George,
I get what you are saying about not adding anything negative to a signal via an active preamp. But shouldn't the proof be in the listening?
I mean if the OP likes what he hears with a preamp in the chain compared to without, then couldn't he just go with what his ears prefer than with theory alone?
Cheers! J. |
Of course Jon2020, and I've said exactly that, if he likes what a preamp adds (and that's a colouration) because something else is not quite right that's ok.
What erks me is when the preamp brigade use blanket statements that preamps are better than direct period, without even knowing if the user needs that colouration or not in his or her system.
And then also saying it drives the poweramp/interconnect better which in this case it cannot, as he has a perfect impedance, voltage and gain match going direct.
Cheers George
|
Well, it's all very simple then.
1. Start with no preamp in the chain.
2. Then add preamp.
3. If adding preamp makes the sound better, keep it.
4. If adding preamp makes the sound worse, remove it.
Preamp or no preamp brigades become superfluous very quickly here.
Cheers! J. |
09-27-15: Georgelofi
Of course Jon2020, and I've said exactly that, if he likes what a preamp adds (and that's a colouration) because something else is not quite right that's ok.
What erks me is when the preamp brigade use blanket statements that preamps are better than direct period, without even knowing if the user needs that colouration or not in his or her system.
And then also saying it drives the poweramp/interconnect better which in this case it cannot, as he has a perfect impedance, voltage and gain match going direct. IMO George's post is very well put, and I fully agree (assuming, that is, that "erks" is a Down-Underism for "irks" :-)). I would emphasize the phrase "because something else is not quite right." As I stated earlier: If you do eventually have an opportunity to try a tube (or other) preamp in your system, and if you find the resulting sonics to be preferable to no preamp, keep in mind the possibility that the root cause MIGHT be a less than optimal tonal match between your power amp and your speakers. Particularly in view of the impedance characteristics of the speakers (4 ohms nominal, 0.8 ohms at 20 kHz), which could conceivably result in an over-emphasis of the upper treble in conjunction with some solid state amplifiers.
Should that ever prove to be the case, changing power amps would probably be a better solution than adding a preamp. Note that I said "probably." It is also certainly possible that adding a preamp in that circumstance could be a good solution. But my point is that if the sound improves as a result of the addition of a preamp, the possibility that something else should be replaced, instead of the preamp being kept in the system, should be kept in mind. Best regards, -- Al |
If you are interested in Cary, skip the SLP-03 and go to the SLP-05, which can be purchased used for less than $5K. It is a huge step up from the slp-03 or sli-80. |
I can understand where Georgelofi is coming from. He is from the camp that less is more and he is not alone in his thinking. There are many people on this website that would agree with him. Once upon a time I went that path myself. Yes there was more detail, transparency improved, musicaly engaging, no. It is our own fault that many of our own systems are starting to sound sterile, maybe we audiophiles are expecting too much from them.
Rustler, I don't think Andrew9405 was rude at all but his opinions are appreciated. |
Phd, yes the "less is more" is they way to go if you have a well sorted system.
But if there is a problem area that needs to be fixed, then by adding the right preamp that can tame or accentuate that problem area, then yes by adding the preamp that has those colourations in that area then it can be a pseudo fix.
Good luck on finding the right preamp, as they all sound different, in different areas.
Audio enthusiasts, reviewers, and even manufactures have allways said as far as I can remember, "the prefect preamp" should sound "like a straight wire with gain" which funnily enough is the direct in approach with no preamp.
But I'm of the school that looks at the problem area and changing to or modding the component that causing it, not by adding another one into the signal path chain to gloss it over.
Cheers George
|
George,
I agree with you that one should "....look at the problem area and changing to or modding the component that causing it, not by adding another one into the signal path chain to gloss it over."
