Transistor Preamp that sounds like a Tube Preamp?

Mapman, check out Tone Audio. They import both Shindo and Auditorium. I had the transformer.

Asa,

I would consider a tube pre-amp perhaps when the time comes to upgrade, but I am not even close to considering a tube power amp at this point.

IS the Shindo pre a tube unit?

Also I have no idea what an "Auditorium trannie" is?

Thanks Asa:

The ESPs are definitely intriguing... but what 50wpc amp would you recommend for them?

Leaning towards the Audio Notes but don't these need to be corner loaded?? I'd prefer to keep the plasma in between without messing up the imaging...

Also, have you compared 300Bs lately? I recall you favor the new Western Electrics and I wonder how they might stack up to my TJs...

Mapman, maybe you too, afer reading your comments on your system. I would seriously think about a Shindo Augieres pre with an Auditorium trannie into the Denon cartridge. Really, your Walsh's would love it.

Saxo,

Still out there?

If you like the sound of tubes, probably best to go with tubes. if that is the sound you like, then any thing else will be a compromise.

Shouldn't cost too much to build a nice sounding tube system around something like PrimaLuna, Rogue, etc.

F1a, very nice system. But, yes, the B&W's look a bit out of place. I see that you like pure, dynamic sound and I would guess that you are hearing the limits of the B&W's in terms of what you are looking for now. The problem I see is moving you too far into the lush speaker category; because your system is very pure in terms of space, but can err towards too clean in the upper mids, in a very subtle kind of way that takes a while to hear (and which I assume is why you are rolling Mullards, etc. in there). I think the Ref Veenas may be the way to go. So you know, I have not heard this speaker, so you should ask around with others, but I do know the sound of the company, and would guess, based on what HP said in the context of your system, that this might be a good speaker to go to next. The Wytechs could drive them, not too big, good designer and company known for speakers that play music not just sound-machines. And, if you don't like them, I don't think you'll get too hurt on resale, etc. (Living Voice is tougher to resell).

But if you really want my opinion, and you think - as in, know this about yourself - that you are looking for a speaker for the very long haul, then I would look at scamming a pair of ESP Concert Grands (Esoteric Speaker Products) here on the 'Gon. They are big, esoteric, and hard to sell/ship, but they exactly fit what you want - they play gorgeous on classical and particularly do mid to low volume well, in addition to high spl's if that is your itch that day (I would then unload the REL, so you'd gain that space). I say, big, but also they have, from the front view, a narrow baffle profile. Its an end-point purchase. The new ones are $36K, but I saw one hanging around here for $20, and you could probably get them down to $17K. The big dealers won't carry them because they musically embarrass other more costly speakers and Sean McGaughan, the designer, doesn't care about playing the hi-end mag game and so won't poney up a big ad buy to get the big NY/CA dealer's attention to make it worth for them, financially speaking. He's another Mick Maloney.

Now, here's the additional rub: you'll need at least 50W to run them - which brings in consideration of your Wytechs, which would have to go at 17W...

And since, given your system (the Wytechs and Supra pre have similiar signatures and, I would assume, mate well), I don't think you want to move the Wytechs from where they are at. Hence, my original recommendation of the Veenas or Dudley's Audio Notes...

So, if it were me, I'd find some guys around you who have some Audio Notes and Veenas and go listen to them, and listen to see if their designer is hearing what you hear. I personally would go for the Audio Notes, but speakers are a very individual choice and I think you might very well prefer the Veenas given your preferences and coming off the B&W's (and the Veenas are nicer looking to boot, IMHO). In any event, I'm not sure either speaker will cuddle up to the REL, hard to say. Might be OK with the Veenas, but I would be surprised if the Audio Notes took a shine to a sub.

Let us know what you end up doing. You have good ears and a nice system and I'd really be interested in which way you go and what you think when you get there. Good luck!!

Fla asked:
"But then again, am I wasting my time with a digital only front-end??"

I don't think so. The Marantz is very good at its price point, but there's much more to be gained, but at a cost.

I agree with your view toward upgrading speakers next, but after that you need to really consider upgrading your digital source.

