Yes, I was also floored by this news about Paul. He has emailed me offline and I have always found his posts thoughtful and friendly. Goodness we will miss him. My sympathy to his family. |
That being said, the LSA/Music Reference RM10 is about as good as it gets for $2,400 new as long as 35 watts is enough."
I bet this is a true statement based on my experience with both units and dependent on the speakers used.
Killer value on both items mentioned. |
Got it and understand it perfectly Georgelofi. Did this several times on past systems after reading about on A. Salvatore's site.
Tony (Clio09) - thanks again for letting me play with the LSA. Great fun and I always learn more. You are welcome anytime to my home and music room in Southern Minnesota!
Pubul57 - I also love my Atma-sphere amps! |
Money back trial? These passives have always disappointed me compared to a great active tube preamp. They tend to sound small, sterile and thin relative to a great tube active unit.
I have not heard this one, but have heard other highly touted ones. |
|
Love to put it up against my unit, but no trial.
Interesting posts however. |
I agree with Dividedebytube (interesting username)
Can this be used as part of a glorious active tube preamp? This would be the attenuater part? My very strong hunch is this unit will end up falling short of my current active tube preamp for the same reasons given by Fiddler. |
Actives can sound better to some because they like the change those tubes, caps etc give the sound. Yes, a good active tube preamp may in fact change the sound and that can be a great thing for some people.
Larger stage size, more romance, or even a greater sense of ease to the music can be (ADDED) by a tube preamp. Some like that. |
We are on the same page Pubul57. Your comments are well thought out and educational. |
I could agrue that a tone control does nothing for stage size or sense of scale and ease? So I guess tone controls in addition to the active preamp may be reasonable? Ha! |
Like your input George. I would love to try your preamp in my system and compare to my tube preamp. I can't believe I even said this as I am usually 100% against passives based on my experience with these in the past. It's just that several highly respected Agoners seem to think your $450 unit is the real deal giant killer. I have a gaint in my opinion :-)
I have found that my active tube preamp is not a tone control at all. Rather, compared to some nice passives I have tried, like Placette, my music has increased texture, body, stage size, layered holographic presentation and much improved sense of control and utter ease at any volume. All of this while being every bit as transparent.
These attributes have nothing to do with the simple attenuation of bass or treble as a tone control.
I may indeed compare soon. I just can't image a passive unit would match the attributes listed above. If so, your preamp is a wonderful value. |
Goodness that is funny stuff............. |
Scott, that would only be in a small room with highly efficient speakers. I assume that combo won't play at 95db in a larger room with speakers under 90 db efficient?
I also assume that combo would never have the dynamic impact of a more formidable set-up. Say 300-500 watt monoblock amps and an active tube preamp with killer drive and scale.
I must say this thread is interesting as I read about folks letting go of $18,000 preamps and the like. I have heard the RM10 and passives with 90db efficient speakers and while it sounded musical and very good the system was certainly dynamically limited in a medium sized room. I would certainly say it did not come close to approaching the impact and scale of live music or systems costing $20,000 with different gear.
My $8000 amp and pre combo does in my large room.
I have a question for you owners of this exciting volume pot. Will it work well on speakers that are 87 db efficient like Soundlab speakers and other ESL's? I say this assuming the amps are very powerful and the spec criteria mentioned by the poster are meet by the source unit and amps.
Last, this LS volume pot has no sound of it's own so I assume you hear the amp speaker combo and it's particular sonic signature and synergy? If so, an active preamp may well act like the hub or heart of a system bringing everything together the way the owner likes. Perhaps the speaker/amp synergy is just a little shy of perfect to the owners ears, thus the active pre is the crowning jewel or the cherry on top.
Ok, be kind to me as I am only trying open this up to all views and experiences. You guys have my attention on this thread. |
Scott, you agreed with me actually as I was talking about about the LS and RM10 combo of only 35 watts. The amps you mentioned are more powerful. |
Ok, one last question. If I run my CD player right into my amps, won't that damage the amps or speakers? When this is done will my system play at full volume? Half volume? I can't image playing at full volume as I never go past 1/3 or so right now - to loud!