Take my problem for instance. My Esoteric K-01 can sound a bit cool but other than this problem alone, everything else in my system chain I find highly satisfactory. Since I like the overall sound of the K-01 and my system, and do not wish to change any component for big financial reasons, finding a preamp that warms things up a bit to neutral, is just what I need to fix this problem. One may consider this an acceptable solution. It's all about system synergy. It's like an audio reviewer describing the sound of a component under review and then advising what other component to match it with, be it source, amp, speakers, cables, etc.
Cheers! J. |
"finding a preamp that warms things up a bit to neutral, is just what I need to fix this problem."
You have hi-end components, and I think that's going to cost big time and a lot of A/Bing preamps just to warm the sound over and maybe loose transparency and detail in the process.
Better off trying to warm it up in other ways that are cheaper, like changing any silver cable/s for OFC Copper ones or change and sell the component that has the "cool" sound to a warmer sounding one. Your pocket will thank you.
Cheers George
|
Most of us need a preamp for various reasons - multiple sources, balance control, phase control. So, one needs to choose a preamp that synergises with the source. To change the K-01 entirely is not something my pocket will be thankful for.
We must have read endless reviews about a cool/warm source component and the reviewer will say, "Matching this with a warm/cool preamp is advisable. Preamp ABC with this source XYZ is truly a match made in audio heaven."
So, we try to mate preamp ABC or equivalent with the source. Either that or, we change the source altogether. The latter simply cannot be a fiscally reasonable option.
Cheers! J. |
We (audiophiles) all try to get the very best possible sound that blows us away, then it's a shame that some of us have to compromise it because we need to change sources and are not up to just to unplug and change them.
This why I have a dedicated system with the least compromises in my hifi room, and another one in a TV room for all the other stuff/crap like surround sound, tuner, internet streaming ect.
Oh and I suppose your may have read this post about the K-01 which is Delta Sigma vs his older Reimyo R2R Ladder Multibit dac, which all the very best are starting to use again because this way of conversion it is said to give a better presentation of real music, the owner also missed the warmth of his Reimyo when he changed to the K-01
[url]http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?ddgtl&1358613368&&&/Unsatisfied-with-Esoteric-K-01:-Alternat[/url]
So that's two of you with the same beef about the K-01, wouldn't it be better to fix the problem rather than just putting a very expensive band-aid on it, and causing maybe other problems.
Cheers George |
That a component is cool or warm may not really be a problem in itself. It is designed that way and some audiophiles may like it as is. To match it with a synergistic component is an art for the audiophile to nuture in this hobby. And that's just what we try to do everyday instead of changing components right after just buying them new.
Cheers! J. |
George makes a good point- if a preamp robs you of transparency and detail, its not helping!
The same can be said of an improperly applied passive control.
In both cases, audition is necessary.
It is not correct to say that all active preamps take away from detail and transparency or add colorations. Some give you *less* coloration with greater detail and transparency.
But it is also not correct to say that all passive controls take away from detail and transparency or add colorations. Some give you less coloration with greater detail and transparency; **in either case its all in the setup.**
The issue is you have to pay attention to variables and interconnect are one of the bigger sets of variables. For example, I like to have my preamp and turntable near the listening chair, and my amps as close to the speakers as I can get them. So my interconnects are 30 feet long. A passive does not work in this situation. To get around cable problems, I run equipment that supports the balanced line standard (defined in the AES file 48) and thus the cable does not contribute or detract from the sound.
A further variable in input and output impedances of the equipment in use. This can work badly with either active or passive systems- again- its all in the setup!
When the cable ceases to be part of the system sound (regardless of how you go about it), that's a good thing. If you are running a passive system, the obvious lesson here is keep your cables short!
|
Ralph??? we are discussing about what the OP's question is, stop rambling about passives, GET A GRIP MATE.
"Is no preamp really better that a good preamp"
|
"It is not correct to say that all active preamps take away from detail and transparency or add colorations. Some give you *less* coloration with greater detail and transparency."
+1,Ralph.
You hit the nail on the head.
