I can see the point regarding complications of adding an input buffer to the circuit of an active preamp. It certainly moves away from my simpler is better philosophy. However, I was more curious about adding this type of volume control, or more accurately, attenuator, to the Burson AB160 XLR buffer itself.
I run an Atma-Sphere S-30 in one of my systems and currently am using a Resolution Audio Cantata CD/USB source and running it direct into the S-30 via it's own buffered balanced outputs and using its analog volume control. I also run my Otari MX 5050 with volume control direct into the S-30, just swapping cables when I want to swap sources. I can certainly hear the benefit of a balanced set-up in this case.
I do feel though that I would like to extend this system to add something in the middle that might provide the opportunity to take advantage of a balanced phono stage. One option I'm considering is the Atma-Sphere MP-3, which can be configured as a buffer. However, I'm open to other suggestions as well, including a modification to the MP-3 taking advantage of an LDR volume control. |
Perhaps Dave's approach using an existing balanced active circuit and substituting the LDR attenuator into it is the closest we can get. Combining the LDR technology with active balanced circuits offers relief from the usual SE vs. balanced, passive vs. active debate. Some proponents of Lightspeed tend to dismiss balanced circuits altogether. Personally I am a balanced guy from phono coil all through system to amplifier output, and am not ready to give this up. I like what I'm hearing :-) / reading! -Sam |
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? |
The short answer to your question is yes. |
The long answer is yes, you can get a slight compression with the Lightspeed Attenuator if the input impedance of the poweramp is below the industry standard of 47k ie: 5k to 30k, because it will be being slightly loaded down.
If it is at or above 47k, the standard Lightspeed Attenuator WILL actually give 100% of the dynamics the source is producing, because there are no active components in the signal path, and it is not being loaded down.
All active components have a limit to be able to try to pass 100% of the dynamic input through their circuitry, this is why they all have specs that will never show "dynamic range"=unlimited. Or signal to noise = unlimited
Except if it is a purpose built dynamic range expander like the old DBX 118, but you would not want one of these in a high end audio setup, they sound disgusting.
Cheers George |
I am a little confused - the compression is an impedance issue, not a gain issue? |
Paul, think of it this way, you have 4 lanes of peak hour traffic coming into two different cities, one of the cities has a bridge that can take all 4 lanes into that city without any speed reduction to the cars,. the other one has less lanes on the bridge therefore the cars have to file over the bridge at slower speed than they approached it at.
Same thing happens to electrons,the bridge/input impedance compresses the music to get it through. This happens every where in the audio chain, from cartridge to phono stage, from phono stage to preamp, from preamp to poweramp, and the big one from poweramp to speakers.
Cheers George |
|
It actually only becomes a gain reducer when the input impedance of the poweramp is lower than the output impedance of the preamp.
Cheers George |
What puzzles me, is what it is that causes very seasoned experienced listeners to find active line stages give them something, that I don't quite feel comfortable saying is simply pleasant distortion, though that might be what it is, that leads them to prefer an active line stage no matter how expensive, when it seems so clear that a straight connection between source and amp has to be about as pure and clean as the chain can be, assuming no problems with impedance, gain, or "controlling" the interconnects. I don't know what to make of it, other than they have problems with one of those 3 elements, or they simply like what an added coloration does for them - but I don't question their preference, it is what it is. |
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. |
As a photographer, I always preferred working with black and white film. Simpler, easier to develop, and the end results always seemed to stand out better than equivalent color shots. |
The LSA has its own sonic signature in my system. I can hear the input/output wire flavor of its internal wiring. Grounding the unit also changes its voicing. |
"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. |
Oh, and Miguel, beautiful system! |
I just got through reading Sam's Space in the October issue of Stereophile and have to give the old boy for nailing why this thread really says the same thing over and over again and gets no were really at all.
Tellig has really changed his position that the best preamp in no preamp at all. Remember, he gave great praise to the LSA, yet comes to the conclusion that it ultimately leaves something out of the music that only an active preamp can provide in most systems.