I don't see how this "test" is possible with no volume control on my CD player. I have never tried anything like this so I may not understand. |
Thanks Tony,
My CD player is a Cary 306. It puts out 3V - higher then the 2V suggested in this thread.
I am checking on the output impedance from Cary. But my amps are the Samson's as you say and the 67k ohm figure seems low? George says the amp's input impedance should be higher then the preamp's output impedance. Even if the Cary is 100 ohms I may have a problem? I think I just figured it out - the "k"ohms on my amp are much higher then the ohms (not K) out of my CD player?
Sorry, but I am not a big spec guy :-) |
No, it is the recording my preamp has more fidelity to, not distortion etc... I have heard Van Morrison live on many an occasion and the weight and heft of his voice is missing on the LSA compared to the active.
Sorry, but them there are the simple facts in my system. |
Tony was very kind to let me play with his Lightspeed unit. I really appeciate his kindness. I will post comments once I have heard more kinds of music etc... |
I have had the fortune of playing with this Lightspeed preamp/attenuator over the past 10 or so days thanks to Tony (Clio09). Thank you Tony for giving me this great opportunity. I have tried several passive units in the past and the LSA is the best by a wide margin to my ears. At least in my present system which consists of the following;
Soundlab A3 speakers (modified and improved back-plates)
Atma-sphere MA-1 Version 3.1 amps with all possible options added
TRL modified Sony SACD player (battery powered DAC)
Fusion Romance IC’s/Enchanter power cable ( 1 meter IC’s)
TRL power and speaker cables
TRL Dude preamp
BPT 3.5 Ultra with all options on the Dude, Sony and SL speakers
I compared the LSA to my current TRL Dude preamp. The Tube Research Labs Dude is a tube preamp that is priced at $3600. I have written much about it here on the Gon including a full review.
Let me bottom line my conclusions on the LSA and how it compares to the Dude. First, my comments are based on my room and associated gear and system matching is always an important determinate to consider. I do feel the LSA worked very well and “fit” in my system.
The LSA is very clean and detailed with excellent dynamics and fast and deep bass. I am quite impressed with the LSA’s dynamic punch and speed. The stage size is very wide and reflects a recording with intended large stage size. If you desire transparency, then the LSA has that in spades. For $450 it is a very good buy indeed. I can’t imagine a preamp as good for the price. I certainly have not heard one.
In the end I could not live without the Dude and now have the LSA packed up and ready to send back to Tony. The Dude simply has more to offer the listener and to the recorded music. The LSA could not match the ease and finesse of the Dude. The Dude caused the music to swell and bloom with every turn of the volume. In fact, I found myself turning the music up more with the Dude and tapping my toe. The LSA tended to sound less at ease on loud music or when the music became more complex. I missed the foundation and body of instruments that the Dude revealed.
The vocals through the Dude had more throat and weight/body.
The LSA was more forward sounding with instruments coming forth with almost spooky intimacy. Fun to listen to and very impressive. The utter transparency is quite impressive to experience. The longer I listened the more I felt the music was a tad too forward and forced onto me. I wondered if the utter transparency was also linked to a slight stripping away of the deeper tones and resonances of the various instruments and voices in effect leaving the remaining music naked and bare to the listener. (compared to the Dude) I don’t know. Some will say the Dude is adding this texture and body to the music. I am not sure I agree, but I also realize all of us have different likes and priorities in the sound we enjoy.
I just attended a symphony recently and found the instruments did in fact have more of this deeper tone and meaty foundation.
The reader must keep in mind that my Dude preamp is the best sounding preamp I have yet to encounter and has bested many an expensive preamp costing up to $10,000. It has bested some of these by a wide margin.
I really enjoyed my time with the LSA and if I did not own the Dude I am sure I would be purchasing one. The Dude has spoiled me perhaps or perhaps it is the perfect mate to my particular set of ears and preferences. |
I forgot to add that my Soundlab speakers are very revealing and I would not consider them warm sounding. My Atma-sphere amps are also quite revealing and I would not consider them warm sounding. The LSA is also very revealing and with it in my system the net result may be to much of a good thing - transparency?
