|
You have no gain issues. You should no IC capacitance issues (with most ICs) and you should be ok with the input imepdance of the amp. The higher the better, but I think you are on that safe side there too. |
|
The Music Hall is a DAC? They use an tube output stage? |
I am asking because the output impedance of the DAC or CD Player is also an important part of the passive equation. Most SS players pass the test, a tube output stage could present some issues, but George would be better on commenting on that. |
Anthony do you know if the cable in that RCA is Mogami 2534 or 2549? Capacitance for both seems very low:) |
|
Jult52, glad the LSA worked for you, no audionervosa with this piece:) I think Clio and I have been recommending the LSA/Music Reference RM10 combo for world class sound for the cost of some folks speaker cables. If 35 watts is enough power, this is an awfully good example of great sound the real thoughtful engineering. You got yourself a very nice system there. |
Which ones? I assume the RM10 and MMGs would not be a match made in heaven, though a pair of RM10s.... |
"great sound from real thoughtful engineering..." |
Great. We await your observations. P.S. if you want remote control, another option would be the Placette RVC, which is mighty fine, though not to level of the LSA IMHO. |
Well, the warm weather has come back to Baltimore, so I took out the Atma-sphere MP3/M60 combo (the best I have heard for the Merlin VSMs) and took out the diminutive Music Reference RM10 MKII (light loaded at 27 watts) and the LSA (so small I had trouble finding it ;)). After several months of listening to one of the finest pairs of pre/amp combos at any price, I can only say this, if you speakers are 89db or higher and don't have wild impedance swings (bad for tubes) I think the MR/LSA combo, at a list price of under $2,500 for both is going to give you sound about as good as it gets. You may be tempted, as an audiophile, to insist on spending 10-20K, or more, for your electronics, and of course I have, but the truth is you don't have to. This combo, with the beauty of EL84 tubes, is going to give you sound that is just about as good as it gets, and to top it all off, they are both indestructible as far as I can tell. Do yourself a favor, stop thinking you need 100 watt tubes amps, and large complicated preamps. Now if you have already done that, than you have the money to try this combo and decide for yourself. For me it is the making a SOTA sound on a beer budget, without compromise. |
George, roughly what is the tolerance for channel to channel matching, and do you feel that is stable for the useable life of the product? |
I agree Anthony, and really it comes from Roger's insistence that a passive preamp (with his amp) is the way to go, "no active will be better, but I will build you one if you insist" - he may have said "can be". Doubting Roger is not usually a good move, and with the LSA being the best passive I have tried (and 5-6 others of all ilks) and it is indeed an exceptional combo, the Sugar Ray of the audio world. |
I think the Audiopax is a fairly low gain amplifier (17db and less?)- it might need some additonal gain from an active preamp, or possibly a TVC passive with 6db gain. No expert on the combo you have, but a guess. |
No, it is not an IC issue. |
I think Uriah, just sells kits, no? |
One type of passive I have not tried are the EVS and Endler types. While I get the idea behind why the LSA without contacts would be beneficial, it also seems that EVS/Endler approach might have some theoretical advantage, no worries about IC capacitance, no IC, two less IC RCA connections and I think EVS uses a single Vishay nude in the signal path. Any experience with these? Head-to-head with LSA? |
Unless I am missing something, it seems he builds the kit, but you are still required to do the install into a chassis - no? Can you tell me what changes, if any, he has done to the LSA recipe? It does look interesting, other then I am a klutz with any element of DIY. |
Thank you George, it did not seem Uriah was doing doing the same thing, and set himself up to try to provide the DIY community with parts to build their own Lightspeed-inspired derivatives - which I imagine can sound quite good in the right setting. While appreciate the buffer, remote, and switching approaches that others have tried to add, I suspect you only really get the uncompromised LSA (sorry, we do that here) sounds used as you have designed it in a system with the right source and amp requirements - the rest come at a sonic cost I'm not willing to pay. But if I found a remote controlled, buffered preamp with multiple inputs, preferably RCA and Balanced that sounded as good as the LSA, I would buy it, but I have not found it yet. |
