'life'. There is no way I would give up a preamp. (Besides, I have multiple sources, so I'd need a selector anyway)

WEEZ

60db Rich? :shock:  Nah......

Very nice post WEEZ.
Digital devices IMO could sound better if they had less output and left that to a preamp.
I don't, for the most part, think that will happen (although there are a few that have less than 2v).

Steve's amp has 2 gain stages, requires 3.5v to reach full power and provides approx. 12 dB of gain.

Lin

Yup, 60 is a lot. I was including the gain in the source output stage because Steve had mentioned that is misplaced. Obviously 26dB power amp and 20dB preamp is a lot of gain already.

I get a pretty nice presentation, tone, dynamics and aliveness with no preamp. I have had active preamps in the system and they sometimes add positively, sometimes negatively. It is a slight coloring at most. Stereofool's AR Ref 1 has been the nicest visitor yet. The big change is when a good source is put in place of my stock SB.

"Can the "integrated preamp" contained in a modern power amp provide as good signal as a dedicated pre when it shares its power supply with the output stage which is optimized for power? I guess they know what their doing, some modern amps sound pretty darn good"

See my theory page http://www.sasaudiolabs.com/theory8a.htm
"Interstage Sonic Feedback Thru the Power Supply"

With more stages in the amp, integrated amp increases the feedback problem through the power supply between more stages. Placing more gain, more stages in the preamp gainstage automatically causes more problems as well. Sharing seems to be the best solution.

Think this. Lower the gain in the integrated amp by eliminating the preamp stage and dedicating its own high quality power supply, with no compromises. Now eliminate the crappy analog stage from the CD player. What do we have?
One added a super quality preamp stage, one less crappy gainstage in the amp, and one less crappy gainstage in the dac or player. Overall, one less stage of gain with the other gainstage with better quality.

Lin explained things quite nicely.

"You really are a voice in the wilderness though aren't you?"
Well I guess so. I don't know if manufacturers just didn't think things through, or whether the bottom line was more important.

"Digital amps are interesting in this because they draw the high voltage speaker level waveform using the output device. Voltage and current created simultaneously, at least that's how I understand Hypex to work. There is an input buffer though.
Rich

Just be careful of any interference generated? My understanding is that many, if not all brands of digital or pulse width modulation, had real problems with interference getting into all components in the audio system. Imo, unless they can get the problem under control, I would avoid them like the plague.

Ps. Make one or more components adjustable, so one can have what they want. Neutral/organic for some, even more organic for others, leaner for others. It is a win situation for most consumers. Vauhn amps do this as well as my test amp (which hasn't been sold in 4 years). Maybe others do as well.

Rich, 60 db is rather high and one would have multiple stages in the preamp, so the same frequency dependent feedback power supply problems would result as if they were in the amp. Share the gain, so maybe 14db gain or so in the amp, 23db in the preamp, none from the dac if possible. That way, the physical size of each component remains manageable, each stage can have its own power supply, and each stage of gain is optimized. Just a thought.

Let's see - wire test.  I did mine straight from the source to the Red Wine amps, which have dual DACT attenuators.  Since the 11A sounds like "nothing", I would think this a valid test.

It's interesting to me that the overall tone is leaning toward "the unfiltered truth is better" side, with the alternative being syrupy coatings which necessarily obscure detail.  Tone and detail are not mutually exclusive.  A speaker cable comparison may exhibit this dichotomy but don't assume this is a universal rule.

Of course going too far into euphony will create this result.  As I have observed previously, depending on which DAC I'm using, I may favor a different equipment arrangement even using the same cabling and speakers.

I agree with Brian's observations completely.

I spent a good amount of time with a $200k system comprising near-zero-distortion components and speakers.  The result was sterile and completely unhuman.

I had a preamp with no voice for about 2 years.  What I found was that the amplifier alone was insufficient to get where I thought the appropriate degree of saturation was for my system.  Going back to a color-enhancing tube preamp has brought "the love" back in spades and I couldn't be happier.

Quote from: miklorsmith on July 05, 2007, 07:39:19 AM
Tone and detail are not mutually exclusive. 

Amen.  That's the trick in my mind.  Get something that still gives you the detail you want (but not unnatural detail) and still provide the smooth, somewhat warm sound that you get from a live session.  Have you ever heard a sterile, cold, uber-detailed live performance?  I haven't.  Live music has soul and body as long as it's not being performed in a glass room or something silly like that.  Unfortunately, most commercial recordings don't capture that - a very few do.

