Almarg Ralph is referring to the increase in output impedance of a passive preamp that occurs as the volume control POSITION is reduced from maximum,Almarg
This higher output impedance will only roll off the highs and won't touch the bass if and I state "if" the interconnects are extremmly high in capacitance, above 300pf per foot, and if they are that high they should not be called high-end, they need to go into the bin.
I belive what Ralph is hearing is the Flecher-Munson effect, in the F&M graph I have posted the link to.
Cheers George
. |
George, you and Ralph are talking about two different things. You are referring to the Fletcher-Munson effect. Ralph is referring to the increase in output impedance of a passive preamp that occurs as the volume control POSITION is reduced from maximum, to achieve a NORMAL listening volume. That increase in output impedance increasing the effects of the cable that is being driven.
That said, it's not clear to me why high output impedance + high cable capacitance would affect bass frequencies. Certainly if both parameters are extreme enough upper treble response could be affected, due to the two parameters combining to produce an RC low pass filter effect. And if the input impedance of the destination component varies significantly with frequency, or is too low with respect to preamp output impedance, bass performance could conceivably be affected. But I'd be interested in further explanation of how high output impedance could interact with cable parameters to affect bass frequencies.
Regards,
-- Al |
Georgelofi "So now you'll only find them in car stereos and midfi home equiptment"
And certain speaker manufacturers (who shall obviously remain nameless here), that like to boost those frequencies for the "startle factor" in demos .... seems to work too, as people are still paying the big $$'s for their products ? |
And here is the Flecher-Munson 1933 study done, for percieved frequency loudness at different db levels. As you can see at low levels one needs to boost bass quite a bit to remain flat to the ear. Half way down the page is the graph everyone can understand.
http://www.jimprice.com/prosound/db.htm
Cheers George
|
Atmasphere IOW, as you reduce the volume, **no matter how good the passive is**, you will loose bass and impact. This is why a buffer between the volume control and the interconnect cable is so important; as you reduce the volume setting the bass and impact is not affected.
Atmasphere
Not totaly correct sunshine, the ear becomes less linear at low levels and this is why the "loudness switch" was invented to boost the bass quite a bit and the highs slightly also, but these circuits like all active circuits, introduced too much of their own colouration/distortions as well for high end audio use. So now you'll only find them in car stereos and midfi home equiptment. |
Ralph, why have gain with a CD player with 2v or more output? Any reason? You make a good argument for why you might need a buffered linestage (though Roger Modjeski still advised me to avoid a buffered stage in my setup with his amp - he was perfectly willing to build me one if I insisted), but gain? What for? |
"It's personal taste and system synergy, this fiction that there is an objective standard to what music really sounds like is so silly." That is true and I'm not sure anyone, or even George, has spoken about what music really sounds like, his claim is that the LSA will permit the signal to go from the source to the amp with minimal distortion, whihc seems to be a measurable claim beyond subjectivity, which is a different statement, he is not making claims about musicality or what you will like, it seems like a more objective statment that the signal will be less adulterated, unless you have impedance matching issues which will be a distotion of its own, as Ralph points out.
I am somewhat agnostic about the issue of neutrality versus color, I just want my system to sound good and I find the $450 LSA sounds as good with my Music Reference amps as with the much more expensive and complex linestages I have used; that is why I think others should try it if they have a sensitive and high-input impedance tube amp with short ICS, they can get great sound for little money. And, I continue to use my Atma pre with Atma amp because nothing has sounded better with my Merlins and the warm Cardas cables - a great match for an VSM owner. |
Teajay and the rest of this thread have made me do some soul searching regarding my audio system. I am going off the grid and there will be no more electronic colorations for me! I am buying a Victrola. This should "Wind Up" this thread ~! |
First, for fun:
Saint George continues his holy mission to slay the dragon of active linestages that spit forward the devilish sounds of "colourations/distortions" towards us poor audiophiles who have not seen the holy grail of sonic purity and truth!
I have finally seen the "light" of Saint George's gospel, thank God , therefore will burn my active linestage to cast out the devil's of "colourations/distortions" out of my home forever. Thank you Saint George for saving my sonic soul!