Just a thought.... |
I should also point out that the LSA is a champ at bringing all of the detail and parts of the music into the front row. I was hearing instument lines that on my Dude were more muted or set-back. Some may really like this. This is what really got my attention in the first hour or so of listening. |
"That to me is an indication of the LSA's transparency and faithfulness to the source, and a lack of transparency in The Dude. By transparency I am referring to lack or presence of coloration"
Let me further explain as I think my statement needs more context. I feel it is a matter of taste and not accuracy at all. The LSA plays the instruments more up front and forward - and I mean all of them! The instruments play on the same plane at the front of the speaker. Some may like this. However, to others it is a lack of 3D perspective or depth.
The Dude plays music with greater depth and not all the instruments play on the same forward plane. Some are more set back and not as "up front" on the performance stage. The performance has more perspective and depth. If the recording offers only a forward perspective for all the players, then the Dude reveals that. If the recording is more layered, then the Dude gives that deeper layered presentation.
I found the LSA made my favorite recordings all share that same forwardness for all the instruments. In other words, every recording began to take on the same personality with all the music coming from a plane at the front of the speaker. The whole of the music seemed to be traded off or lost as the vocals and instruments all competed for attention at the front of the stage.
When I attend a symphony or other great sounding live music events I hear instruments positioned differently on the stage with many of them at differing volume and intensity levels. The Dude seems to reflect that reality more. This is exactly what I mean in my statements above. To my ears, in my system, the Dude is every bit as transparent as the LSA, but the Dude seems to possess more fidelity to the space and dimension of the musical experience.
Rather than compare the two which only I can really do based on actual experience, I do find one topic very interesting. Some feel that an active preamp is adding warmth or coloration to obtain a richer sound that is somehow not really in the recording or live musical event. The conclusion given by those is that this richer sound experience is not as accurate or true to the recorded source. This can certainly be true of some active tube units, but not all.
In my experience live music delivers the whole of the instrument. Listen to a grand piano, cello, violin etc… or entire symphony in a great sounding venue and you will hear the rumble, resonance and totality of that instrument. You will hear the orchestra swell in full and rich momentum with a solid deep foundation underlying the whole musical event. Is that added? Is that coloration? I don’t think so. That is what I hear with the Dude. This is what I find missing with the LSA in comparison to the Dude. For me this is critical to reproduce in my home music system. Again, for me alone this is important and it may not be to others. Is a passive missing this part of the music? Is it missing what was intended to be there? Is it actually playing what is recorded and the recording does not sound like the live event? I suppose the last point is possible, but my desire is to hear instruments as they actually sound in a natural setting.
I am not sure a passive is by some mathematical or physical fact the best way to achieve live sound in our homes. Let’s face it; all gear and wire in our systems are reproducing or passing along electrical signals no matter the set-up; Active or passive, tube or SS, horn or ESL, simple or complex and on and on it goes. I don’t think that a passive or active unit is ALWAYS the definitive best means to hearing the wholeness of a musical event – not missing depth, bass foundation, warmth, dynamics, crashing of a cymbal etc…. I cannot accept a sweeping statement that passive units are the best means to live music recreated in our homes. They may be in a particular system to one person’s ears, but that’s about as far as we can take it.
Ok, have it Agoners! |
Perhaps the 2D forwardness speaks more to my system synergy then to anything else. This may well be the case as I have no way of really knowing.
Tvad's point is understood. I guess I always felt the point of a good stereo system was to recreate the sound of music as faithfully as possible to the source - human voice or instrument. I am suggesting a preamp/attenuator is indeed part of the path from recording to ears and always plays a role regardless of being active or passive. Since it will always play a role and has impact on a stereo's ultimate sound, then it's always a means to an end in a total system. The end is, for me, Van Morrison's voice sounding like Van Morrison, a piano sounding like a piano etc... |
Tvad, you understand me correctly. Sorry I should have been more clear perhaps. Further, so we can get on more common ground around this topic, I feel the software/recording used to judge accuracy should be one that is very close to live sound - a great recording. This gives a good base in which to judge the system. If I have heard a given brand/type piano in an intimate setting on many occasions I have a good sense of how its sound. When I listen to good recording of said piano on a system, I am in a good position to judge that system's accuracy.
