The first step would be to just take the BAT out of the system and use the PS Audio volume control to see what that does to the sound. If it improves the sound, you at least know that some improvement is possible by going without the linestage. If the sound does not improve, it might be the case that the PS Audio volume control is at fault (some say attenuation in the digital domain is less desirable than analogue attenuation), in which case you will have to at least try alternatives.
Is the flexibility and remote control features of the BAT important to you? Will a passive have to include some of the features of the BAT? What kind of amps will the passive have to work with? Some additional information would be helpful. |
Larryi is right of course; try it both ways.
When I had the PWD, my system sounded better with the PWD at 100% and a pre; does the volume control on the DSD "shed bits" as believe the PWD did?
John |
I think you should do as Larryi suggested and run the PS Audio DirectStream direct into your amps and use its volume control. It's an excellent volume control and the quality does not diminish as volume is lowered. That way, the comparison will show you exactly what the BAT preamp is doing with it's associated cables.
If you don't have the latest Pike's Peak mod definitely download and install it! My guess is you will gain a fair amount of detail by bypassing the preamp, but you will lose any euphonic tube colorations. I did not find my particular DirectStream to need any tube colorations because the sound is relaxed and very musical right out of the DAC.
If you need analog inputs for your turntable or other sources I recommend you try a Luminous Audio Axiom II passive preamp with the Walker mod. You will find that there won't be much difference in sound quality running the PS DAC into the Axiom II and then into your amps... and it's very affordable! It will give you back your input switching for other sources and you can get a second pair of outputs if you like. Good luck! |
Get rid of your preamp and sell it to me for cheap and use passive volume control. It's more pure and transparent. |
Another typical logical reply from Larry. Simply compare your system with the preamp and then running the direct stream into the amplifier and just listen and decide.you could try a relatively inexpensive passive like the Lightspeed and compare. Some audio systems will sound better with an active preamp and others will sound better without them. |
Yes, your preamp is absolutely useless. Just send it to me and I will dispose of it properly for you, free of charge. ;^)
Cheers,
John |
"For me, the next component to upgrade would be the BAT preamp from a 52SE to a 53SE. But something occurred to me. I don’t listen loud. The gain on my PSA DSD is set to less than 100 and the BAT preamp is usually set between -20 and -10. So if my volume control is never set in the + range, is my preamp doing ANYTHING other than attenuating the volume and serving as a multi-input switch? Is all that Super Tube, single gain stage, zero feedback, high energy storage circuitry a waste of money?"
A preamp does quite a bit more than just adjust volume. Reading your post, it sounds like you may have a technical background. Is that the case? That may have an effect on how you deal with this, that’s why I ask. |
Thanks for the responses. Fwiw, the rest of my system consists of Cary Audio 500.1 monos and custom speakers from Selah Audio. Cabling is Transparent Musicwave Super XLRs. I don't have a technical background.
So if I try the passive route, what do I look for?
Thanks All! |
Preamp does more than control volume and source selection. A preamp is also the heart of a good system. It manages the interface between source and amp and interconnects. Even so, the preamp can be a trade-off if not wisely chosen. Without a preamp you may gain transparency and detail but you may lose body, drive and dynamics. |
"So if I try the passive route, what do I look for?
Thanks All!
Slanski62 (Threads | Answers | This Thread)"
Since you already have an outstanding preamp, I would say to make a commitment to get rid of it until you are sure that you have a definite replacement that you like better. The easiest way to try a passive, if you don't have a local dealer, is to call The Cable Company (fatwyre.com). They lend out audio components for you to try as demo's. That way you don't have to buy anything first, just to see if you like it or not.