...though teak would be nice:) |
I must admit that difference between cables simply don't jump out at me - though I did buy Cardas GR just because it is often recommnded with my speakers (Merlin VSMs) - I do know they are about the lowest capacitance cable on the market (12pf/ft) so I suspect that helps with the LSA. I tried a 1m and 2m connection between pre and amp and it was simply much too difficult to indentify any difference - so I stopped trying. The only IC rule of thumb that seems to matter is short/low capacitance and you should be alright with most cables with good connectors. Can you hear a difference between 6ft - 3ft - 2ft - I don't think so - at least I can't. |
I did mean possible "drift" I did not mean to suggest it would actually happen:)
BENT was great, especially the AVC, will be interesting to hear observations - it certainly was a VERY fine line stage compared with the "finest". |
|
|
How do you get music for the Otari? PM me, sounds interesting! |
Anthony, you have pretty sensitive speakers, no? Might be a factor in the "gain factor". WIth the 89db Merlins, 2:00 is about as loud as I want to hear them with my 1v RM10 - 35 watts. |
I would like to test the LSA against the $16,000 Music First Audio Reference Passive. Not sure that is going to happen though. Wonder if it includes an IWC for keeping time. |
For those of you you don't know who Arthur Salvatore, he has a website you can easily google with lot's of interesting opinions. His relevance here is that he was a very strong public proponent of passives and it was his commentary and that of Roger Modjeski, the designer of Music Reference amplifiers that convinced me I had to give passives a try. Arthur wrote (and I think Roger would say pretty much the same thing):
" If you are currently connecting a phono stage or a CD player directly to an amplifier, or through a passive device (and then to the amplifier), simply add any decent active line stage, or replace the passive device with any decent active device (it doesn't have to be "the best"). Once this is done, then listen to the results. The Rule...
If there is any noticeable and obvious sonic improvement with the active line stage, then you need an active line stage. It's that easy. All that's left is the most difficult part, choosing the model that you like the most.
What this reader (and many other audiophiles) doesn't understand is that the quality of the active line stage is not critical when it comes to making the determination of whether you need an active device or not. What is critical is whether the source (CD player and/or phono stage) has the required output to drive the amplifier directly (beyond simple volume needs). It either does or it doesn't. This is black and white.
Most sources do not have the required output. When they don't, it's extremely easy to expose their sonic weakness(es). In fact, virtually any active line stage (short of total "junk") will sound better in some noticeable manner (deep bass, dynamic intensity, more natural "body" etc). (It will also sound worse in some manner, but that is irrelevant at this point.)
Alternatively, when the source does have the "required output" (which is my present situation), then no active line stage, no matter how good it is, will prove to be superior in any noticeable manner.
In fact, it will rarely even equal the sonics of the direct connection in any manner (because of all the extra cabling, connections and an imperfect active circuit). Even a theoretically "perfect" active line stage can only equal an equivalent passive line stage with the required output, because they both must share the same passive parts (volume control, selector switch, wiring etc).
In the case of my own system, once I realized, through actual listening experiences, that no active line stage of the day (early 1990's) could improve on what I was hearing, in any manner, than I knew that no future active line stage could alter that fundamental paradigm, no matter how good it was. This was because my source had the required output. The best I could ever hope for in an active line stage would be something that sounded very similar to what I had, but with more gain. The quality of the sound could never be improved on. If it could, I would have heard some improvement 16 years ago.
The above "test and rule" is based on multiple experiences, not only in my system, but in many other systems I am/was familiar with. It is NOT some speculative "theory" I've put together for some irrational or egotistical reason, and I've never heard any exception to this "rule". So...
In short, if you need an active line stage because your source is not up to the task of driving the amplifier(s), then...
