Who dismissed Knghfi's observation? But asking whether or not there was a good impedance match is a valid question given the problems any unbuffered passive would have without a good impedance match (and short cables, and high sensitivity amps for best perfromance). Not sure any one suggested that he does not prefer his VAC to the LSA, it is one of the finest tube linestages available, so why doubt it? The fact that someone accustomed to such a high quality linestage would be willing to use the LSA on hot months, speaks well enough for the LSA in my view. What I would say is that for $450, anyone following this thread should give the thing a try and decide for themselves, but I certainly respect any listener's preferences and observations. |
Let's just leave it at this. The LSA is pretty good, and "not bad" for the money. Give it a try and decide for yourself if it competes with the $$$$ gear, I think you might find the test interesting and well worth keeping even if you decide it does not better your $$$$ linestage, or, some of you just might sell your $$$$ linestage and spend the money elsewhere, including, possibly, more music:)
Everyone, have a great New Year, I hope is 2011 is better for all of you. |
So Knghifi heard it under "appropriate" conditions and prefered his excellent VAC, fair enough, and a valid preference. The TRL amps are all SS? Not hybrid? |
Dpac996, sounds like a setup where a TVC/AVC/buffered passive would work best than an LSA or Placette RVC type passive. Still might work pretty darn well, so worth testing if you can, but on paper it does seem less than optimal given the input impedance of the amp. How much off optimal? Don't know. |
You bet against the Giants? |
Since I had the Joule LA150 SE at the time I got the LSA, I wanted another good linestage to compare it with. So a buddy of mine who has the CAT SL1 Ultimate MKII came over with his unit (70lbs!) just to compare. Well we went through some Lester Young, the Mile Davis Quintet Live at the Plugged Nickel, and some 1960s folk music. The amp I was using was the incredible Music Reference RM10 MKII.
Both preamps sounded wonderful. Could live with either. Let's say my friend was so impressed with the LSA that he is questioning whether to keep the CAT, not that it isn't wonderful, but....
What is the LSA does exceptionally well, where I really see it shine is how right it gets the timbre of instruments, wide and balanced frequency range (plenty of bass), and dynamics. I don't hear anything remotely like 2D sound staging, width, depth, and relative positioning (layering?) seems just about right. Perhaps it is simply getting out of the way and revealing with the RM10 can do - the combo may be a very, very good match.
I previously owned the CAT pre and replaced it with the Joule, after getting a good A/B comparison I still have no qualms about the LSA and its merits. And when I take cost and tube rolling into account, well - I don't think I'll be changing "preamps" and time soon, excepth maybe ot get a dual volume control version of the LSA for channel balance control.
I've not yet tried the LSA with my Atma-sphere amps because I have a lot of 6sn7s and 12au7s for my Atma-sphere preamp, and I'm not sure the M60s will be sensitive enough to go passive. But as I switch to the M60s tomorrow for the winter months, I might give LSA a trial with them. |
that's the way i hear t too. i think that at this point it is not a matter of comparing LSA with others and deciding which is "best". i think it is enough to say it is well worth trying and that some folks might just find it does what they want a preamp to do (or not do), and if you are on a budget, SOTA quality is within reach of those that cannot afford much pricier, and excellent ones too, linestages. within its limits it is worthy of the finest systems IMHO. |
Wow! That has to be the lowest capacitance if any cable - no? But like George says, I feel safe with the 12pf/ft:) |
I was actually "reading" it:) |
If you start with a signal from the source (all the information from the recording you can get), isn't any alteration from that simply an additive having nothing to do with the recording, but some haze thrown over the recording, pleasant thought it may be? Maybe I am thinking about this the wrong way, but the signal from the source is the purest reflection of the recording, and any alteration from that is something having nothing to do with the source, the recording closest to the event. It is some type of alteration. which can be nothing but an alteration that pleasant or not, is no part of the recorded performance. Might that be pleasant? Perhaps, but it is something not true to the recording, and