I wouldn't get my hopes up on going with a passive, though. I like passives very much and recommend them on a regular basis. The reason I do is because you usually have to buy a really good active preamp to get where it actually sounds as good, if not better, than a passive. Your preamp, in my opinion at least, is beyond that mark by a comfortable margin. I see trying a passive more as a learning experience for you, than a serious effort to get better sound than what you have. But I still say try it. Its great experience, and you may end up using what you learn in a different system or situation. |
I have never met a passive that I could live with. The sound always seems weak and uninspired. |
As other have said Slanski62, use your PSA dac direct into your Cary mono's, it will be an eye/ear opener, and you may sell your preamp. As for your phono stage, it's a pity the PSA does not have analogue inputs to except the phono stage. So purchase this cheap $49 passive that gives you input switching as well for everything. Then you can still go direct into your amp with your dac when you want the very best from your digital source. http://schiit.com/products/sysCheers George |
You are right that the main function of a preamp nowadays is to attenuate the volume. It also provides better impedence matching for a wider range of equipment.
If you have powerful amps it will be a safer possibly avoiding the thin and weak sound.
Being that you are using a BAT tube preamp, it is very possibly addding colour, warmth and ambiance.
I have just added an LDR resistor passive preamp which is impedence adjustable. Eliminating the impedence mismatch problem. I found setting the impedence higher by a few will make the sound very clean and lacking some warmth.
All in all, i can live with it and sounds very good, well maybe slightly less 3D sounding but very very good. It replace a good tube preamp with upgraded teflon capacitors etc costing itself, more than the passice unit. Without these mods, i am certain the accuracy, bass etc for a passive LDR preamp is superior! Stock tube preamps bass is almost always more wolly and adds a little flavour. |
"The reason I do is because you usually have to buy a really good active preamp to get where it actually sounds as good, if not better, than a passive. Your preamp, in my opinion at least, is beyond that mark by a comfortable margin."
I don't agree with this at all. I have owned two BAT preamps, and several more actives which were far better than them. A good passive has beat every one of them. I would be willing to bet that the VK-52 would not fare any better.
Shakey |
As with anything audio, a LOT depends on personal taste and system compatibility, and therefore, comments about which types or models are good or not are just rough generalizations. I "tend" to prefer active tube units over the passives I have heard in my system and that of friends. I also like transformer coupling, which means that the linestage has a transformer at the output and the amp has a transformer at the input.
But, I have heard, and liked transformer-based passives too (Silver Rock). These sound vibrant, lively and deliver the kind of "dense" or saturated sound that I like. I also got to hear the Placette passive linestage (conventional resistor) and the active linestage in my system and preferred the active (I bought the active). My system is not ideal for passives, because of the requirement for a long interconnect between the linestage and amp.
In a friend's system, I heard a linestage built around a light dependent resistor passive. This was an ideal setup for a passive--short interconnects, low output impedance source and high input impedance amp. I liked the sound of the system, but, when we substituted a really nice tube linestage, the dynamics improved markedly. There were three listeners and we all agreed that the tube unit sounded better (including the owner of the custom-built passive unit).
Apart from the sound, some passives present practicality issues that should at least be considered before going that route. Many, particularly of the transformer variety, have too few stepped levels so that it seems like the ideal volume is always somewhere in between steps. To me, the steps should never be greater than 2 db, and 1 db is better. Most do not allow for balance control and most are not remotely controllable (getting the right setting matters a lot to the sound and instantaneous comparison
afforded by remote control is a requirement for that purpose).
There is a form of transformer-based passive that I have only heard briefly that may be of interest. It is one based on an autoformer (kind of transformer). There is a remotely controllable version from Bent Audio that gets around all of the practical limitations of such units--it is remotely controllable, has 1 db steps over a 70 db range and it can control balance. I have not heard it, but, it is based on the autoformer designed by Dave Slagle so it should be pretty good. If you are not technically inclined, you will need someone to custom build a linestage around the module you can purchase. The Bent Audio unit can be found at:
http://www.bentaudio.com/index2.html |
A preamp does these things:
1) provide volume control
2) provide any needed gain
3) provide switching for various sources
4) control artifact from interconnect cables.
Of these the last is the least understood. Since you don't need any gain my recommendation is a buffered volume control. This is a passive control that has buffering circuitry with no gain that allows the control to work properly without artifacts being generated by the interaction that typically occurs between the volume control and the interconnect cable driving the power amp. |
Thanks again for taking time to respond everybody. Looks like I have a lot to learn! |
"03-20-15: Shakeydeal
"The reason I do is because you usually have to buy a really good active preamp to get where it actually sounds as good, if not better, than a passive. Your preamp, in my opinion at least, is beyond that mark by a comfortable margin."