If it sounds thin or lacks body, then I know that system is not getting it quite right in that particular area. I now understand this system will behave the same way on any recording regardless of the recording's quality.
A recording may be heavy laden with warmth and body, but this system will play it with less of those attributes and therefore not be true to the recording.
I have good recordings of piano and Van the Man and have seen both live on many occasions. Based on this I prefer one system over another. |
This is a great thread. Agear is spot on about the LSA or any passive /active preamp doing something to the sound as signal does flow though unit hardware and such :-)
The LSA was at 75% of full volume in my system to get 90db of sound as an FYI.
George, I don't doubt the LSA will sound very close to the Bolero test. Fact is I think it will. I am saying that this type of sound is not what I am looking for. I just have experienced an active preamp that makes my system sound more like live, natural and beautiful music. This is not possible (at my current level) without any preamp or with the LSA in my current system.The LSA is awesome in so many ways and a steal for the money.
I greatly respect what you have accomplished and know the LSA outperforms many a unit regardless of cost. I do however have an opinion about my experience with it in reference to my prefered active tube preamp. No, I don't think my active unit is adding anything. I really think it is giving me more of what I hear in live music and in my great recordings. Again, in my system as is.
I can't and don't make a blanket statements for all people, systems and rooms :-)
This little LSA is great fun and if my active did not steal my heart I would own one! |
Transparency means something far different to me. To me it has nothing to do with how the inclusion of a new piece of gear "changes" the resulting sound. That fact needs another word - not transparency IMHO. Transparency refers to how see through or clear the performance sounds without smear, distortion, obstruction of detail by noise etc. Two preamps introduced into a system may result in two different sounding systems both of which can be very transparent.
The Bolero test is simply ANOTHER SYSTEM and not a test for transparency my friends. Tvad's definition and explanation of transparency is completely true and understandable based on how he uses the word.
The preampless system is a STEREO SYSTEM with the purpose of reproducing music that sounds like, well, the "real thing". The real thing is the actual sound of the voice or instrument live or on a very well recorded vehicle.
To the extent a system does this, it is transparent and a clear view into the performance. A system without a preamp is still a system made up of several parts all working together to kick out the resulting sound. By simply removing a preamp one does not necessarily, in effect, get closer to the recording or to the sound of live music.
The two piece system of a source and amp is not necessarily more true to the source or live event. In fact, based on my experience it is missing a piece in the sound reproduction chain of a stereo system that seems to be the heart of a live sounding & natural sound system. What I have termed the "heart" of the system - an active preamp. This has been my experience thus far. I do think it is possible to get the "real thing" with an LSA or no preamp, but that is absolutely system dependent.
A CD player pushing signals out to an LSA or directly to an amp is a system that has a sound and personality that may or may not be transparent or reflective of live music.
Another example - A crossover is part of the sound reproduction system. By removing it one does not automatically get sound that is more transparent or live sounding. Some argue it is, but just like the active preamp question it is still a matter to judge at the end of the system chain - a set of ears in a listening chair. The piano either faithfully reproduces the full sound of that piano (transparent - clear window) or not.
Ok, that is my take on this and why the Bolero test is interesting, but really not much beyond that. |
Thanks all for the great thread of life here. Van the Man has the same hefty and full bodied voice on all of his last CD's recorded over the past 20 years or so. I simply don't get that or the 3D stage of the recording or live performance with the LSA as much as the Dude. But the Dude is that 1% that may in fact do it better! Ha!
Really, I do think my system is a best/great match for the LSA. My speakers are so very hard to drive with an impedence curve from a low of 2 ohms all the way up to 35 ohms in the bass. It is hard on my OTL amp! Fact is I need more power.
I would welcome the opportunity to bring my Dude over one of your home's with a great LSA matching system and do the A/B. I am most interested in your take away from that experience.