Now a serious question for my friend Paul:
If your goal is to have a volume control that adds or subtracts nothing to the signal passing through it, what Saint George refers to as "colourations/distortions, why do you use before and after the Light speed Attenuator in your system some of the most euphonic/colored IC's and speaker wires in high end audio, instead of very neutral/transparent wires just to pass on this "pure" signal?
I'll give my opinion, even Bobby recommends Cardas for his Merlin speakers because they are just a touch "lean" sounding, so to give them a touch of the body of the harmonic or so to speak a little meat on their sonic bones the Cardas adds that to the mix. Wow, you mean a tone control or adding some kind of colouration to the sound, the highest order BLASPHEMY, according the the holy gospel of Saint George. It's personal taste and system synergy, this fiction that there is an objective standard to what music really sounds like is so silly.
I will stick to one of my original assumptions regarding George's position, any volume controls that are not his Lightspeed are for shit, along with being "dinosaurs" and that his veiwpoint is the only valid one on the topic. I still think he uses this thread to try to sell his piece. Can't wait for Saint George's apostle the honorable Fiddler's attack on me for sharing my opinion. It should be fun what he says about me now.
|
Yup.
If you are running a passive volume control, it does not matter how neutral the control is (and the Lightspeed is one of the more neutral ones we have seen), the problem is the interaction of the cables, the source impedance and the input impedance of the amplifier interacting with the resistance of the volume control setting.
That's a lot of variables, and what you can draw from it is that the higher the volume setting on the passive, the more the source impedance is what determines the sound. At full volume you get the least interaction- its the source impedance vs the cables at that point.
IOW, as you reduce the volume, **no matter how good the passive is**, you will loose bass and impact. This is why a buffer between the volume control and the interconnect cable is so important; as you reduce the volume setting the bass and impact is not affected. |
Cables add capacitance and you need a buffer.... |
Cables of capacitance and you need a buffere or a TVC like your Bent (which I once owned)to drive cables with acculmulated capacitance. With your set up, the LSA won't work, it will become bandwidth limited, most noticeable in the bass. And the LSA is certainly not as convenient or flexible as your NOH - you are better of with what you have as long as you need to run those cables and need the connection flexibility you are already getting - but you are certainly enjoying the benefits of not having all the added complexity of a gain stage if you don't need gain. The BENT is an excellent preamp, so.... |
WTF... Is all this about short single ended interconnects.
I'm running 6 meters (18 feet) of Crimson cable from my BENT NOH Passive to vintage VTL Compact 100's without any problems. And unlike the Lightspeed the Bent (using S&B 102 mkII) has 6 inputs, 2 balanced and 4 unbalanced. Additionally I can add 6 db on the fly (which works well for my phono preamp).
As much as I would like to try the Lightspeed, with only one input it would never work for me.
So will someone please tell me why interconnects need to be under 2m.
Thanks
Tony |
sensitivity of amp, sensitivity of speakers, size of room, how loud you like it, and hearing acuity. now, if i switch the cd players gain to 4v, i never go above 12. |
What I find amusing are these threads where people complain they can't get past 9 o'clock on their volume control. They're looking for a way to get more control over the range. In some cases they end up buying Rothwell attenuators to get a 10db reduction that gets them to 10 o'clock instead.
Several posts above I quoted what Nelson Pass had to say about the psychological dimension to the perception of power and drive. Seems he figured it all out a while ago. |
I've never turned my volume past 12, and most often have it at 10. Both vinyl and CD. What is responsible for having to turn it to 2-3? My ear drums would rupture at those levels. |
"perceived notion" - you know, I think part of that must come from the fact you might have to turn the volume control to 2-3 position at times and there seems to be an intuitive conclusion that there is something lacking, drive if you will, that makes it necessary to go to such "extremes", where with an active it can be hard to go beyond 10:00 on the dial, making you feel you have to have tight reins on the surging power lurking within the preamp beast. Perhaps Nelson Pass touch upon this psychological dimension to the perception of power and drive. |
If you need something that can drive long interconnects and provide impedance matching there are still active buffers like The Truth, Pass B1, and Burson Audio that will get you there while still providing a high level of neutrality.