I don't agree with this at all. I have owned two BAT preamps, and several more actives which were far better than them. A good passive has beat every one of them. I would be willing to bet that the VK-52 would not fare any better."
I believe you, and there's nothing wrong with what you're saying. My post was meant to be personal opinion, not fact. The OP seems to be happy with his BAT, so I would expect a passive would be hard pressed to win him over. If he expressed some disappointment with it, that would be another matter. But we really won't know for sure until he tries a passive. You may be right. |
There is a Luminous Audio Axion II posted for sale right now. What's your collective opinion of it? |
That BAT preamp isn't adding anything in terms of beautiful tone or accurate highs. And at low volumes FORGET IT. I would get a AYRE preamp if you want to go Soild State. If you go tube I would switch from BAT to something a lot more engaging like a Modwright or Manley labs. The pre amp will make or break your sound and you can spend a lot of time and $$ getting it wrong. So I say YES to a pre amp in your system just find the one that works best for your system and ears. |
Your preamplifier is not only providing attenuation, but it also helps match input impedance to properly drive your amplifier- regardless of level.
Not saying a passive won't work, as your Cary amps input impedance is relatively high, but it is not accurate to say your pre is doing nothing but attenuating the source signal. |
"03-20-15: Mattmiller
That BAT preamp isn't adding anything in terms of beautiful tone or accurate highs. And at low volumes FORGET IT. I would get a AYRE preamp if you want to go Soild State."
The one thing I think we're forgetting here, is that the OP already has a BAT preamp and is very happy with it. So much, that his first choice was to upgrade to a better BAT preamp. Regardless of what our personal tastes are, the OP is the one who has to listen to his new preamp, not us. |
"If he expressed some disappointment with it, that would be another matter. But we really won't know for sure until he tries a passive. You may be right."
That's just the thing. I think we all can agree that in this hobby ignorance is bliss. You don't know what you are missing (or not?) until you hear it (or don't?). Just because he is happy with the BAT doesn't mean he wouldn't be ecstatic with a better preamp.
Shakey |
The lower you want to play music, the better preamp you need. Retaining resolution while attenuating the signal is no easy task. Throw in a bunch of other stuff and me thinks a good preamp is worth its weight in gold. |
Robr45 hi, read again the OP's first post about the amount of gain he has, then read "gods" words below.
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."
Cheers George |
"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."
He makes a good point. But I don't understand why Pass only makes active preamps. And they're not cheap. |
He makes a few models of poweramps that are at or below 33kohm input impedance, this then will have a ? for a passive to drive at 100% perfect impedance match.
But to counter that Nelson Pass does make his First Watt B1 preamp which is buffered passive preamp, that is just a passive pre with a unity gain simple two transistor active buffer, which then can drive these or other poweramps that are at or below 33kohm input impedance.
And yes he does make proper preamps that have gain and are $$$$ but he is a business man, and needs to make money.
In the OP's case he can drive his PSA dac direct into his Cary amps and have the prefect match with no preamp in the way.
Cheers George
|
Nelson Pass may believe active preamps yield better sound or why would he bother designing and building them? He is known for doing much personal research and much prolonged listening sessions to test. I don't believe he's wasting his time. If he felt passives were the ultimate solution, that would be his primary focus, but it isn't. Perhaps like other listeners who've tried both options, he found that high quality actives provide better sound. It seems unreasonable he'd attach his name, reputation and effort to a component he finds sonically inferior.
it seems based on his actions he is a believer in an active preamp, yet he recognizes the benetfit of passives/direct connection under certain circumstances. It just seems if he truly felt passives were the better choice he'd be building them as part of his Pass Labs line, he is not. I'd say he has integrity and chose to build actives simply because they sound better to him. What other reason would he have to move in this direction? My 2 cents worth.
