How much do I need to spend to get a preamp that sounds better than no preamp?
Hello all. I'm using an Audible Illusions L1 preamp and I think my system sounds better when I remove it from the signal path. Oppo BD105 directly to SMC Audio DNA1 Gold power amp. I have read that there is level of quality you need to hit before there will be an improvement in sound. I can't seem to find what that level is. Any ideas? Thanks in advance, Ben
Give it a rest, it’s like you get on your horse, when you got a few shots of something under your belt, and that turns you into some one that just need to create angst.
Leave it alone no-one is going to believe you over Nelson Pass about his own product the Aleph L, any thing you say against him is immediately swept under the carpet by anyone with any sense.
kosst. correct, I cannot read a schematic. However, I have trust in my listening abilities, and this far outweighs any scientific hoopla " in my quest " for better sound. You are just plain ignorant, and I have NO RESPECT for you. In fact, I still find you laughable with all of the argumentative outbursts you continue to belt out here, trying to prove something. As george said, " go away ". There are many people here who are scientific, and I enjoy their responses, but the stance you seem to take is always childish. You take the fun out of this hobby. I cannot imagine you sitting in your listening chair, enjoying your music, as it seems all of your leisure time is spent here ranting. I get a good hour or so, daily, enjoying my listening sessions. So, Enjoy ! MrD.
I had to have Nelsons view again, so I emailed him, and asked under "ideal conditions" when only the passive (<3o'clock) is used what happens to the active stage, this is what he said again without revealing what the "patent" part of the circuit was. So as you can read at 3 o'clock and below in volume all you hear is the source.
"
Under ideal conditions, where attenuation of the tap point is exactly
that of the active gain, the active stage disappears, and any setting
below that is the source.
Non-ideal case would include distortion, which is attenuated by the
ratios of the source impedance, potentiometer impedance and load
impedance, the active circuit being s current source."
As I said, kosst had a nerve to question what he said, as he isn't Nelson itch spot.
You right, the best preamp is passive, with no amplification, If you power amp get good gain and speakers get enough sensitivity , Take a look Alexus preamp
Very nice, a little expensive.$995 You get the same type of volume control in the $699 Freya from Schitt. Plus you can switch it from passive (as the Alexus is) to two different active buffer modes with a little gain for some added colourations, tube or solid state. And it has rca and balanced. http://www.schiit.com/products/freya
The $699 Freya from Schitt seems like an amazing bargain for the price. If I didn't already have something great, and were on a tighter budget, I would definitely be interested. For passives, the only one remaining that interests me is
Townshend’s Allegri+ which uses autotransformers that are wound using Townshend’s own Fractal wire and coated in ultra thin Mu foil.
Unfortunately, it does not match my system well since it is single-ended only.
mitch2 the only one remaining that interests me is Townshend’s Allegri
The Allergri is nice, but being a TVC (transformer volume control) they are coloured, nice but not transparent to the source. Here is an A/B a member here Rob_j did between my Lightspeed Attenuator and the Allegri.
Good point George, I haven't tried a preamp made from light dependent resistors yet. I did try Tortuga Audio's tube buffer as part of their "tour" last year. It was pretty good and I suspect putting that buffer in-line with their LDR passive would probably sound good, although probably not as neutral as a SS buffer. I have sometimes thought about constructing a version of NP's B1 buffer but modified to be balanced and to have a high quality attenuator and other high quality parts, but that is actually what my preamp consists of. I have not had a single instance where I used a passive and found it to be the sonic equal of my buffered preamp.
I have sometimes thought about constructing a version of NP’s B1 buffer
Nelson did make first the B1 buffer for the Lightspeed Lightspeed so it could drive my customers low input impedance First Watts and Pass Labs. It wasn’t known as the B1 then, that came latter when he did a diy around it for the masses. Here is a simplified circuit of his for the Lightspeed, before it was called the B1. https://ibb.co/choBZS
Most everyone knows that the McCormack amps have high enough input gain that allow passive preamps to drive this amp and as a result sound spectacular.
