Lightspeed Attenuator - Best Preamp Ever?

I want to chime in. I deal with color in differnt aspects of my business. I don't know if anybody is familiar with the gray scale? Color is measured, but not perfectly, by three primary qualities. Shade, intensity, and depth. The varieties are infinite as far as our eyes are concerned. Musical sounds are very similar, endless varieties. I think where it went wrong for me was going to digital before it could start to produce the endless varieties of sound that analog can. To me digital is better but it is still struggling. Sound systems I have heard over the last +40 yrs, many giving hours of listening, some with good tone, seem to be to restricted to way fewer different sounds than what I like and can achive. For instance I play the guitar, and when I go look at a new guitar I can look at 2 guitars or more, the same guitar, same brand, same model, same person putting it together, same close time of build, same wood from the same batch of wood(same tree and place on tree), everything possible the same and they all always sound different, quite a bit different. Most audiophiles I know (but there are a few that can) cannot hear a difference between such very similar guitars let alone 2 different but similar styled ones. I like to hear what the musician does with his paticular guitar because he may have 10 guitars but he uses the one he is playing specifically for that sound he wamts to achive. That is lost on a lot of sound systems that I have listen to. The same is true of other musicians and their instruments. And I cannot hear the variety of tones in many sound systems that people love and say it sounds like music. 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. From my experience even though you do get pleasant 'natural type' sounds from tube equipment(not all but most) it sounds very similar with all its tones and the result is very few colors of sound to me. It does do other things that make listening pleasant such as space, air, adds a bit of continuity or flow a tiny bit like analog off a LP. Solid state has it plus' and minus'. I like the LSA because it gives more variety of color to the music being played. But I do respect everyone elses tastes for themselves. Hope this doesn't confuse anybody but actually helps.

Well that first one of mine turned into three and the rest was history.

Going to be a real busy week working two rooms at THE SHOW. The Concert Fidelity, Electra-Print, and Atma-Sphere rooms are in a little triangular area (the first to are the ones I'm working), so it's going to be fun hanging out with all those guys. Too bad I'm probably not going to have time to go over to the Venetian.

Hopefully you'll not be speaking in tongues by the time I get back.

This thread was way more fun before you guys all turned into pantywaists!

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe

Now where is that martini?

I quote, or at least paraphase, both the great Winston Churchill and Lewis Carroll about what this thread has turned into regarding its "deep" philosophical/epistemolical search to unlock the ultimate truth regarding this topic:

" Never before in the history of high end audio... have so many ... received so much jabberwocky ... from so few."

Reading this thread is becoming more fun then watching Monty Python's, Meaning Of Life. Thanks guys.

This is the part I like ...

"2. The recording and the information embedded in the medium - digital or analog. This is the limit of the musical information that can possibly make its way through our gear to our speakers to our ears. This contains all the musical information that is possible - including the ever popular audiophile attributes of soundstaging, dynamics, warmth, bandwidth and bloom. Any musical information you hear that is not inherently in the recording as embedded in media is a distortion and no part of the source as defined here. Pleasant though these distortion might or might not be, they are pixie dust that has been spread over the music and no part of the original performance mediated through the recording process - whatever they are, they are not part of the musical source. The LSA only touches this source to the extent that the 3rd-sense of source does not interfere"

This sums it up nicely thanks Pubul57. After that, as stated, its personal choice as to what one does with this information - Colour it, reproduce it as "accurately" as possible or any variation in between.

If accurate reproduction is the end goal and the LSA is in the chain, then everything else has to be (a) Up to that standard, or better and (b) Optomised to work together in terms of impedance and gain.

The source and its various meanings as related to the LSA:

1. The live acoustic performance. The LSA, and no preamp, has anything to do with this. That event cannot truly be reproduced and perhaps the biggest drop off from the source in this sense occurs in the recording process itself and affected by colorations/distortions/mixing etc caused by the microphone chosen, the electronics, as well as the manufacturing process of the medium that we do bring home. This is the truest "source" - the "absolute" sound?, but preamps (and systems) do not touch it since it is mediated and never really comes home with us.