As for going into vinyl, if you've already got a sizeable collection, then I say, "Go for it." I've got over 1000 LPs and got seriously back into vinyl a year or so ago; however, the addition of my Playback Designs MPS-5 has rendered my substantial CD collection almost totally marvelous. It's amazing how much better those Redbook CDs can sound it a top-echelon CD/SACD player.

Given a choice, vinyl used to be my first choice for a new recording purchase. Now, I'm pretty much indifferent, with SACD getting the nod, usually because they tend to cost less than top quality vinyl costs. The improvement in my CDs is through the roof with the PD.

Dave

Asa:
My room is 13' wide, 19' long, and 9' high. Well damped with leather furniture, carpet, and drywall - not overly reflective. Listen mostly to classical at moderate volume.

Source is the latest Marantz SA-7 SACD player.

Pre is Supratek's Cabernet Dual (Mullard rectifier, RCA regulators, Sylvania Bad Boy 6SN7s, TJ 101Ds).

Amps are Wyetech Sapphire monos - 18wpc parallel SET, no feedback (Tungsol 6900s driving TJ 300B mesh-plates).

Speakers are B&W Signature 805 monitors on good stands (8-ohm nominal not dropping below 5 ohms, first-order cross to tweeter, fairly easy to drive). REL sub fills in the bottom octave. B&Ws are on the short wall 5' into the room toed in.

Power conditioner is Running Springs' Haley, power cords are Dream State, ICs are Oritek, speaker cable is Tekline's best bi-wired.

Most obvious deficiency here would be the speakers. I think Living Voice or Audionotes would offer a more optimal pairing... Have you heard Reference 3A's Grand Veena??

But then again, am I wasting my time with a digital only front-end??

Any suggestions would be much appreciated!

Maybe. Though I am very interested, I haven't heard any top notch horn designs in quite a while.

We're certainly talking about two radically different speaker designs being applied to similar ends in similar rooms.

Mapman, from what I have heard, you will be sorry, but yes, they are too expensive for me.

I was reading this about the Shino Latours and noticed I have my Ohm 5's set up in a very similar shaped room for a very similar listening configuration.

http://www.sixmoons.com/industryfeatures/forbidden/forbidden_5.html

The Shindos look great and appear horn loaded to match well with SET tube front-ends, but the Ohms (made in Brooklyn, NY) are ~ 1/10th the cost.

I would not consider them good matches for most tube amps (Atmasphere would be an interesting option to try though). A tube pre-amp would work fine if needed.

Still I would love to put them in a contest with the gorgeous Shindos if for no reason other than to listen for a performance/"bloom" difference that justifies the cost.

Asa, Shindo Latours! I knew there was something I liked about you. I would buy them in a flash, if I could afford them.

Fla,

If cash is in short supply, try a somewhat unconventional approach building a system around a pair of newer Ohm Walsh speakers.

www.ohmspeakers.com

F1a: thanks.

On the system, how much BIG COLD HARD CASH do you have?! Just kidding...

Actually, that's a lot to ask and I don't know if I could guarantee that for anyone. I have a system that gets me there, but its older, relatively esoteric and made up of some stuff that might be pretty hard to unload. More than that, there's plenty of other guys here on the 'Gon that are much more up to date that me. What is your room dimensions and characteristics? What is your evolution in equipment to this point? What do you like to listen to, at what preferable volume, if any, etc.?

But, because I'm hoping to start a whole new discussion where I can be thoroughly lambbasted (spelling?), I'll give it a shot...assuming a reasonable sized, live room (as in, good live...)...and if cash was no option, I'd just have to go...Shindo pre, Wavac or Kondo amps, Kondo speaker wire, IC through experimentaion (critical, you know...could be anything. I use a mix of Kondo and NBS Pro original, which most think is over-priced junk but has worked for me), Raven TT with Triplanar or Copperhead, cartridge du jour to match whatever arm you want (your choice - Myabi, Universe, Allaerts, etc.), tbg's latest vibration boxes (yes, tbg, I'm lusting!), SRA OHIO-level amp platforms...and for speakers...Maybe the Shindo Latours, because I think that field coils are going to make a big splash down the road. For me though - and this is just from where I've been - I would also love to have, just to have them, the latest ESP Concert Grands.