I am familiar with your Audible illusions L1 preamp and I liked it a great deal. It was said to be the same linestage used in their more expensive model the Audible Illusions 3 which may be debatable however It may not be to your liking nor the ideal companion for your McCormack DNA-1. Several years ago when I owned a DNA-1 with a Revision A the best sounding tube preamp to my ears was the VTL 2.5, and everybody else in the household that had a high appreciation for great sound agreed.
+1 PHD. As this tested McCormack shows, absolutely no need for an active preamp, when most sources are >2v or more out, and this McCormack only needs 828mV in for full output wattage.
Stereophile: "
Input impedance at 1kHz was a calculated 99.5k ohms, consistent with the manufacturer's specification of 100k ohms. The DNA-1's gain was very high, this gain ratio corresponds to a decibel gain of 32.4dB, implying an input sensitivity
of 828mV
for full 150w output."
honashagen OP I did buy an axiom passive preamp. Although it is very good it lacks in bass and warmth for me. I’m using the audible Illusions again.
The only reason for lack of bass, which would also rob warmth, is if the source’s output is "capacitor coupled", and that capacitor is too small.
It’s a simple fix to double the uF (microfarad) of the capacitor and at the same time use a better "quality" one, as most skimp here with average quality industry ones.
Myself, all my sources, and everything else is direct coupled, which has the best bass, and no "sound of a capacitor" in the signal path.
The only reason for lack of bass, which would also rob warmth, is if the
source’s output is "capacitor coupled", and that capacitor is too
small.
It’s a simple fix to double the uF (microfarad) of the
capacitor and at the same time use a better "quality" one, as most skimp
here with average quality industry ones.
Myself, all my
sources, and everything else is direct coupled, which has the best bass,
and no "sound of a capacitor" in the signal path.
I'm sure the source's coupling cap is large enough (I agree that a direct-coupled output can sound better; we use a direct coupled output in our tube preamps).
Output coupling caps are extremely common with many sources. If proper design is applied, a relatively inexpensive electrolytic cap can have performance similar to high quality film capacitor (I realize this statement might be controversial to some; please note the caveat 'proper design').
The problem is that putting a series resistance in the circuit (which happens by turning down the volume in a passive control) effectively raises the output impedance. In turn, this raised impedance must drive a lower resistance (the shunt of the volume control to ground, which is in parallel with the input impedance of the amplifier). When this is done, the output impedance at 20Hz (which is usually higher than the output impedance at 1KHz) is raised also. The combined aspects of the control can thus make the source less able to make bass at the input of the amplifier.
This is easily heard.
Installing a larger coupling cap is often impractical! A larger cap might also induce low frequency instability in the source, depending on its design. It will certainly introduce additional coloration, due to the additional inductance since capacitors are wound in layers, and you need more layers to create a larger capacitance.
Reducing the value of the control can reduce the timing constant problem, but can also pose a problem for some sources. The bottom line is that you have to try it and see, while also comparing to a competent active preamp.
The combined aspects of the control can thus make the source less able to make bass at the input of the amplifier.
This is not correct in this case, as with most of today's systems with low output impedance and high input impedance.
If the source is low in impedance and in this case it is at 100ohms.
And the amp has high input impedance and in this case it is at 100kohm.
It doesn't matter one iota where the volume control is positioned here, these figures have a perfect impedance match regardless of volume position. As do 90% of sources and amps out there when mated to 10kohm passive volume controls.
So the only reason for a lack of bass in this case (if correct) is a coupling cap that's too small, and that 100ohms source output impedance is rising at low frequencies which "would" roll off the bass.
It doesn't matter one iota where the volume control is positioned here,
these figures have a perfect impedance match regardless of volume
position. As do 90% of sources and amps out there when mated to 10kohm
passive volume controls.
This statement is false. Its not wise to assume that 90% of all sources can drive a 10K load.
The position of the control does affect the sound in many cases (although most people don't get to find this out because if a digital source is used, the output will likely be clipping the amp). So an audition with something like a tuner that makes less voltage and so won't clip the amp will reveal the issue.
Audition is the bottom line- if everything is set up correctly, a passive will work fine.