That is precisely what a preamp did for my whole system - greater detail and transparency.
Having a preamp also solved the impedance mismatch between the K-01 and Bryston 28B monos.
But in George's little world, change the source OR power amp! Surreal!
Cheers@ J. |
How in g**s name can a active preamp give you more REAL detail (not perceived detail because of distortions) from the source than the same well match direct source to poweramp.??
Please produce some laws of electronics in your answer and not voodoo speak.
Cheers George
|
Not to disagree with two of my favorite and most respected A'gon colleagues (Ralph & Jon), but if:
1)The output stage of a source component can drive whatever power amp is being used and the associated interconnect cables without compromise, or, alternatively, at least as well as whatever preamp might be inserted between those components, AND
2)The volume control in the source component, assuming it has one, is EITHER:
(a)As transparent in the range of settings that would be used in the no preamp configuration of the system as it would be if set for use with a preamp (i.e., at or near max in typical cases), OR
(b)As transparent as the volume control that is provided in whatever preamp might be introduced into the signal path,
then it seems to me that the only way inserting a preamp into the signal path can result in sound quality that is subjectively preferable would be by producing an output that is less true to the source material (i.e., less accurate) than the signal that is provided to it by the source component.
And I believe that George is using the term "coloration," or "colouration" in Down-Under speak, to mean essentially the same thing as "inaccuracy."
Best regards,
-- Al
|
Yes Al, same, same, colourations, distortions, inaccuracy.
I use the word colourations when I'm being kind, after that when pi**'ed I'll start to use the proper term "distortions".
Cheers George |
09-28-15: Almarg
Not to disagree with two of my favorite and most respected A'gon colleagues (Ralph & Jon), but if: I too Al have respect for Ralph, and have praised his OTL amps many times in these forums and others when partnered with the "right speaker". But I'm at a loss also in this thread, makes me think there is something else at play. Cheers George |
Thanks, Al, for your informative input as always.
What intrigues me is what I hear when I add a preamp in the chain(I started off direct from source to power amp).
I get more :-
1. dynamics
2. air around instruments
3. tonal body to instruments
4. solid bass foundation for orchestral works
5. soundstage depth, width and height
6. liquid flow of musical notes
7. musicality or PRAT
If all that is distortion, euphemisms aside, then so be it. Instruments just sound more natural and live than without the preamp.
When the supposedly more "accurate" signal sounds less natural and live, then things get very puzzling here. I can only trust my own ears, all electronics theory aside.
Cheers! J. |
|
Maybe you missed this :-
"Since I like the overall sound of the K-01 and my system, and do not wish to change any component for big financial reasons...." |
And this.....
09-24-15: Guidocorona
George, I'm really sorry to hear that.... Filters on K-01 do a great deal of work. I agree that without filters and with no upsampling, the sound of K-01 is something that only its Moma could love.
Yet, the 5 filter options combined with the upsampling options let the user taylor the behavior of the unit a great deal.... If you enjoy a warm sound, all you need do is select S_dly1.... And then upsample / or not to taste. For me, Nirvana was reach with S_dly2 and 4x upsampling.
Of course, if you are allergic in principle to the very concept of filters and upsampling... That would be a different ball of wax.
Guidocorona (Threads | Answers | This Thread) |
And this.....
09-27-15: Zephyr24069
I 2nd Guido's feedback; filter choices and upsampling choice make all the difference in the world with the K and P players from Esoteric. Also, remember, ever filter combination needs it own break-in cycle so if you've changed filters and not given each 350+ hours of playback, you have not heard the player in that config properly yet. Also, level of XLR cables, power cords, etc...make a hell of a difference just like everything else. The Reimyo player is one hell of a unit....very healthy competition and one I almost bought years ago.
Zephyr24069 (System | Threads | Answers | This Thread) |
I'd prefer it if you wouldn't use my posts to fuel what looks to be a healthy argument brewing here as the above post (by me) is being used out of context :-)
All that aside, my comments, and I think Guido's on filter and upsampling for the Esoteric units are not meant for, and have little or nothing to do with a debate regarding preamp/no-preamp.