Of course, there's lots to do at all $ points. How about a Mactone or Montille amp paired with Living Voice IBX or OBX speakers (the new ones with the Kondo wire inside)? Or, some Audio Note speakers, the one's Dudley goo's over this month in S-phile, paired with some Fi or Shindo gear, or...well, I'm letting my biases show and there's lots of ways to get there (you know, the one about infinite paths up a mountain?)

Anyway, should be pretty fun talking about it!

At the level where the lack of dimension is experienced, the experience almost becomes ineffable to the cognicizing faculties. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You live in dimension, so why shouldn't you want your stereo to replicate, catalyze your mind's experience of it, also?

Yes, Asa, that's precisely what I was after... the goal being to create a synergistic system that will allow me to reach these deeper listening levels in the most optimal manner... and thus, to ultimately bypass the ego-driven pontificating senseless mind for the sake of "pure being", or "soul", or "presence", or whatever term you'd care to assign the unknowable.

For those missing Asa's point, perhaps the "what is" has it rigged that way... (to borrow an Asa quote from another thread!)

I guess what I'd really appreciate Asa, is some advice in creating a system that will "take me there". The "real" me that is. Perhaps I can call you for specifics?

hi saxo:

the attributes that you desire need to be present at thesource. if not, it will be difficult for a preamp or amp to compensate for what the source --analog or digital does not provide.

so, does your source satisfy the objectives you desire for your preamp ?

if so, it may be sufficient to find a pre amp, which does no harm, i.e., is relatively uncolored. in such a case, the preamp will pass the signal you desire to the amp, which hopefully is relatively uncolored and then to the speakers.
oops, i forgot about the cable. well, hopefully, the cable and the room does no harm. this is elementary stuff, which has been mentioned many times before.

a lot of links here. recording and source are better places to start.

i believe the best recording with mediocre components sounds "better" than a mediocre recording with the "best" components.

Asa, think of me as the class clown. I am glad you did not feel insulted by my friendly poke at your post. It is obvious that you are very passionate about music reproduction, and have thought very deeply about how the mind experiences reproduced music.

As for a SS preamp that sounds like a tube preamp, try to listen to the Ayre KX-R if you get a chance. It does all the tube things so well (in my limited experience) that I am totally satisfied. In specific, it does the "projection" trick very well. Of course, your standards might be more exacting.

Good listening.

bloomed, bloom·ing, blooms
v.intr.
1.
a. To bear a flower or flowers.
b. To support plant life in abundance: rains that made the yard bloom.
2. To shine; glow.
3. To grow or flourish with youth and vigor.
4. To appear or expand suddenly: White vapor bloomed from the side of the rocket's fuel tank.
v.tr.
1. To cause to flourish.
2. Obsolete To cause to flower.

Bloom means whatever one wants I suppose. Never used the term before so I'm guessing.

To me it would seem to go with the nature of some tube systems I've heard to make certain fundamental elements of the music comprising the rhythm and flow more predominant and obvious. Hence the observation that a certain system has good rhythm and pacing perhaps, in terms I have heard used before.

Definitely not the same in my mind as warmth though, which is a different attribute associated more commonly with tubes..

Of course, I'm making this all up based on my own interpretation unless there is a formal definition or common reference out there somewhere?

Holographic projection of sound field into the room is not necessarily the domain of tubes. I've heard many SS systems that do this extremely well.

"Bloom" to me just does seem like something that I would associate with the common tube sound more so than SS.

Agree, bloom is not warmth, I think of it as Tvad describes it. And I agree on the Pass; I feel very stupid having sold my XA30.5; I miss it and may get one again.

Is "bloom" necessarily an attribute of better tube equipment?

With the best tube system I've heard recently in terms of $$$$s by a longshot (VTL and VAC), I did not hear an overt amount of tube warmth or "bloom", just a touch of warmth and overall smoothness and flow that resulted in a very natural sound on Magico minis (no sub). It was not that much different from a good SS system I thought.

Another much less expensive but certainly no slouch system (AR + Rogue) had a lot of "bloom". It was very pleasant and musical but I did not think it necessarily as natural or realistic sounding. This was with USher monitors and a Rel sub. Maybe it was the Rel sub that added some of the "bloom" I heard in the low end.

Well, the tube emulation outputs on my cheap, old Carver pre-amp does a lot of this on my system, save the "bloom" part, I'd say.

