1. Home
  2. amps-preamps
  3. 1343407784

World's best Pre-amp for $10K and above?

Looking for the HOLY GRAIL in Audio? Here it is. I'm in my early sixties and retiring to my final system, which I was going to purchase during the past twelve months and decided to put on the brakes, and investigate whats out there as the most advanced engineered high end audio products for the money in the market place. As far as I'm concerned, the two top engineers in the world for the best Amp and Preamp at low prices are Bent Holter with Hegel Audio in Norway and Roger Sanders with Sanders Sound in Colorado. Why? The Hegel P-30 Pre-amp is a game changer, and will easily compete with Pre-amps at $30K and above. The FM Acoustics 268 Preamp that retails for $107K, uses a technology thats called "feedforward" instead of feedback.
Amps and Pre-amps since the early 80's have all used either global feedback, zero feedback or local feedback to filter out noise and lower distortion by sending and filtering the feedback current to filter capacitors or or an extra filter transformer. A small amount of voltage feedback occurs at the output stage in amps and preamps which goes back into the parts and boards causing noise and distortion which smears the quality of the music.The best Preamps in the world all have S/N noise ratios at 125 db's or above. The Hegel P-30 Preamp uses the same feedforward technology as FM Acoustics but is a more current design that Bent Holter calls "Sound Engine" patented technology that eliminates feedback which is why the P-30 Preamp has a S/N ratio of 132 db's, which has never been accomplished in high end audio with a Preamp costing $10K or below. The same applies to Roger Sanders Magtech amplifier which uses a patented linear voltage regulator that controls and regulates voltage with no excess voltage going back into the amp causing heat and distortion problems. The amp puts out 900 watts into 4ohms. Krell makes a pair of mono blocs that also use a similar voltage regulator. The amps are $100K a pair. HERES THE PERFECT SOLID STATE SYSTEM. A Hegel P-30 Preamp. A Sanders Magtech amp, A pair of Aerial Acoustics 7T speakers. The worlds finest SACD player, the Playback Designs MPS-5, designed by Andreas Koch, who invented SACD technology when he worked for Sony. He built the worlds first outboard DAC in 1982 and is legend in digital engineering. The MPS-5 is the most analog sounding player on the market which costs $17K. The Hegel P-30 is only $7500.00 and the Magtech amp is only $5K. The Aerials are $10K. Buy the solid core cables from Morrow Audio. They are low capacitance cables which matches up perfectly with these components. This combination sounds like the very best tube and solid state gear on the market. The whole system will cost about $42K but will sound as good as any system costing $200K. All of these products are game changers. If you want better looking cabinets and faceplates, then blow your money, but you will not get better performance for what this system has to offer. It is the HOLY GRAIL you are searching for and there is no better combination for the total cost of the system.
audiozen
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
6,996 posts
 
Hi Larryi,
In concept and theory, simpler is better is what I attempt to adhere to. My line stage is transformer volume control- input transformer-DHT tube-output transformer and is a single gain stage=pretty simple/ minimalist design. Passive is simpler yet, but at this point too much is lost. I'm all for simple until it compromises the sound. Practical results trump theory as you astutely pointed out. I like SET amplifiers for their inherent simplicity and the resultant sound. I pursue simplicity as far as I can until it becomes detrimental. Larryi I imagine that your line stage sounds fantastic. There's something about transformrrs that sound so right if implemented correctly. Admittedly using very high quality signal capacitors can sound fantastic as well with excellent implementation. When I come across a passive that equals what I hear with actives I'll happily spread the word.

Charles, .
almarg's avatar
almarg
8,673 posts
 
Good questions by Mapman a few posts back, IMO, and excellent answers by Larryi, Charles, and Bill (Grannyring).

Regarding the comments about theory vs. practice, as a technically oriented person, and one who also has read a great many posts by the aforesaid three gentlemen over the years, I will say that if I were to perceive a conflict between their experience-based comments and what I understood to be the relevant theory, I would have no hesitation in giving greater weight to their comments than to the theory.

That said, in the case of Larry in particular, and the other gentlemen as well, I have frequently felt amazed over the years at how his invariably well balanced and nuanced posts, which are obviously based on broad experience with exceptionally fine equipment, just about always seem to be technically plausible, and not inconsistent with an understanding of how all of this stuff works. In fact I had left a comment to that effect in his system description thread about a year ago.

I’ll add that on occasions when theory and practice seem to be in conflict in audio, my belief is that in general the cause is often not a failure of theory, but rather a failure to accurately recognize its limitations, or in some cases a result of improper application or understanding of theory. One major reason for its limitations being that design decisions, whether at the piece part level, the circuit level, the component level, or the system level, inevitably involve a great many tradeoffs and compromises, and particularly in audio it is often not possible or practical to draw a balance between those tradeoffs in a quantitative manner . That being one reason why, as has often been said, audio is as an art as well as a science.

And all of that is certainly not helped by sales literature, reviews, and other writings that can be found on the Internet which commonly dwell in a non-quantitative manner on the value of an isolated set of design characteristics, without addressing, much less quantitatively assessing, the tradeoffs that may be involved. That being one of the reasons, IMO, that (in Larry’s words) design “breakthroughs” are not always as claimed.

All of which, unfortunately IMO, leads some to totally reject the value of theory and technical understanding, thereby increasing the randomness of assembling or refining a satisfactory system (a point that Mapman for one has often made). The frequent result being that investments of time and money are misdirected.

Just my $.02, and IMO of course. Best regards,

-- Al
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
6,996 posts
 
Hello Al,
Larry, Bill and myself all fully appreciate the point Mapman was making and it was a very sound one at that. Idealy you'd think it's possible to get the very best sound in an audio system without resorting to an active peeamp with its"added" complexity and required IC and anotherP. Cord in the mix. Eliminating these in favor of less is appealing to say the least. I know for a fact that Bill has tried with the most earnest of intentions and effort to go direct source and also passive (Lightspeed). Bill at one point sold his beloved TRL DUDE as to demonstrate his sincerity in following the "simpler" mantra.

Given Larry's very extensive experience and background I'll assume that he has heard or tried numerous attempts to remove the active preamplifier from the signal chain. I've been exposed to many passive/direct source system approaches.I can honestly say that some of these did indeed sound good and in some cases very good. In my listening evaluation none could match the realism and completeness of what a high quality active is able to achieve. Theory would predict that less circuitry or parts in a signal path should yield better sound. I strongly believe this is true, until a critical point is reached and them simpler becomes a compromise and a obstacle to the best sound that's possible.

I'll say a minimalist active will more often than not, out preform a more complex active (multiple gain stages, parts and circuitry). Here is where simplicity shows its superiority.
Charles,
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
4,163 posts
 
Mapman, regarding your comments about the value of expensive preamps, here's a thread from a few years ago.
ralpheburns
19 posts
 
Atmashere - you are or course correct in general, but I'm working off the notion that some DACs with higher internal bit depth do volume attenuation without truncation loss. I'm hoping that includes the HD25, but don't have confirmation on that. I'll do some listening this weekend and see if I can notice.

Those Koda and Balabo units are priced right up there!
More to discover