The long interconnect advantage is really only valid for active preamps that are true balanced designs. Most audiophiles are running single ended systems and while you might be able to stretch the interconnect a meter or two further, I suspect it's the color of the month they're really looking for. On top of this perceived notion that 10db or so of gain is going to make a real difference in dynamics, slam, and 3-D presentation. |
Yep, no arguments from me there Paul.
If you have less than 2mt interconnects a CDP or Phono Stage with less than 200ohm output impedance (which most are) and a poweramp with 47kohm or more input impedance (which most are), there is no need for preamplification, as it is a backward step in transparency to be true to the signal from the source.
Preamps in my view are a left over dinosaur from the analogue days before the advent of stand alone high gain phono stages and cdp/dacs with high outputs.
Cheers George |
George, other than providing a product category that people can build and make money on, I suspect that active preamps have their advantages, like running long interconnects, and providing enough gain and impedance matching to work well with almost any amplifier, a more universal application. So it seems they certainly have there place and serve a purpose besides simply adding coloration, and it might very well be that the very best actives converge in sound quality with an LSA, but will be able to provide the sound quality to a much broader range of listeners and system contexts. Any other advantages to actives? |
How to kill a thread "By Grannyrig"
Well this thread was going along nicely, until it turned into something personal, discussing the virtues of zero colouration of one resistor in the signal path against active preamps, tube or solid-state with 100's of different components in the signal path.
The simple truth, active preamps have colourations/distortions, because no two ever sound the same, (even though they measure flat 20hz to 20khz) that's why people keep changing them to get the colouration/distortion they can live with.
Cheers George |
"Fiddler, you are for some reason quite short with me in your remarks. No reason to be so strong with me..."
Wow, are you an overly-sensitive guy or what, Grannyring! Like I said earlier, "Quit your whining."
(BTW, if you haven't seen it, look for this commercial. "Ask your doctor, it may be as simple as Low T.")
You said, "You take these past posts and apply them to a current thread totally out of context."
Nonsense. Your quote from that past thread was in perfect context here. Go read the thread. You just don't like it because you got busted in your own words. "You took me out of context" is the last refuge of a desperate man.
"You seem to suggest I am not worthy of this topic and to stop having input on this thread." Nope...didn't suggest that anywhere. I simply said you are beating a dead horse and your argument flies in the face of conventional audio wisdom.
And if you feel I have been short with you, I didn't mean to be - I meant to be direct.
"No reason to be so strong with me..."
This statement concerns me a little. Would you prefer I use a feather boa next time? Please refer back to the aforementioned commercial.
If you want to continue to tilt at windmills here - knock yourself out. |
Fiddler, you are for some reason quite short with me in your remarks. No reason to be so strong with me and this is why.
1) My last posts had nothing to do with tubes at all. You keep bringing up the active preamp I own and digging up past posts that have nothing to do with the current topic. You take these past posts and apply them to a current thread totally out of context. I like tubes as you do. Tubes can bring warmth and other nice things. I am not arguing that and have not tried to in my last posts. Yes, we agree. Some tubes as you know are quite neural sounding. It is certainly possible for an active tube preamp to have a little more "warmth" but to also pass along many other things that are more revealing of the original event. More on this in a moment as this what I am most interested in digging into.
2) My interest in this thread is not on the level of my preamp vs. another. My scope is actually much broader and I was hoping to have some great dialog. I try to avoid bringing up the brand of preamp I own so we can have a broader discussion. Fiddler, you keep bringing it up? I have owned many, many active and passive preamps. Yes, the one I now own has pleased me well beyond the others, but that is not why I am on this thread. You seem to suggest I am not worthy of this topic and to stop having input on this thread.
3) As my last posts have pointed out. I think it is a reasonable and valid argument to suggest some aspects of music reproduction demand a preamp that has a great ability to powerfully attenuate. In fact, overbuilt to the point it looks like an amp. Big and powerful power supplies etc… Bass reproduction demands this kind of a preamp based on my experience. I am also suggesting other things like dynamic contracts, micro details and the like. That is why I gave the link to the $60,000 preamp considered by many experts to be the finest preamp available today.
Straight wire with gain! Yes, but the gain part is very important and the ability to really drive a system to realistically recreate the original recording is tantamount.
