best preamp ever - cost is no object

At least this way is more fun - but really nobody is gaining any insight from these kinds of questions & responses.

I seem to recall posting on this thread earlier, but if I didn’t: defining what is meant by ’best’ is a good place to start. There are a lot of aspects about a preamp- gain, noise, distortion, number of inputs, balanced or single-ended, what kind of coupling caps are used and so on.


I’m of the opinion that tube preamps sound better on account of the fact that tubes tend to not sound as bright. So the ’best’ preamp might be a tube preamp. Certainly bandwidth is important, to this end 200KHz is a good minimum on the high side so as to insure no phase shift components in the audio band. On the low side, 2Hz is the maximum low frequency, on the same account, so the preamp can play 20Hz without phase shift.


The preamp should be able to play at levels considerably higher than any amplifier will ever ask of it. This is just common sense, as this practice minimizes distortion and permits the preamp to convey the dynamic properties of the recording itself.


I think that balanced operation is a good idea, since if balanced lines are set up properly, they have less sonic footprint in the system, and less opportunity for ground loops (if you don’t get obvious hum and buzz from a ground loop, it might yet be interfering with the background noise). Its helpful in this regard that the balanced circuit support the balanced line standard, also known as AES48, since these benefits accrue directly from that standard! Otherwise you might have a balanced circuit that is still cable-sensitive.


I’ve found that by direct-coupling the output of the preamp, you can bypass colorations caused by the output coupling capacitor or output transformer. This is because any preamp is expected to drive a solid state amp, so if it has an output coupling cap (or a pair of them if its a balanced preamp) they have to be large enough to allow the preamp to play bass while driving that solid state amp. Despite the construction of the coupling cap, the larger the value, the more inductance is in the cap, and the more coloration as a result. By direct-coupling you get around all that- and obviously you can play bass better. But the mids and highs will be more transparent as well.


Volume controls can be built a variety of ways. The best controls have exotic materials for contacts as they are usually a multi-position switch built up from fixed resistors, which are often also exotic in nature. Care must be taken by the designer to prevent the control from interacting with the devices following it (for example a gain stage) due to something called Miller Effect, which can create a high frequency rolloff in the line stage.


Phono cartridges are a balanced source. So it makes sense to operate them in the balanced domain, since the artifact of the tonearm cable can be minimized in that fashion, and that is arguably the most important place to do that if you play vinyl. So the best phono section might be balanced.


Further, it turns out that the inductance of the cartridge and the capacitance of the tonearm cable set up an electrical resonance that can mess with many phono sections, causing ticks and pops that aren’t even on the LP surface, due to overload caused by that resonance (which can be a 30dB peak)! If the designer didn’t have this in mind when designing the phono preamp, you may have to load the input (cartridge loading) to kill the ticks and pops. The loading can cause the cartridge cantilever to be less supple- and this in turn can affect its mechanical resonance in the tonearm, affecting its tracking ability. Obviously its important for the preamp designer to deal with this issue, as it results in better sound from the phono section!


If the preamp is fully differential from input to output, it will have the ability to reject noise common to both of its inputs (inverted and non-inverted) and also the ability to reject noise in its power supplies. I would expect to see an outboard power supply so as to keep power transformers and the like from inducing noise into the preamp section due to proximity.


So if you want the best preamp these are some things to look at.

ML326S best ever, as I don't hear it at all. 
It just 'vanishes' like my speakers do.
I mean how much better can it get if the thing works perfect for YEARS, and it performs even better than just a good piece of IC cable?

UNLESS.... the brief is that a "best ever preamp" is supposed to have some descibable sound, of sorts, eh? 🤔
Michélle 

No zombie has compared every preamp ever made.

Haha zombie thread, etc. This kind of question is the high-end counterpart to "I need the best fully balanced tube preamp with 5 inputs and remote for under $1K...go!". At least this way is more fun - but really nobody is gaining any insight from these kinds of questions & responses. 

Though if OP is still alive and looking, he should wait a little longer to see what Audio research releases as their new Ref 10 or 50th Anniversary preamp. 

Here we go again- zombie thread come to eat your brains!

At least with zombies there are brains involved at some point.

Hey, what ever happened to Tenor amps?  They were all the rage at one point.

Here we go again- zombie thread come to eat your brains!

@euphonium - You've owned a Naim Statement?  What serial number?