if you accept that, it is only a question of how much you are willing to accept as the overlay of a piece of equipment, but how it can it be anything but a distortion from the original, I don't know. And of course the recording itself is already something lost from the live, presence of the original. A bandaid distorts everything in the same way, better in my book to have no bandaid, no coloration from the source. But this reflects fundamental principles of what the equipment should do to a signal, but no information leading to all the audiophile attributes can be good if it alters what is in the source signal, as best as it can convey the recording; the rest is something having nothing to do with the recorded event. Pleasant and enjoyable though it may be, it is not part of the performance and we are only left with coloration and variance from the truth - the truth contained within the recording transmitted through the source component to the preamp. The ideal to me would seem to be a transmission from the source to the amp as if no intermediary component existed, I think that is what the LSA comes close to accomplishing, and qualities such as timbre, sound staging, bloom, frequency, etc are either in the recording, or they are not, but you don't get something false to compensate for the absence of those qualities when they are absent from the recording. |
George, is it correct that as the volume is louder (less attenuation) the output impedance goes up? If so, given that I can switch my CD output from 2v to 4v, does it make sense to use the higher gain so I can use the volume control at lower settings and keep the output impedance lower? |
This is not regarding the LSA since it is really about as "simple" as can be in terms of parts, etc. The irony about "simple" designs, with fewer parts, etc, is that it really requires some design chops to execute a great, simple circuit and I suspect it requires a master like Nelson Pass to design some great First Watt and XA.5 amps with such apparent simplicity in lack of complexity. For masters of their craft, you often see a less is more approach to design. But ultimately, my preference for simplicity may just be a personal peeve that has increased as I have gotten older. But yes, there are many ways to skin a cat to produce a world class system. What makes the hobby so much fun. |
I am sure I would like the VAC too:) |
Reminds me of my conversation with Ken Stevens when I picked of my CAT preamp and amp. Got into a conversation about capacitors and he said when looking for some, the manufacturer asked what flavor of sound he was looking for, he replied "I want the flavor of water". He decided to makes his own capacitors from scratch to pursue the least "damage" to the signal, he felt good recordings should sound good and bad recordings should sound bad - just one of many approaches to line stage design. The LSA seems to be guided by the same principle. What's best? Who knows. But it is nice to have so many choices. |
|
Banquo, where did you study philosophy? |
I think Terry is a very gifted listener and reviewer with exposure to some of the finest equipment in the world and have nothing but respect for his observations and conclusions about his views on equipment, but though we have owned similar equipment at different times, I think we lean towards a different kind of sound and we might not come to the same conclusions - though I have no doubt I would love his system. He might be right that part of my enthusiasm is in part what the LSA does for the $$$, though I would have no problem buying a more expensive line stage if I wanted to, but ultimately I think it is simply that the LSA works really well in my system and after quite of bit of A/B I felt it offered just as much musical pleasure as my tube linestage, which up to that point was my favorite after several years of listening to various preamps, a line stage with Terry also heard but wasn't exactly his cup of tea.
Still, I do the "best" concept really makes no sense, it makes no sense universally, independent of system context, not does it make sense to any particular listener. But it sure does make sense to try an LSA to see it how it works for you and then decide for yourself.
Ralph Karsten and Nelson Pass? You are right, they are at the very top of world class design talent, as is Roger Modjeski in my view, who also is in the passive line stage camp feeling no active line stage would better for use with his RM10 MKII and RM9 SE amps. Now, while Roger sells a $135 Pot-in-a-Box with a very high quality Noble pot, I think George has simply built a better mousetrap by avoiding a physical connection to change resistor values.