Ok, any takers? I live in Southern ,MN. |
I do want my system to sound like the natural sound of an instrument or voice un-amplified electronically. A piano for example is the most difficult to get right. That is where I really miss the weight and scale on the LSA as well as large Orchestral works. Even Van the Man and other live events can and do sound great at the right venue. The PA comment does not always define the sound of live music as we know.
I hope to bring my 40 pound active, looks like an amplifier active, to someone's LSA friendly and smokin system soon. |
I have one comment or concern that I see in this otherwise great thread. It seems when one person has a different experience or opinion on this preamp their comments are dismissed and marginalized very quickly by some.
The reason must be system match or how the amp was made etc…but rarely is it simply accepted that another actually preferred the other preamp in a side by side test.
I can tell you the Samson amps by TRL do have the input impedance spec mentioned already. I can tell you I tried the Lightspeed with Atmasphere Ma1’s that have an input impedance of 100K ohms. My comments match those of Knghifi very closely. Our fine tube units simply performed better to our ears with no other reason than our own ears and likes.
This is OK right? The Lightspeed is also a good preamp, but won’t win every a/b shootout right?
Your thoughts? |
Clio09 is certainly most open minded and fair. Pubul57 has also been fair. I suppose the builder is the one I was thinking about. I was careful in my post not to point the finger at all. Good little preamp and has gone head to head and won some impressive battles against great preamps.
I think my post does reflect truth based on reading this thread. I just wanted to bring out a concern and understand not all are quick to cry "foul" when the Lspeed is not champion.
I have read about the conditions that must be met and when they are and the Lspeed shows well, but does not win, the comments about bad synergy still come.
George, you still question the input impedance on the Samson amp and still say NO. Oh well. My point exactly. |
|
Fiddler, I am not whining at all but making a reasonable point. Sorry you are upset. I am not talking about cheerleading at all and want to hear it when someone has found a great piece.
Seems I am being attacked for no real reason by you. That is to bad, as I simply tried to broaden the scope of discussion by pointing a real tendency to "blow off" comments by some based on the general "bad synergy" catch all. This has not been done by all, but by some. It happened to me and Knghifi when we reported our findings in an open and honest manner.
Both our amps were well over 47k and we used a digital source with plenty of output.
My comments have nothing to do with "mine is best" but points out that some have had good synergy and while liking the Lspeed preferred their current preamp.
You can quote my gear praises all day if you like, but you are off point.
I am talking about honest dialogue here and not about product cheerleading. I would have not posted a thing if the builder did not quickly run to the catch all "bad synergy" comment on Knghifi's Samson amp. According to the amp's spec it is indeed good synergy. I simply want accurate and productive discussion that is open to the facts.
I have stated and state again that the Lspeed is a wonderful buy and a great value. I am not trying to hurt it's reputation or upset owners. Seems my point is clear and I am sorry if you misunderstand. |
Fair enough Clio09. I agree with your thoughts and let’s move on. I and Knghifi were not attacked and I did overstate that a bit. Ya, I did purchase the preamps in the threads you posted. Liked them both. I will always tell the Agon community of gear I find to be awesome as time goes by.
Please understand that one can reasonably take the comments of the Lightspeed builder as implying, if not directly stating, a match/impedance issue was present This is especially true when the owner gave the spec asked for and it was still questioned?
That is the way I read it, but the Lightspeed builder may well be confused on the amp in question and really having trouble understanding how it has the spec confirmed by Knghifi. This is certainly possible. |
Georgelofi, I did check my facts. I said my Atmasphere MA1 amps were 100K? Please read above. I said Knghifi's Samson
amps were over 47K and just as Knghifi stated - 68K.
I never said the Samson amps were 100K. Not sure where you got that George. You simply confirmed what I, Agear and Knghifi have already said. |
Georgelofi, I think you misread my comments and want to clarify for you. You stated;
“Grannyrig check your facts before you double swear it was 100k input.”
I actually said this;
“I can tell you the Samson amps by TRL do have the input impedance spec mentioned already. I can tell you I tried the Lightspeed with Atmasphere Ma1’s that have an input impedance of 100K ohms”
As you can see I said the Atmasphere amps had a 100K input impedance, not the Samsons. The input impedance that Knghifi mentioned was 68K and I referred to it. I and others simply stated it was higher then 47K.