Certainly this is a realistic approach adopted by many first class companies. Some of these same companies offer both passive and active preamps. Most of them will tell you the active does the best job of recreating the recorded music. It is usually their very top of the line preamp – First sound, Placette ….
So yes Fiddler I think my points are worthy and not sophomoric in any way. |
"But, even if we accept that, it does not mean that any given person will prefer it to their active line stage..."
I don't think even George has, or would, argue that. I don't think any of his claims to with the subjective nature of things. |
Like I said, the maximum and complete set of signal information is at the output of the DAC/CD Player, there is nothing more to be extracted, whatever happens after that is some deviation from the closest thing we have to the "source". In a well matched system, I don't think any active preamp can cause less deviation from that output signal than the LSA. If there is not the right impedance and gain requirements, the LSA will cause deviation indeed, perhaps more so than a well designed active and in those cases an active would be preferred, it is causing less "damage" to the source signal. As Arthur Salvatore put it, if an active line stage, any active line stage sounds better than a passive, then you need an active line stage. I think that is true, but not sure it fully accounts for the fact that some people simply prefer the color of the preamp to a less colored version of the source - and you cannot argue with that preference (indeed, why bother); but less subjective is what the systems does to the signal originating at the source output and philosophically, some people seem choose to prefer the idea that the "chain" is preserving that source signal as it, warts and all. There is no right or wrong as far as preference goes, but there is an objective truth as to which approach best leaves the source signal intact with minimal alteration. Other than a straight wire, I think the LSA does that in a way no other attenuation device can do, where impedance and sensitivity issues are taken out of the equation. But, even if we accept that, it does not mean that any given person will prefer it to their active line stage, that is a different issue, and not readily resolved through discussion. |
I had a good impedance match with the Atmasphere MA1 amps (100K ohms) but the resulting sound was relatively flat as I have already said. So impedance matching was not all the issue.
Grannyring Yes I agree looking to 100k ohms the LSA would be a good match impedance wise. That wasn't what I was referencing in my last sentence of my previous post. I can't see how a preamp, active or passive extracts anything. Someone is going to have to educate me on this one. The information is already extracted from the medium prior to getting to the preamp. I don't think it gets extracted any further at that point. Depending on the type of preamp other things could happen to the signal, but as Fiddler said it would be additive, or as you said, it could be subtractive. |
Grannyring,
You keep arguing with conventional and accepted audio design that the ultimate attenuator would be a straight wire. You can argue all you want about extracting this and that, but your argument flies in the face of generally accepted wisdom.
You may prefer the sound of your preamp. Fine. But it is not extracting more of anything. It is simply adding a particular color and artifacts to the original source that you find appealing. Nothing wrong with that, I like tubes too, but that's simply the fact of the matter.
And I don't understand why you continue to argue when in your own words in another thread you make the case, "In general tubes will get you more midrange warmth and bloom. But this is not always the case. I am sure the TRL will give you this while also improving a host of other things we all want in our sound systems."
Once again, in your own words you are "sure" the TRL Dude, "will give you" ... "more midrange warmth and bloom." That is additive - end of story! And don't even try to say it does that by extracting more of the signal. That's simple nonsense. And it's easy enough to prove. Just roll some tubes and listen to the subtle or not so subtle changes.
You can't have it both ways. Either you were wrong in the thread I quoted or you are wrong here. Which is it? Conventional design wisdom says you are wrong here.
You are beating a dead horse. |
Grannyring, I think you are right, there is not an impedance mismatch with the Atma-sphere. And as Teajay cautioned, it would not be fair, or simply too easy to say that something else "must" be wrong or you would necessarily, you must like the LSA better than anything else - of course that is not true, and nobody should try to tell you otherwise. Yet, there might be another "compatibly" issue (electronic, not psychoacoustic)beyond impedance caused by cable capacitance - if too long, or a high capacitance cable, or the input sensitivity of the amps might be too low, I think Atma amps, or at least mine, have a 2.8v input sensitivity which is not ideal driven just by the output voltage of a CD player. Or there may be absolutely no electronic issues and you simply prefer the sound of your TRLpreamp in your system, and that is that, and a perfectly legitimate conclusion and preference. |
Clio09
"Passives don't extract anything. They just pass an attenuated signal. Your source is extracting the music off the medium."