Now, if someone could come up with a 'warm' tone control that'd be the ticket.  :duh

Bryan

"It's interesting to me that the overall tone is leaning toward "the unfiltered truth is better" side, with the alternative being syrupy coatings which necessarily obscure detail.  Tone and detail are not mutually exclusive.  A speaker cable comparison may exhibit this dichotomy but don't assume this is a universal rule."

"Of course going too far into euphony will create this result.  As I have observed previously, depending on which DAC I'm using, I may favor a different equipment arrangement even using the same cabling and speakers."

I agree, it depends on the amount of coloration.

"Let's see - wire test.  I did mine straight from the source to the Red Wine amps, which have dual DACT attenuators.  Since the 11A sounds like "nothing", I would think this a valid test.

How did I know with such certainty that you would use this procedure? Anyway, the way you performed the test is not an accurate test. I know you don't understand why, but it would be better if you just let it go.

"I spent a good amount of time with a $200k system comprising near-zero-distortion components and speakers.  The result was sterile and completely unhuman."

Two comments. One, what is your definition of sterile? I like my instruments/voices to sound real, just as if one were present. Of course, many CDs/players won't give that sound. But that is my goal. I find nothing sterile about a live conversation.

Second, if the $200k system sounded sterile, either your definition is different than mine, or the system is not accurate, and is actually not a "wire" with gain. Remember, they also just 'voice', so they can be off just as much as any other component.

"I had a preamp with no voice for about 2 years.  What I found was that the amplifier alone was insufficient to get where I thought the appropriate degree of saturation was for my system.  Going back to a color-enhancing tube preamp has brought "the love" back in spades and I couldn't be happier."

I am glad a "colored" preamp brought your system back to life. However, you actually have no fool proof way of knowing if the preamp had "no voice", the rest of your system is off, or if the preamp with no voice was actually sterile with your replacement actually being correct; since you have no foundation, any fool proof reference to rely upon.

Ps. Bpape, I think we are thinking the same thing. Natural, detail yet organic as well.

All the earlier comments were that listeners couldn't tell whether the 11A was in the system or not.  If it sounds like "amp direct", that's no sound and my test was fine.  Your response here is extremely condescending.

My previous pre was a TacT, digital-out to a few different DACs which drove the amps.  Everything "worked" perfectly, but overall I needed more color.

According to the Stereophile measurements, the Lamm LL2 Deluxe has a noticeable 2nd order harmonic distortion presence into a 20 Kohm load, which the RWA amps are.  Into higher impedances typical of tube amps, distortion goes down significantly which theoretically would get the pre more out of the way.  It seems this way to me, going between the Red Wine and Yamamoto SET amps.

I think we all agree by our participation in this hobby that a low distortion system is desireable. Within that envelope there are many choices, which sound very different. The rest of the system will have a big impact on the sound, preamp is important but not the sole determiner of distortion level. Even high end speakers are frequently 3% and higher.

The reason for the stereo is to feel emotion on demand.  It is a joy button. Anything that reduces the amount of joy you feel while listening to the musician's emotional message is distortion. Emotion is the core of the music, not sound. A syrupy SET can evoke as much emotion as a krell amp with the appropriate use. A ML preamp is lower distortion then VTL 7.5 but sounds very different. One who loves the ML would probably hate the VTL and certainly vice versa (I am biased like my tubes.)

We know that "audio" (mechanical/electrical/acoustical systems) is the medium that transmits the feeling from band to listener, but the part of audio that we can measure has no parameters related to emotion. So if the goal of building a system is to enjoy music, then we can't measure a system's or a component's ability to enable that by using traditional bench test performance specs. Those can only judge the circuit as if it were a contest to hold the record for best spec and nothing about the feeling that can flow through that circuit. That is fine for DIYaudio.com types, who love cloning old SS amps for fun, but it is not valid evaluation for music loving listeners.

A live performance is not sterile, and I think any deviation from that feeling you get at a concert is distortion. I agree that the direct connection doesn't match the feeling of a preamp in practice, but if you are a bench test guy, a preamp is counter intuitive. Adding a box that claims as good as a straight wire is a paradox, and yet it is considered essential by experienced audiophiles. Steve proposed that preamp love which sounds different from straight wire is due to a preamp designer deliberately juicing up the sound. His theory makes sense to me so I'm plunging in, hope not to hit my head on the bottom. :) I'm certain that within the school of minimal voicing there are preamps that can transmit the soul and feeling intact, just as well if not better than those preamps which are highly voiced for pleasure. I want to be able to choose my feeling and timing of pleasure without a layer of mayonnaise on there whether I like mayonnaise or not.