Tvad, exactly my point. Tube-like is a meaningless term, more likely used as a marketing term to capture the attention of the gullible. I wouldn't likely consider an amp so described by its designer because I'd think that he's chasing something other than accuracy, transparency and musical production.

Dave

I generally agree with what "tube-like" means, and it is not a favorable idea. I once had Western Electric 91B amps. They were rolled off beginning at 13k and had little bass below 50 Hz. This is not to say that I have never heard a tube amp that did not sound "tube-like."

Similarly, I generally agree that there is a solid-state sound. It use to be quite common in transistor gear, but there have always been exceptions to this in solid state gear. The solid state sound is graininess and harshness, most evident in the high end.

I don't think these distinctions get us very far, as many solid state components don't sound solid state and many tube components don't sound "tube-like." Nevertheless, in my experience there is a pretty strong relationship for tube gear to be "tube-like" and solid state gear to sound edgy. Fortunately, there are exceptions.

I have problems with characterizing sound as "musical' versus "analytical" also. Musical is not necessarily a good thing in my mind. Many say we cannot achieve realism and should be happy if our system gives us an emotional or satisfying musical presentation. I know that you can achieve the magic of realism, and I will not be satisfied with just "musical." Realism is not "analytical" either. Usually, I have found that "analytical" is an error in optimizing the system, such as the wrong VTA, poor isolation, or bad cabling.

There are some who hate silver interconnects as too bright. I generally prefer silver interconnects but have also heard great sounding copper interconnects. I tend to not like gold interconnects, platinum interconnects, and amorphous metal interconnects, such as the Indra, but I resist generalization here also.

It really comes down to what you hear and what you hope to hear. Finally, I am always quite aware that there is little or not consensus on any topic or component. It is quite obvious that tastes differ greatly. At it root this suggests that there really is little purpose for Audiogon other than to report personal experiences. Certainly, I have much experience with reporting my personal experiences only to have others tell me that I am delusional as what I hear is impossible. Right now I have been involved in commenting on the benefits of Walker Audio Step Four in cleaning records. I hear a great improvement over the previous three step cleaning. Some say that is impossible as pure water cannot be improved on. Observations have always had greater credence to me than theory. I will keep using Step Four and allow the doubters to not hear as good a sound as they might.

Pinkus, that's funny! I understand what you are saying, though. If I saw something like that I might say to myself, what a boviating blowhard! I mean, how can I possibly listen when I'm talking so damn much? Not sure, though, that a stereo is only a sound machine, if that is what you also meant. Stereo is an art to me - the opportunity to use technology to produce an emotive, even meditative-like experience, in addition to good background music while cooking pasta.

Basicallty,I took a chance; more bread on the water.

I agree the Atma-sphere is not "tube-like" in the sense you describe (rolloff at the extremes with a mid-range push)- I think that older tube gear may have been a bit like that. What is tube-like to me, for both preamps and amps is the elusive concept of bloom which I think Asa described well. It's the way an instrument projects sound into the room and that always seems more realistic (whether it is or not)than what I've been able to accomplish with SS, not that SS gear can't be wonderful, with its own sonic signature. While the Pass XA30.5 doesn't "bloom" like my tube amps, it doesn't mean it isn't a great sounding amp, it is - but it still does not sound like a tube amp, and frankly there is proabably no reason it has to, or should, or ultimatley, can.

07-14-08: Mrtennis asked:
"is it possible that replacing capacitors and resistors from some solid state preamps can bring one closer to a "tube-like" presentation?"

Generally, no. You can make a cheaply built SS amp sound better by improving its parts, but it's best to start with an amp using high quality parts to begin with, made by a great designer that was trying to make the best possible sound.

If the designers goal was to make an amp that sounds "tube-like", stay away.

Dave

What happened to Asa??

is it possible that replacing capacitors and resistors from some solid state preamps can bring one closer to a "tube-like" presentation?

In the real world yes, in GON World a little less so.

Asa,

my cognicizing faculties are experiencing congnitive fading while trying to make sense of your post. Sometimes a stereo is just that...a stereo, nothing more nothing less.

I find that as I've gotten older (50)I have slowly, ever so slowly, stopped listening to the equipment and let myself into the music (or vice versa). Its hard as an audiophile, because I love trying equipment and taken a unit's "measure". Unfortuantely, it interferes with the music. I find myself more frequently forgetting about the equipment and that is a good thing - maybe my equipment has gotten better over the years, or I've become a better listener. Asa, you get my sense of "bloom" precisely.