What’s wrong with you guys , what about the Bat Rex preamp, I own one and have had all the above but the Dartzeel. Probably because they don’t pay for reviews like the other manufacturers.Any others agree?

Naim Statement is the best preamp I have heard.  

The preamp that I would place in my system first...the new CAT SL1 Legend Black Path Extreme.

tbgs +1 for being a Geoiff Kait accolite


I did teleport, have his pebbles, ceramic outlet  covers, springs under everything, New Dark Matter, stickers that are placed over the bar codes...

And while Ive heard improvements at every turn, the 2 with the biggest bang IMHO, are his springs and New Dark Matter

hth

In my humble opinion, the best starts with being Differentially Balanced= TRUE balanced, but to appreciate what that does, your amp needs to be DB also
In that vein, though I've never heard it, Tortuga Audio preamps tech is first rate and likely to be up high on any list,


it would be on mine, but I am running my Oppo 105 via VVCs (WireWorld series 8 XLRs to EVS 1200 amp) to very good effect. I believe Tortuga has a return policy but at 2K Im afraid I would love it too much


hth

is there a best wine, a best movie, a best restaurant, a best wife ?

For short term leases, I continue to see ’best wives’ every now & again.

Naim Statement NAC S1 linestage analog preamp.

I would take the FM Acoustics or VAC. 

Voss Audio Victory?

carlos..if you dont mind when you have a get together.I would like to listen to your system and learn a few thing from you..with the same background EE and working with HP design group.i think i can learn alot from you.engineer and audiophile do not mix in my opinion.I am 5 min from champion forest

Carlos, it is not the case that I am advocating the teleportation tweak or Magic Pebbles. I found a benefit from the teleportation tweak and with regards to the Magic Pebbles, initially heard nothing, then with a quite different placement found great benefit, and finally with the new H-Cat found I could no longer use them.

I know the effects of perceptual bias as well as the liabilities of DBTesting. I also know that it works many ways with people who don't want to hear anything less likely to hear one. But as I have said, I am seeking accurate and thrilling music reproduction, and will leave it up to those with more circuit knowledge to innovate. If I hear a demonstration of a tweak or component and it moves me toward greater realism, and if I can afford it, I will buy it.

My biggest problem with some on Audiogon is that they think they know all there is to science. Since there have been many scientific advancements since I got my degree in 1961 and when you got yours, I cannot understand why you would think what we know now is all there is to know. But even more importantly, if you don't try things that others find beneficial, how will you ever know that our understanding falls short. I encourage open-mindedness, as I know too often science gets into a set paradigm for years only to have some finding shake it up.

I don't teach any natural science, but science can be used effectively on social science issues and I teach the scientific method at both undergraduate and graduate levels. I was one of the very first political scientists to do so as I was advantaged by my science majors in undergraduate school.

Now that I am retired, I can venture to Houston more often. I hope to be down soon to hear Fred's Acapellas. You are invited to come up here also. I have no tube equipment now, however.

At last, civility returns to the 'gon.

My phono stage is a custom unit from Experience Music that uses a step up xformer and 2 stages of 6C45 with an LCR RIAA in between. quite nice.

Professor Norm,
No hard feelings. I'm sorry that I came on so strong but on this forum if you do not come strong then you get run over by people just looking to deliver a beating.

As I mentioned in my previous post, before you started advocating magic pebbles and teleportation, I held your opinion at the highest level. But I have to be honest with you; the placebo affect of those tweaks is hard for me to swallow as a person of science.

I think that I know what kind of signal processing is used on your H-CAT and if I'm correct then I can see why you have come to love it. I'm using a more complex implementation of the same concept in my reference system and enjoy what it does for the presentation.

If you come down to Houston and have some free time let me know, I would like to host you for an evening of listening and audio chat.

Carlos,

I have even posted an inquiry about the Tempo. Recently, I received another email from them saying that the first production units would be available in Sept. It sounds like you must have experience with the early prototype units. I once had the Loesch solid state TAG preamp. It was very good but hard to use as digital was too loud at the lowest levels on the volume control and vinyl required nearly full gain. I believe the guy who bought it still has it and loves it.

I suspect since you mention the 6C45Pi tube that you must know there are difference among Soviet era tubes. I have many 6N1Ps that sound quite different. I no longer use the tube preamp that used them, but hey I retain the better than 1000 tubes I have as a good investment.

I don't remember your coming on so strongly in our earlier conversations, but I really did think your passive Big Dog was the best passive unit I had tried.