2. The recording and the information embedded in the medium - digital or analog. This is the limit of the musical information that can possibly make its way through our gear to our speakers to our ears. This contains all the musical information that is possible - including the ever popular audiophile attributes of soundstaging, dynamics, warmth, bandwidth and bloom. Any musical information you hear that is not inherently in the recording as embedded in media is a distortion and no part of the source as defined here. Pleasant though these distortion might or might not be, they are pixie dust that has been spread over the music and no part of the original performance mediated through the recording process - whatever they are, they are not part of the musical source. The LSA only touches this source to the extent that the 3rd-sense of source does not interfere.

3. Finally, the electrical signal coming from the TT or CD/DAC that has been processed from the recording embedded in a medium to an analog signal for use by a preamp or LSA. I think that this is the source that the LSA is true to. It is the only source that meets the LSA one-to-one. The LSA cannot improve upon either recordings or "players" and a bad recording, or a weak turntable/CD/DAC will reveal themselves through the LSA - in fact a poor recording or player might in fact sound better with a preamp less true to the "source" in this sense. The question if this is true of the LSA, that it is true to the source in this sense, is that what one wants, or should want, in a preamp/volume control - is there a right answer?

CAVEAT: The LSA, will not be true to the source if it has insufficient gain from the source or sensitivity in an amp, or if the output impedance of the source and the input impedance of the amp are not appropriate, or if long interconnects have so much overall capacitance as to alter the frequency spectrum of the signal sent to the amp.

Now, just because the LSA may (subject to debate)may be as true to the source as a line stage / volume control can be, that does not mean that everyone would prefer it to something less true - not sure the answer to that can be decided by measurement and engineering, only listening and drawing our own conclusions about what we like.

Deep is right, but I love it! Good stuff and we are getting closer to the truth. I think we all "get it" to be frank and we are just starting to communicate.

Whoa, this is getting deep. I just came back from setting up our room at THE SHOW and wasn't ready for this. I need a martini and then Ill come back to it.

Maybe we should rename the thread Tao the Lightspeed Way.

Banquo, where did you study philosophy?

UC Irvine. For more years than I'd like to admit.

Banquo, where did you study philosophy?

Here's my 2c worth, after noticing this thread had recently come back to life.

Most good quality high end cdp's are close to each other in sound quality and don't colour the sound much at all. Except for some tube output ones - they can be all over the shop.

This leave us with the interconnect colourations. So, why throw a $14,000 bandaid at a pair of $100 interconects, wouldn't it be saner to change the interconects?

I'm having trouble following this debate between Knghifi and George, particularly with respect to the use of the concept of 'source'. Originally, when I read 'source' I thought it just referred to the music as found on the CD or the vinyl record. At other times, the reference appears to be to the source electronics (CD player or TT). On one occasion, George seems to be using ‘source’ to refer to both, “What comes after the source can only be corrupted by more electronics, it cannot fix a "bad" cdp dac or cd.”

Clio suggests yet another sense of ‘source’ when he writes,

Maybe true to the source should be more about the least coloration added to something that's been colored from the beginning. By that I mean we need to take into account what the recording engineer adds to the mix before it gets stamped as a disc or a piece of vinyl and can be played on our sources. Lets even go further, the instruments played by the musicians add color to a recording whether by composition (ex. wood) or effects (ex. tube guitar amps or feedback).

This is ‘source’ in a truer sense, in my opinion, because it takes us back to the original musical activity that was recorded. [One could ‘go back’ even further and speak of source in the sense of the musical composition, e.g. the musicians are only interpreting the source. And if you’re a certain kind of philosopher, the ultimate sense of source might be the music as it exists independently of even the ‘composer’, e.g. one could argue that Mahler only discovered the 9th symphony, he didn’t invent it] Nevertheless, I think we should leave these latter senses out of the discussion because no manner of electronics design is ever going to get us back to them.