Charles, |
Nelson Pass may believe active preamps yield better sound or why would he bother designing and building them? To maximize profits, and market demand for believers of active preamps?. It just seems if he truly felt passives were the better choice he'd be building them as part of his Pass Labs line He does in a way, the First Watt B1 @ $1000.00, which is a passive with a simple two transistor buffer, to drive low impedance amps? If it were marketed as Pass Labs and gorgeous to look at as that line is, it may effect the $KKK preamp sales?. Cheers George |
So you feel you know his "true motive"? Profit? possible I would say(you can't substain a business without a profit). Or how about he honestly believes in what he chooses to build because he thinks it's a better sonic path. I imagine those customers who prefer to buy an active do so for improving their home audio sound quality, just a thought.I'd give Nelson Pass more credit for his commercial decisions than your conclusions. Build a product you genuinely believe in,do it right and the market sucesss will hopefully follow. It would seem he'd have these priorities in order. |
The OP has way too much gain as he has to lower the PSA volume (which could then be bit stripping), but is also in the negative volume on the BAT volume, which means it's not pre-amplifying but de-amplifying, which a total waste of source signal strength. It's like putting attenuators networks on a MC cartridge and then having to amplifying again, noise and all.
What the OP should do is to listen to his PSA direct into his Cary amps as this has perfect impedance and voltage match.
Then see if he can at least equal or better this by putting an active preamp or passive preamp in the signal path.
Cheers George
|
So why this public statement from him (again below), and it is in direct reference to what the OP is experiencing, TOO MUCH GAIN EVERYWHERE.
He has a prefect match with the PSA direct into his Cary's and eliminating all that active preamp gain. And I bet my life that the PSA has a beefier output stage than the BAT tube preamp has, so it should drive even better.
" 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."
Cheers George
|
George,
I happen to agree with your assessment of the OP's predicament, too much system gain. I definitely feel that passive preamps have their role and can also be very effective as the right solutions for certain systems. Furthermore I believe that in some systems Passive is the way to go, you have to try it and listen. No doubt that Nelson pass appreciates these certain situations himself. My point is that he would not take time to build actives if he felt they had no sonic advantages for many listeners. I would love the opportunity for Nelson Pass to share his thoughts on the merits of passive vs active preamps and why he chooses to build very high level actives.
Charles, |
Mr. Pass must in fact believe his best effort active preamps sound best. He must believe that. He is charging 10 of thousands for his best preamp effort and he advertises it as the best.
Integrity is also important here. I assume he has integrity and actually believes his mega dollar designs are his best sonic effort. If he felt a passive was best, surely he would spend as much time, money and effort designing a SOTA passive.
An active preamp is no more needed than a fine meal at an upscale restaurant. A simple piece of toast and an apple will take care of ones hunger without the need for an elaborate culinary effort. Sure, a passive is all that is needed. We get it. Gain blah, blah.....
I want to experience a delicious sonic event and I know this is extravagant. I know my active preamp is elaborate and beyond what is needed to play good music. But, I want to indulge and experience something beyond what is merely needed.
Mr. Pass is an electronics Master Chef and I have to believe he and many other audio Master Chefs design with a passion for the best. Master Chefs don't create merely for profit, no they create to deliver an unforgettable experience.
I do not believe companies and individuals making top dollar active preamps are doing so knowing that a $500 passive is just as good and all that is needed. Nor do they do it to just make money.
Integrity is at play here. What about the ads and sales materials these individuals and companies put out saying it is the best sounding and their best effort. Are they also now lying? Integrity. No, I don't really think so.
I think they have genuine passion and creativity for their products and the experiences they deliver to us. |
"The OP has way too much gain as he has to lower the PSA volume (which could then be bit stripping), but is also in the negative volume on the BAT volume, which means it's not pre-amplifying but de-amplifying, which a total waste of source signal strength. It's like putting attenuators networks on a MC cartridge and then having to amplifying again, noise and all."