Passives behave more as you say above. I am suggesting an active or any other part of a stereo system certainly extracts or gets at more of the music. Certainly amps and speakers and wire can extract more of the recording. By extract I mean "get at it and pass it along". This is the point where we are not in agreement.
The best and often times most expensive gear (not always) does just this.
The best "systems" do this. The source is not the only place a stereo system can extract or lose fidelity.
I had a good impedance match with the Atmasphere MA1 amps (100K ohms) but the resulting sound was relatively flat as I have already said. So impedance matching was not all the issue. |
Clio09 said it way back when. He said something like you really have to build your system around the passive. But to me that is a really good place to start.
Marqmike Just for the record, I built my system around my speakers. I choose amps that have great synergy with my speakers. IMO the amp/speaker synergy gets you more than 80% there. The rest is determined by what your source can deliver in terms of extracting information from the recording. For me the preamp is nothing more that an attenuator. My choice of amps and sources are contingent on their ability to coexist with a passive preamp, but I wouldn't say I build my system around it. |
Perhaps a passive is, well, “too passive” to extract all of that information (on the source CD etc). This requires an “additive” (accurate gain) approach. Our stereo systems must be “additive” to even play a single note through a speaker. A passive may simply leave these higher order musical realities out – they may be subtractive.
Grannyring Passives don't extract anything. They just pass an attenuated signal. Your source is extracting the music off the medium. Systems do have to be additive to play music. There should be enough drive from a 2V source and enough gain in your amps to accomplish this. Anything more is excess IMO. The only way a passive can be subtractive is if there is an impedance mismatch. If you are missing depth, body, and dimension with a passive well... |
made a few grammatical errors, there, but I hope you get the gist of what I was trying to say. By the way, the new Dylan Mono Recordings Box sounds great. |
Knghifi, I', not familiar with the Krell gear, but I assume the 600 has alot morep power than than the 300? I don't want to get side tracked on the power amps, but I think power and current and amps and how they interact with speaker impedances is a different kettle of fish than source volatage and preamp input sensitivity, I say that thinking I am right, but knowing since I am not engineer. That being said, and just as an aside, I would also argue that the exact same circuit, but for power output, the lower power amp will sound better, IF, the power and current needed for low impedance swings for bass, is adequate. But, I think that is another conversation, but a variation on the less is more paradigm (when less is sufficient, not always the case). |
I suppose moving forward we need to get away from what is better, or trying to prove it, but perhaps just hear what experiences folks have had. I expect there will be split between the passive and active sides from a head count perspective, but it is always nice to hear from other folks and their observations. The truth is there is a lot of great equipment out there for us to listen to, but I do want folks to feel that it really is possible to have what some very experienced listeners feel is SOTA for their systems for the very low price of the LSA. Especially important for audiophiles or budding audiophiles on a budget and more of us are probably in that situation than 3-4 years ago. |
Hello everyone. I hope I did not sound condecending on my last post. I just wanted to share my view. Everybody here has shared theirs in a positive way, and no doubt helped others that read them. Personally I hear a big difference between actives and passives. What I mean by big, it is big to me. It's when I sit down and spend some time with other equipment accesing it. It is not always right off the bat I notice I don't like its overall presentation as well. I have had a few passives and actives(mind you not over $4,000.00 though, so not super high end but some good ones. That being said all my passives have been very sensitive to everything I do around it. That is both good and not so good. It is good in the sound it results in but in can be a challenge to get there. But when you do it is like the important nuances of sound going from a newspaper color to a high quality magazine color. When I say sensitive I mean everything in the chain. That includes speakers and might be why Grannyring hasn't met his preconceived expectations with the LSA. Yes power on the back side of speaker can help some but in my experience(I don't mean super sensitive) the more sensitive the better, there is a point where insensitivity can negate benefits of a passive in my experience. I no there is no same absolute standard of neutrality for everyone but in my experience if a source does not sound good behind a passive something down the chain is changing the signal to sound better. Source as is cables and amp all are very important when evaluating a passive. Clio09 said it way back when. He said something like you really have to build your system around the passive. But to me that is a really good place to start. Enjoy your music. |
01-06-11: Pubul57
I understand why a moving coil cartridge would need gain (and RIAA equalization) to create a sense of drive and dynamics, but why would a 2 volt signal need any gain to drive an amp that plays at maximum output with 1v of input? Is "drive" something different than simple voltage which is either sufficient or insufficent to drive an amplifer? I suppose a source could have a weak output stage, but I would think that would be as much of problem for driving an active preamp as a more direct connection to the amp. There is something appealing about "horsepower", but does it really serve any purpose where input sensitivity is simply not an issue? Does an active really provide something "in reserve" for hearing micro and macro dynamic inflections?