Pubul57, really good info. Well, it sounds like you've been through a lot, and with fair comparisons. I have no necessary attachment to any technology, SS or tubes, pres or passives - its all just matter rearranged by Homo sapiens into different forms on this end - but I do have a marked desire, intuition, to simplify, so passives attract me from that vantage. I think its interesting that you would still go passive with an MP-1 sitting next to it, which as I recall, is a pretty luxurious creature. If they've come up with a passive for $135 that'll smack an MP-1, I'm all in!

I hear what you are saying about bloom, if you mean fluid, continuous projection, not a euphonic halo around the source of the projection. I guess I'm sensitive to its lack, and that's where I find the problems; its an existential, deeply buried, discontinuity that I hear. Not simply in the space or the source themselves, which, I think, individually, SS is getting much better at, but in the intra-relationship of source and space as the sound "moves."

My question is, how well does a component catalyze in the listener's mind the experience of sound, and or sound projecting, and of sound projecting in space, and of sound projecting integrally within the space around it, and of sound, at once being separate from space but also, at once, not separate, and, finally, and this has not been discussed by HP or Valin, as sound existing within a dimension. Which is what we do, being conscious and corporeal (Kant had some a priori things to say on this).

It is my position that each of these levels of perception is experienced, validated subjectively, in a progressively "deeper" part of the listening mind. If you listen at one level, then you know that level and all from where you came, and ususally deny the existence (and even, illogically, the possibility) of deeper perceptive levels. Its like being in a plane: at one height, the coast appears as a jagged line. Higher it appears smoother, but it has never been anything but the same coast during the entire ascent. The lower flier only knows one altitude; the higher flier knws that sight of the shore and all below.

And, let's be clear, its not about the mechanism, the ear. It is the mind that is listening. In this sense, the ability to hear deeper is determined by the will to do so. Most of the things we do are by action; as humans, we get somewhere by walking, cutting a tool, talking. And this is the rub with listening deeper, because listening deeper is not a function of cognicizing your way there, but of letting go of the attachment to cognicize your environment and sound, which I call, cognitive fading.

And I can prove it to you, empirically: as you begin to listen, observe your own mind. Note that as you fall deeper into the musical experience, you let go of thinking about that experience.

This is why people have different sounding stereos and why an older man like tbg can listen deeply even though his ears, as a mechanism, may be older. Same with HP, etc. It is the will to let go of one's evolutionary attachment to the action of the mind that is determinant on the depth of listening experience. So we are sure, this is not elitist; everyone is equal in their ability, it is only the will that varies.

Second point that has not been brought up by the magazine writers, and this is a bit more out there. Namely, that as you go deeper, what you are able to hear changes, i.e. knowledge perceived is depth-dependent. If you are attached to your mind's thinking, your mind is more objectively attached and looks to the world as series of objects. This level of perception produces a stereo system where objects are favored over space, which is relegated, many times to a void (stereo as statues in a void of space). At deeper levels, since the mind is at a different symmetry of perception, what is disclosed at that next level changes.

I think this may explain a phenomenon with SET's; namely, that when you first start listeing, yes, dynamics are objectively lacking. As I first sit down and look at the aural sources, being objective in my initial focus, I see this. But as I go deeper, this concern seems to fade at the same rate as the fading of my desire to cognify my experience. Dynamics do not seem insufficient onto the purpose of catalyzing my mind deeper and other variables that I did not objectively notice when I first started listening come to the fore. It is at these next levels that harmonic density and complexity, or their lack, is noticed. And then the next level, when harmonics are sufficiently accurate and natural, space comes into play. And so we search for that next piece of equipment, our stereos an instrument we are creating to catalyze progressively deeper symmetries of listening experience.

And this is also why, if you look at how are stereo language has progressed, it has moved to visual-orientated language descriptors (the objectifying mind wants to see its environment) to descriptors that describe movement (Valin's orb-action) to describing emotion in relationship to object, to (well, if they want to know, they'll have to hire me, at a greatly inflated salary to reflect the monstrous hassle of reviewing...).