If one preamp is voiced to sound ballsy but smooth, how will it play music that is quirky and delicate? Neutral makes the most sense, and to me that means lowest distortion on the bench and in feeling.

I'm starting to think that the preamp has become technically unnecessary, but ironically it remains the reason we build the rest of the system. It's like it has an invisible cable connected in the back that says "Pleasure Input" which connects to the soul of the music. If it is a simple as that, and if we wish to give that acknowledgement of artistic mastery to our favorite preamps designers, I'm all for it. I don't care what mental system I find to meaningfully evaluate preamps, as long as it works and makes a little bit of sense to me, which shouldn't be too hard.

I for one am curious about your testing procedure, Steve. It would be very valuable to know how a component could be legitimately compared to straightwire, if it is a straightforward technique that can be described in words. I know some artistic processes are not always describable. Since Mike has tried to do this before, perhaps not to your method, maybe he would appreciate learning your method too? :)  One thing we do try avoid on AN is suggesting to drop it, although I don't think you meant it that way based on your extremely supportive and helpful previous responses. We like to explore and learn from each other most of all. That's why we're not afraid to drop trou and embarass ourselves with dumb annoying questions, same thing, over and over, about preamps, ohmygod not again...  :roll:  Well, at least that's true for me... :) hahaaha
Rich

If you're dropping trou, I'm leaving...  :shock:

Bryan

Hi Rich, Mike,

First off, we need him on the record with as much detail as possible. I don't want any after the fact, changing story, surprises.

So tell me if I am wrong Mike. You listened, disconnected the preamp, and connected the player directly to the amp and listened again. Any and all detail would be welcome.

I asked to drop it so as no damage, or minimal damage would be done. In a week or so, no one will remember this string anyway. But that decision is yours.


I agree Bpape. Any dropped trou and I am gone.

Quote from: steve on July 05, 2007, 12:04:06 PMFirst off, we need him on the record with as much detail as possible. I don't want any after the fact, changing story, surprises.

So tell me if I am wrong Mike. You listened, disconnected the preamp, and connected the player directly to the amp and listened again. Any and all detail would be welcome.

I asked to drop it so as no damage, or minimal damage would be done. In a week or so, no one will remember this string anyway. But that decision is yours.

"We" need "him" on the record?  Is that "you" referring to me?  If so, you're doubting my honesty and laying the strategy bare of how you might trap me in half-truths or outright lies.

I sincerely hope I misread this.  If not, I'm out of this discussion and I guarantee it isn't something I'll forget in a week.

Nope, no trou - I promise. Figure of speech. You guys are tough! I better start proofreading or my foot in mouth disease will show.

I hope this thread is still going in a week! There is a lot to talk about preamps if we can keep it constructive.

Steve, please describe your testing procedure to compare a component to straight wire? That's more helpful than knocking Mike's way which is just common sense and something anyone would try without knowing a better way. Thanks!
Rich

I always used to think that a neutral preamp meant that it would sound sterile,bland and uninspiring but now i realize that it is just a clearer less colored pathway between myself and the music. in fact it takes me deeper into the music and allows me to enjoy it even more. if a preamp or system for that matter sounds sterile there is something wrong and it is not really Neutral. thanks....WCW III

Bunky, I happen to agree. :)

WEEZ

"Steve, please describe your testing procedure to compare a component to straight wire? That's more helpful than knocking Mike's way which is just common sense and something anyone would try without knowing a better way. Thanks!
Rich"

"I have tried to be relatively kind asking at least twice now, to just let it go. But he won't. In fact he has outright said from the beginning my multiple methods of testing and correlating (even though he doesn't know what they even are) are nonsense. How does one condemn something before one even knows what it is??

At first Mike's test looks good, but it is not accurate.

The process he describes is disconnecting the preamp from the system, then reconnecting the source directly to the amp and comparing.

Did he match the volumes? I assume, hope he did, but how accurately? Hopefully close.

When he disconnected the preamp, he eliminated an IC. Right there is a problem, maybe major problem.

What about the differences the source sees from the two different components, both resistive and capacitive?