01-06-11: Georgelofi
Sources these days, esspecially CD can drive (have enough output) by themselves (without the need of a preamp) a poweramp into cliping, there is your strait wire with no gain (the interconnects only).
All we need is something so we can attenuate that source so it doesn't blow the amp up, we do not need a preamp that preamplifies again on top of the source that can already by itself blow an amp up with the amount of output it has. ...
Years ago I had a Krell FPB300 and FBP600 at the same time. They are identical in design except for the power rating. Both are high current and power doubles down to 2 Ohms. My speaker at the time was Gallo Nucleus Reference ... forgot the exact model but one with 2 balls and a can on top. On paper, the FPB300 was more than enough to drive them that can blow out the drivers. But the FPB600 was much much superior in every way. You can feel the extra power, dynamics and sound was more relax with an ease. Sometimes what's on paper doesn't tell the whole story in a real world application. |
History of... then Phenomenology - Stony Brook was very "continental". There is a very interesting thread out there on whether the best stereo reproduction is 5% of "real" or %95; I am not sure the %, but no stereo has ever fooled me into thinking it was real, unamplified, acoustic instruments. Yes, what I most want for the system to sound most like the "absolute" sound of the real thing, but I give an awful lot of weight to the recording process in capturing all the vital cues that makes the real sound so distinct form the reproduced. It took me a few years to not be disappointed listening to my stereo after coming back from a live performance at the Blue Note or Vanguard. Like looking for good food in London, I thought it was just a matter of throwing more money at the gap, I concluded it is just the inherent difference between live and Memorex, and I have learned to love recorded music for what it is. |
Both Publ57 and Fiddler argue, I think, that the live performance is not relevant to the LSA because (in Publ57’s case) the LSA connects directly only with the output of the TT/arm/cartridge/phonostage, and because (in Fiddler’s case) “We have no control over what happened in the studio, therefore, that discussion is a non-starter for me. I can't change a single decision made during the recording process. I can only try to extract the information from the recording as accurately as my equipment will let me and change the sound of it to the degree that I want to KNOWINGLY change it.”
Of course, I agree with their premises, but I don’t think the conclusion follows.
If we understand ‘source’ generally to mean ‘the standard by which we should evaluate a piece of equipment’, then I think the live performance should serve as that standard—and not either the information codified on the vinyl or the output of the TT/cart/stage. I think Marqmike’s post serves as a reminder of this truth, a point I’ll return to below.
I don’t think the vinyl (or output of stage) can serve as standard because we don’t (can’t?) know what it contains except through ‘corrupting’ electronics (I take it this is part of Knghifi’s point that “Every component has a sonic signature.”). Suppose Claire, using a LSA and other purported neutral and natural sounding equipment, judges that some vinyl sounds like X, Y and Z (fill in with your favorite audiophile vocabulary). She proclaims triumphantly, “I finally got it; the vinyl as it actually is, all the information it contains has been transmitted through my system.” Suppose Claire now swaps out the LSA and puts in a different passive preamp (say the McCormack TLC-1) and plays the same disk again (all else remaining the same). It sounds different (X, A, B; no or diminished Y and Z), and she swears “this time I’ve finally got everything, nothing added, nothing lost.”
Question: on what basis can she decide which judgment is correct?
Remember that this is not a question about which she prefers but rather about which is truer to the information codified on the vinyl or the output of the stage (after all, that’s what she’s after). She can go through many iterations of the above scenario trying to find the one preamp true to the vinyl, but she can never find an adequate basis for justifying any particular judgment because this method does not allow for any external point of view. It will be just more equipment, all sounding great and ‘neutral’ but, alas, different. [it is conceivable, contrary to my hypothesis, that the two preamps deliver the exact same sound—that might serve as confirmation that they had arrived at the truth. I leave that possibility aside because I’ve never heard two different pieces sound exactly the same. “Every component has a sonic signature.”).]