Now, Paul would call this either a pleasant added distortion or it just is some euphonic change that gets in the way of the "pure signal", yet when I asked him way he uses some of the most "colored" IC's and speaker wires to muck up this "pure signal" coming from the LSA in his system he never did answer that question. This total thread, besides being a free advertisement/promotion of George's product, is techno-babble going over and over why the purity of the LSA or passives in general is objectively the only way to reach the truth of the music, and any active preamp just an out dated expensive waste of years gone by.
I totally accept that many passives including the LSA offer great performance for the price, but to say that they are on the same sonic level as world class reference active linestages for some factual/objective scientific reasons is just a realization regarding what is personal taste and system synergy in different systems for different people.
So, Sam just flipped from no preamp is the best preamp to why many music listeners would still invest their money in an excellent active linestage really shows why this thread is really a discussion that is a closed circle of logic developed by true believers regarding the LSA and passives in general. Take a look at Tellig's piece and tell me what you think. |
And if you've read Sam for any length of time, you'll know that in the next issue there's a good chance he'll change his mind again.:-) |
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). |
Your many reviews on here aren't free advertising? The comments you make in them aren't a reflection of personal taste and/or results you are hearing from system synergy?
Maybe in his old age Sam has had a change of heart and prefers the distortions an active linestage adds to his listening experience. He's certainly allowed to change his mind like any of us. Heck even Arthur Salvatore changed his mind and raves about the new Coincident linestage.
Maybe instead of referencing all the techno-babble here you can help Sam out and give us a technical explanation on how an active linestage fills the void in the music created by the LSA, or other passives for that matter. |
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. |
Hi Clo09,
To answer your questions regarding my reviews here on Audiogon:
1) Any review posted on this website is "free advertising" including mine. However, I don't believe that any manufacturer on any of my reviews have ever posted scores of times to promote their product and try to make a case that it's better then ever other piece for "scientific/objective" reasons.
2) Let's be fair, every review I have ever posted always says their is not BEST in the world, that personal taste and system synergy is always involved and this is my taste but you audition it to find out for yourself.
Lastly, I do care how things measure, but we all know that how things measure doe not equate how they sound regarding how people experience the sound of real music. I have sat in front of many systems that measure great but sound rotten. So, I have no need to help out poor Sam Tellig, just to point out that techno-babble that says the same thing over and over again on this thread does not prove that George's LSA is in some objective way better then active linestages. |
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. |
I have sat in front of many systems that measure great but sound rotten. So, I have no need to help out poor Sam Tellig, just to point out that techno-babble that says the same thing over and over again on this thread does not prove that George's LSA is in some objective way better then active linestages. Then why reference him? What was the point? Are you just trying to point out someone that has an opinion that agrees with yours? A lot of people do. You're right in some respects our ears are the judge and it's obvious there are quite a few people who prefer the LSA on this thread, for whatever reason they wish. Like you prefer your Black Box but scientifically can't explain why. If you have an objection to George posting here well deal with it. It isn't the first or last time it will happen on Audiogon. I welcome manufacturers opinions. |
Hi Paul,
I believe that you have always been a gentleman who has contributed much to the GON members with your opinions, knowledge, and experience with different pieces of gear.
That's not a setup to now get you, I really believe what I just said, however I think your just a little bit obsessed with the the topic of passives vs active linestages. As you know I have had some of the highest regarded transister and transformer passives in my system and liked them very much. As my taste and ear has evolved I found in the context of my system they did not perform at the same level as great active tube based linestages. As I shared with you in an E-mail I and a few friends auditioned the LSA and found it OK and to my taste not as musical as John Chapman's TAP passive. My remark that you seem a little bit obsessed with this topic is that you state correctly that passives offer great bang for the bucks, what you call stupid/good, that you numerous times restate why they will or might not work for technical reasons which are quite informatice and correct and go into all kinds of nuances why you prefer the LSA in your system. How many times are you going to restate what you have stated over and over again on this your thread until it seems that you are, to me, just wee bit preoccupied with this topic?
