Dodd preamp vs. McCormack RLD-1 preamp

Hi Glory. I'll just make the general comment that for me, tube preference (or evaluation) is completely (almost) dictated by the circuit it is used in and the system context, as performance is strongly related to those factors. In other words, I'm rarely comfortable with a statment like tube x sounds like this, and tube y sounds like that as a general proposition, it is very system dependent. In some systems for example, I need, prefer Siemens 5814s, in others RCA 12au7s -- which is better? Depends. As far as the Dodd, Amperex seems to be preferred by Gary and a few others - which of course doesn't mean I would not like the Siemens, but I suspect that the Siemens might be too much of a good thing (they tend towards speed, transparency, clarity) with the Dodd. I think of tubes as spices, different soups, different spices.

What I do think, not having yet heard it, is that the off-the grid, and simple circuit of the Dodd will let you hear differences between various tubes more easily -- the circuit gets out of the way. We'll see....

Pubule57
Dodd is the perfect tool for tube evaluation. And yes - there is very little coloration and tubes are the main characteristics - sonic wise , if one wanted to describe Dodd's sound.

Well, of course I could not wait for the Amperexs to arrive. The Dodd is really wonderful. It seems to have the dynamics of the CAT SL1 which was the best I've had in terms of dynamic contrast. It seems to have the quietness of a passive, which may account for the great dynamic contrasts. While passive quiet, it does have tube bloom (distortion?) which tube users love, but certainly not slow and colored - very neutral, not disimilar to the BENT TAP or the Atma-sphere in that sense. I'm not sure I would like it much "warmer", it seems right to me. Bass seems ample, well defined, and it breathes. My speakers have no output below 28hz, so what deep bass weakness the pre may have, I don't hear it. I go back and forth between the Dodd and the BENT TAP, and really it is a tossup though they sound a bit different - both excellent preamps. You could certainly live with the Dodd for a long time and if you let yourself, not be thinking about the next upgrade. I'll have to decide whether to keeps this or the BENT as I feel a bit silly having two preamps for my Music Reference amp - the Dodd really is beautiful to look at though....

It takes some time for those Sonicaps to burn in but you should hear its full potentials in around 50-100h mark.
My impressions with Dodd are somewhat similiar to yours.
Of coarse it is paired with different components, speakers and in totaly different room but your findings are very similar to my own. Either way, keeper or not - it is a very nice preamp I could see myself living with it in my rig for a very long time. As to your taste/preferances, RWA Isabella might or might not be for you. Isabella is more settle, balanced and enggaging but it is not as lively like Dodd is.
I mean it is real as hell but it doesn't has Dodd's forwardness if you will. Then again, we used sweet sounding Mullards. I am sure that stock JJ or more natural Amperex PQs could be more to your taste.

Well, if this thing is going to get better with break-in, I'm all for it, I love it out of the box, and that with the JJs which most folks don't seem to LOVE - they sound might fine to me, but I am eager for the Amperex to arrive, I'm getting some 58-60 D-Getters which are suppose to be the "sweetest" of the Amperexes. This pre is DYNAMIC.

I'm selling the BENT. Not becuase the Dodd is "better", the BENT is one heck of a fine sounding piece. But, I've falling in love with the looks of the wood paneling on the Dodd. There is definitely something to this "off the grid" thing; and now with the Dodd and RWA you can be off the grid and active.