So the only reason for a lack of bass in this case (if correct) is a
coupling cap that's too small, and that 100ohms source output impedance
is rising at low frequencies which "would" roll off the bass.
This conclusion is based on a false assumption, and so is also false. Its highly unlikely that so many sources would have a coupling cap at the output that is too small.
Its not wise to assume that 90% of all sources can drive a 10K load.
This is picking hairs and scare mongering, and just selecting a worst case scenario.
90% of amps are 33kohm input impedance or higher.
Very rarely is an amp a pitiful <10kohm, which even many tube preamps won't drive let alone passives. In fact most amps are >33kohm or higher to 100kohm or more. The loose industry standard input impedance has always been 47kohm, though it's not adhered to.
So the impedance ratio of those 90% of amps regardless of volume position with a 10kohm passive will always be better than the industry regarded minimum ratio of 1:10 source to passive for the input, or 10:1 minimum for the output, passive to amp.
And with the voltage of most of today's sources again are higher at >2v, and the input sensitivity of most amps are <1.5v, the only thing that could "clip" is the amp with too much volume from the passive volume control, so more gain from an active is not needed, in fact it's a curse as then the volume control can only be used right down low in many cases.
Actives are not needed unless you have an amp that is 10kohm or less and/or it's input sensitivity voltage is higher than the source volt can give out.
Or the other contentious reason to use an active pre is, if you like the colouration of active preamp, to me it's a bit of a ban-aid fix for something else that's not right better to fix it, as no active preamp sounds like the proverbial "a straight piece of wire" only direct source to amp can do this or second in line a passive volume control.
We have the voltage from most sources at more than >2v. Most poweramps only need less than <1.5v in, (some even 0.5v) to make them give full wattage output to the speakers.
You make no sense, can't see the forest through the trees, as usual.
Like I said: "We have the voltage from most sources at more than >2v. Most poweramps only need less than <1.5v in, (some even 0.5v) to make them give full wattage output to the speakers."
This is picking hairs and scare mongering, and just selecting a worst case scenario.
90% of amps are 33kohm input impedance or higher.
The impedance of the amps is not the issue. The impedance of a 10K control is. Per your post prior to mine:
It doesn't matter one iota where the volume control is positioned here,
these figures have a perfect impedance match regardless of volume
position. As do 90% of sources and amps out there when mated to ***10kohm***
passive volume controls.
*** emphasis added. With a 10K post, we can always count on the total load being less than 10K. At full volume it will be 7.5K, increasing to 10K at minimum volume in the example above.
Not to put too fine a point on it George, but your constant and false claims that active preamp manufacturers are only in it for the money is disingenuous at the very least; your remonstrations come off as hypocritical!
So how about you lay off? Others and I could have easily called you on it years ago; its become tiresome.
All preamplifiers have a sonic signature. Even passive devices have components that in some say affect or color the sound. Perhaps a better question to ask is which preamplifier will compliment your systems shortcomings? This may sound strange but if I'm right that all preamplifiers have a sonic signature, some obviously more than others, then running your components, if they posses volume control is adding the least number of components to say nothing of additional cables and connectors. I use a switching device between my line level components. This eliminates additional active or passive components but introduces additional cable length and a switch. I've read here that some preamplifiers enhance the sound. This is possible for many reasons and not just the source components' shortcomings. Preamplifiers where originally designed to buffer and add additional gain but today this is rarely the need as most source components with the exception of a turntable, need additional gain for buffering. If you're not running long cable lengths then no additional components will get you closer to the source components sonic signature (this assumes that you like that signature) and in the end a preamp regardless of type will have some impact on your system.
So how about you lay off? Others and I could have easily called you on it years ago; its become tiresome.
I think your the one that needs to lay off the false claims about passives with blanket statements about their ability to drive ect ect. Every time they are bought up, your on it to protect active preamps. Here is a person you should kneel to as he is one who makes active preamps for a reason which I’ve outlined, yet he is man enough to tell what it is about passives that’s the real deal. You just deny them as a whole, just like the "detriments" of a certain autoformer.
NELSON PASS: On one of his favourite premps, "which is passive" in it’s best sounding configuration.