Norm,
The original thread was started on 3-14-06, if Aspera has not purchased or at least tried a number of the recommended candidates by now then he's obviously not using his system enough.

To answer the original question:

Passive: Any high quality TVC (Transformer Volume Control). Since the original post asked ever = the ultimate expression of this design the Seamless Interface Electro-Acoustique's Big-Dog (My own design and NO LONGER AVAILABLE....not even for a cold $25K!)

Solid-State: Technik Avant Garde Model One Ultimate version (If you can find one)

Tube: Tempo Electric 1.1 with Dual outboard power supplies or any Authur Loesch design. My favorite is the one based on the awesome 6C45Pi high gain super-tube.

This thread is no longer high-jacked but has been set free to fly again!

One thing that is good about the AudioAsylum site is that there can be no thread highjacking. The threads are gone too fast.

Ralph,
There is a "High-End" faction of the pro-audio world there as well; which does use tubes and the highest quality part selections. This faction of products are quiet expensive as you can imagine.

What I meant by studio gear going further than high-end gear is NOT in parts/build quality but in function.

The top mastering houses like Sterling Sound in NYC, Bob Katz's Studio and Ludwig's Gateway Mastering Studios among others do not only make use of these high-end studio gear but high-end audiophile gear as well. If you look at the pictures of my room and the gear in it on my system's page here on Audiogon you'll see that I have also have been able to merge the two factions together with great success.

The realm that I have been exploiting lately includes ambient space recreation and panorama control; my system now incorporates these capabilities along with making use of other mastering techniques.

Hi Carlos, indeed I've seen a lot of studio-intended tube devices that take advantage of variable saturation and the like. I've also seen a lot of studio equipment in general- while studio gear in general is often built to a higher level physical construction standard (Studor for example), the component quality in the very best studio gear still sucks. I've rebuilt many pieces with nothing more than improved parts quality and gotten serious improvement without any other modification.

So I do not hold to the idea that studio equipment has *anything* over properly built high end audio gear. In fact, high end audio gear routinely shows the flaws inherent in even the state of the art in studio gear. IMO, engineers designing recording gear could take a hint from high end audio: more tubes, more use of superior materials such as wire, better coupling caps, resistors and so on. I'm afraid that the semi-pro market has eroded a lot of the expectations of studio equipment performance (also IMO) but regardless its a fact that the industry could be turning out dramatically better recordings if they could get the same sort of mind set that high end audiophiles have.

The funny thing is that in the old days (50s) they certainly had that mind set, although back in those days component and materials production was in an embryonic state. Somewhere along the way the recording industry lost it, IMO.

Herman, I am a private member who has been in audio for 40 plus years. Bill Feil is a dealer who has a interest in what people say about products, in particular those which he does not sell. I never did a review of Mr. Kait's tweak, but he did approach me asking that I participate in a test. I agreed, I was told that he was thinking about marketing the tweak. I did not pay to participate as a beta tester. I had paid for earlier tweaks by Mr. Kait and liked some. So you can see that Bill is fast and loose with his charges. If you check he contributes nothing to any discussion, only mocking those who say they like products that he doesn't sell.

two things

1. It seems that everybody knows who Tbg is but me. How come there aren't any rules here that someone in the industry must reveal themselves? Who is this guy and which of the rest of you are insiders. It isn't hard to figure who Atmasphere is or others who use either real names or company names as monikers, but Tbg?

2. Carlos, as tempting as your offer is, my Mom won't let me invite people over that I meet in internet chat rooms.

>>09-04-07: Tbg
Bingo, Carlos, I choose not to participate any further is such nonsensical discussions<<

Correction. You choose not to participate further because it was called to your attention there was no disclosure taking products at a discount or even free, and then posting a favorable review on them.

Let's not be so self serving and tell the truth.

For once.

Herman, Lets get together and listen to each other's systems and let's take it from there! Should we? Where are you located? Maybe I can pit stop at your place on one of my frequent trips to Shanghai, China.

Ralph,
Are you familiar with the many tube saturation devices in the Pro Audio world? These devices are design with just this purpose in mind. Beyond changing the tube saturation/distortion characteristics there are devices in the Studio world that go far beyond what is possible in the audiophile world.

