Tube pre- or amp: does it matter?


Hi,

I'm considering introducing a tube component into my system (Cary 306/200, Placette pre, Macintosh 300, Gallo 3.1) to bring out a little more depth, staging and musicality. I'm willing to start from scratch with both the pre and amp. If I were to balance tube and ss, is there a rule of thumb about whether it's better to have a tube for pre or a tube for amp? All things being equal (which they seldom are) would one make a bigger difference in sound than the other? In my electronic ignorance, I'm wondering if there might be something about whether the tube is closer to your source or closer to your speakers. (Of course, I may end up with tube for both.)

Thanks for any help,
Bob
holderlin

Showing 1 response by holderlin

Thanks to all for your responses. I'm getting a sense that the biggest difference is probably the comparative price of tube rolling (and perhaps the heat on those hot summer days). I confess that I put the proverbial cart before the horse (in this case, the amp before the pre) by leaping at the dutch auction of TAD-60 amps earlier this week. I was struck by the impulse and then decided to ask the question. I figured I could audition it for the 15 day trial period with the Placette pre and see what difference it makes.

There was a modicum of rationale to the impulse, in that I thought the combo of transparent passive pre with tube amp might be a more balanced combination than less transparent MacIntosh and tube pre. On the other hand, I've also thought of replacing both with a tube pre and perhaps something like NuForce amps (having been intrigued by some of the comments here and elsewhere).

I appreciate Mahandave's point about anchoring the system with something strong because every 5 years I've gotten the itch and each time it gets more and more expensive. (not to say that my 5 year itch will ever entirely cease.)

Your responses are extremely helpful as I go down the road.
Thanks again,