You have NEVER said the LSA is for everybody and all systems which I have great respect for, however, good old George has said many times on this thread there is no doubt that his piece is better than any other based on measurements and keeps pushing this assumption in a way that I found quite obnoxious for an AudioGon forum thread.Yes, he states that certain parameters must be meant regarding gain and impedence, but if these are in place there is no reason to ever consider listening anything but his creation. He then goes back to his scientific test of running your CDP straight to your amps being careful not to blow your speakers apart as an objective /scientific test to prove his point. Oh please, you don't say anything like this but he does over and over again to promote his product. This is what I would refer to as an example of technobabble that tries to prove objectively that LSA is superior to all other preamps.
Paul, we both know there is no BEST in our hobby and I don't believe we are even disagreeing about this. I'm not entrenched in an either/or position on passives or active linestages being the best, just how the designer comes across in a way that I find dogmatic, not you, and how many times the same stuff is brought up until it seems like a commercial ad, instead of a thread to educate members about an inexpensive way to get great sound for alot less money. |
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.... |
Hey Clio09,
I get a kick out of your phrase, "well deal with it", as if I'm losing sleep over the drivel that George keeps pushing for his own finacial gain.
I believe that you have entrenched your self in a position for what ever reason to be an advocate for good old George and what ever my opinion is you will attack it and disregarded any information I share. I accept we will never agree, so it's a waste of my time to try to explain anything more to you.
For an example of friendly and good natured rational discourse on this thread, take a look at how I and Paul try to discuss things in a respectful manner even though we do not see eye to eye on some aspects of this topic.
So I'm done with you, Good Day |
"...George keeps pushing for his own finacial gain."
How do you know what George's motivations are? Maybe you should set up a psychic hotline.
Seems to me if a guy was interested in financial gain, he would price his unit more in line with other passives (read: higher priced) and that same guy wouldn't put his design out there for free on DIYaudio.com.
Doesn't make much sense does it?
Next conspiracy theory... |
George's sharing of ideas in 678 posts to DIYaudio forum suggest that he has freely given far more than he has taken.
http://boardreader.com/thread/Lightspeed_Attenuator_a_new_passive_prea_5n7lzX1pvm.html
Dave |
Fiddler,
This has been gone over before on this thread that George's motivation has nothing to do with financial gain,
but is just sharing from the goodness of his heart.
Directly to your two points:
1) What he charges for the LSA is very reasonable, it should be, it's nothing more then a few relatively inexpensive parts and a generic metal box. No remote and we won't talk about ergonomics because their are none. Unlike other passives with features like RCA/XLR inputs, remote, phase switch,etc that add cost to a passive linestage if built to high quality.
2) As I have stated before on this topic someone like Nelson Pass who has given much to the DIY community along wih his relatively low cost First Watt line of amps and preamp to make these pieces available to more people then his higher level Pass Labs gear does not get on a GON thread to self promote what a genius he is, even though he is, and push and push his piece so it becomes one on-going advertisment. He also self proclaims that all other active linestages are inferior to his LSA, by using his version of "scientific" information to try to make this claim seem objective.
So, I wish I had psychic abilities, but I don't, oh well. And as far as conspiracy theory, why don't you offer one regarding my reason for one, just sharing my opinion and two finding it annoying that this thread is one long unpaid ad for George's OK, inexpense passive that he tries to prove makes all other pramps obsolete, if the conditions are meet for a passive, yea right. No conspiracy as I can tell, it seems pretty clear to me what he actually does here, along what his reasons are for doing it.
|
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. |
Seems to be heating up again. Teajay, you're bold to try and speak for some middle ground on this thread. Many that post here are very reasoned and good folks. Like you have said in several of your recent posts, the issue is not with most of the seasoned, good-hearted posters here, but rather the builder of the LSA. On more than one occasion he has said active designers and those that prefer actives, do so for one of these (less than righteous) reasons. Yes, I am paraphrasing a tad, but spot on in intention.