The point Marqmike makes in his post can now play its role. The way to adjudicate between the competing judgments is to assess which comes closer to what instruments played live sound like. This is the ‘external’ point of view. The reason the LSA is true to the vinyl is that it best approximates what instruments actually sound like. Live play serves, then, as the standard of evaluation and ultimate source (this part jibes with how Publ57 describes it).
I experienced something like when I switched from the passive I used to own (TLC-1) to the LSA. The McCormack was a well-received preamp when it came out and I found it a good product. When I got the LSA (as a result of reading this thread) I noticed immediately a warmth and fullness of sound that wasn’t there with the McCormack. Did the LSA add that warmth or did it merely reveal what the McCormack couldn’t? I decided to keep the LSA precisely for the reason Marqmike described: it better approximated the sound of actual snare drums, pianos, etc…
When I used to live in NYC I had season tickets to the Met. My last year there Tristan and Isolde was on the program and I recall very distinctly the sound of the opening notes (as played by a James Levine led orchestra). I was really moved because the orchestra had not ever sounded like that in the times I had gone before. Recently I bought the Furtwangler and Bohm recordings of the same opera and my test was whether the McCormack or LSA could bring me back to that sound. The LSA won and that another reason why I kept it. (of course, that sound never really came to me, even approximately, because my system in total is not good enough).
I tell this story because I conjecture that many of us have a sound we experienced live and we use it, consciously or not, to assess the comparative quality of equipment.
Lest I again be accused of dispensing too much jabberwocky, I include a banal jabberwocky-free report on the LSA:
A couple of weeks ago I was considering buying a new phonostage (the tubed Allnic h1200). I wondered about its compatibility with the LSA and so emailed George the manufacturer’s specs. He told me the output impedance at 1.2 kohms was “a bit too high”, but that he had had other customers who had DACs and phonostages with impedance that high and they had no problems. Slightly hesitant but impulsive by nature I bought the Allnic. I’m sure glad I did because it sounds fantastic and, as far as I can tell, plays well with the LSA. What am I supposed to be losing if the output impedance is too high? The lesson is that even though the numbers may not look promising from a compatibility point of view, it may be worth trying nevertheless.
Publ57: I had a suspicion you were a philosopher; what subjects did you study? (I specialized in moral philosophy).
|
Pubul57
Good questions and they reflect what I am trying to better understand. I am not an expert on these technical questions and feel the questions are reasonable, but would like a better understanding of this topic. |
I understand why a moving coil cartridge would need gain (and RIAA equalization) to create a sense of drive and dynamics, but why would a 2 volt signal need any gain to drive an amp that plays at maximum output with 1v of input? Is "drive" something different than simple voltage which is either sufficient or insufficent to drive an amplifer? I suppose a source could have a weak output stage, but I would think that would be as much of problem for driving an active preamp as a more direct connection to the amp. There is something appealing about "horsepower", but does it really serve any purpose where input sensitivity is simply not an issue? Does an active really provide something "in reserve" for hearing micro and macro dynamic inflections? |
Sources these days, esspecially CD can drive (have enough output) by themselves (without the need of a preamp) a poweramp into cliping, there is your strait wire with no gain (the interconnects only).
All we need is something so we can attenuate that source so it doesn't blow the amp up, we do not need a preamp that preamplifies again on top of the source that can already by itself blow an amp up with the amount of output it has.
Cheers George |
Not sure how it got repeated, another example of too many parts:) |
Ok, based on the reasoning that less parts and simplicity ALWAYS is truer to the source and more accurate, then this SS preamp certainly must deliver a perverted or somehow “additive” portrayal of the music compared to the LSA….. Also no tubes in this one….