That simplified, basic test is not nearly rigorous enough for the results to be meaningful. I just pointed out a couple of flaws right there.

I will not be giving my methods for several reasons.

First, I am getting tired of giving and giving and nothing in return, say from my white papers. In fact, some companies have stabbed me in the back. A worker deserves to be compensated.

Second, why should I give competitors information freely, that took years to develop and work out? They shill against me as it is.

Anyway, my suggestion to Mike is, just drop it.

Bunky, you are right. How can a neutral and accurate sounding be called sterile? But over the years I have seen definitions change esp, on some forums (not this or AC). An integrated amp is advertised as having just a passive preamp. I guess the active preamp gainstage disappeared. Pretty clever, deceiving that a stage has been eliminated when they just renamed it.
Pretty clever.

By the way, do I take Mike's comment that he won't forget in a week as a threat? Yet he put down my procedures from the very start (as if he is above all) and I did not threaten him. I just posted my findings of the Mod via my own multiple procedures. 

When I started this thread over (4) months ago, I said it would either be interesting...or it would fizzle.  :) I, for one, find the discussions interesting as long as they can remain civil. And while conflict may be interesting to some...it is not to this moderator. Nothing constructive can come from it. :?

Let's everybody keep their pants on :lol:, and discuss the merits (or lack of) of preamps and how they either help your system or not; what you like or don't like; etc.

It is clear that most of the posters to this thread use one (except Double Ugly...you there Jim?) so we have that in common. (Oh yeah, and Rich is on the fence :-P)

Thanks,

WEEZ

I had a response typed out, then saw WEEZ' last message.  I've toned it down considerably, to this:

Steve, you impugne my intelligence, then honesty, then accuse ME of not "letting it go"?  You say I've called your testing methodology "nonsense", though that's your word and I've said nothing of the sort.  

On preamps, I like what sounds good to me.  Terminology like "neutral", "colored", whatever, means different things to each listener.  We could all listen to the same system and come out with as many opinions as attendees.  It's possible my rich, tonal colors mean "neutral" to someone else.  That person may say the system I'd describe as "neutral" is bleached and underdeveloped tonally.  Why?  Our experiences are different, as well as our understandings of terms which are not standardized in any way.

What I'm saying is that ultimately we may all be saying the same thing, but getting wrapped around the axle over terminology and experience.

Quote from: WEEZ on July 05, 2007, 03:18:00 PM
When I started this thread over (4) months ago, I said it would either be interesting...or it would fizzle.  :) I, for one, find the discussions interesting as long as they can remain civil. And while conflict may be interesting to some...it is not to this moderator. Nothing constructive can come from it. :?

Let's everybody keep their pants on :lol:, and discuss the merits (or lack of) of preamps and how they either help your system or not; what you like or don't like; etc.

It is clear that most of the posters to this thread use one (except Double Ugly...you there Jim?) so we have that in common. (Oh yeah, and Rich is on the fence :-P)

Thanks,

WEEZ

:yay2: :yay2: :yay2: TUBE PREAMP'S RULE! :yay2: :yay2: :yay2:

"Steve, you impugne my intelligence, then honesty, then accuse ME of not "letting it go"?  You say I've called your testing methodology "nonsense", though that's your word and I've said nothing of the sort."

This is what you stated on page 3:
"Theory?  Sure.  Reality/experience?  No." You did not even know my testing methods, yet you dismissed my results in no uncertain terms. You could have at least asked for my procedures at that point before a radical dismissal.
 
"On preamps, I like what sounds good to me.  Terminology like "neutral", "colored", whatever, means different things to each listener.  We could all listen to the same system and come out with as many opinions as attendees.  It's possible my rich, tonal colors mean "neutral" to someone else.  That person may say the system I'd describe as "neutral" is bleached and underdeveloped tonally.  Why?  Our experiences are different, as well as our understandings of terms which are not standardized in any way."

I thought we agreed that natural, neutral means what the instrument/voice sounds like live?
I thought I made it perfectly clear that a wire with gain means that the music is not altered in anyway as it "passes through". (How can one articulate so the public understands when definitions are constantly changed?)

"What I'm saying is that ultimately we may all be saying the same thing, but getting wrapped around the axle over terminology and experience."

Could be, but the whole "discussion" started when I posted my results that the Mod is not a straightwire with gain but sterile vs a wire.

Mike, I still wish you the best on your new endeavor.