- have a tin ear
- like distortion
- in it for the money only
- charging tooooo much
- LSA is absolutely THE standard
Fact is many Aphiles like actives because well executed ones sound more like music to us. No, we are not tin eared or crooks. No, we do not like distortion. Yes, we like natural sounding music. Fact is, many roads lead to this musical end!
Absolute statements by the builder are absolutely out of bounds here. He can argue his point if he like, but stay away from absolutes! The rest of us are free to use absolutes - to our own peril :-) Not the builder. Just my opinion. |
Considering Nelson has freely participated and contributed schematics on the Lightspeed thread over on DIYAudio, I'd have to say he must feel this is a pretty good design and it certainly got his attention (as it has other designers of note). Problem with most Pass/First Watt amps is they are not ideally suited to passive designs due to their low input impedance (this is obviously why Nelson designed the First Watt B1 buffer and Pass Labs markets an active line of preamps). Here's a good read from Nelson: http://firstwatt.com/articles.htmlClick on the B1 Buffer Preamp link. Seems Nelson reiterates a few things we've been saying around here about ideal conditions (impedance matching) and offers his method and design to avoid that. Here's an excerpt: So here we are in the New Millennium, and thanks to Tom Holman and THX 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.
I suppose if I had to floor the accelerator to drive 55 mph, maybe I’d think the life was being sucked out of my driving. Then again, maybe I like 55. Nice and safe, good gas mileage…
Is impedance matching an issue? Passive volume controls do have to make a trade-off between input impedance and output impedance. If the input impedance is high, making the input to the volume control easy for the source to drive, then the output impedance is also high, possibly creating difficulty with the input impedance of the power amplifier. And vice versa: If your amplifier prefers low source impedance, then your signal source might have to look at low impedance in the volume control. I especially like the use of the terms "just musical perfection", "really - I'm being serious here", and "reacting psychologically" in the article to emphasize some very interesting points (and all of this of course coming from a genius). |
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?) yep;) I think the XLR is a bit of a reach though. Alas... |
"...fact is, many roads lead to this musical end!"
Very true - there will always be a place and purpose for well designed active line stages, and I have no doubt that there will be systems in which they sound much better than any passive might, for a variety of reasons.
Having found the LSA through the DIY thread, the one thing that never seemed to be the case was that George was primarily interested in making much money on this, or really making a business of it. Sounded to me like if he could pull it off, he would rather license his patent to other folks who might too think it is a good idea, collect some royalties, and spend some time surfing. And he seems to be a true believer in his approach - rightly or wrongly - which as you suggest, doesn't mean it is the only approach to musical satisfaction. |
First to Grannyring,
Thanks for pointing out that the major and really only criticism, with a few exceptions regarding other posters nasty responses about me and my opinion on Paul's thread, has been the repeated posts of George not to educate and inform in a respectful way, but his arrogant position that only he knows what really produces music the right way which justs happens to be his linestage. You might have paraphrased his frequent putdowns of anyone who does not agree, but your spot on at seeing it. I also have brought in the subject of him using this thread for pushing and marketing in a way I have never really seen on an AudioGon thread before. If it's not for financial reasons then he must really be a total egotist and thinks his opinion and device are a true gift to the audiophile community. If you think it's bold of me to share my opinion on this ongoing love letter to George, thanks for the support and compliment.
