Having heard the benefits of balanced components in my home, and having experienced problems with single ended components in my home, I have to agree with Ngjockey.
If the Lightspeed offered balanced operation, I'd say it would seem to be a real bargain. |
I've been following this thread for some time. A couple of recent comments by Fiddler hit very close to home. As much as I love tubes, they frustrate the crap out of me at times. Yup. I tried to be as objective as I could between the two preamps and when comparing apples to apples (same shelving & isolation) I have come to the conclusion I don't think I could tell them apart in a blind test.
Fiddler (Threads | Answers | This Thread) While I can tell the difference between my present tube preamplifier, and my passive (with JFET buffer) preamp, there is only a small difference, and the fact that the passive will sound the same 20 years from now, and that it uses significantly less electricity makes it a compelling keeper. If one's system can accommodate the Lightspeed Attenuator, there are excellent reasons to own one. |
Grannyring, your further explanation further reinforces the idea of the LSA preamp being less colored than the TRL preamp.
If one accepts the definition of a passive preamp as a device that passes the source’s signal unaltered, except for attenuation of gain, to the amplifier; and assuming a proper impedance and gain match between source, LSA preamp, amplifier, speakers and cabling, then one also accepts that the recording is being reproduced as if the passive preamp were not in the system at all.
Therefore, if there is a difference in the reproduced sound with a different preamp (in this case an active design) in the system; and assuming again a proper match between the active preamp and the source, amplifier, cabling and speakers, then one must conclude that the active preamp is responsible for any difference one hears, and that the difference is a result of an alteration of the source signal beyond volume. This alteration is coloration, or lack of transparency.
If one doesn’t accept the basic premise above, then the discussion regresses back to the beginning.
There's no right or wrong choice of preamp here. However, based on the descriptions being posted of the two preamps, I can only conclude that the LSA preamp least alters the source material.
Now, if a listener prefers The Dude because it appears to reproduce a recording more like what one recalls hearing in a concert hall, then the discussion becomes one of preference, and there's little point to debating preference. |
I was hearing instument lines that on my Dude were more muted or set-back.
Grannyring (Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread) 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. |
10-09-10: Grannyring
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 think the disconnect here is the definition of *the source*. If I understand Grannyring correctly (and I'm willing to admit that perhaps I don't), he is referring to the source as his conception of how the voice or the instrument would sound in an ideal live setting. He asks himself if what he hears coming from his speakers approximates how he envisions it would sound in the concert hall or club or studio. When I discuss the source, it is always referring to the software...the recording. Not all recordings are faithful to how the voices or instruments would sound in an ideal live setting. None of this is to suggest that I prefer one over the other. In fact, I vacillate on that. |
On this issue of which preamp, the LSA or The Dude, is more transparent to the source (recording), Georgelofi offered an excellent test that should put the issue to rest for anyone who chooses to try it. ...put your CDP straight into your poweramp (Bolero Test) no preamp. Put on a quiet cd so you can then ascertain a good level of cd to play, then swap in the Lightspeed then your Dude and see which is closer to no preamp. The one that is, is the one that is truer to the source.
Cheers George
Georgelofi (Answers | This Thread) Of course, as has already been established, whether the LSA or The Dude is more transparent may or may not have any bearing on which preamp a listener would prefer to own. Agear, since you do not accept the definition of a passive preamp I contributed above as it applies to the LSA preamp, then for you my portion of the discussion of transparency isn't pertinent. Fair enough. I'm not going to beat the dead horse further to try and reach a consensus. This thread seems to boil down to the issue of personal preference, which is a non-debatable issue, IMO. Regarding comparing the LSA versus the VRE-1, it might be interesting to readers of this thread, but it's not a useful comparison for me to undertake. Why? Because, 1) I run balanced, and the LSA is not balanced, 2) I have three sources, and the LSA does not accommodate three sources, 3) I utilize a tape loop and the LSA does not have a tape loop. For these reasons, the LSA is not a preamp that I would consider purchasing, so spending time on a comparison is not the best use of my time. Perhaps there's another VRE-1 owner with a simpler system configuration for whom the LSA would be appropriate and for whom conducting a comparison would make sense. |
Here's what I can't understand, Grannyring, and frankly, I think it's an important distinction if the concept of transparency is important to this discussion.
You stated:
"George, I don't doubt the LSA will sound very close to the Bolero test. Fact is I think it will."
Meaning the LSA is adding little to the source recording, yes? In other words, it's transparent.
Later you state:
"No, I don't think my active unit is adding anything."
Is this in comparison to the LSA preamp using the Bolero Test, or is this a subjective statement based on judging what you hear to be more like you recall how live music sounds? If it's the latter, then it's a preference issue, and not one of determining transparency.
When comparing the sound of a system with the CDP connected directly to the amplifier, and then with two different preamps inserted, the system with one of the preamps is going to sound more similar to the CD direct system than will the other. Whichever version sounds *least* like the CD direct system will be the one with less transparency and more coloration. If a system with the LSA installed sounds more similar to the CD direct system than does the system with an active preamp installed, then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the active preamp is adding coloration.
I think the focus of this thread waivers depending on a participant's sonic preference, but the issue of transparency should be more black and white, especially if the Bolero Test is actually conducted rather than conjectured. |
10-10-10: Grannyring
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. Grannyring, that explains everything. I was working with a different definition of transparency (one I believe Georgelofi was also using). I think Clio09 nicely summed up the issue of transparency as it applies to this thread in his first post dated 10/10/10. Happy ears, everyone. |
Not sure I've hear an argument yet as to why a direct connection is not "the" standard for assessing the sound of a recording from a particular CDP as a source, to me it seems absolutely is the standard of what a recording sounds like unadulerate and uncolored by the use of a preamplifier; the LSA is about as close to that as you can get, and an active preamp, which one might prefer, in nevertheless an additive coloration not found in the source signal.
Pubul57 (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread) Ditto. |
THE SHOW is where Ralph sets up shop, as does Brian Cheney (VMPS), Audio Note, and a few other notables.
Clio09 (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers | This Thread) Atma-Sphere and Audio Note will both be at RMAF with their full blown set-ups according to the 2010 RMAF exhibitor list. I spent a good deal of time in the main Atma-Sphere room at RMAF 2009 (the Lupine Room), and in the two primary Audio Note rooms (one run by Audio Federation, and the other run by Audio Note U.K.). It's unfortunate that Devore Fidelity will not be attending RMAF. |
|
Apologies in advance for taking this thread slightly off tangent, but the RM10 interests me as a potential candidate to drive my Audio Note speakers. In his review of the RM10, Srajab Ebaen writes: The RM 10 Mk.II will appeal to transistor lovers who fault most valve gear for romanticizing and deccelerating to some extent. While the Music Reference retains the soundstage spread and tubular holography often equated with glowing glass (albeit not to the extent of my 45-based Yamamoto), it doesn't at all suffer the diffusive elements of reduced timing precision which some valve amps -- particularly 300B single-endeds to my ears -- exhibit...All this by way of pointing at essential neutrality or the meeting ground of the best solid-state and thermionic gear. Would you RM10 owners concur with this? |
Clio0, very nice paragraph on additive characteristics and distortions inherent with active tube preamps.
Happy New Year. |