" The Aleph L is a single ended Class A audio preamplifier combining new design thought
applied to traditional topology and the experience of twenty five years of amplifier design. This preamplifier flows from a commitment to create the best sounding product: a simple circuit with the most natural characteristic. The Aleph L integrates discrete Mosfet gain devices and single ended Class A operation in a simple active/passive topology in order to deliver the most natural sound possible. The Aleph L absolutely minimizes the number of components in the signal path, and uses these only when necessary. Unique to this preamp, patent pending, is a volume level control which combines the best qualities of a passive attenuator and active gain circuitry: At the 3 o’clock volume control position, the Aleph L offers a direct path from input to output. The only component in the signal path is wire and switch contacts. At positions below 3 o’clock, the volume control functions as a precision passive attenuator using discrete resistor ladders. Above 3 o’clock, active gain is added to the output signal in 2 decibel increments, for a maximum of 10 dB. As a result, you suffer the effects of active circuitry only when additional gain is necessary."
Preamplifiers where originally designed to buffer and add additional gain but today this is rarely the need as most source components with the exception of a turntable, need additional gain for buffering. If you’re not running long cable lengths then no additional components will get you closer to the source components sonic signature (this assumes that you like that signature) and in the end a preamp regardless of type will have some impact on your system.
So true Samuel. That’s why I’ve always maintained, the most "transparent/dynamic sound" is going direct from source to amp if you can do it without the sources digital domain volume control doing any "bit stripping", it is the number one way for most transparent and dynamic sound, second is a passive preamp with good impedance matching, third is an active preamp, which you can add differing colouration’s with.
Another gem from Nelson Pass: " We’ve got lots of gain in our electronics. More gain than some of us need or want. At least 10 db more.
Think of it this way: If you are running your volume control down around 9 o’clock, you are actually throwing away signal level so that a subsequent gain stage can make it back up.
Routinely DIYers opt to make themselves a “passive preamp” - just an input selector and a volume control.
What could be better? Hardly any noise or distortion added by these simple passive parts. No feedback, no worrying about what type of capacitors – just musical perfection.
And yet there are guys out there who don’t care for the result. “It sucks the life out of the music”, is a commonly heard refrain (really - I’m being serious here!). Maybe they are reacting psychologically to the need to turn the volume control up compared to an active preamp."
Your such a **** kost, all you can see is your FW F5 which has such abnormally low gain, it needs an active preamp. And that’s the second time you’ve put **** on Nelson Pass, who do you think you are? better???, your not even his hang nail.
Sounds like a threat there sunshine. You are an agitator, as many on Audiogon have said, stop drinking or whatever your doing. Like I said. That’s the second time you’ve put **** on Nelson Pass, who do you think you are? better???, your not even his hang nail.
As others have said, you built a F5 from "paint by numbers" "kit" that anyone that can hold a soldering iron can put together. http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/firstwatt9/1.jpg And you think you know better than Nelson Pass, who gave that very amp to the diy’ers who can solder to make.
@georgehifi , kosst claims his system sounds almost the same, with and without the preamp section of his ancient Marantz receiver, when he experimented with the bypassing of the Marantz. This should tell you something about him. Let him be, let him rant, he is an annoyance to many people. He just needs to be right, that is all. No wonder he is afraid to try an upgraded power cord, as he fears he will not hear a difference, let alone an improvement. I must admit that I do enjoy the 2 of you going at it, as it is very comedic. I wake up every day and wonder who is kosst fighting with today, and yes, there he is. Look at the recent Focal thread. Hilarious. BTW, I am wondering if the F5 that kosst built would pass UL certification, which Nelson’s does.? Enjoy ! MrD.
Because I'm waiting for Ralph to explain the Aleph L to George?
If he does, it better be the same as what Nelson sent to me a couple of days ago when I emailed him about it, otherwise your both out there with the fairies.
Just go and have another drink, and stop being such an agitator.
kosst, believe me when I say I am not going ape. As I said, I find your argumentative nature annoying, but amusing, and actually look forward to your next " outburst ". I cannot speak for George. Enjoy ! MrD.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