It was my understanding that on top of being an audio designer you are also a musician so you should be familiar with devices like SPL’s Machine Head which let you change tube saturation and distortion characteristics in the digital domain. These are convolution devices but many devices are analog and work of the tubes’ originals saturation/distortion characteristics.

By the way, my experience and the experience of others that have opened up Cello equipment concurs with yours; they were over-priced boutique pieces which did not reflect their asking price. What I was simply trying to do was to show Ryan that although I do not make use of graphic equalizers many mastering luminaries do use them.

The top equalizers that I would recommend are: SPL PQ Mastering edition, Avalon AD-2077 and GML GM-9500 try to tell me that any of those mastering "parametric" equalizers are junk. I personally prefer psychoacoustic equalizers which is a different branch of sound processors.

Your approach of taking the tube variable out of the equation is the correct approach as your design should try to minimize the effects of different "vintage" tubes as much as it is possible.

Carlos, I don't think the circuit topology must be innovative. It must be well implemented. As you say, the circuits are simple. While this may be true on one level, they are extremely complex on another. Otherwise one could simply copy a circuit and end up with the same sound. The complexity is the huge number of variables you face when you actually start to build. Given a simple schematic of a single tube amplifier it could be built an infinite number of ways when you factor in type of capacitor, resistors and other passive components, physical layout, grounding schemes, cabinet material and construction, wiring, etc.

There are thousands of different amps out there that have very similar circuits but all sound very different if you take the time to listen.

I have had my system evaluated by a reviewer, a high end dealer, and a high end manufacturer too and they were all suitably impressed, not that it means much of anything. Just another opinion in my book.

And yes, as far as ego goes you are dealing with facts. The fact is you have a huge ego. What impresses me is when people like Ralph put forth well reasoned ideas to support their positions, not when people like you tell me I should pay attention and tremble in your wake because you are "the bull."

Carlos269, having serviced out a few Cellos in the past I was amazed at the poor parts quality. Yes, they are junk, nicely packaged and nicely built. With a price tag to throw you off.

FWIW using a variety of NOS tubes to tailor sound is not merely tone controls- if that were the case we'd have solved the issue years ago :) NOS tubes also sound different because they have different distortion characteristics. Some of those distortion characters are easily heard- just as they are in solid state devices (that are supposed to be low distortion). NOS tube are not used because they sound 'brighter' or 'darker' alone, it is also because they may sound smoother or more detailed. When you can show a "tone control" circuit that can increase detail and smoothness and noise floor *without* changing tonality you will have a marketplace, trust me.

You might compare the use of NOS tubes to fine wines and their differences. The analogy is weak but the complexities of a good wine do have something in common with the finer traits of a good tube.

In these brief few paragraphs I have not really given proper due to what the tube rolling thing is all about- and in my own system/designs I avoid using them at all, as I am interested in improving the design without the variable of the tubes, so I always use the same tube types (once having sorted which ones appear to sound right). So while I acknowledge that tube rolling can make quite a difference, at the same time the technologies that the tubes are operating in make, in my mind, a bigger difference.

It may not be that in their expression that anyone posting here has satisfied your 'scientific process', but my experience has been that most audiophiles that are at all serious are surprisingly scientific- I don't think any of them are doing it by trial and error! If you could modify the character of a tube on the fly, this would be a lot easier. But you can't so you may want to change tubes if you want to get the last drop of performance.

Herman, the genius comes from the use of innovative circuit topologies but it is true that in general audio circuits are simple in general terms compare to complex circuits designs used in control circuits, automations, instrumentation and data acquisition circuits. Those are facts that any competent engineer will tell you.

No, not all circuits sound the same and I agree that great measurements don't always translate to great sound; you are changing the scope of this discussion and are making inferences and allegations that I have not made. So please re-read the post and make notes of my statements before you make these grave assumptions.

As far as ego, I'm dealing with facts. How many audiophiles here have offered their systems to be judged by a "reviewer" like I have here; it is quiet obvious that I'm pretty confident in what I have been able to achieve and where my system and knowledge stands right? Why should I hide the facts?

I have nothing more to say so I will give it a rest and just wait for Ryan to either come over or invite me over to listen to his reference. Then we can start the discussion again with more facts and not assumptions.

I’ve held my tongue but I can’t do it any longer. I haven’t seen such conceited, condescending, pompous posturing around here in quite a while. Frankly, it is very tiresome. Carlos, how do you fit that giant ego through a standard doorway? I would suspect you are actually that other pompous ass, Romy the Cat, except you can actually construct a sentence.