I think there is more debate about active versus passage than between the SS/tube divide in that even within the very same listener one might find ambivalence of conviction over which approach is best over time. I've made that journey several times, the allure of tubes is always there, but at least for me, the Music Reference amps have never sounded better than through the LSA. |
Well, tubes definitely do "something" I like, my amps are loaded with them and even the great First Watt and XA.5 designs by Nelson Pass were not enough to convince me to keep them and replace any of my amps, though I very much wanted to get rid of the maintenance issues with tubes, but at the end of the day, for whatever reason, I prefer tube amps - distortion or not. In fact, I'm not sure I would be so keen on the LSA if used with an SS amp as I would hear the amp more clearly, and I think an SS amp needs a tube line stage to sound the way I would like it. I have been focusing on the sound stage through the LSA, as Terry did write to me about the listening sessions he refers to any he reported the same issue with the group feeling the LSA was missing some of the sound staging capabilities of the actives. No way am I going to question that is what the group heard, these are seasoned and unbiased folks as far as I know. After Terry's note I really looked for that up against the Joule which is particularly well regarded for its sound staging abilities and I honestly did not find that flattening, but that was on my systems with my amps and might not be so with other systems. Why you really have to audition and decide for yourself if it works for you - as you would with any piece of equipment and with a few grains of salt in concluding about any piece of equipment simply based on the honest opinions of others. |
I think we can all agree in that in many ways Nelson Pass is one of the greatest designers on the planet. I always wonder what he might have done if he applied his efforts towards tube amplifiers, but at he said in his manuals, there were already a lot of great tube amplifiers and making a great sounding SS amp was a bigger challenge for him, he obviously succeeded!! I also suspect that if I had different speakers, I would have kept his XA30.5, the best SS amp I have heard, but my speakers are really designed for tube amps and damping is not a particular advantage for them. Why you can really judge a system, but much harder a piece on its own, and why there never will be can never can by a "best" in any product category, and why a good dealer or a good cadre of fellow audiophiles are so helpful in building a satisfying system. And Terry, your room doesn't hurt:) |
Knowing Terry as I do, I suspect it was not his intention to falsely accuse anyone, though it may have come off that way a bit, one could also feel George comes on strong in support of his product, because he does - he is a true believer, but I don't get the sense he's motivated by "making a killing".
It is also frustrating to have the "impedance mismatch" thrown out as reason why you might prefer a $$$$ line stage, but some times that is true, and some times it is just a preference for a certain kind of sound. Terry is certainly open to passives, he (and Roger Modjeski and Anthony - Clio9) is the one who took me in this direction, so I don't think he has any bias towards passives, though he had a TVC and Buffered passive which would have addressed impedance matching. He then moved on to a series of tubed linestages that he preferred, and he listens to a lot of good gear.
Now, in my system I happen to prefer the passive to the actives I have owned (I won't list them:)) - but I suspect, but don't know, that the fact I use a tube amp is one of the reasons. When it comes down to it we like what we like, and we all hear a bit differently and listen for different things. But, I still like the "theory" behind a passive that minimally alters what was recorded (even though the recording itself is an artifact of the microphones used, and the electronics used in the recording chain - that "manipulation" is at least in the recording engineers hands and part of the creative process) - none of this is live or "absolute" afterall.
On the subject of shilling, I never mind a manufacturer promoting his ideas as long as it is clear he is the manufacturer. We know where they are coming from and they are subjecting their view to public examination and comment (and criticism) - nothing is hidden. I do mind dealers for a product not identifying themselves. Relatives or friends of the designer not revealing that relationship. Or even folks that defend a product they happen to own and make claims for that product that they don't quite believe but knowing one day they will have to sell that product on AGON - wouldn't be prudent to say anything negative about the product till it is out of their hands. I am none of the above, I simply think the LSA in the right system is awfully good, and a great value.
Nelson Pass does not need to come on AGON, he has 10,000s of very satisfied customers with some of the best gear on the ever made to speak for him. He saves himself for the DIY community, as did George. My feeling is George believes in his product and is excited to see that some folks have discovered his product and like it as much as he does - hard not to find some satisfaction in that. |
"best gear on the planet..." I meant to say. |
I guess we will not, nor can we. resolve the issues of what is best, and if the LSA is better than Product X, Y, or Z, and the try to deal with the issue of what "better" means and in what context. Maybe if the Subject were: Lightspeed Attenuator - Worth a Try...." we would be closer on the subject. BUt. I think we all understand that how good we think the LSA versus other great line stages will depend on the amp it is used with and other factors, and the kind of sound we like, which we are perfectly entitled to, and isn't worth arguing about, that is fruitless and can turn personal which would be ridiculous.
Perhaps the issue of active versus passive, and when one approach would be preferable is a more interesting technical subject - for example Ralph Karsten seems to often that the real issues is controlling the preamps ability to control the interconnect, and even then I think he admits it is more of an issue if you have the need to run long interconnects. On the other hand, he makes very good linestages and is never going to say you don't need an active linestage, I would not expect that of him. In fact, I think his amps do benefit from an active linestage with some gain.