The specific understanding of ‘source’ matters because it influences our stand on several different theses. We can all agree presumably that playback should be guided by the norm of neutrality (compare: all action should be guided by the good; all belief should be guided by the truth). And we can say that neutrality is achieved when a suitably situated perceiver (“ideal listener”) can hear the music as it exists on the vinyl or cd. In this sense, the music on the vinyl or cd is the source. Three theses immediately present themselves:

a. There is no such thing as neutrality (compare: there is no such thing as truth, only interpretation or, differently, preference)
b. Neutrality exists but cannot be achieved
c. Neutrality cannot be achieved because of the nature of electronics
d. Neutrality cannot be achieved because of the nature of perception

Knghifi seems to subscribe at least to (c) when he writes, “Every component has a sonic signature. It's not bad or good but just a sonic signature.” George denies (c), at least regarding the LSA, because he claims that it “adds nothing and subtracts nothing.” In addition, George denies (a), and Knghifi’s position on (a) is not clear to me. Could the correct combination of components get us back to the source/neutrality? If Knghifi believes this, then there is yet another disagreement between him and George because George believes that “What comes after the source can only be corrupted by more electronics, it cannot fix a "bad" cdp dac or cd. It can only add corruptions, colourations, distortions and euphonics.”

For my part, I believe that neutrality exists but that it probably cannot be achieved due to the nature of electronics. I believe the LSA achieves partial neutrality in the sense that the signal it receives it leaves more or less unaltered. However, I don’t know of any cartridge or stylus or TT that achieves what the LSA achieves with its own work. Knghifi’s reference to the total system sound is pertinent here because it helps articulate why neutrality is difficult if not impossible to achieve. This isn’t a knock against the LSA. Perhaps we should be speaking in terms of degrees of total neutrality. If so, and if the LSA does what George says it does, that is, leaves the signal as it is, then that explains why many of us like it so much: it gets us closer to where we should be.

Lastly, I want to return to an issue raised by the total system sound perspective. Knghifi has asserted, and others have intimated, that finding the correct combination is important. I’d like to ask, “Important for what reason?”

i. Because, irrespective of questions about neutrality, a certain preferred sound is acquired
ii. Because the correct combination helps us achieve neutrality

Point (i) seems to deny the importance of neutrality as a norm. I started above by saying that we can all agree that it is a norm, but the more I read people’s postings, the less I’m sure about this. This touches upon thesis (d). If you don’t believe in neutrality, is it because of the vagaries of perception? Or what?

Point (ii) suggests an intriguing possibility. Does anyone believe it? George gave us a reason to deny it, but I’m agnostic myself. Why couldn’t a known type of distortion be corrected by another? Don’t people use and buy cables based on this possibility?

"If I can eliminate one source of coloration from the mix I figure I've taken a step in the right direction (for me anyway)."

I think that is why things like soundstaging seem to change more than usual from recording to recording with the LSA - it is putting less of a imprint that carries through for every recording. The question becomes does the recording have depth, width, and localization cues - when it does, the LSA sounds like that, when it doesn't the LSA shows that too. The more neutral the system, the greater variation of these types of attributes from recording to recording. I think this was Ken Stevens' (CAT)notion of a preamp having the color of water, for him you should never be able to tell what preamp is in the chain, there should not be a sonic sameness between recordings that the footprint of the preamps sonic signature. No right or wrong here, I think, just a chosen approach to building a system, one that appeals to my sense of things.

>> Maybe true to the source should be more about the least coloration added to something that's been colored from the beginning.
...
If I can eliminate one source of coloration from the mix I figure I've taken a step in the right direction (for me anyway).
<< Clio09

You get it.

Clio09, I see you point. Removing one sonic signature will improve the overall accuracy of the orig source ... one less to muck it up. For me, when dealing with so many sonic signatures in a system, removing one is not very significant to the overall result. Finding the correct combination is more important.

Maybe true to the source should be more about the least coloration added to something that's been colored from the beginning. By that I mean we need to take into account what the recording engineer adds to the mix before it gets stamped as a disc or a piece of vinyl and can be played on our sources. Lets even go further, the instruments played by the musicians add color to a recording whether by composition (ex. wood) or effects(ex. tube guitar amps or feedback).

From a recording perspective, not all recordings are made live in the studio or venue. Although I enjoy those types of recordings best. Many times the musicians that play on a recording are not even in the studio at the same time when their parts are recorded. Then take into account all the equipment and cables used, as well as mixing/EQ.

