Lightspeed Attenuator - Best Preamp Ever?

And I forgot to mention, I think the LSA gives me that.

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.

Paul just looked at your system, that is a Esotar D330 tweeter in your speakers? I fell in love with that tweeter when I listened to a pair of Sonus Faber Extremas, it was the first time I liked the sound as much from a dynamic tweeter as my preference for ESL's for high frequency repoduction.

Cheers George

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.

09-16-11 Agear: George, does Cadmium have a sound? Is that part of the reason why it is perceived as superior to carbon or metal? What specific measurements or measurable parameters separate the LSA from other passives or active pre-amps? :09-16-11: Agear

Ager, It may very well be the most transparent sounding resistive substance, their is no way to measure this.
But I believe the Lightspeed Attenuator to be "the truest to the source" way of controlling the volume because their are no contacts (diode effect) in the signal path, this is why darTZeel has used them in their $24k NHB18ns preamp, also Constellation Audio with their $60k Altair preamp uses them as well.
All I can say Ager is with the Lightspeed Attenuator you get the closest to the sound of having your source directly connected to the poweramps, yet with control over the volume, it adds nothing and takes away nothing when implemented properly, it is "true to the source"

Cheers George

One correction to Agear's very interesting post. The Truth is an active buffer, not a passive.

To answer his question, I am not a betting man but in a blind test between the Truth and LSA I would bet I could pick them out. This is not to say my hearing is that good, it is to say I have spent so much time listening to these two preamps that I know them that well. Each do a couple of things really well that my test tracks would allow me to pick the correct preamp. Now if I were not as familiar with them then all bets are off. I would probably have a difficult time picking them out. It took me quite a while to figure out the nuances of each unit when comparing them.

Pubul57 - I tested the LSA against the Audio Consulting Silver Rock. It was evident that the LSA just got out of the way of the music, like it didn't even exist. In some ways it was a similar experience to something Himiguel wrote in an earlier post here. It was like I could hear the Silver Rock's signature, whatever was causing it to have one. The LSA was obviously the more neutral and truer (purer) preamp.

Paul, I agree with all of that. Speakers and room are easy breezy. I also readily admit the the blinded A/B thing is hardly scientific in my hands as I have no dedicated switching device, etc. Most posturing on my part. lol. It was very "scientific" of you to included friends in your decision. That is good enough for me. I include my wife in all audio decision-making to protect me from me and my strong abilities at self-deception. That being said, it would be an interesting exercise to see if you could discern specific personalities of the passives discussed thus far.

I am not familiar with the music first piece. Does it make espresso as well?

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.

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.

"Would the lay public be able to say "wow, that one sounds SO much better..." I am doubtful." When it comes to preamps, amps with sufficient power to drive the speaker, and cables of any ilk, I would say you are 100% right. The difference between speakers however (and room placement) would be pretty obvious even to the most leaden, "untrained" of ears.

This thread has taken an amusing turn. Teajay, while you stated the obvious about George and this thread, he and his LSA flag wavers should be free to express their opinions. I have been a flag waver for different products out of enthusiasm over the years, and despite poor execution at times, the flag waving still has merits even if it is ugly. In the midst of this rather tribal discourse, useful information about the realm of passives has come out. I have always tried to keep an open mind in audio so as not to get stuck. If dynamic pre-amps are a dinosaur and sonically redundant, so be it. I am not wed to my equipment.

Audiophiles, despite throwing around a lot of pseudo-scientific jargon and technobabble, are often very undisciplined when it comes to testing equipment. Has anyone done a blinded comparison of passive units? Can anyone tell the differences between a LSA and a Truth passive behind a curtain? Would the lay public be able to say "wow, that one sounds SO much better..." I am doubtful.

I blinded my wife and had her listen to the Dude and LSA, and the differences were stark. I will readily admit that my system may not be LSA friendly. The impedance of the Samsons (68K) is ballpark based on George's parameters, but they are SS. My speakers are also not super sensitive and employ Scanspeak drivers. If I could intuit my way into the ideal LSA rig, it would be sensitive speakers (like Clio's), tube amplification, and warmer cabling (like Pub's)????

George, I tried to ask a few more technical questions earlier in this thread and and you failed to really address them and simply referred me to the DIY site which I did peruse. So, boil this technology down for us in a few sentences or less. In terms of material science, does Cadmium have a sound? Is that part of the reason why it is perceived as superior to carbon or metal? What specific measurements or measurable parameters separate the LSA from other passives or active pre-amps?

Marqmike, you made some interesting points about music and perception. I played music as a kid and come from a musical family. I have a reasonable framework for what things "should sound like." The thing that live music has that I crave for in my system is dynamics transients and an energized ambience. Any pre-amp that inhibits that, passive or active, is out in my books.

Finally, I have to comment on George's reference to testosterone. Testosterone and Audiogon or testosterone and diy don't really go together. They are like oil and water. Spending this amount of energy and time snipping back and forth about a volume control is not in the domain of manly men. I think if we all got hormone replacement therapy (and were treated for obsessive, compulsive disorders), Audiogon would start to wither....

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.

Hi Paul,

Something else I wanted to share with you but I forgot to mention, is my experience with many tube based active linestages is that the ones that use a rectifier tube in the power supply sound much more natural/musical to me then preamps that are totally SS in this section of the power supply. Again, I don't know why this should make that much of a difference from a technological perspective but my experience has been that it sounds much better then a SS power supply.

Hey, hey , hey guys. I personally like the LSA to anything I have ever heard, which you can see most of that is on my previous posts. I have experience with real musicians in real space and real time. And from that perspective I find on most non-musician friends and others systems there is to much concern with the 3d thing and spacial ques, it is out of proportion to what I find in real space. And I feel it effects the tonal response of the whole recording and the timber of the instruments and voices. I say sure you can hear a fly land on the back wall of the auditorium but that is not what I listen to a recording for. But the truth is we all live on our own worlds when it comes to music and its reproduction. And that is fine and good.

Hi Paul,

Yes, your speculation regarding my use of SS amps (Threshold&Pass Labs) with a tube based preamp in my system vs your use of tube based amps with a passive preamp makes sense to me. You get what tubes have to offer the body of the harmonic, soundstage layering, and at least for me with the right tubes more natural sounding timbres with your power amps and I get it out of my tube based preamp and tube based DAC.

My dear Fiddler,

Thanks for your kind words towards my self description. Remember any time you want that autographed picture for your wall, please let me know and I'll ship it right out to ya.

Happy regards from "THE ARROGANT BASTARD"

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

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.

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.

Sipping a martini right now in First Class. Life's looking good at 30k feet.

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....

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.

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.

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.

Can this thread become a little more passive than active!

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

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....

Finally the truth...

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?

George, perhaps you would discuss the balanced issue?

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.

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.

"...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.

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...

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.html

Click 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).

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.

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.

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.

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

"...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...

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

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.:-)