These discussion are interesting for folks that love the hobby and gear. For my non-audiophile brother who just wants to listen to music, I would tell him to get the LSA/RM10 combo for less than $2,500, a speaker that can be driven by 35 watts, and feel comfortable that I gave him very good advice in building an excellent, affordable system. |
You know Anthony, it just might be that the LSA is what it is and the way it must be:) Some of the DIY community seems to be hell bent on "improving" the LSA - it's just possible it can't be done - without trade off - thought it would be nice to get rid of the ICs. One less thing, but as you suggest an added element of complexity. |
Details! Details! Mac and Wyred 4 Sound DAC - he does not know what a turntable is. |
If you like the grape, you'll like the wine 98% of time, no matter what the $$$. |
"If I can eliminate one source of coloration from the mix I figure I've taken a step in the right direction (for me anyway)."
I think that is why things like soundstaging seem to change more than usual from recording to recording with the LSA - it is putting less of a imprint that carries through for every recording. The question becomes does the recording have depth, width, and localization cues - when it does, the LSA sounds like that, when it doesn't the LSA shows that too. The more neutral the system, the greater variation of these types of attributes from recording to recording. I think this was Ken Stevens' (CAT)notion of a preamp having the color of water, for him you should never be able to tell what preamp is in the chain, there should not be a sonic sameness between recordings that the footprint of the preamps sonic signature. No right or wrong here, I think, just a chosen approach to building a system, one that appeals to my sense of things. |
Yup, and well above the 12pf/ft of the Cardas, which is why I probably heard no difference between the 3ft and 6ft versions, and as Clio9 mentions, they are of course superduperlitz:) |
History of... then Phenomenology - Stony Brook was very "continental". There is a very interesting thread out there on whether the best stereo reproduction is 5% of "real" or %95; I am not sure the %, but no stereo has ever fooled me into thinking it was real, unamplified, acoustic instruments. Yes, what I most want for the system to sound most like the "absolute" sound of the real thing, but I give an awful lot of weight to the recording process in capturing all the vital cues that makes the real sound so distinct form the reproduced. It took me a few years to not be disappointed listening to my stereo after coming back from a live performance at the Blue Note or Vanguard. Like looking for good food in London, I thought it was just a matter of throwing more money at the gap, I concluded it is just the inherent difference between live and Memorex, and I have learned to love recorded music for what it is. |
The source and its various meanings as related to the LSA:
1. The live acoustic performance. The LSA, and no preamp, has anything to do with this. That event cannot truly be reproduced and perhaps the biggest drop off from the source in this sense occurs in the recording process itself and affected by colorations/distortions/mixing etc caused by the microphone chosen, the electronics, as well as the manufacturing process of the medium that we do bring home. This is the truest "source" - the "absolute" sound?, but preamps (and systems) do not touch it since it is mediated and never really comes home with us.
2. The recording and the information embedded in the medium - digital or analog. This is the limit of the musical information that can possibly make its way through our gear to our speakers to our ears. This contains all the musical information that is possible - including the ever popular audiophile attributes of soundstaging, dynamics, warmth, bandwidth and bloom. Any musical information you hear that is not inherently in the recording as embedded in media is a distortion and no part of the source as defined here. Pleasant though these distortion might or might not be, they are pixie dust that has been spread over the music and no part of the original performance mediated through the recording process - whatever they are, they are not part of the musical source. The LSA only touches this source to the extent that the 3rd-sense of source does not interfere.
3. Finally, the electrical signal coming from the TT or CD/DAC that has been processed from the recording embedded in a medium to an analog signal for use by a preamp or LSA. I think that this is the source that the LSA is true to. It is the only source that meets the LSA one-to-one. The LSA cannot improve upon either recordings or "players" and a bad recording, or a weak turntable/CD/DAC will reveal themselves through the LSA - in fact a poor recording or player might in fact sound better with a preamp less true to the "source" in this sense. The question if this is true of the LSA, that it is true to the source in this sense, is that what one wants, or should want, in a preamp/volume control - is there a right answer?
CAVEAT: The LSA, will not be true to the source if it has insufficient gain from the source or sensitivity in an amp, or if the output impedance of the source and the input impedance of the amp are not appropriate, or if long interconnects have so much overall capacitance as to alter the frequency spectrum of the signal sent to the amp.