While it is true that the K-series Esoteric players (up until the X revision) have a volume control on their outputs, and you CAN skip use of a preamp, having heard both the P/D and K series units that offer this capability used both with and without a separate preamp, my opinion is there is no comparason in sound quality, imaging, sense of air, soundstage depth, accuracy and overall musicality when a good preamp is inserted in the chain (regardless of who makes it). In my case, I owned an Esoteric C-03 for quite a few years and now have a C-02. I've gone bare bones with my prior D-03 DAC and used no pre-amp and heard the K units used similarly; while the results are good and very pleasing, inserting the preamp back into the circuit gave me MUCH more in terms of the above criteria every single time.
This whole thread is subjective, I do realize that,...furthermore, it has everything to do with the choice of electronics, type and quality of interconnects,balanced circuitry versus single-ended, quality of power cords, grounding, etc...in use at every step in the chain. All things being equal, it is hinged on what the listener is looking to achieve, the quality of their hearing and ability to perceive differences in various sound presentations.
There is more often than not, no absolute right or wrong, better or worse, etc...that can be stamped on every possible combination in this hobby of ours. This is one of those topics :-) |
+1, Zephyr.
Sincere apologies for the unintended offense.
J. |
this has all been very enlightening for me. Many thanks to all. I think I've decided to get one and see what it does for (or to) my sound. I'm thinking of a Aesthetic Calypso or a Jeff Rowland Capri 2. Any ideas regarding these two units? |
Rustler, with the Calypso I would have the concern I cited in my post dated 9-26-15, that its gain (specified as 29 dB balanced/23 dB unbalanced) may be so high that you may forced to use it with the volume control on the DAC set too low to be optimal. That issue is much less likely to occur with the Capri or Capri S2, which have gain specs of 14 dB.
Aside from that, I don't see any technical issues with either choice.
Good luck. Regards,
-- Al
|
How in g**s name can a active preamp give you more REAL detail (not perceived detail because of distortions) from the source than the same well match direct source to poweramp.??
Please produce some laws of electronics in your answer and not voodoo speak. The answer to this was in my prior post. However I like to use engineering principles since you asked; we can start there... normally in any situation where we are driving a load, as a general rule of thumb the source will have about 1/10th the impedance of the load. This is a good practice to insure proper bandwidth and low distortion of the source. When you put a resistance in series with the source, the source will begin to have troubles driving the load. Now when the series element is a volume control, one might argue that the control itself becomes the source but this is not entirely accurate. The source becomes that of the volume control and the original source together, along with whatever effects are imposed by the interconnect cable between the source and the volume control. Many sources use a coupling capacitor at their output; such sources can suffer frequency response aberrations when a series resistance is imposed between the source and the load it has to drive (which in most cases will be an interconnect cable and the input of an amplifier). Generally speaking, these errors can be reduces if the source is of low output impedance and the volume control is a fairly low value, for example 10K ohms or less. The issue here is the ability of the source to drive such a load, but if that is the case the effects of the cable between the PVC and the input of the amp will be better controlled and the series resistance between the source's output coupling cap and the amplifier's input will not likely impose much of a frequency response error. When you get into higher source impedance and higher volume control values the cables play a larger role. This is partially due to capacitance. You can calculate the minus upper 3db point by the formula f=1,000,000/2xPi x C x R, where R is the source resistance in ohms, C is the capacitance to ground (that of the interconnect cable) in microfarads and f is the -3db point in cycles per second. The cable between the source and the volume control should not be ignored. While the ear cannot detect phase shift of individual frequencies, it can detect phase shift in a band of frequencies (generally as a tonality but high frequency phase shift can also affect imaging), generally phase shift effects can be heard to 1/10th the cutoff frequency, so if your -3db point is at 50KHz, there will be effects down to about 5KHz. When you put a PVC after a source, as far as the amp is concerned the output impedance of the source is increased, conversely from the perspective of the source the load impedance is decreased. This can lead to the low frequency cutoff being increased in frequency. To avoid phase shift in the audio passband, the cutoff should be about 2Hz as phase shift components (which to the ear sound like a loss of impact) can be heard to 10x the cutoff frequency. So of this moves from 2Hz to 5Hz phase shift components can have an effect at 50Hz rather than 20Hz. Thus it can be seen that while a PVC is a very simple device, if incorrectly used it can act as a simple passband filter. Keeping the phase shift components out of the audio passband is the key to success and is why they can work so well in some systems but not in others.