And this is the next thing: we don't at first experience what is there when listeing at a new, deeper level, but rather what is not. This is why each new level is more difficult to describe, and particularly at first; because language is cognitively bounded and the more cognition is let go of, the more difficult it is later, when one is not listening and is describing, to bound the progressively deeper experience in language. Hence, the difficulty HP and others are having developing progressive lexicons of language to describe deeper experienced levels.

At the level where the lack of dimension is experienced, the experience almost becomes ineffable to the cognicizing faculties. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. You live in dimension, so why shouldn't you want your stereo to replicate, catalyze your mind's experience of it, also?

F1a, I not sure that is what you wanted. Maybe you were just kidding! Sorry for the length - its hard to cut down.

Now, that should give everyone enough targets to shoot at!

The H-cat must be special. Any other users out there with similar conclusions. Possible it will be at RMAF?

Fiddler, I don't exactly see a love fest, but given the way the H-Cat fell into name calling, I do think both of us went to some excess given the impersonality of the internet. I have noticed that some of your other posts are quite constructive and I suspect you have found the same of mine. I am independently sending you my telephone number.

Pubul57, I have had five different passives--the placette passive, the Reference, the Tokyo pot, the Silver Rock, and the Top Dog. This is over quite a time span so many different systems were involved. In each case I have heard the purity of the unamplified sound, but I have also heard the loss of pace or dynamics to the music; it became boring and uninvolving. I am aware that one really does need to adapt your system for passive units, but the promise never seemed worth the effort.

I have had a checkered history also with tube line stages, with some just so slow and bloated that you could hardly listen and that I am sure are the experiences for some who hate tuby linestages. But at least they were not hard on the ears in the high frequencies. I remember my first ss preamp was the Crown IC150. You could use music to engrave glass coffee tables with it. An Trevor Lees modified Dyna PAS 3 blew it away and resulted in a long history with tube line stages, with occasional ventures into ss, such as with the Cello and Krell Reference.

Before the H-cat I never had a line stage for longer than a year.

Geez, if a phone call turned this spat into a love fest, maybe tbg and I should get on the phone! :)

Asa, my experience with passives has not been a consistent journey as some have worked better than others. I've been comparing a series of passives with some pretty good tube pres, most recently CAT SL1 Ultimate, Joule LA150 MKII, and Lamm LL2. In all cases, I thought the system, feeding either a CAT JL2 or Music Reference RM9 Special Edition to Merlin VSM MXes sounded fantastic and musically satisfying - so we are really the realm of hairsplitting and personal preference. I was suprised how one of the passives, a Music Reference Pot-in-a-Box ($135) sounded compared to the tube preamps, and at the price point a bit of a no brainer, but I did still prefer the actives - a bit more dynamic and bloom (which I think is the attribute that differentiates SS from tubes in your description). I also tried a SB102 transformer passive, but I actually preferred the simpler resistor based attentuator - even though most folks will swear up and down that the transformer approach is clearly superior. It wasn't till I received the new Bent TAP-x that uses an autoformer that I felt comfortable making the move to passive in place of the fine tube pres I had been using. I still think personal preference is key here and while their may be an absolute sound, there is not likely absolute ears. In my system, which is very "passive" friendly, the Bent Tap certainly competes with tubes (to my ears). That being said, I still use an Atma-sphere pre with my Atma-sphere amp - there is something to be said for synergy and system context.

Asa and I had a very good conversation by telephone. We talked about how discussions on the internet escalate beyond what either party intended. We both apologized and all is well.

Asa, I think that some have learned how to better use transistors and other parts have greatly improved. Certainly, I would agree with gregm's thought that we have seen a great improvement in isolating components, which has cost me dearly as I think the Halcyonic active isolation base because I have found it is clearly superior, in getting ac power to components, and certainly in the quality of parts, wire, boards, power supply, and even jacks used.

Based on what I have heard, I believe that Roger Paul's H-Cat circuitry must be an innovative circuit. I say must be as everything is potted in modules. I would not claim to have much more than a rudimentary understanding of how his Doppler sensors work, but I do know they have proven quite sensitive to external influences. Many of the recent updates have been directed toward better isolating them from emi.