Secondly to Paul,
I never participate and rarely visit any DIY sites on the web. I admit my ignorance regarding how George comes across on those boards in his statements. My home base is this forum and this community, that's what I care about. You who never in any of your writing comes across with either dogma or any arrogance at all, why do you chose to be an apologist for this designer over and over again on your thread? Not the position that he's of course entitled to his opinion like we all are, but you seem unwilling to address the kind of remarks that Grannyring pointed out that run totally through George's remarks on your thread. You just say,"George thinks he has a great idea, and will argue its merits", implies he does this in a respectful and tolerant way towards people who don't see it his way. I don't think the facts back that up. I just don't get it, are you dear personal friend of his? Just not your nature to give him some feedback about his arrogant and condescending remarks on this forum? Some how your support for his LSA would be negated by being more blunt regarding how he comes across? Maybe by nature you are talented diplomat and just want to stay above the fray, and stick to the subject of your post. However Paul, in my opinion, George has really screwed up your very good and informational thread for the above stated reasons. So my respectful request to you is instead of another "spin" like, "he seems to be a true believer in his approach-rightly or wrongly", share what your honest opinion is regarding his writing here, just a passionate fellow or an arrogant blow hard regardless if he would rather be surfing or not. |
I agree with Paul. I have found George to be very passionate about what he is doing. I don't necessarily think he is the best communicator (and he has admitted such to me), and he can go overboard at times, but I think I know enough about people and their personalities to see that George just might be a little rough around the edges and that translates into a failure to communicate that can rub people the wrong way. In many ways he reminds me of Audiogon member Rauliruegas. Raul is one of the most passionate people I know when it comes to analog, and his participation in threads while well intentioned, can definitely alienate some people. Some of the same adjectives applied to George have been applied to Raul, and then some. On a personal level my dealings with both of these members have been educational and each has helped me with increasing the enjoyment of my system through their advice and in George's case, his LSA.
Sometimes you need to peel back the onion and get down into the other layers. I'd love to head down under to visit George and quaff a few beers with him. His personality reminds me of some of my blue collars buddies from back East. |
George, perhaps you would discuss the balanced issue? |
Teajay,
Why are you so worked up over how George says what he says. He has every right to voice his opinion whether you think it is arrogant or not. And simply because you don't like his "absolutes", who are you to question his right to post however he wants. Your haranguing of George sounds a lot like an attempt at censorship and censorship is not at all what makes your "home base" thrive.
My OPINION is that you come across just as arrogant as George does at times. If you aren't interested in the Lightspeed, why bother continuing to come into the thread to stir the pot? Just like George, you are free to post however you like, but where's you dog in the fight? |
|
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.... |
According to Ralph a line stage has 4 functions: 1) control volume 2) select input 3) add any needed gain 4) control the interconnect cable at its output The last of these is the critical, as well as, the least understood one in his opinion. Ralph feels a *quality* active linestage will control cable artifacts better than any passive (and IIRC he has indicated in this thread the LSA is the best passive he has heard). From Ralph's design philosophy (true balanced differential, 600 ohm standard) I can see his point and even accept it. He's done the research, it's been substantiated, and it's evident when you hear his components working together. Pretty much why I'm willing to get a buffered version of the MP-3 to match up with my S-30. However, high-end audio is more about single-ended than balanced (as well as more about mixing components from different manufacturers than matching them) and in a single-ended environment given some of the parameters discussed here and elsewhere regarding impedance matching and cable characteristics, I believe a *quality* passive linestage can competitively match up with a *quality* active linestage. Additionally, in my case the cost differential being such that money saved using a passive has allowed me to improve other areas of my system substantially. Now as for designers who have spoken on the topic of passives, here is another opinion from Jeffrey Jackson of Experience Music: http://www.jeffreywjackson.com/preamplifiers.htm |
Can this thread become a little more passive than active! |
Dear Fiddler,
You really pulled out of your ass the idea that I even impiled any type of censorship or that George does not have the right to post his opinion on any thread including this one. Just another way of deflecting what I was really addressing his arrogant and condescending attitude towards anyone who does not agree with his viewpoint and using this thread to market his product. I guess I'm arrogant to share my opinion. Please give me one factual bit of information that would support either my attempt at censorship or being disrespectful towards anyone on this thread. If you and Clo09 want to start a Teajay Fan club I'll send both of you an autographed picture for free. Just let me know. Being the arrogant bastard that I am I know you guys would surely want my picture hanging on your wall. |
Hi Paul,
To answer your question regarding why in my system an active preamp sonicly out performs any of the passives I have owned or auditioned is based on either the gain or buffering they offer: Don't have the foggist notion why from a technological perspective.