Mike,

You are quite possibly correct. We may all be describing the same thing using different words. In the end, it's all about the music anyhow. It's just interesting to read about the many different paths we have travelled to reach the same goal. And I, for one, think there are many paths.  8)

Steve,

I understand why you don't wish to give away trade secrets. You would be foolish to do so. And any questions asked here regarding the testing you have done to come to your conclusions certainly did not have the intention of doing so, I am sure. :) We are not engineers, here, for the most part...just music lovers with an interest in the gear that helps to get us to the next level in our 'cure' for nervosa.

Don

I'm in the business.  I understand keeping secrets to one's self.  However, a testing method?  If the testing method is something that ALL of us could benefit from and would only surely in your opinion point us down the same path as you are going Steve, what is the harm?

Bryan

Quote from: bpape on July 05, 2007, 03:59:06 PM
I'm in the business.  I understand keeping secrets to one's self.  However, a testing method?  If the testing method is something that ALL of us could benefit from and would only surely in your opinion point us down the same path as you are going Steve, what is the harm?

Bryan

I think that Steve's methods might be proprietary to his SAS AudioLab's and as WEEZ pointed out a trade secret. a small company needs every edge it can get to stay competitive. thanks....WCW III

Yes, WEEZ, that's right. I only asked out of curiosity because the idea is cool and I do a lot of comparing thanks to the generosity of local friends letting me sample their stuff. I like to think I am not deluding myself when comparing things, but having an absolute reference is always a challenge.

Steve your answer is enough to get the jist of what your thinking about. Paraphrasing: 'Consider all the variables, try to eliminate them when possible. Don't use rubber wire.'   :lol:

:yay2:
Bunkerella? Bunkybabe? Bunkilicious? Bunky, since you two are so close, you really should have the privilege of naming our new Emmisary of Goodwill.

 :yay2: <-  Suzy Creamcheese  :drool:

Bouncing boobies might make me want to take my pants off and chase my wife around the house later :duh (just kidding...well, maybe not :rofl:)

...back to preamps.. :roll:

WEEZ

Thanks Weez, Rich, and others. I appreciate your comments and support. I am revising this post, and wanted you to see the kind of crap that happens behind the scenes to a manufactuer.

This is probably a rarity for most. I do want to say Bryan, good question, as I want to help the consumer, but not the back biting competitors.

Here is the link to a very interesting article:
http://www.boundforsound.com/reviews.htm#Truth

Alot of 'games', backbiting, and harm goes on behind the scenes that you may not be aware of Bryan. Most don't know what I am about to disclose because manufacturers just do not disclose this kind of stuff. What I am about to disclose is only a small portion.

About 8 years ago, I had a customer notify me that I had part of my webpage copied to a forum, with people attacking it. The webpage was just a simple amp I thought would be good for backround music, nothing special, but it was tube and customers did like the sound. I did not even know tubes were coming back, let alone DHT amps.

I responded to defend my simple amp. Well, I got as many as 35 email virus attacks in one day. Virus attacks have happened several times since, always whenever someone brings up my products. I am sure this sort of thing happens to others. But for awhile now, that has pretty much died out. I personally know another manufacturer left that forum after all the attacks on him. It was shill city, totally corrupt.

As one can see, I am definitely not part of the current establishment, those competitors who treat each other with silk gloves. Anyone outside that group gets the axe.

------------

Another time, a customer recommended my 10A when one was asking for recommendations. The post was deleted 1 1/2 days later. I posted and asked what happened to the ad. I was accused of grandstanding and that it was never posted. Other witnesses came forth and they were soundly denounced as well.

-----------

I have had two bad episodes with other reviewers. About 4 1/2 years ago, the first reviewer had a fellow reviewer offer a pitance for one of my products (he/she liked it that much) and a review was forth coming (shady deal the public does not know about.). When I declined and offered to pay shipping the demo pre back, the unit was returned in a single pristine box before I could send shipping money.

When I opened it up (front desk witness) the preamp was totally gutted, inside and outside.  A total loss. UPS sent the preamp back to the reviewer. I never saw it again. A few weeks later, I received a check from their attorney for the tiny pitance, after I complained.

------------

The second case, I was invited by gent X from Y magazine to demo my product for 2 different groups, in another state. (I had previously mentioned I did not want any reviewers, just consumers.) The night before I was to leave, X notifies me that he is a reviewer. Like an idiot, I went.

