Adding tube buffer to Rotel instead of............

Greetings, I have three of these awesome little tube buffers. If you want to take them to a whole new level, get the MF XPSU to power them and "Revelation Audio Labs" power cables for them.

Many are avialable on the used market. But if you want to go with new ones and buy them through "Musicdirect.com" you'll get a 30 day money back guarantee.

So if you order them and find out you don't like them (fat chance) you'll only be out the shipping cost. Additionally, if you keep them, they'll have a 3 year warranty.

A word on usage: As is the preferance in Europe, and I've also found this to be true...is that tubes sound their best when used as close to the "source" component as possible. ie. you don't want them "downstream", in the signal path.

Happy listing

Not having heard either the preamp or the tube buffer under question, I would have to venture a guess that the SF1 is a much better-sounding preamp that the Rotel/buffer combo would be. Convenience-wise, sure, go ahead. But sound-wise, not all tube units are created equal. Good luck!

NO!! I had the Musical Fidelity's latest buffer before I went with tubes and it will not come close to the SF 1, IMHO....but those are my ears.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of a buffer. To just add another link in the chain can only detract from the sound, tubes or not, when not required. An external buffer is used to replace, not augment, the ouput stage of a DAC or other source with zero gain. They can be used to correct impedance mismatches on passive devices as well.

I was wondering why anyone would want to add another stage in the signal path just for the sake of it, especially a tube stage. Ngjockey's explanation makes sense to me.

Nothing but a band-aid approach. Either employ tubes properly in the system........or don't.

Oz

Nope, wouldn't do it.