In my circle of listening friends four of us have all had some of the highest regarded passives in our systems and enjoyed what they have to offer, hell I wrote a rave review on the Bent Tap here on the GON, yet something was found missing after awhile in our systems when using a passive.
In my system it seemed that the jump factor or how alive the music sounded was lost to a noticable degree. Also my sound stage was not as deep and individual players were not as 3d with air around them when compared to using an active linestage. Finally, timbres sounded less natural to me with the passives then with my tube based actives. Sonicly, my favorite passive still is John Chapman's TAP because it came closer to not having these shortcomings compared to other passives.
Why this so from a technological angle, I don't know, you and the other guys seem fascinated to try to explain it in objective terms. I really don't care why I just know what sounds more like real music and that's what really matters to me. |
Teajay,
Your constant haranguing of George is clearly a veiled attempt to stifle and build consensus against what you don't like about George's posts, otherwise you wouldn't be here wasting everyone's time.
"Being the arrogant bastard that I am..."
Well - finally you offered something worth reading. |
Terry, what is interesting is the Placette Active that we both used obviously is about as good as it gets on the buffering side - essentially capable of being driven by any source and driving any amp an IC - I too found the Placette and BENT (I used the AVC version) sounded fantastic. Then you discovered the German linestage I can't remember and now the Concert Fidelity after having auditoned many of the finest linesstage in the world. What I always wondered was of our slightly differetn conclusions regarding our preference is due to the fact that I have always used tube amps and you have been using SS (Pass & Threshold?). I can't prove it, but I think you like what tubes do to the signal and it is simply not there for you with a passive - fine as it might sound.
As to your earlier comment about not following the DIY forums, I do think you view of George and where he is coming from would be different if you followed that thread over the past 5 years - I think you would have a better sense of him and I think Clio9 (Anthony)alluded to a possible misperception. I suspect we would all enjoy a fine brew after some heated discussion.... |
Sipping a martini right now in First Class. Life's looking good at 30k feet. |
Teajay: I see you own the Concert Fidelity preamp. I heard it at last year's THE Show in the room where Clio09 was working. Amazing sound. If I could only locate the $20k I misplaced, I'd happily replace my LSA with it.
I just read Arthur Salvatore's review of the Coincident Statement Line Stage. He mentions the LSA as a possible player in the best preamps sweepstakes (although he hasn't tried it himself). He mentions it despite advising against all resistor based passives--the LSA is one of those, right?
Unlike the CF, the Coincident is within reach (for me) and is tempting because I know my phono stage has a higher output impedance than is ideal for the LSA. It nevertheless sounds superb and I don't know if I'm missing out on anything, but one always wonders. Too bad their phono stage has too much gain for MM carts. |
Maybe Arthur's been reading this thread;)
I had the pleasure to work the CF rooms at 3 shows now and will be there at RMAF this year with them. I have probably spent close to 150 hours listening to those components as a system with a variety of speakers. The result has always been great sound. |
Hope all the testosterone has now been depleted.
Your question Unsound:George, perhaps you would discuss the balanced issue?:Unsound
Balanced can be done, for the diy'ers, but to manufacture it, it would be a nightmare, as to do match a quad set which the production Lightspeed Attenuator has, is already very time consuming. To do a double of this for a balanced setup is exponentially harder and costlier and may drift.
Not impossible for the diy'er though as it could be self calibrated. every few months by the builder. I have posted the circuit for a balanced here on diyaudio, you may have to sign up to open the attachment though.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analog-line-level/80194-lightspeed-attenuator-new-passive-preamp-383.html#post2396316
Cheers George |
