Wyetech Labs Ruby Std preamp - any views?

Neal the opal is good ,but can't match the lightening fast transients of the ruby STD,soundstage bigger , plus it's very very quiet , I had the Mbl 5011 which is quite a bit better than the opal , and the ruby is far better in lower extension , soundstage , transient response than the mbl 5011, the ruby is even quieter

Thanks, Pavpet. Did the Opal you compared to the (better) Mbl 5011 have the Teflon capacitors, or replacement NOS tubes. I use a pair of Russians (I think 1578's) and a pair of Sylvania Bad Boys.

These mods may tip the scale considerably.

regards,

Neal

Opal is good , doesn't have the soudstage , or quietness of the mbl , plus the weight in bottom end

Pavpet, your comments are interesting, but a little too brief for me to get a clear picture. Can you set aside a fuller description as to how the Ruby Std beats the Hovland HP200. Esp in terms of transparency/soundstage, bass extension, treble air, rhythm and timing.
A big practical issue is that here in the UK, it's going to be really difficult setting up a trial.

Everything you note in these areas the STD is far superior , it's like going from a somewhat good preamp ,to one where the sound is stunning, the STD is very very very quiet , thus enabling tons of micro detail,soundstage is vast ,there is a lot more weight in the bottom ,which all hovland products seem to be lacking compared to the ruby , even the hovland radia which a friend bought has little to no bottom extension, vie been in audio since 1970 ,a lot of products come and go, very very few in the league of the wyetech ruby line