All bow down to the “bull!!!”

If audio design is so simple to geniuses such as you, why don't we have perfect sound from all high end equipment? Reminds me of Julian Hirsch proclaiming perfect sound from amplifiers because they had .00001 % THD. Yes, it is easy to design such circuits but they sound like crap.

Ryan,
Here is just a few of the things which are different about my current system than the one that you heard four years ago:

1. To begin with the Transport has been changed to a Forsell Air Reference Mk.IV air-bearing transport.
2. The whole digital chain is moved to 2x DSD = 1bit at 5.6MHz before it gets converted to analog via the best DSD/DXD converter in the world.
3. The biggest change in my system has been the incorporation of high-end studio gear, both in the digital and the analog chains, which let me have complete control of all parameters associated with audiophile benchmarks (soundstage width, depth and height control, tonal balance spectral content, upward compression of low level details and on and on and......)
4. In the winter months I use my NRG Control A-401M monoblocks these massive amps are 400 Watts of pure class A power and have the control and authority to make your knees buckle.

There are way too many changes to list here and frankly is kind of dump to list the specific as you have to take the system and its sound as a whole.

By the way, my analog sources have changed to reference Transrotor and Micro-Seiki turntables. The phonostages have changed to Audion Premier Quattro custom three-chassis design and a rare six-tube David Manley MC Balance design for Simon Yorke. All these analog sources get converted to 2X DSD (1bit/5.6Mhz).

The whole system takes into account room correction and acoustic treatment has been added to the room since you last were here.

Like I said I could go on and on. The list of new equipment is endless as well as I have tried a great number of amplifiers, preamps, sources and speakers in my reference system.

By the way, as far as being an authority on audio circuits, audio circuits are relatively SIMPLE compare to the state-machines that I have been designing in ALTERA FPGA's lately so I can assure you that there is nothing; I repeat NOTHING that you can teach me in the way of audio circuit design and topologies. While Audio circuit design is not my business, I can assure you that I'm more than capable, as I have shown whenever I have modified and ventured into audio circuit designs and modifications. Like I said, you're up against a bull and I would watch your steps when you challenge my knowledge of audio and electronics in general.

How about me coming over and listening to your system first? Is that fair enough? I want to hear what you bring to the table as a reviewer and to see what your reference is.

By the way, one of the new speakers in my stable is the Wilson Audio WITT Series II do you know why Wilson Audio discontinued them? Because they couldn't sell the WATT/PUPPY 6 once prospective buyers listen to how the WITT Series II gave them the slam and dynamics but also the "warmth" that the cold, analytical and sterile Watt/Puppy 6 did not. A VERY smart business move on Wilsons part if you asked me but it's a shame as the WITT Series TWO were the starts of their line-up at the time. Perhaps you may want to even compare my WITTS Series II to your Watt/Puppy 6 to validate this yourself; there you go I just gave you another reason to make the 25 minute drive.

carlos, again thanks for the invite. but first off, i am unavail this weekend, and 2ndly, i need to know exactly what you changed in the past 3yrs or so since last i visited. while i am happy you were / are so enamored of your rig, it was a sound i was none too fond of at the time, and i hate to waste another few hours of my time to listen to systems that suit me not.

further, do you realize that your statements are akin to state that you & you alone know the truth? that all collective wisdom is simply passing fancy and fraud? certainly it has been proven false in the past by geniuses such as galileo, einstein, et al---but these were denizens who dedicated their lives to advancing the sciences they work in every moment of the day.

in contrast, you are an audiophile, and a physics & engineering degree from texas A&M is not something by which makes you an exclusive authority on circuit layout, power supply design, parts voicing et al (i know experts in all these capacities, and none are experts in all 3---see principles on division of labor and accepting one's limitations as one can not know all there is to know. period.). now, had you a litany of audio products you manufactured (i.e. the better mousetrap, see vlad lamm) by which your opinions were formed and hence found acceptance in the market, then your opinion would be validated. until then, your opinion is just that.

and whether i like the sound in your system, or i didn't, wouldn't change that one bit.

we are all in pursuit of our own mona lisa. and you don't know how anyone else likes their ladies.

Norm,
Look it up at Texas A&M University, College Station as I earned a degree in physics and a separate degree in Electrical Engineering there. I know that you are retired now but perhaps you still know someone there who has access to the records at the register's office.