Now, just because the LSA may (subject to debate)may be as true to the source as a line stage / volume control can be, that does not mean that everyone would prefer it to something less true - not sure the answer to that can be decided by measurement and engineering, only listening and drawing our own conclusions about what we like. |
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe
Now where is that martini? |
"LSA is not an empty box..." Pretty close though. |
That is overstating the argument, but a good design will have as few parts as necessary, but no less (in the case of pure volume attenuation you don't need many)and the quality of parts matter, too - especially if you are relying on fewer parts (less places to hide). In the case of the LSA, it also not just a matter of the number of parts, though that helps since you don't need a lot of parts to control volume if you are adding no gain, or providing any buffering (those function do require more parts), but also a contact free interface between the volume knob and the resistors. The freedom from the mechanical connection is one of the reason it is felt to be a better mousetrap than any other potentiometer or stepped attentuator. But hey, I studied philosophy , so I rather the tech folks explain that part of it. |
That is overstating the argument, but a good design will have as few parts as necessary, but no less (in the case of pure volume attenuation you don't need many)and the quality of parts matter, too - especially if you are relying on fewer parts (less places to hide). In the case of the LSA, it also not just a matter of the number of parts, though that helps since you don't need a lot of parts to control volume if you are adding no gain, or providing any buffering (those function do require more parts), but also a contact free interface between the volume knob and the resistors. The freedom from the mechanical connection is one of the reason it is felt to be a better mousetrap than any other potentiometer or stepped attentuator. But hey, I studied philosophy , so I rather the tech folks explain that part of it. |
Not sure how it got repeated, another example of too many parts:) |
I understand why a moving coil cartridge would need gain (and RIAA equalization) to create a sense of drive and dynamics, but why would a 2 volt signal need any gain to drive an amp that plays at maximum output with 1v of input? Is "drive" something different than simple voltage which is either sufficient or insufficent to drive an amplifer? I suppose a source could have a weak output stage, but I would think that would be as much of problem for driving an active preamp as a more direct connection to the amp. There is something appealing about "horsepower", but does it really serve any purpose where input sensitivity is simply not an issue? Does an active really provide something "in reserve" for hearing micro and macro dynamic inflections? |
I suppose moving forward we need to get away from what is better, or trying to prove it, but perhaps just hear what experiences folks have had. I expect there will be split between the passive and active sides from a head count perspective, but it is always nice to hear from other folks and their observations. The truth is there is a lot of great equipment out there for us to listen to, but I do want folks to feel that it really is possible to have what some very experienced listeners feel is SOTA for their systems for the very low price of the LSA. Especially important for audiophiles or budding audiophiles on a budget and more of us are probably in that situation than 3-4 years ago. |
Knghifi, I', not familiar with the Krell gear, but I assume the 600 has alot morep power than than the 300? I don't want to get side tracked on the power amps, but I think power and current and amps and how they interact with speaker impedances is a different kettle of fish than source volatage and preamp input sensitivity, I say that thinking I am right, but knowing since I am not engineer. That being said, and just as an aside, I would also argue that the exact same circuit, but for power output, the lower power amp will sound better, IF, the power and current needed for low impedance swings for bass, is adequate. But, I think that is another conversation, but a variation on the less is more paradigm (when less is sufficient, not always the case). |
made a few grammatical errors, there, but I hope you get the gist of what I was trying to say. By the way, the new Dylan Mono Recordings Box sounds great. |
Grannyring, I think you are right, there is not an impedance mismatch with the Atma-sphere. And as Teajay cautioned, it would not be fair, or simply too easy to say that something else "must" be wrong or you would necessarily, you must like the LSA better than anything else - of course that is not true, and nobody should try to tell you otherwise. Yet, there might be another "compatibly" issue (electronic, not psychoacoustic)beyond impedance caused by cable capacitance - if too long, or a high capacitance cable, or the input sensitivity of the amps might be too low, I think Atma amps, or at least mine, have a 2.8v input sensitivity which is not ideal driven just by the output voltage of a CD player. Or there may be absolutely no electronic issues and you simply prefer the sound of your TRLpreamp in your system, and that is that, and a perfectly legitimate conclusion and preference. |
Like I said, the maximum and complete set of signal information is at the output of the DAC/CD Player, there is nothing more to be extracted, whatever happens after that is some deviation from the closest thing we have to the "source". In a well matched system, I don't think any active preamp can cause less deviation from that output signal than the LSA. If there is not the right impedance and gain requirements, the LSA will cause deviation indeed, perhaps more so than a well designed active and in those cases an active would be preferred, it is causing less "damage" to the source signal. As Arthur Salvatore put it, if an active line stage, any active line stage sounds better than a passive, then you need an active line stage. I think that is true, but not sure it fully accounts for the fact that some people simply prefer the color of the preamp to a less colored version of the source - and you cannot argue with that preference (indeed, why bother); but less subjective is what the systems does to the signal originating at the source output and philosophically, some people seem choose to prefer the idea that the "chain" is preserving that source signal as it, warts and all. There is no right or wrong as far as preference goes, but there is an objective truth as to which approach best leaves the source signal intact with minimal alteration. Other than a straight wire, I think the LSA does that in a way no other attenuation device can do, where impedance and sensitivity issues are taken out of the equation. But, even if we accept that, it does not mean that any given person will prefer it to their active line stage, that is a different issue, and not readily resolved through discussion. |
"But, even if we accept that, it does not mean that any given person will prefer it to their active line stage..."