Again, I cannot speak of the circuit itself, and merely meant to suggest that the H-Cat should be heard, not that this is easy to do. My system is always available when I am not traveling and if you can find your way to College Station, Texas, which is about 100 miles north of Houston. The proof is in the pudding.

I just talked to Tbg. Seems like a really sweet guy. Funny how that works. Another lesson in life for us both. We both agreed that, as stubborn people, we both got sucked in by the dreaded thread monster. The world is sunny again (or always was, and we just stopped paying attention for a while). Sorry, Mrtennis...

Tbg has good feedback as a seller. I sent him a concilliatory message asking him to call me. Seemed the best away around things over the long haul.

Tbg, whose the one who can't stop chirping? No, no, no ain't "malice" - which was my original post, followed by your "stupid" comment. Which I don't think is malicious either, just rudeness. I tried to let it go for both of us, but...

I have a better idea. I'm sending you my info. Give me a ring. Maybe we can track each other down.

BTW, I can't quite remember or not from the H-Cat thread, but were you ever affiliated with H-Cat in any way, or was it just a good buddy thing, or only a satisfied customer?

On issue, tgb - and, yes, I'm still trying to get there - could you please address the issues I raised about SS limitations. How do you think that the H-Cat overcomes those limitations?

Tbg, on gregm's point, how do you think SS circuit design has improved, beyond better routing and isolation? I don't know the answer myself, necessarily, but would be interested in your answer.

Gregm, I have owned the Levinson, Cello Suite and "palette," and Accuphase 280 line stages, but of course, long ago. The Cello stands out as exceptional among them. I had gone quite crazy and bought the full Cello system, including the amps and equalizer connected by miles of Cello Strings. It was the ease and total confusion associated with an equalizer sitting there beside me to change at my whim that ultimately got me. I had to sell the entire system rather than the equalizer that was all I really wanted to sell. If Saxo could find a used Cello Suite, he would no doubt love it.

Apart from the Cello, I think you are wrong about no advancements in circuit designs. I have already noted this, however. Tube circuits have also advanced thanks to better parts and power supplies. The new Exemplar fully regulated design struck me as exceptional at the RMAF. I am anxious to try one soon. It is a $11,000 unit, however.

Saxo and Mrtennis, I guess I have to endure a lawyer's closing. I regret leaving his initial, non-communicative post from just passing into oblivion.

My goal with this thread was to see if SS technology has advanced to the point that it was able to overcome these limitations.

Well, circuit design hasn't really advanced much... and that more or less cooks the issue. We do have good quality materials though, very expensive however, and rarely used in hifi equip. Lastly, strong points for a "very good" ss would be transparency & bandwidth & some homogeneity in signal amplification; not quite your stated cup of tea but your description does not really fit SS you know!
Sooooo & however & IMO &etc etc, you might try an ancient MLevinson pre (the ML series) or a Cello "palette" or an '90s accuphase, or an old series ('80s-;90s) Goldmund. Not easy to find, I know, but better performers than many of the new stuff @ your price point.
You also give the ones mentioned above a try: Ayre is easier to find than an old Goldmund, but a super performing Ayre is more expensive (new) than a used Goldmund, of course! Regards

gentlemen:

keep up the banter. it sounds like two lawyers in court and is very entertaining, very funny.

Would you two guys just stop fighting? (Asa, Tbg). It's really not worth having this non-stop pissing match. You're both intelligent, you both have strong opinions that clash, so just leave it be....

Tbg, no, I don't have access to an H-Cat that I know of. I will check their dealer list. I actually never heard of it before.

Asa, I can understand your description of what SS does not accomplish, and it has been my past experience as well.

Dcstep, I haven't yet gotten to hear the Capri, but will try to.

Pinkus, thank you for the Ayre suggestion.

My goal with this thread was to see if SS technology has advanced to the point that it was able to overcome these limitations. Perhaps it hasn't and never will. Obviously, there are those who think it has, or perhaps they don't hear what we are hearing.

I again appreciate everyone's time and effort in trying to help. I guess the only solution is to get pieces in my system to draw my own conclusions.

Asa, you continue to ignore the malice in your initial post and those following and frankly I regret having ever asked what you meant in your post, as it obviously was irrelevant.

Saxo, I still would recommend that you give the H-Cat a listen if you have one nearby. I am sorry that I didn't just ignore Asa's initial post.