I know about John Tucker the ex-NASA engineer.

By the way Norm, let me shake your memory a little bit. You actually listen and favorable commented on my Seamless Interface Electro-Acoustiques Big Dog TVC (Transformer Volume Control) about five years ago. We had a brief chat on how we both thought highly of the Victor Goldstein's Fanfare Fi Millennium Siltech/Plinius preamplifier and how we both thought that the Tecnik Avant Garde (TAG) Model One was the best solid state preamplifier we both had heard. Look at the pictures under my system here on Audiogon and you'll see that I still have mine and it has been upgraded to Ultimate level.

Does that jar your memory?

My work for NASA can be documented and pictures of my diplomas for degrees in Physics and a separate one for Electrical Engineering can be furnished if you wish. I'm neither ignorant nor do I have anything to hide.

I think this discussion is entertaining and that's about it!
When it comes to audio there is never a best of anything. It's
just a matter of opinion.

My take on the "sound" of different manufacturered tubes, whether NOS or current production is that each brand has a "house" sound. For example, the famous NOS Mullard Square getter, 1959 ECC83, known for it's amazing musicality( especially in the midrange) and warmth might be a little too warm in some circuits. I prefer in my 1959 Pilot 402 receiver( bedroom system) an early 60's Siemens double post ECC83, only because it is a little more neutral with better extensions and it seems to compliment the Siemens E84L power tubes. Yet in my VAC Monoblocks, I am using an inexpensive($6.00) stock Philips 12au7aw( 1989) tube because it sounds the best as the driver tube for my current production Chinese-made Shuguang KT88-98 power tubes, which are an amazing power tube. The Shuguang company has come up with a marvelous power tube with this new KT88-98. And they're priced very reasonably as well. I've read that the solid plate version might be better in some respects) Perhaps tube-rolling can be associated with fine-tuning the tone, but there is much more than that taking place. As a musician, besides tone, which is very critical, I look for timbre, proper soundstage, imaging, extended yet refined and delicate highs, natural midranges( palpable voices, accurate portrayal of a well-miked piano) and midbass and subterranean bass that is accurate without being bloated. I have listened to a number of excellently tested preamp tubes that have a difficult time in portraying accurate and realistic bass. Of course, I could always get a fancy equalizer like Carlos to "force" that bass to be accurate. But, in my humble opinion, any equalizer in the circuit, as Rhyno mentioned, will in some way affect the signal to degrade the purity of the recorded sound. I suppose it's a matter of trade-offs, but I'd rather fine tune my room acoustics without the use of an in-line equalizer. Any true red-blooded audiophile has my blessings in finding the right tube to roll if he pleases. Fortunately, the designer of my VAC amp, Kevin Hayes, is not only a brilliant engineer, but has a very good ear as well and his factory tubes are "voiced" perfectly to suit my discerning ears. I had to learn the hard way with Mucho $$$ in tube rolling.

Carlos, frankly I do not believe you have any degree in physics, which by the way was one of my undergraduate degrees. I would believe an engineering degree, in particular in EE, where you are taught that all is know about electronics. And as far as designing for NASA, forget it. I know an ex-NASA electrical engineer who now does tube audio design and who has an appreciation for the limits of our understanding, which your education seems to have been remiss in giving you.

Good luck with your tilting at windmills book and don't bother to send me a copy.

You don't seem to understand that no one cares what you have to say, as you seem wholly ignorant.

Ryan,
Where did I mention a graphic equalizer? I have never own a graphic EQ but that is exactly what a Cello Palette is; try to tell Tom Jung of DMP, Shawn Murphy of Hollywood/movie scoring fame, Mrs. Wilma Kozart of Mercury Living Presence fame that their $25K Cello Audio Palettes are a piece of junk! It is used in many of the recordings that you use to evaluate system as a "reviewer".

I hate to say it but I think that you have clearly over-stepped your area of expertise and are quickly getting yourself in trouble when you try to discuss electronic circuit design and mastering studio gear with me. Don't say I didn't warn you as I'm known to be ruthless.

Ryan,
You are talking to someone with degrees in both Physics and electrical engineering. I believe that you do accounting by profession correct?

As I said in my post above:

It is not that I think that all tubes and power cords sound the same; on the contrary I indeed believe that they sound different and that you and others are indeed “hearing” a difference. What I content is that these differences can be achieved in a much more elegant way than trial and error. The same end results can be achieved through the use of knowledge of mastering/recording techniques, physics, acoustics, psychoacoustics, electronics and the use of high-end studio equipment and techniques which will result in predictable, repeatable, defeatable and scalable phenomena.