Knghifi's point is valid, everything contributes to the sound we hear. It's a system after all, and for me the system should offer the least coloration possible. I've told many of my firends that the reason I prefer passive preamps is that our systems already have more than enough gain, why add more to the mix. Seems Nelson Pass said pretty much the same thing in an excerpt from one of his designs philosophies that I quoted in a previous post. If I can eliminate one source of coloration from the mix I figure I've taken a step in the right direction (for me anyway).

If you like the grape, you'll like the wine 98% of time, no matter what the $$$.

Georgelofi,
What comes after the source can only be corrupted by more electronics, it cannot fix a "bad" cdp dac or cd. It can only add corruptions, colourations, distortions and euphonics.
There is no magic preamp that can add bits or remove distortions from a cd or re-design a bad output stage in a cdp or dac, you can however falsely add colourations, euphonics, and tonally change things, but this is not "being true to the source".
I believe if you have a source that needs this sort of treatment, you need to get a better one, and one you like, without having to bandaid fix it.

Every component has a sonic signature. It's not bad or good but just a sonic signature. By the time signal reaches the preamp, it has sonic signature of the source and IC. The signal still needs to pass through the amp, ic, speaker cable, speakers, PC .... and will get altered and altered again. In a sound system, you are hearing a combination of 10+ sonic signatures, not just the source and interconnect.

Let's try this, apple juice is the taste all the chefs want you to experience. Once it's mixed with 9 different juices, you are tasting a combination of all the juices. Use water for LSA and is added after the apple juice, apple taste is preserved until you add the 8 different juices. At the end, the taste is the combination of all the juices. Now if the 9 juices have the properties of water, NEUTRAL, then apple will be prominent. I guess this is the reason everybody claims their product is neutral.

It appears my view is more at the system level than yours.

01-03-11: Pubul57
Which Shiraz?

2buckchuck.

Wine is like audio. Price does not equate taste. I have 2 friends that own liquor stores, even with discounts I was spending too much $$ on wine over the years. I was reluctant at first but after I tasted 2buckchuck, I sold ... ok I won't list them :-):-) This is what I drink most of time at home. Doesn't taste like an cheap wine but actually best many more expensive ones.

George,

If they don't get that explanation, they ain't gonna get it.

Lots of folks may prefer an active preamp, me included at times. But your explanation above is about as simple as it can get.

Which Shiraz?

Knghifi
wish he could answer some of my questions. I'm still stuck on " ... is the closest you will get to playing music that's truest to the source (cdp, phono ect), and the truest way to hear the way the recording engineers wanted you to hear how they have recorded the music.
As it adds nothing and subtracts nothing ..." Knghifi
:
:
:
I'm still a little black and blue from the last mugging, I'll try for a few broken ribs this time around.

What comes after the source can only be corrupted by more electronics, it cannot fix a "bad" cdp dac or cd. It can only add corruptions, colourations, distortions and euphonics.
There is no magic preamp that can add bits or remove distortions from a cd or re-design a bad output stage in a cdp or dac, you can however falsely add colourations, euphonics, and tonally change things, but this is not "being true to the source".
I believe if you have a source that needs this sort of treatment, you need to get a better one, and one you like, without having to bandaid fix it.
Cheers George

I don't have an issue with George attracting sale via Agon through his participation in the thread. The man is in business to make a living so however sales are generated, it's fine with me. I don't agree with some of his statements and wish he could answer some of my questions. I'm still stuck on " ... is the closest you will get to playing music that's truest to the source (cdp, phono ect), and the truest way to hear the way the recording engineers wanted you to hear how they have recorded the music.
As it adds nothing and subtracts nothing ..."

The internet is great where one can exchange ideas from anyone in the world ... no borders. Fiddler, before you get offended again, please hire a new translator that understands English.

After all the debate, I decided to play LSA last night for some serious listening. I'm finally hearing the lights so I've decided to sell my BVDs, Wilson Jack Kramer, Schwinn Varsity Sport and yes, my Calvins. Nothing ever came between my Calvin except, LSA!!!