we are discussing about what the OP's question is, stop rambling about passives, GET A GRIP MATE.
"Is no preamp really better that a good preamp"
And I also addressed this in my prior post, which (in a nutshell) says that in some cases a passive will be better and in others an active will be better, thus both must be auditioned. I thought you would be happy that I was agreeing with you that passives can work... |
Here is a quote from Nelson Pass, he is correct in every way, and I add to what he said that the only way one can better it is by going direct if the source has it's own VC.
Nelson Pass,
"We’ve got lots of gain in our electronics. More gain than some of us need or want. At least 10 db more.
Think of it this way: If you are running your volume control down around 9 o’clock, you are actually throwing away signal level so that a subsequent gain stage can make it back up.
Routinely DIYers opt to make themselves a “passive preamp” - just an input selector and a volume control.
What could be better? Hardly any noise or distortion added by these simple passive parts. No feedback, no worrying about what type of capacitors – just musical perfection.
And yet there are guys out there who don’t care for the result. “It sucks the life out of the music”, is a commonly heard refrain (really - I’m being serious here!). Maybe they are reacting psychologically to the need to turn the volume control up compared to an active preamp."
Cheers George
|
"What could be better than a passive?", certainly not all the active preamps he has manufactured. I have a lot of respect for Nelson Pass and I do think his designs are simple and straight forth (minimum gain stages). However he has never marketed a passive preamp to my knowledge but does recommend them. |
No money in them ask me, he makes 10 x the profit making actives, why add passive to the range and effect sales of the actives, it's called business strategy, and he's a very wealthy man because of it.
Cheers George
|
|
Phd; The Pass Laboratories Aleph L (2 different versions?) and Pass's First Watt B1 and B2 were interesting offerings. |
Rustler, I use the Aesthetix Calypso with an Esoteric K-05 and I enjoy the combination a great deal. It gives you the opportunity to tailor the sound by tube rolling.
The gain of the Calypso can be reduced by 12dB by switching two pair of jumpers in the preamp. This can be done easily by the user. Instructions are in the manual. |
Unsound, you are right. I just thought it was ironic that Nelson Pass suggested that active preamps are inferior to passives yet actives are the only thing he manufactured. Maybe Georgelofi got it right when he said that there is more money to be made with active preamps. |
No money in them ask me, he makes 10 x the profit making actives, why add passive to the range and effect sales of the actives, it's called business strategy, and he's a very wealthy man because of it. If passive is superior, why can't you charge 20x of an active? In this stupid hobby where audiophiles pay CRAZY $ for a piece of wire, you can make it work. One example is produce one above the top of line XS. If passive is truly superior, it will sell with a BIGGER margin. YPSILON offers a passive and active PST-100. |
Regarding the lengthy technically oriented post which Ralph provided yesterday, I of course agree 100%. At the same time, though, I believe his post is not at all inconsistent with mine that preceded it, in which I said: If:
1)The output stage of a source component can drive whatever power amp is being used and the associated interconnect cables without compromise, or, alternatively, at least as well as whatever preamp might be inserted between those components, AND
2)The volume control in the source component, assuming it has one, is EITHER:
(a)As transparent in the range of settings that would be used in the no preamp configuration of the system as it would be if set for use with a preamp (i.e., at or near max in typical cases), OR
(b)As transparent as the volume control that is provided in whatever preamp might be introduced into the signal path,