When it comes to electronic circuit and design trust me you can't even begin to imaging who you are challenging as I design complex electronics circuits for NASA and HP among others. You have no idea what you are talking about with this statement:

When you find an IC that passes a signal without any attendant exaggeration or loss in a 20-20 khz band, please let us all know. i think there's some several hundred high-end audio electronic manufacturers who would be interested in your finding.

For one, have you ever heard of an instrumentation Op-amp?

As far as your question:

You have to have an open mind and a good system to hear these things. which are you lacking?

Quiet frankly neither. I have invited you countless number of times to come and judge my system and my approach for yourself and you refuse it. Let's try it again. Come over this Saturday and I will return the gesture by going to your house on Sunday to listen to what you bring to the table! Fair enough?

Norm,
The time has come for the student to teach the professor a lesson. With my last post I set a trap for you. In asking you to “verbalize” what make a tube or a power cord better than another, you yourself will arrive at the conclusion that the difference in their sound end up being nothing more than mere tone-control: changes to the tonal balance and sonic palette!

It is not that I think that all tubes and power cords sound the same; on the contrary I indeed believe that they sound different and that you and others are indeed “hearing” a difference. What I content is that these differences can be achieved in a much more elegant way than trial and error. The same end results can be achieved through the use of knowledge of mastering/recording techniques, physics, acoustics, psychoacoustics, electronics and the use of high-end studio equipment and techniques which will result in predictable, repeatable, defeatable and scalable phenomena.

You have been at this long enough and I thought that you were smart enough to have figured out that tinkering is one thing but many of these tweaks are nothing more than snake-oil and an audiophile swindle. Come-on is time to take your head out of you’re as….

Norm I think that you will benefit greatly from my upcoming book: “The Great Audiophile Swindle!”

I will personally sign your copy as you are indeed in need of light being shined on you.

I look forward to continuing my discourse with you here and systematically dismantling each and every one of your views. Let’s get it on!

Bingo, Carlos, I choose not to participate any further is such nonsensical discussions, which are really pseudo-science lectures. You sir are the one saying things that would suggest our understandings of physical phenomena are complete and that nothing further can be found. You have no scientific basis for dismissing anything such as you have concerning the sound of tubes, power cords, and heaven knows what else. If I have lost your respect it sounds like I have adequately dismissed your limited understanding of what science is all about.

Fred may choose to humor you by responding to your uninformed questions, but not me. I know how well he hears, so when he says something I respect it.

carlos, i'll be happy to address the acrolink mexcel AC cord, as i was the one who found it (in my own system, with the X0-1D2 in context). the sound was dramatically improved, with better frequency extension and tonal accuracy in the midrange.

it is wholly inaccurate to state that power cords are 'pseudoscience.' geometry & shielding affect EMI / RFI, conductor purity / gauge / stranding vs solid core affect tonal expression, connector quality affect frequency extension (particularly the bass), and connector plating also influences tonal expression. ---i am speaking from my own skeptical but impossible to ignore experiences. (in my day job, i'm forced to revise my opinion hour by hour, sometimes 180degree changes, so i've no set agenda on what is the right answer, which is how i approach audio)

you have to have an open mind and a good system to hear these things. which are you lacking?

and, fwiw, using a "tone-control" graphic equalizer is not the right answer if pursuing SOTA performance. as one designer noted "there is no perfect part", and you advocate adding an entire electronic box full of integrated circuits (and associated nasties & loss of signal accuracy) in to achieve your ends. yes, you may improve the tone (and that is the bigger element to long term satisfaction), but i can virtually guarantee that you're losing microdetail (not important to some, but greatly enhances the musical virtual reality effect)

when you find an IC that passes a signal without any attendant exaggeration or loss in a 20-20khz band, please let us all know. i think there's some several hundred high-end audio electronic manufacturers who would be interested in your finding.

Norm,
What is it about the cables and tubes that you prefer and that make them better? Please "verbalize" what makes your choices better?

I do agree that tube technology is different but what matters is the end result isn't it? The way in which a tube is deemed good or no good from a quality control point of view is exactly those parameters which I mentioned above.