If anyone is offended, it's the Shiraz and I'm not responsible. Boy, I like being a Democrat.

Clio09

No problem. Enjoy the music!

I assumed my point was clear. Sorry. Yes that was the example I gave for Fiddler on the obvious pushing of the LSA.

Thanks for clarifying. We can agree to disagree on this one too:)

Details! Details! Mac and Wyred 4 Sound DAC - he does not know what a turntable is.

For my non-audiophile brother who just wants to listen to music, I would tell him to get the LSA/RM10 combo for less than $2,500, a speaker that can be driven by 35 watts, and feel comfortable that I gave him very good advice in building an excellent, affordable system.

Without a source he isn't going to be able to listen to his system;)

Clio09

I assumed my point was clear. Sorry. Yes that was the example I gave for Fiddler on the obvious pushing of the LSA.

That's all.

I guess we will not, nor can we. resolve the issues of what is best, and if the LSA is better than Product X, Y, or Z, and the try to deal with the issue of what "better" means and in what context. Maybe if the Subject were: Lightspeed Attenuator - Worth a Try...." we would be closer on the subject. BUt. I think we all understand that how good we think the LSA versus other great line stages will depend on the amp it is used with and other factors, and the kind of sound we like, which we are perfectly entitled to, and isn't worth arguing about, that is fruitless and can turn personal which would be ridiculous.

Perhaps the issue of active versus passive, and when one approach would be preferable is a more interesting technical subject - for example Ralph Karsten seems to often that the real issues is controlling the preamps ability to control the interconnect, and even then I think he admits it is more of an issue if you have the need to run long interconnects. On the other hand, he makes very good linestages and is never going to say you don't need an active linestage, I would not expect that of him. In fact, I think his amps do benefit from an active linestage with some gain.

These discussion are interesting for folks that love the hobby and gear. For my non-audiophile brother who just wants to listen to music, I would tell him to get the LSA/RM10 combo for less than $2,500, a speaker that can be driven by 35 watts, and feel comfortable that I gave him very good advice in building an excellent, affordable system.

Ok, please don’t yell at me Fiddler. Please read George’s post below. Seems pretty clear he is saying it is the most accurate means to hearing recorded music. He implies this on his LSA vs all other attempts at a preamp. He has said this same thing in several other posts here. I have no problem with him thinking this or saying it, I just don’t agree and want to voice my opinion.
Grannyring

I don't have any problem with people disagreeing or voicing their opinion as long as they are not shilling (which you are not) and are open to respectful rebuttal, as you have been. Nor do I take issue with George's strong comments regarding his design. As I said previously I like his conviction.

I don't see any examples of him selling though (and I didn't interpret your comments to indicate he is). That's kind of where I'm puzzled.

. . . now that that school yard bickering is finished ;) let's get back to the topic of the Lightspeed and its performance . . .

I took posession of my Lightspeed last week and have only about 5hours on it thus far. Last night I was listening to Bobby McFerrin's latest CD which is a spectacular vocal potpori of harmonies, complex arrangements and some rather interesting African tribal chants and rythmns. I got goose bumps listening to it and for the first time those goose bumps migrated down my body to my legs - wow, what a sonic affect and physical sensation.

Now considering that I am using an old Sony 5 disc carosel CD player and that my room treatments were in disaray due to some current reno's I'm doing, I would hazard to guess that these sub-optimal conditions that didn't exist when I used to use my Audio Aero Capitole MKII SE CD/Pre speak volumes to the excellent quality of the Lightspeed.

Of course you could argue that with so many different variables that it's next to impossible to isolate the sonic goose bumps to the Lightspeed alone, and of course you'd be correct. However, I'm pretty sure the Sony's sonic quality isn't as good as the Capitole so what I heard was an improvement, plain and simple.

Congrats George!

Kevin

"best gear on the planet..." I meant to say.

Ok, please don’t yell at me Fiddler. Please read George’s post below. Seems pretty clear he is saying it is the most accurate means to hearing recorded music. He implies this on his LSA vs all other attempts at a preamp. He has said this same thing in several other posts here. I have no problem with him thinking this or saying it, I just don’t agree and want to voice my opinion.