Hope this helps clarify. |
Pubul57 - Seems I have written pages :-) on this yet no understanding of my point? It may be impossible and that's OK!
A "direct connection" as you say, is as I say, just another STEREO SYSTEM and produces a sound of its own. Direct connection from CD player to amp is not, as another has stated here, the GOLD STANDARD, it is simply another way to hear music out of a stereo system. A CD player driving amps is still a stereo system that does or does not reproduce the voice or instrument accurately to the recording or live event. The END result (sound) of a system is the proof. I and others suggest a passive unit "can" or "sometimes" can, depending on the total system, fail to pass along the recording with a sound that is true to the source. This can also be true of an active unit.
Many folks far more educated then me on audio circuits and recording practices will wax poetically why DAC's/CD players etc.. are an insufficient means to pass along the signal to an amp with only a passive in the chain. Meaning the resulting sound may lack in areas as the system simply lacks the horsepower needed to convey the energy and space of live music and great recordings. I don't want to argue that and all the math and audio geek talk that goes with it. I do know what I hear however in my system. It is not added coloration; it is in fact hearing MORE of the recording as intended with my active in place.
One reason may be as simple as my active Dude preamp has all the lows, all the highs, all the transparency, and depth of field and soundstage width simply because it actually amplifies ALL that is there and does not mask as has been implied. Amplifying the low-level stuff, stuff that might not get through (stage depth & other nuances) is important and not insignificant as we know. Is it possible a great active can get more of this information by way of design then a passive? At least as much? Seems reasonable to me.
Just trying for us to see with a broader view that sweeping comments about one type of design being the GOLD STANDARD may be a little narrow?
Next please….
|
Knghifi, I made the exact same point on this thread a while back. I follow what you are saying and it strikes me as the correct way to look at this. This is a very interesting discussion and the main reason I keep looking at this thread.
I tried the Lightspeed and found my active preamp to be more "accurate" to the recording. I am very intrigued with this debate and hope it continues.
I am certain my preamp is not adding distortion or fuzz or any additional "stuff" unless my hearing is not as good as I think :-)
Things like stage depth, dimensionality, micro details, tone etc... make a stereo system sound more like music and more like a wonderful recording. Not sure distortion of any kind would ever help these things? The active delivered this better in my set up.
I bet a passive does this better in some systems. The reason - because the music that emerges from a stereo system is the sum of ALL the parts. |
Perhaps a good way to look at this topic is as follows;
Let's assume this for starters. Let's compare three systems.
All 3 systems fit the ideal specs needed for a passive like the Lightspeed. We all agree on what sounds the most real and pleases us in terms of sound. Ya, just assume.
System #1
_________
A+B+C = music
System #2
__________
A+B+C+D = music
System #3
_________
A+B+C+D+E+F = music
Ok, since it's the total system that creates the finished sound I think it is accurate to state system 1,2 or 3 may end up sounding more like the recording was meant to.
The more simple system #1 may or may not be the most accurate system. The fact that it is more simple or has fewer parts along the way does not, by definition, mean it delivers a more accurate and pure sound. It may or may not.
System #3 has more parts along the path to the final music. It may have a power conditioner, separate tube buffer, separate autoformer, a subwoofer and on and on the options go. It may or may not be the most accurate system of all.
My point is one component (preamp) cannot, by itself, always give a more accurate TOTAL SYSTEM SOUND. Even under ideal conditions one cannot assume a passive can do this. Same can be said for an active preamp. The signal passes through too much and the speakers alone in a given system can be the point at which one type of preamp is preferred over another (delivers more accurate sound).
It is the sum of the parts. One combination of wire, resistors, caps, transformers (system) will always sound different then another. The combinations are endless with differing outcomes. Some more accurate then others. Fewer parts along the path does not always equal the most accurate. In all cases it will depend on what parts are combined in the total system. |
Clio09, nice job indeed and I have a question for you and all. Seems then all the high end preamps, tube or SS, costing up to $100,000 that are not passive, just can't get it right? Or should I say as right as a passive?