Yes Fred doesn't own me any answers but last time I checked this is a "Discussion Forum" and that is exactly what we are doing discussing. For the record, Fred has yet to provide a single answer.

By the way, Professor Luttbeg I used to hold your opinion in high esteem UNTIL you started advocating magic pebbles and teleportation tweaks; from that point on your opinion holds no water for me, and many others.

You have been at this for over 35 years, you would think that you would be smart enough to have figured out that most of what gets peddled as tweaks is nothing more than pseudoscience.

Carlos, had you not included the required answer question about what makes the Acrolink cable better, I would merely have blown off your incorrect statements about old American tubes versus new tubes.

Basically, you are wrong in saying that microphonics, noise, defective construction, and reliability are all that differentiates tubes. This is grossly inaccurate. Materials quality within, the capability of the individual making the tubes, the geometry of its construction, the level of the vacuum, and the level of quality control all also enter into the picture. If you just consider the Western electric 300B tube, you can see the differences. WE's last run was in 1988. These tubes are audibly inferior to those made in the 1970s and this is evident in the prices they get on Ebay. In turn the 1950-60s tubes are clearly better than the 1970s tubes. Finally, when Westrex sought to restart the WE 300Bs in 1995, these tube were a pale imitation of even the 1988s. Newer production seems somewhat better but still inferior to older production. I have 1995 production, 2006 production, 1988 production, 1976 production, and 1957 production. Chinese construction even with high QC and some design innovations fail miserably to have the realism evident in the old WE tubes.

I know what I hear when I listen to these and to some degree, these can be verbalize which on occasion I have sought to do so, but Fred is under no obligation to prove anything to you. So he prefers the sound, not the "flavor" on tubes that are rare enough now to cost $100. I prefer the sound of WE 300Bs that cost nearly $1000 per tube. If that is how I choice to spend my money what is it to you?

Certainly when you speak of tube choice as basically tone controls, so you can appreciate the concept of a more flat and accurate response as well as a capability to be more dynamic. I seek more accurate tubes.

The power cords are a similar matter. Build quality is hardly the only variation among power cords and you are being simplistic to suggest so. One comparison between two different cables was sufficient to convince me that I had to have one of them. Since that experience 18 years ago, I have found progressively superior power cables, but have been unsuccessful in finding ac filtering that I can use.

I am pretty sure that you are subscribing to the basic notions of those called "objectivists," who dismiss differences among tubes, power cords, etc. If you cannot hear differences don't think you can dismiss those who do.

Ralph,
I would agree with you 100% if the reason for swapping the tubes was because of the tubes being microphonic, noisy, suffered from defective construction or were not reliable but I don't believe that is the case here. I believe that Fred just preferred the "Flavor" of the $100 per tube tubes to that of the $19 per tube ones. Perhaps Fred could enlighten us by stating specifically what made the $100 tubes better in his eyes/ears than the $19 tubes? Please let us at the same time know what makes the $2,400.00 Acrolink Mexcel 7N copper power cord better than a $5 stock power cord other than build quality. Please let us know just exactly what it is that this expensive audio jewelry does better than their pedestrian equivalent. I await your answer.

Ralph by the way, I do get what you mean about manufacturers being forced to use mass-produced tubes which leads to the potential to acquire "Better" NOS tubes on the market. The potential is there to get tubes that are less microphonic, quieter, more robustly built and more reliable but it is my view that most tube rollers do not roll for those reasons but for favoring a particular "Flavor" more than other; these is basically trial-and-error "tone control" which is the same practice used in cable swapping and power cord selection.

Carlos269, one of the things that all tube equipment manufacturers face nowadays is that tube quality is nowhere near what it was 30-50 years ago! The EH tubes in the Einstein are a good example- nicely packaged but the tubes are microphonic, noisy if not hand-picked and prone to grid contamination in short order.

In the old days the tube manufacturers made plenty of spares; often they offer significantly better performance for not a lot of extra money. The problems one faces with this are several- the really top performers have a cult price, often the tubes are used when advertised as NOS, and certainly finding significant quantities of any type is tricky at best, which is why OEMs use the current manufactured tubes.

It is also true that NOS tubes may not perform as well- as in the case of 12AT7s, there are no NOS types as quiet as the new Chinese any longer as the quiet ones have been used up. Even so, NOS 12AT7s do sound smoother and more robust.

That said, I agree that setup and the technology itself plays a huge role. I think it is true to say that you and Fcrowder are both correct.