Any good active line stage, from any era, will improve the sonics in some obvious and clear manner.
Alternatively, if your source is up to the task of driving your amp(s), then...
No active line stage, no matter how good it is, will ever equal the sonics of your direct connection (or an equivalent passive)."
Of course, as he will admit, a system based on passive attenuation requires more careful planning than one centered on active line stages, but not much more attention than building a system based on low-powered SETs. |
Agree that #1 is completely irrelevant to me in my system and not worth "fixing" - the nature of the beast. I have the feeling that way for the LSA to be better lies in ergonomic issues, and I don't think can easily be addressed and remain being a true LSA "neat". |
And to put it in $$$ perspective, we are talking about a $450 product up against cost no object active which can run into 5 figures..... given that, I know where the frugal audiophile has to head; a passive, and none better than the LSA in my experience. |
Oh, and Miguel, beautiful system! |
Does lack of "gain" have anything to do with the claim some make that passive are not as dynamic as actives (lifeless, dull)? That us not my experience, but I assume it is true for some in their systems; so, is that attributable to gain or something that would account for this fairly frequent criticism of passives? |
"I can hear the input/output wire flavor of its internal wiring." Now that is pure, imagine the effect of all the wiring, capacitors, resistors, and solder points in a complex, two-box, mega-weight preamp -- might obscure the sound of the internal wire. I find some Jamesons also changes the LSA's voicing - a ver yrevelaing device. |
True. An endgame to opinion is an endgame to the reviewing game (Tellig has to move on or he will have nothing to write about).
As to coloration, I think all all recorded playback is significantly different from live - simply changing microphones making enormous differences in the recorded sound signature. My ICs (Cardas GR) just happen to be what is used in the design of my speakers, so however colored they might be (accepted for the sake of argument), the speakers are voiced with that in mind.
I just find the LSA to be minimally intrusive in the overall system - whereas the various active tube line stages I have owned made their presence in the chain more obvious - the CAT Ultimate perhaps the most neutral, least flavored of all (and $7000 when I bought it)
All threads, all opinions and comments, are nothing compared with listening. I hope one thing this thread accomplishes is that it makes some folks try a passive (TVC/AVC/Resistor/LSA) and see how it works for them. Are they as good as world-class, $20,000 active line stages? For some folks, getting something that can compete for $1000 or less is reason enough to go passive, and if passive works for them, than the LSA is likely to be a very good option, and if you need a bit more connection flexibility, the BENT TAP-x with autoformers.
As some will note, and Arthur Salvatore now concludes, for some folks an active line stage is absolutely necessary for their systems to perform their best and they should stick to actives, but there are systems in which passives will offer SOTA sound at a fraction of the cost (for volume control). |
What is important for a piece of gear is not great measurements, but great measurements in things that actually correlate to good sounding equipment - not all things measured matter, some really do. In the world of speakers, Floyd Toole and the Canadian acoustic labs actually study which measurements, of what factors actually correlated to subjective preference - in the case of speakers on-axis frequency response correlates very highly and consistently with subjective preference.
I assume there are metrics that relate to amps and preamps that also correlate to subjective preference - 2nd Harmonic distortion? low noise? I don't know. Not sure how the various passives measure, though I imagine they are quieter than actives and have less measured distortion, and that there might be some correlation between these two things and subjective preference (when there is no gain and/or impedance mismatch). I'm not sure that low noise and low distortion in a "preamp" is techno-babble, seems pretty legit, and why they don't work optimally in certain systems is also pretty well understood.
Not sure what being objectively better would mean, unless noise and distortion were in fact the most critical factors determining what is "best" in a line stage (debatable perhaps) - in that case there is a pretty strong argument for passives against actives, At least by that criteria, passives simply measure better in those two (crucial?) parameters.
None of which means that any passive, no matter how good, will sound better to you than a Concert Fidelity in your system, and there may be very good reasons why that is so - (though I doubt objective measurements would be sufficient to explain it).