Wonder why all of these manufacturers even bother? Wonder why they are considered by the "experts" as the very best.
Perhaps a passive conspiracy..just kidding.
Let's assume my active preamp is more noisy then the LSA. If it outperforms the passive in many other areas, then it may still be a preamp truer to the recording. Benefits outweigh the short comings kind of thing.
I so want a $450 passive to sound as good, or closer, to my active. I tried several passives with no luck yet. Perhaps I need a tube amp like the RM10 and some high efficiency speakers. While the Atmasphere Ma1 amps had a 100K ohm input impedance perhaps my Soundlab's just did not like the signal from that combo. It was 2D and quite thin. Very clean, quiet and detailed, but kind of white - washed. It reminded me of some Nuforce amps I once owned.
I will say the LSA had great promise when I first put it in my system. I did take notice of how much quieter it was for sure. I also noticed it was smooth and extended in the highs. I also found the bass to be pleasing. Over time the white-washed nature seemed to reveal itself on every CD I played. If I played the LSA and had to make a decision after 30 minutes it would hard to pass it up. After longer listening I became fatigued.
Something tells me my Soundlab speaker/Atmasphere amp combo just preferred an active unit. It would have been very interesting to hear the LSA on my previous Silverline Bolero speakers with the same amps. |
Yep Clio09 your points on the high end builders are interesting. Your real life example with the Transcendent amp is a great example.
Ok, time to listen to Van the Man with my microphonic tubes:-) Van's voice seemed you ring more when he was younger. He now has a warmer, mumbling tone that is more microphonic tube friendly.
I will try George's tube test soon. |
Tube test complete - no ringing or any bad noises at all. Listened to Van and enjoyed it lots!
I have rolled quite a few 6sn7's in my active preamp over the past two years and have never had a microphonic tube issue as an fyi.
Knghifi, funny stuff. |
Ok, please don’t yell at me Fiddler. Please read George’s post below. Seems pretty clear he is saying it is the most accurate means to hearing recorded music. He implies this on his LSA vs all other attempts at a preamp. He has said this same thing in several other posts here. I have no problem with him thinking this or saying it, I just don’t agree and want to voice my opinion.
“the Lightspeed Attenuator (LSA) as you guys have nick named it, is the closest you will get to playing music that's truest to the source (cdp, phono ect), and the truest way to hear the way the recording engineers wanted you to hear how they have recorded the music.
12-31-10: Georgelofi
You are right guys the Lightspeed Attenuator (LSA) as you guys have nick named it, is the closest you will get to playing music that's truest to the source (cdp, phono ect), and the truest way to hear the way the recording engineers wanted you to hear how they have recorded the music.
As it adds nothing and subtracts nothing, like I say it is like you have plugged the (cdp or phono ect) directly into the poweramps input, no preamps at all in the signal path, yet still maintain control over the level (volume).
I accept that for some listeners it's preferable to have the added ambience, echo (if you have microphonic tubes). Also the tonal changes, because all active components have their own signature, even different brand potentiometers (Alps, Bournes, Penny&Giles ect)) sound different, compared to a direct (source to poweramp connection) gives, maybe to their ears this is preferable.
But the Lightspeed Attenuator is all about listening to the source nothing added nothing subtracted warts and all. |
Clio09
I assumed my point was clear. Sorry. Yes that was the example I gave for Fiddler on the obvious pushing of the LSA.
That's all. |
Clio09
No problem. Enjoy the music! |
Deep is right, but I love it! Good stuff and we are getting closer to the truth. I think we all "get it" to be frank and we are just starting to communicate. |
Ok, based on the reasoning that less parts and simplicity ALWAYS is truer to the source and more accurate, then this SS preamp certainly must deliver a perverted or somehow “additive” portrayal of the music compared to the LSA….. Also no tubes in this one….