then it seems to me that the only way inserting a preamp into the signal path can result in sound quality that is subjectively preferable would be by producing an output that is less true to the source material (i.e., less accurate) than the signal that is provided to it by the source component. And it would seem, on paper at least, that in the specific case of Rustler's PS Audio DAC both of the criteria I listed above should be met. Essentially, the output section of his DAC **is** a preamp, or so it would seem. Which means, IMO, that if he finds insertion of a preamp to result in improved sonics, chances are the sonic effects of the preamp would be compensating for an issue elsewhere. Which is not to say that there would be anything necessarily wrong with introducing a preamp as a solution, but the possibility should be considered that changing something else in the system, perhaps the power amp, might be a more optimal solution. Best regards, -- Al |
JonJon2020: No worries,...no offense taken, was only expressing a preference given my being thrown into the fray :-)
As to Nelson Pass' designs: brilliant man who is a definite asset to the audiophile community. I do not however buy the argument that not producing a passive preamp is 'business strategy' simply as stated above. If a passive preamp is superior to an active and yet may be a loss leader for a company (for a period of time presumably), and if that company makes a wealth of other gear that could potentially offset such a loss-leader product in the line up (again for a strategically chosen period of time), then belief should not be cast aside and he should produce such a product for which such a strong opinion is offered. If it is as good as it gets so to speak, word will spread, people will buy it and any potential loss will be put behind them. I agree with Knghifi's comments above. If it's a better product, people will buy it.... |
Little baby polar bear is asking his big mom polar bear same annoying question all over again:
-Mom is it true that I'm polar bear?
-Yes! you are my son just like me -- polar bear!
-Mom, Mom, seriously am I REALLY polar bear?
-Yes, but why you always keep asking?
-It's f..n freezing here mom! |
Knghifi,
Nice, very common sense observation. People will ultimately spent their money on what they believe sounds best to them. |
I was curious if anyone has successfully used a passive preamp with a Pass Lab amp and then thought it sounded far superior to one of his active preamps.
But great minds do think alike when it was stated that people will buy whatever sounds good to them. |
PHD, some Pass labs, First watt, Threshold ect, had very low input impedance <33kohm and low gain.
So yes they would be suited better with buffered passives or active preamps. Rather than just a passive attenuator.
The ones that have >33kohm (the standard being 47kohm or more) input impedance, and 1-2v input sensitivity for full output, would suit a passive attenuator.
Cheers George
|
The Pass pre's that had passive or gain free attributes (?) were single ended, it seemed as though the Pass Laboratories amps worked best via their balanced inputs.
I'm not sure, but I seem to recall that the Pass Laboratories pre's were not from Nelson Pass's pen. |
Stereophile just posted a review of a GBP 9,000 ($13,619) passive preamp. |
I've had issues with excess gain in systems over the years - but nothing remotely approaching the excess gain I'd be forking over to the maker of that $13k passive preamp should I be foolish enough to buy one. |
10-01-15: Tortilladc
Stereophile just posted a review of a GBP 9,000 ($13,619) passive preamp. [/quote]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GyhUlk9a9XA/VP5Csf0PiVI/AAAAAAAA2Nc/p_qnnqHizO0/s1600/the_bespoke_audio_company_preamplifier_review_matej_isak_mono_and_stereo_01_1.jpg[/url] You do get a pair of white gloves with it. Cheers George |
|
Do they throw in the preamp after buying the gloves? |
That's so the missus doesn't leave fingerprints after she's stabbed you in the back. Here’s another incident A women is on trial for murdering her husband by bludgeoning him to death with his antique guitar collection Upon taking the witness stand the judge asked her ... “So first offender” ... to which she replied “No your honor , first the Gibson and then the Fender” . |