http://www.balabo.com/amps/control/
I suppose one may think it, ague it, but the proof is in the hearing only. This highly reviewed and often touted pinnacle of preamps is full of parts. Looks at all those parts…
To actually get all of the nuances and notes off of that source requires a preamp that can actually extract it and amplify it. It needs to convey the dynamic contrasts and subtleties including those subtle micro and marco details. Perhaps a passive is, well, “too passive” to extract all of that information (on the source CD etc). This requires an “additive” (accurate gain) approach. Our stereo systems must be “additive” to even play a single note through a speaker. A passive may simply leave these higher order musical realities out – they may be subtractive. They may constrain or compress for lack relative drive. That is perhaps why, in my experience, I miss the depth, body and dimension with a passive. |
That is overstating the argument, but a good design will have as few parts as necessary, but no less (in the case of pure volume attenuation you don't need many)and the quality of parts matter, too - especially if you are relying on fewer parts (less places to hide). In the case of the LSA, it also not just a matter of the number of parts, though that helps since you don't need a lot of parts to control volume if you are adding no gain, or providing any buffering (those function do require more parts), but also a contact free interface between the volume knob and the resistors. The freedom from the mechanical connection is one of the reason it is felt to be a better mousetrap than any other potentiometer or stepped attentuator. But hey, I studied philosophy , so I rather the tech folks explain that part of it. |
That is overstating the argument, but a good design will have as few parts as necessary, but no less (in the case of pure volume attenuation you don't need many)and the quality of parts matter, too - especially if you are relying on fewer parts (less places to hide). In the case of the LSA, it also not just a matter of the number of parts, though that helps since you don't need a lot of parts to control volume if you are adding no gain, or providing any buffering (those function do require more parts), but also a contact free interface between the volume knob and the resistors. The freedom from the mechanical connection is one of the reason it is felt to be a better mousetrap than any other potentiometer or stepped attentuator. But hey, I studied philosophy , so I rather the tech folks explain that part of it. |
>>So another passive with less parts count than LSA is superior?<< Knghifi
Less parts in the SIGNAL PATH than the LSA? only a straight piece of wire ;-) |
01-06-11: Pubul57
"LSA is not an empty box..." Pretty close though. So another passive with less parts count than LSA is superior? |
"LSA is not an empty box..." Pretty close though. |
Fiddler
If you have a Lightspeed, open it up. Then open your active. See which one is closer to a straight wire. You already know the answer. It's not even close :) Is LSA the only component in your system? What if the total parts count in a system (speakers, amp, IC ...) with an active is less then one with the LSA, is it always superior? Design, synergy between the components, quality of components ... there are many many factors. LSA is not an empty box and has parts so it too has a sonic character. |
"That is lost on a lot of sound systems that I have listen to."
"I don't deny it is music to their ears, it sounds good and it is musical. But it short changes the colors of sound that I like to hear. That is where I hear the biggest difference between passives and actives."
I think that is what those of us who prefer the LSA to our actives have been trying to say. For us, the music sounds "for what we believe to be" more true to the actual source. (SOURCE being defined as the actual medium we spin vs. SOURCE being defined as what happened in the studio.) We have no control over what happened in the studio, therefore, that discussion is a non-starter for me. I can't change a single decision made during the recording process. I can only try to extract the information from the recording as accurately as my equipment will let me and change the sound of it to the degree that I want to KNOWINGLY change it.
I have tubes in my system. However, I do understand what they do to the sound; how they change it. That's what tube-rolling is all about. I don't try to kid myself. I can change the sound of my system with just two tubes and I am sure you guys can too. That's why I don't understand the debate about actives (tubes) versus passives as far as which one is more true to the source.
There is no debate in my mind that adding more and more caps, resistors, wire, tubes, etc. change the sound. The addition of more or different parts may make the music sound more appealing, but those same additions will never be as true to the source as a straight wire or as close to a straight wire as we can get. Parts have sounds.
After modding some of my own equipment it is abundantly clear what a difference parts make. No need to talk about caps, wire, tubes, interstage transformers, output transformers, etc. Simply swap out a cheap Alps pot with a DACT attenuator and hear the difference. And that's a difference of simple resistors!
For me, the LSA is much closer to a straight wire than my active. I can clearly hear more subtle differences with the LSA whereas my active lends a slight sameness to the sound depending on which tubes I am using (which by the way is the joy AND frustration of tube-rolling.)
If you have a Lightspeed, open it up. Then open your active. See which one is closer to a straight wire. You already know the answer. It's not even close :) |