http://www.balabo.com/amps/control/
I suppose one may think it, ague it, but the proof is in the hearing only. This highly reviewed and often touted pinnacle of preamps is full of parts. Looks at all those parts…
To actually get all of the nuances and notes off of that source requires a preamp that can actually extract it and amplify it. It needs to convey the dynamic contrasts and subtleties including those subtle micro and marco details. Perhaps a passive is, well, “too passive” to extract all of that information (on the source CD etc). This requires an “additive” (accurate gain) approach. Our stereo systems must be “additive” to even play a single note through a speaker. A passive may simply leave these higher order musical realities out – they may be subtractive. They may constrain or compress for lack relative drive. That is perhaps why, in my experience, I miss the depth, body and dimension with a passive. |
Pubul57
Good questions and they reflect what I am trying to better understand. I am not an expert on these technical questions and feel the questions are reasonable, but would like a better understanding of this topic. |
Clio09
"Passives don't extract anything. They just pass an attenuated signal. Your source is extracting the music off the medium."
Passives behave more as you say above. I am suggesting an active or any other part of a stereo system certainly extracts or gets at more of the music. Certainly amps and speakers and wire can extract more of the recording. By extract I mean "get at it and pass it along". This is the point where we are not in agreement.
The best and often times most expensive gear (not always) does just this.
The best "systems" do this. The source is not the only place a stereo system can extract or lose fidelity.
I had a good impedance match with the Atmasphere MA1 amps (100K ohms) but the resulting sound was relatively flat as I have already said. So impedance matching was not all the issue. |
Fiddler, you are for some reason quite short with me in your remarks. No reason to be so strong with me and this is why.
1) My last posts had nothing to do with tubes at all. You keep bringing up the active preamp I own and digging up past posts that have nothing to do with the current topic. You take these past posts and apply them to a current thread totally out of context. I like tubes as you do. Tubes can bring warmth and other nice things. I am not arguing that and have not tried to in my last posts. Yes, we agree. Some tubes as you know are quite neural sounding. It is certainly possible for an active tube preamp to have a little more "warmth" but to also pass along many other things that are more revealing of the original event. More on this in a moment as this what I am most interested in digging into.
2) My interest in this thread is not on the level of my preamp vs. another. My scope is actually much broader and I was hoping to have some great dialog. I try to avoid bringing up the brand of preamp I own so we can have a broader discussion. Fiddler, you keep bringing it up? I have owned many, many active and passive preamps. Yes, the one I now own has pleased me well beyond the others, but that is not why I am on this thread. You seem to suggest I am not worthy of this topic and to stop having input on this thread.
3) As my last posts have pointed out. I think it is a reasonable and valid argument to suggest some aspects of music reproduction demand a preamp that has a great ability to powerfully attenuate. In fact, overbuilt to the point it looks like an amp. Big and powerful power supplies etc… Bass reproduction demands this kind of a preamp based on my experience. I am also suggesting other things like dynamic contracts, micro details and the like. That is why I gave the link to the $60,000 preamp considered by many experts to be the finest preamp available today.
Straight wire with gain! Yes, but the gain part is very important and the ability to really drive a system to realistically recreate the original recording is tantamount.
Certainly this is a realistic approach adopted by many first class companies. Some of these same companies offer both passive and active preamps. Most of them will tell you the active does the best job of recreating the recorded music. It is usually their very top of the line preamp – First sound, Placette ….
So yes Fiddler I think my points are worthy and not sophomoric in any way. |
Seems to be heating up again. Teajay, you're bold to try and speak for some middle ground on this thread. Many that post here are very reasoned and good folks. Like you have said in several of your recent posts, the issue is not with most of the seasoned, good-hearted posters here, but rather the builder of the LSA. On more than one occasion he has said active designers and those that prefer actives, do so for one of these (less than righteous) reasons. Yes, I am paraphrasing a tad, but spot on in intention.
- have a tin ear
- like distortion
- in it for the money only
- charging tooooo much
- LSA is absolutely THE standard
Fact is many Aphiles like actives because well executed ones sound more like music to us. No, we are not tin eared or crooks. No, we do not like distortion. Yes, we like natural sounding music. Fact is, many roads lead to this musical end!
Absolute statements by the builder are absolutely out of bounds here. He can argue his point if he like, but stay away from absolutes! The rest of us are free to use absolutes - to our own peril :-) Not the builder. Just my opinion. |
