any comments on the threshold fet ten/hl pre-amp?

I have to laugh after reading the two posts above. Keep in mind that i'm not laughing at either of the posters themselves but only about the comments and how it pertains to the product in question.

The reason for my laughter is that it reminded me of when Moncrieff of IAR reviewed the NS 10 from Threshold. I would have to re-post the first few paragraphs of the review to completely clarify where i'm coming from, but suffice it to say, he stated that many audiophiles are divided on that product. Tube-o-philes find it hard and steely sounding while SS fans found it amazingly clear. He said that comparing the Threshold to a tube preamp would be like comparing apples to oranges.

That same review also talks about folks prefering the euphonics and "right soundingness" of tubes over what was really the more accurate reproduction of the Threshold. The "funny" thing is that he ranked it right in the same group as the ARC SP6 and a Paragon 12A, both of which are "warm and tubey" sounding due to high frequency roll-off. He stated that the Threshold was simply the other side of the same coin and what side you chose to look at was up to you. In other words, both presentations could be quite excellent. How well you or anyone else liked them would remain up to the balance of your system and personal preferences.

Once again though, we come back to the "accuracy vs musicality" type of product with most of us looking for something combining both aspects of performance. Sean
>

Edle, that's the funny part and why we can't explain certain things. You can put in any combination of test tones and a well designed SS piece can typically duplicate it flawlessly. Doing the same thing with a piece of tube gear will typically produce lesser results in several areas.

On the other hand, SS can sound "harsh" whereas tubes can sound "sweeter". Is the SS gear "more accurate" because it exactly reproduces what is fed into it, blemishes and all, or is the tube gear "more accurate" because, even though it doesn't reproduce what is exactly fed into it and is much higher in distortion, it sounds "better" ???

Hence, the age-old battle of Tubes vs SS.... Sean
>

Good points Unsound. I also tend to lean that way. It is not that tubes sound "better" due to being "more realistic under adverse conditions", i think that SS typically just shows us how bad MOST of our recording process really is or can be. Since most recording gear is SS though, one can run into a compounded problem if care is not taken in regards to the selection of both the recording and playback components. Kind of like a "double whammy" of reality which might not be pleasant at all. One can either use tubes to "gloss over" or "fill in" the mistakes ( i.e. errors of omission ) or listen to those mistakes with bleeding ears from most "sterile" yet "accurate" sounding SS gear.

In order to get SS to both sound good and measure good, you have to have gear that is VERY fast, wide bandwidth and uses very high quality parts. At least that is my take on the situation. Obviously, others may have different opinions and experiences.

As to using test tones, one can create tones that are as complex as musical patterns but are easily repeatable. Obviously, this is far more convenient in terms of product R & D ( research and development ) or independent testing than trying to rely on other means to obtain a calibrated point of reference.

Having said that, I do agree that while the standardized test tones used ( sine and square waves ) do have their values, they are over-rated and relied upon too heavily by many in this field. Moncrieff demonstrated that components that show similar results with standardized test tones can still sound different and test differently with complex ( i.e. musical ) waveforms.

In this respect, he was the first that i know of to be able to explain ( and literally show via test equipment ) why one digital playback system had better transient response, improved inter-transient silence ( blacker background ), less ringing, etc... over another piece of similar cost and design. Too bad we don't have more "reviewers / audio scientists" around like him. If we did, we might have a few more answers and a few less questions. Sean
>

Right on Unsound. People are sucked in by the "surface features" and forget that beauty can be far more than "skin deep". Your analogy of acoustic tiles is a perfect example. While they do have their place, improper use or not factoring in all of the important attributes of such products can create an entirely different set of problems.

To take that a few steps further, one REALLY needs to look at the frequency response aka "absorption ratio curve" of things such as Pro-Foam, etc... before shelling out money for what is nothing more than some flimsy foam. Not only can they create tonal imbalance problems due to non-linear absorption throughout the audio range, they can be duplicated with better results for FAR less money. Sean
>

PS... Sorry to get off topic Pvigs, but i think that you will find that the Threshold would work best in a system that already leaned towards the "warm and smooth side" of neutral.