The listening room had a hardwood floor with one small throw down rug. The walls were bare, just a couch. It echoed like an empty old cube room. The system used an integrated amp, an active xover with gain, thru 20 feet of ICs to my preamp. Well, one can imagine how it sounded. Echo and noise in abundance. Afterall, the gain of the system was similar to using a phono stage, but without the RIAA equalization. So many stages it was impossible to actually hear how the component sounded.

When I arrived home sunday night, a review had already been written and posted at several forums. Of course it was not that good. How could anyone write a review with such a venue and system? The reviewer was obviously a shill. Reviewer X posted once or twice on the forum condemning another poster for his concern with the severe echo problem. To my knowledge, reviewer X never posted before or after on that forum. I also never sold another component in that area again.

------

Just a few examples of why I don't just give out critical info anymore. I have to keep the edge, or competitors, and shills will exploit me for all it is worth.

ps. This is no reflection on Mike. I am sure he wants only the best.

Ps. Maybe I should tell you about a gent who came over, pleading for me to fix a tube amp he couldn't make work. 'It was for his home'. Well, I fixed it in 20 minutes, and then he marketed that amp. Then he trashed me.

Oh God - now you guys are back to dropping trou!  :lol:

No offense meant Steve.  I just didn't see a testing methodology as a proprietary thing.

Edit: Steve posted while I was posting...

Sorry to hear about all that Steve.  We're not quite so hardcore here - we are just serious nut cases but somewhat under control.  I understand your hesitence.  I also understand to a point your methodology hard as it may be to replicate.

Bryan

This is a tough business. With the love I have for this hobby I should have started a business in it myself by now because that's how I usually support my expensive hobbies. I saw right from the start that this one wouldn't work for me, because I have no chops to offer in creating something of value to a seasoned audiophile, and even if I did they are tough to please and fickle. I am my own worst example of fickleness. I give you a lot of credit for sticking with your passion over the years despite the challenges.

This forum is a safe place for audiophiles and manufacturers to meet and chat without fear of being harmed materially or egos bruised. Like WEEZ said it is really just about sharing how we enjoy music. We are really trying to keep it that way.  It is very cool to have a heavy hitter electronic designer on the forum, so I hope you will continue to make it a bad habit. :) Hopefully it will work out well for you and your business, too.
Rich

Thanks guys. I do love this hobby and if I had all the money in the world, I would be experimenting all the time. I would love to build my own recording studio just for the challenge. Of course the electronics would be all tube, and minimalistic, yet still get the job done.

I won't be going anywhere, love this hobby and forum too much.

Got some other ideas too, but still in thinking stage.

No problem Bpape. It took years to develop it; looking and testing for any flaws. I have to keep the edge, and this is a big edge. I can also test ICs.

Time for din din and rest.

wow - just found this thread - muy interesante  :!:

My tube amps have adjustable gain.....as I've dialed them down in gain over time, the system has improved immeasurably.  It took tube noise out (these were PA amps originally, so the tubes were likely not picked originally for quietness) and allowed the pre-amp to provide gain in my system.  All the better, in the end.

Great to hear more of Steve Sammet's thoughts and theories.....I always thought he 'pulled punches' too often over at AudioCircle.  Between virus attacks and other assorted screwings, now I understand why  8-[

John / TCG

Hi John,

     Looking back, it does seem somewhat humerous receiving virus attacks because I did not  use DHT tubes/NOS tubes. But then I guess I wandered into their 'territory' and am not an insider. Luckily, the virus attacks never affected operation though.

I think it is also interesting that some older coupling caps which sound close to a straightwire (when tested) aren't manufacturered/sold anymore, and have been replaced by  some highly touted 'colored' sounding caps (I haven't checked every cap yet). Some are redesigns, others are new product.

I thought the differences between the caps might be just minute changes, picky differences. Instead I was shocked by how far off they were. Pretty amazing. (One brand brightens the sound while another brand defocused the sound and plumped the bass.)

(There can be two different sets of parts. One is marketed to the consumer and one to the manufacturer. So DIY folks do not necessarily get the best parts, only what is offered. Only what parts work with certain tubes that are being pushed.)

This warps the way tubes are reported to sound. Unfortunately, it is the tubes that take the brunt of the criticism.

Of course, not every tube (new or nos) is good. There are differences to be sure. But imo one must not lump them all together, but rather rate them on an individual basis. Even then, I would take any reports on how any particular newer tube sounds with a grain of salt.