The BAT preamp lets you adjust gain for each input separately, as well as globally. So if you have a source with high gain that doesn't allow the volume to go positive, all you have to do is lower the gain on that one input the source is connected to. |
Grannyring,
Yes, integrity, that's exactly why I chose that word in my earlier post responding to George. The quote of Nelson Pass that George often cites does make sense and applies to "specific" situations. It doesn't fit all situations. If Pass felt passive were the ultimate solution, I believe he would devote his talent in that direction. Instead he put considerable effort,time and his exceptional talents towards "active" preamps. I don't believe he's playing games and making them to satisfy unknowing audio dummies. No, he builds them because he apparently feels they offer the best choice for superior sound quality, this defines his integrity and sincerity IMO. As we all can agree on, it's up to each listener to make fhis individual choice. Bill, your chef/fine dining analogy was a good one.
Charles, |
It's not really accurate to draw a conclusion about whether Nelson Pass thinks active preamps are the best solution for most systems just because the company with his name offers that type of product. At one point point Pass Labs offered an active loudspeaker, but now they only offer passive loudspeakers. Does that mean he really thinks passive designs are superior, or is it a reflection of marketplace realties? I don't know and only Mr. Pass and his cohorts can truly respond. Integrity can be expressed by making a high quality product that people want to buy. If you look at the vast number of products Mr. Pass has been associated with it's apparent that he is very flexible at doing that. |
The point is he and his company advertise these SOTA preamps as best, the point is not that he makes them. |
Onhwy61,
Granted only Nelson Pass can fully explain his chosen product pathway decisions, not us. Do you really think he believes a passive is the best sonic solution and just builds actives for their popularity? Possible, but not probable IMO. Again if you personally feel passive/direct is better, no problem with that as it's your call. My own encounters say otherwise, that's just me. Choice is wonderful. |
All I can say to this is, in the OP's case, how can $10k worth of electronics in the signal path with way too much gain + another set of interconnects, sound better that no preamp and interconnect at all.
As his PSA can drive perfectly 100% the Cary mono's direct?
By reducing his source gain so much, and then to bring it back up again with the preamp so his has control over the volume, all he is doing is amplifying the noise floor as well.
It's ALWAYS best to get the full level signal from the source, not to attenuate it then only to bring it back up again further down stream.
Cheers George
|
"03-22-15: Onhwy61
It's not really accurate to draw a conclusion about whether Nelson Pass thinks active preamps are the best solution for most systems just because the company with his name offers that type of product. At one point point Pass Labs offered an active loudspeaker, but now they only offer passive loudspeakers. Does that mean he really thinks passive designs are superior, or is it a reflection of marketplace realties? I don't know and only Mr. Pass and his cohorts can truly respond. Integrity can be expressed by making a high quality product that people want to buy. If you look at the vast number of products Mr. Pass has been associated with it's apparent that he is very flexible at doing that."
I think you're exactly right on that. You need to take each system and person on a case by case basis. In the end, everyone's system is probably going to be different. For me personally, I think a passive can be a great low cost solution for high end sound. But as you start going up in quality, I feel you get to a point where actives start to sound better. Obviously, not everyone would agree with me. And that's a good thing. No progress would be made is we all wanted the exact same thing. If we never had the experience of audio equipment we didn't like, we wouldn't own the same equipment we have today. The stuff we do like. The negative is what drives us to the positive. |
"03-22-15: Georgelofi
All I can say to this is, in the OP's case, how can $10k worth of electronics in the signal path with way too much gain + another set of interconnects, sound better that no preamp and interconnect at all. "
Al I can say about the OP, is that it looks like he's the smartest one here. Something tells me he ran from this thread like a burning building. |
Let him run then, if he did.
If he asked "Is my preamp useless"
Well yes then in his case, as he has to turn down his PSA source (risking bit stripping) so he has then some usable volume range on his BAT pre, even it then is in the negative of it's volume range.
So you can see, he's doing exactly what Nelson Pass is against, attenuating the source only to bring it back up again, (NOISE AND ALL) with the active preamp, and in his case the BAT is still in the negative of it's amplification. So it's no win on either component.
Cheers George
|
"So you can see, he's doing exactly what Nelson Pass is against"
I'm still trying to figure out what Nelson Pass has to do with all of this. And even if what you are saying is true, there are other aspects to a preamps design that effect sound quality. |
"Zd542 I'm still trying to figure out what Nelson Pass has to do with all of this."
