Lightspeed Attenuator - Best Preamp Ever?

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.

George, it does not make sense to state that system synergy manifests as 2D or 3D. Please explain.

"What you should do Grannyring to see if the Dude is artificially giving depth, is what I preach all along, put your CDP straight into your poweramp (Bolero Test) no preamp. Put on a quite 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."

I have done that test repeatedly. Digital done direct (Bolero Test) always sounds flat, hard, and 2D. Not like real life at all. Not sure what that specific test adds.

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.

Ah! A good music recommendation, I will get that.

I never compared the Atma-sphere preamp with the LSA as I use it with the Atma amps in all balanced connection, so I jave not been able to compare them with the same amp.

I use the LSA with the Music Reference RM10 (summer) and RM 9 Special Edition (Fall), both amps single-ended. I went through a series of preamps, most recently the CAT SL1 Ultimate, Lamm LL2, and Joule LA150 Signature Edition. Of these, the Joule was the one I liked most and could live with it forever, but I decided to try the LSA just to see what it might do versus one of the best sounding active tube linestages I have owned. I kep going back and forth for a few months, and without too much analysis, I simply felt I liked the LSA better, certainly as much as the $7,000 Joule - seemed silly to keep both with that kind of price differential and since I only have one source, low capacitance cable (Cardas GR), and both MR amps were designed by Roger Modjeski speciofcally to be passive friendly (High input impedance, high sensitvity <1v) I figured that while an active will sound better with a wide range of sources, amps, and speakers, my particular system is really passive optimized and that under those circumstances a passive should be better at passing the signal undamged from source to amp.

The LSA is very, very quiet, seems to be very well balanced from lows to highs, has a very wide and deep sounstage with recordings that have wide and deep sounstages - soundstaging with this preamp really is a reflection of the recording and not a constant attribute, and imgaging and localization is very precise and unwavering, and instruments seem to have their naturural size and instrumental bloom. I also notice that music can be played louder without unpleasant shout that can occur with some systems.

Within my system, there is really a hairsplitting comparison with the CAT, Lamm, and Joule - they are all exceptional pieces of equipment and enjoyed all of them. There is not however a hairsplitting difference in price - which is why I love the LSA, it can give audiophiles without deep pockets SOTA sound if they pick their sources, cables, and amps carefully/properly. Or, if you have the money, you can buy one of these great linestages and have a great system too, without worrying much about system matching.

Arthur Salvatore says that if your system sounds better with an active linestage, your system needs an active linestage - but if you don't need one, a passive is the way to go. I think this in part explains why some folks swear by passives, and others say they much prefer actives; I suspect where you fall depends on your system as a whole, and not necessarily a reflection the inherent qualities of either approach - why as they say wisely, your milage may vary.

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!