“the Lightspeed Attenuator (LSA) as you guys have nick named it, is the closest you will get to playing music that's truest to the source (cdp, phono ect), and the truest way to hear the way the recording engineers wanted you to hear how they have recorded the music.

12-31-10: Georgelofi
You are right guys the Lightspeed Attenuator (LSA) as you guys have nick named it, is the closest you will get to playing music that's truest to the source (cdp, phono ect), and the truest way to hear the way the recording engineers wanted you to hear how they have recorded the music.
As it adds nothing and subtracts nothing, like I say it is like you have plugged the (cdp or phono ect) directly into the poweramps input, no preamps at all in the signal path, yet still maintain control over the level (volume).
I accept that for some listeners it's preferable to have the added ambience, echo (if you have microphonic tubes). Also the tonal changes, because all active components have their own signature, even different brand potentiometers (Alps, Bournes, Penny&Giles ect)) sound different, compared to a direct (source to poweramp connection) gives, maybe to their ears this is preferable.
But the Lightspeed Attenuator is all about listening to the source nothing added nothing subtracted warts and all.

Knowing Terry as I do, I suspect it was not his intention to falsely accuse anyone, though it may have come off that way a bit, one could also feel George comes on strong in support of his product, because he does - he is a true believer, but I don't get the sense he's motivated by "making a killing".

It is also frustrating to have the "impedance mismatch" thrown out as reason why you might prefer a $$$$ line stage, but some times that is true, and some times it is just a preference for a certain kind of sound. Terry is certainly open to passives, he (and Roger Modjeski and Anthony - Clio9) is the one who took me in this direction, so I don't think he has any bias towards passives, though he had a TVC and Buffered passive which would have addressed impedance matching. He then moved on to a series of tubed linestages that he preferred, and he listens to a lot of good gear.

Now, in my system I happen to prefer the passive to the actives I have owned (I won't list them:)) - but I suspect, but don't know, that the fact I use a tube amp is one of the reasons. When it comes down to it we like what we like, and we all hear a bit differently and listen for different things. But, I still like the "theory" behind a passive that minimally alters what was recorded (even though the recording itself is an artifact of the microphones used, and the electronics used in the recording chain - that "manipulation" is at least in the recording engineers hands and part of the creative process) - none of this is live or "absolute" afterall.

On the subject of shilling, I never mind a manufacturer promoting his ideas as long as it is clear he is the manufacturer. We know where they are coming from and they are subjecting their view to public examination and comment (and criticism) - nothing is hidden. I do mind dealers for a product not identifying themselves. Relatives or friends of the designer not revealing that relationship. Or even folks that defend a product they happen to own and make claims for that product that they don't quite believe but knowing one day they will have to sell that product on AGON - wouldn't be prudent to say anything negative about the product till it is out of their hands. I am none of the above, I simply think the LSA in the right system is awfully good, and a great value.

Nelson Pass does not need to come on AGON, he has 10,000s of very satisfied customers with some of the best gear on the ever made to speak for him. He saves himself for the DIY community, as did George. My feeling is George believes in his product and is excited to see that some folks have discovered his product and like it as much as he does - hard not to find some satisfaction in that.

Teajay, I get the problem now. You aren't carefully reading the posts here .

I didn't say you were being nefarious. Re-read my post. "Nefarious" was related to George's "defense".

And you are still implying that George is marketing his wares, "difference between someone like Nelson Pass who gives things away to the DIY community but does not use Audiogon threads to market his wares..."

As I said before, you haven't given one example of George, "marketing his wares". You just keep twisting words to try to defend your position.

And when did I ever imply you were an SOB? More twisting of words.

And talk about being silly. You clearly know that when I said, "that George has given it all away", that I was talking about his IP. I even used "IP" and "design" in my posts. I think it is clear who is being disingenuous here.

"Gee whiz, guys lighten up."

Take a little of your own advice. Had you not accused George of "selling" here in the first place (once again, without one example to back the charge up) we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And BTW, George isn't a friend or hero. I've never met the man, seen the man or even talked to the man. I simply don't like to see people falsely accused without one speck of evidence being provided to back up the claim.