"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."
If you can't make out what he's saying, I can't help.
Cheers George
|
This seems like a lot of banter for not much progress.
Like George has stated, it would be a simple process to run the DAC directly into the amp just to test the outcome. If the OP doesn't like what he hears, then a passive linestage probably isn't in his future. If he does, problem solved. Sell the BAT and pocket the $$. If he hsa other sources, then buy a passive linestage.
Pretty simple actually.
Shakey |
I do wonder if there is some missing context to what has been quoted from Nelson Pass. He is big into supporting the DIY crowd (puts schematics for First Watt designs on line). If he is talking to that crowd, he would be addressing those who tend to be very conscious of the price-performance relationship and would never spend really big bucks to get a tiny increment of improvement. I can see him telling them that MUCH more expensive actives are not worth it even though he builds ultra expensive actives for a different crowd that is not as concerned about price vs. performance.
Mr. Hansen of Ayre has stated that passives will outperform actives in suitable systems until one gets pretty high up in price for the active unit. There might be some truth in that. |
Charles1dad,
That "specific" situation that you mention is correct, at least in my experience. Below are the situations when I feel that a passive will not work:
1. The source signal is very low
2. The amplifier sensitivity is more than 1V for full output
3. The speakers are less sensitive (less than 87 db and 4 ohms). Generally the BIG monsters with 10-15" woofers and 4+ drivers will most likely not work with passives.
4. You need more than 2 meters of ICs between source and amp
5. You need more than 15 feet speaker cables
I am sure that speaker wires also will make a huge difference. But I have not looked into that measurements.
On the other hand, if you carefully assemble a system around a passive - it is all bliss! |
Slanski62, try the passive! The complaints about lack of drive, thinness or lack of involvement using a passive are completely system dependent. I am currently using a passive (Audio Synthesis) to Manley tube monos via 5m (!) of Nordost, driving 93db efficiency speakers and the results are fantastic. There will be exceptions to every "rule" proposed in the posts above which will depend on the particular components in your system, the particular passive you use, and your own sonic tastes. For instance, in my system, the passive brought significant improvements in the areas of transparency and tonal refinement with no loss of dynamic verve; there was a reduction in tonal fullness compared to my active pre, but the change was a welcomed change since my system was overly full sounding to begin with. You will never know the real answer to your question until you try it.
Re Nelson Pass and the integrity issue: Isn't it obvious that even if a manufacturer believed that a good passive is potentially superior to any active (I believe it can be) in a specific system, that given the fact that an excellent active will work well in many more systems than a passive will with its much more specific requirements, that this is the reason that a manufacturer such as Pass chooses to offer active preamps?
Slanski62, did I say "try it" :-) |
+1 Frogman. If the OP is still around, remember that Frogman is a musician who is intimately familiar with what real instruments sound like and is fully committed to maintaining the tonality, drive and emotional impact of a performance. I think the takeaway message is try it, you might like it. If you do, you're way ahead of the game. If you don't, then you might want to consider a lower gain active.
And w respect to Nelson Pass' quote- I agree completely w Larryi. And of course there are lots of people who have systems that do not meet the criteria for using a passive. For example, George's LSA (a great product, I own one) does not have source switching or a monitoring circuit. All passives have limitations with respect to matching upstream and downstream components. If you are of the camp that believes that eliminating the need to attenuate the source signal is the "ne plus ultra" of system building, then go passive. If you have other criteria, then go with them. Think of system-building as a design exercise (which of course it is). There are always design trade-offs. ALWAYS. Even in "cost is no object" kit. Your final design will be based on how you value the different elements involved in each trade-off. If cost:performance ratio and transparency are your most important design criteria then an LSA might be the way to go, and then you need to base the rest of your design around that element. If a control center providing source switching and RIAA equalization in one package is your primary criterion, but you also really value transparency and channel tracking at low volume, you might want to consider a full-function pre w a phono stage and a TVC. If you have to have source switching, an RIAA equalization circuit and a remote, then you're probably going to want an active w a motor driven volume control. Add transparency to the list and it's going to have to be a very high end active. Etc, etc. |