On the notion of a thread being an advertisement - I don't quite buy that. It may get people talking about a product, but it also exposes you to having people comment that they tried it and it was the most horrible piece of gear they ever heard. Nobody I know of who has tried an LSA would say that (or a BENT Tap for that matter).
Where this thread differs than simply talking up a product, is the fact that what is really of interest to me is the idea of passives in general, and why they may or may not be an ideal method of controlling volume. The secondary issue is whether the Lightspeed approach to passives is the best type of the genre, why (or why not), and under what circumstances. |
Especially when you know that an opinion being opined is in fact that of a manufacturer, a dealer, or some other person with a financial interest on the topic - which does not discredit what is being said, but does provide the necessary and expected transparency of where the opiner [?] is coming from.
George thinks he has a great idea, and will argue its merits. Other are free to challenge his technical claims, and others are free to describe their experience with the LSA, good or bad, a revelation or a disappointment. Nothing wrong with that, or public scrutiny.... |
Interesting you mention Nelson Pass, surely one of the greatest designers in the audio world. He seems to really like the LSA design, at least based on his comments on the DIY thread. Would be nice to have a First Watt Lightspeed/B1, with the ability to toggle between straight and buffered (when needed), along with multiple inputs (3?) and possibly XLR - that could be a real winner assuming no need for gain. Though it would likely be $1500 or so for nice casing. I would buy that in a minute. Still, even then, it would not make other preamps obsolete for many different reasons. |
Teajay, I know you have owned a very fine TVC passive, as well as the Placette Active (buffer - no gain) - so you certainly were and might still be open to unity gain in a preamp conceptually. Do you (and Grannyring, et. al.) think that the magic provided from your active linestages is a result of gain, or buffering?
Just to show my bias here, I suspect if the active is working better for you it is not about gain, that if your source output is twice or more what your amp's input sensitivity is that gain is simply a non-factor in the quality of sound - as Nelson Pass quoted above suggests - it is just a waste (to paraphrase). I don't know if you agree with this so far. But it does seem that any improvement would come from the buffering effect to match impedances better and control ICs (as Ralph Karsten would suggest if I understand hime correctly, and perhaps A. Salvatore might argue the same) - and then there is the issue of tube beuffering versus solid state.
So gain? Buffering? What is the active doing that makes it work better in your system? I will say that in the case of both George, and Roger Modjeski (RAM Labs/Music Reference)they both felt that adding a buffer would only be a step backwords as they both felt I did not need it (though Roger would build it for me if I insisted) and that no buffer always sounds better than any buffer if you don't need buffering.
Now Roger does not come on these sites to comment, but his argument for passive is pretty much identical to George's, though George also argues his passive mousetrap is better since there are no points of contact between wiper and resistor (always a good thing?). Roger's only comment was about the challenge of maintaining channel to channel balance across frequency which he thought would be difficult - but I think he thought the LDR idea was interesting.... |
Terry I have heard that said about power regulation and believe it, my experience too - seems like those old technologies seems to still work pretty darn well:)
I do think we are on to something regarding passive and there use with SS versus tubes (in addtion to the fact that SS will generally, but not always present a more difficult impedance load). I always wonder about folks that have tried passive and find something lacking (besides noise:)) - I always thought that some of that must occur if the impedance/gain/IC capacitance issues are not properly. Now assuming all that is fine, than I can see why those using SS amps and no tubes in the chain might also feel something is missing (and it may very well be a form of distortion - but one I like and makes me happy). Oh, well, play around with this stuff is [more?] hald the fun!