I don't think even George has, or would, argue that. I don't think any of his claims to with the subjective nature of things. |
Cables of capacitance and you need a buffere or a TVC like your Bent (which I once owned)to drive cables with acculmulated capacitance. With your set up, the LSA won't work, it will become bandwidth limited, most noticeable in the bass. And the LSA is certainly not as convenient or flexible as your NOH - you are better of with what you have as long as you need to run those cables and need the connection flexibility you are already getting - but you are certainly enjoying the benefits of not having all the added complexity of a gain stage if you don't need gain. The BENT is an excellent preamp, so.... |
Cables add capacitance and you need a buffer.... |
Well George, hopefully you have nipped that bad idea in the bud, hard to believe what some people will do. |
George, other than providing a product category that people can build and make money on, I suspect that active preamps have their advantages, like running long interconnects, and providing enough gain and impedance matching to work well with almost any amplifier, a more universal application. So it seems they certainly have there place and serve a purpose besides simply adding coloration, and it might very well be that the very best actives converge in sound quality with an LSA, but will be able to provide the sound quality to a much broader range of listeners and system contexts. Any other advantages to actives? |
"perceived notion" - you know, I think part of that must come from the fact you might have to turn the volume control to 2-3 position at times and there seems to be an intuitive conclusion that there is something lacking, drive if you will, that makes it necessary to go to such "extremes", where with an active it can be hard to go beyond 10:00 on the dial, making you feel you have to have tight reins on the surging power lurking within the preamp beast. Perhaps Nelson Pass touch upon this psychological dimension to the perception of power and drive. |
sensitivity of amp, sensitivity of speakers, size of room, how loud you like it, and hearing acuity. now, if i switch the cd players gain to 4v, i never go above 12. |
"It's personal taste and system synergy, this fiction that there is an objective standard to what music really sounds like is so silly." That is true and I'm not sure anyone, or even George, has spoken about what music really sounds like, his claim is that the LSA will permit the signal to go from the source to the amp with minimal distortion, whihc seems to be a measurable claim beyond subjectivity, which is a different statement, he is not making claims about musicality or what you will like, it seems like a more objective statment that the signal will be less adulterated, unless you have impedance matching issues which will be a distotion of its own, as Ralph points out.
I am somewhat agnostic about the issue of neutrality versus color, I just want my system to sound good and I find the $450 LSA sounds as good with my Music Reference amps as with the much more expensive and complex linestages I have used; that is why I think others should try it if they have a sensitive and high-input impedance tube amp with short ICS, they can get great sound for little money. And, I continue to use my Atma pre with Atma amp because nothing has sounded better with my Merlins and the warm Cardas cables - a great match for an VSM owner. |
Ralph, why have gain with a CD player with 2v or more output? Any reason? You make a good argument for why you might need a buffered linestage (though Roger Modjeski still advised me to avoid a buffered stage in my setup with his amp - he was perfectly willing to build me one if I insisted), but gain? What for? |
Knghifi, you do have to wonder how much better it can possibly be (if it is) - you really have to wonder about this market place; who really buys this stuff? 10 people in the world? |