Marqmike, I too find that much of what we look for in recorded music through our systems regarding 3D, imaging, spacial cues, etc. is simply not there in live perfomance, or at least far less than we seek it in our systems. What live music brings that no stereo system I've heard truly replicates is timbre and dynamics - every time I go listen to unamplified live jazz, I go home and remind myself to accept that while I love my system and listening to music on it, it is not the same as live (really, how could it be?) but a facsimile. |
Clio9 has also reported that listening and theory are two different things and he has had excellent results even when the match was less than ideal on paper - so yes, always worth trying....... |
And I forgot to mention, I think the LSA gives me that. |
George, I think we are in agreement, as Anthony is likely to be, and it might seem Nelson Pass is likely to be in agreement too, and yet we find many(?) audiophiles that still don't see it that way, and I respect their view as well, but I guess I am just comfortable with my own conclusions, theoretically and in actual listening - and whatever divergence of opinion we have seems like an uncrossable bridge, so we are left with try it and see what you think.
But the argument is also between a $500 approach versus 5-20K approaches, so where do you go from there? I don't know. I can only recommend that folks try it and decide for themselves. |
Disciplined testing? I don't know. Just kept switching between preamps with the same 2-3 "test" tracks for a week, over and over, brought audio buddies over to minimize the possibility I might be hallucinating, and I (we) enjoyed the LSA every bit as much as much as my relatively expensive tube linestage and so I decided to save the $7000 and not worry about tube replacement (I have enough of them to worry about). Not science exactly, but enough to make a decision. Hard since the linestage is probably the #1 recommendation by the speaker manufacturer for his speakers and the one he uses at shows, and I certainly loved it - but still....I also have no phono, and no switching requirements. |
Anthony, your description of the LSA versus the Audio Consulting, is similar to my impression of the LSA compared the K&K with S&B and BENT w/Slagle AVC - all superb in my system, but the LSA seems to do less, in a good way. I wish I could listen to the Placette Active that I bought from another fellow on this thread, a wonderful piece too and one that really does not require a whole lot of thought about cables or impedances - perhaps more universally great - no idea why I sold it - OCD? probably. |
Yes, and probably why I have stuck with Merlins for 9 years, or 187 years in audiophile years:)
Thinking about passives versus actives all these years, it brought me back to the words of the Master (aka, NP) describing his Aleph L line stage (manual) which was passive till the 3:00 position on the volume control...
"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."
Raises the question as to the the "effects" are, and when is gain "necessary".
Clearly sometimes both are necessary and preferable, and sometimes not. For some reason, as I get older I want less to get more, but no less than necessary. |
George, it just does not seem possible that there is a preamp on the market with 33kohm Zout - does it? It would be almost impossible to match with most any amp. Unfortunately, their website does not provide a Zout for the preamp, but as a hybrid design, you have to believe they are doing something to provide buffering for that 12au7. But anyway, clearly you and Terry will never be in agreement, no matter what the Zs say in or out - I think we can all agree on that.
It does seem that the passive / active divide is even more divisive than tubes / SS:) I wonder why. |
George, I'm not sure that Teajay's "LSA test" was with his own system, it might have be a group of audiophiles getting together, comparing notes - obviously testing the LSA with Pass gear would be far from optimal, like testing a 3 watt SET with a pair of Maggies - no way to fairly assess either the amp or speakers in that situation.
Anthony, it will be interested to hear what Tsuda has to say, something does not seem right. |
I agree with Sam, when you need gain or have an impedance mismatch and long cables you need an active line stage, and I imagine when you need an active it is pretty obvious when comparing it to a passive. I agree that ultimately one must choose what fits their fancy, especially since it is "reproduction" we are talking about. When you need an active, a passive will not do. What we cannot do without is a great preamp, in whatever form is most suitable to our source/amp/cabling. |
I agree, there is nothing wrong with folks liking coloration that please them. I would just say that on principle, I would want my preamp to offer as little as possible so I can use it with alot of different amps and speakers with different voices - that is, the more nuetral the preamp the more equipment it can work with sonically. That is just a philosophical decision and preference on my part.
Interesting that Sam paid full price and then decided to get an LSA for his son. Not sure about Sam's wants, but he does NEED to be excited about new products if he wants to keep writing:) |