And I agree it is unfortunate that this thread got sidetracked from the OP's question which was offered with a lot of caveats:

"So is this the best preamp ever? It might be if you have a single source (though you could use a switch box), your source is 2v or higher, your IC from pre-amp to amp is less than 2m to keep capaitance low, your amp is 5kohm input or higher (most any tube amp), and your amp is relatively sensitive (1v input sensitivity or lower v would be just right). In other words, within a passive friendly system (you do have to give this some thought), this is the finest passive preamp I have ever heard, and I have has many ranging form resistor-based to TVCs and AVCs."

Fiddler, if you think I have been nefarious and bombastic towards George that's OK with me.

I gave him credit for sharing information on his design and for helping people who own it get the best performance possible in their systems, sounds nefarious to me so far.

Then when I gave my opinion in a respectful way that it seems to me George is a little full of himself regarding his perspective on what a linestage should offer sonicly and that for an Audiogon thread it started to seem to be somewhat of unpaid promotion forum, wow, that sounds bombastic and accusatory doesn't, then I became a SOB in your opinion.

Your weak attempt at being disingenuous towards what information I did share regarding the difference between someone like Nelson Pass who gives things away to the DIY community but does not use Audiogon threads to market his wares, does not negate your final silly statement,"that George has given it all away". Really, as far as I know he still charges money for his LDR, he does not build them and give them away for free.

Gee whiz, guys lighten up. I'm not attacking George personally, I gave his product and his pricing of it a postive comment and I'm entitled to my opinion about the other issues.

Finally, I apologize to Paul for influencing this thread away from the great discussion concerning passives vs active linestages that was very informative and interesting. I guess you have to be very careful about sharing your opinion, even though I thought I have been respectful, when it comes to certain people's friends or heros.

Teajay, you posted, "I have no historical awareness that Ralph or any other well known designer has ever pushed as hard to sell his product as George has, if you can remember someone please share."

You didn't just "share your opinion". In your own words you flat out accused George of pushing hard to “sell his product".

And the fact that Nelson Pass has given much to the DIY community has nothing to with this discussion other than to offer some misdirection and a weak attempt to justify your accusation after you were made aware George had given his IP away.

And in your last post your accusatory tone continues by saying, "...and secondly this not DIYaudio, but Audiogon were threads normally are not used by designers to sell products, and if they do they are rightly called out on it."

If anyone is being negative and bombastic here, it is you. We can both agree that designers should be called out here for shilling their products. I'm with you on that one. But it is my opinion that your accusations against George have been grossly unfair. Considering the fact that you haven't given a single, concrete example of where George has attempted to sell his product to anyone, combined with the fact that he freely gives his design away; it appears you are left with a rather untenable position.

Teajay, I will be the first to join in with you when someone is truly shilling here (and it happens often), but I think you may simply be misinterpreting George's defense of his baby as something more nefarious, especially in light of the fact he has given it all away.

Nelson Pass indeed has given a lot to this community as is evidenced here:

Pass DIY

In fact, go to the projects section if you're inclined to see some of the ideas and schematics Nelson allows DIYers to use:

http://passdiy.com/projects.htm

If you look down the list just a few lines, you'll see an article on the B1 buffer. Nelson's version of a passive but with active JFETs for the buffer stage to control impedance matching. I like the way Nelson writes. He divides his articles up into sections analogous to LP sides. This article is no different and for those not inclined to go over there and read the article, here is an excerpt of Side A:

The First Watt B1 Buffer Preamp
Nelson Pass, June 2008
Side A

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…

He goes on to talk about impedance matching/mismatching as well before getting into the technical stuff. My point simply is he talks about some of the same things those of us who prefer passives and George talk about here.

I still think Nelson paid George a nice compliment by publishing his own LDR schematic based on George's work. The two certainly share similar opinions IMO.

Fiddler's point on Goerge's IP is pretty valid. If George wanted to make quite a few bucks off this it would have been pretty easy to do. Instead he's given his IP away. No he's not the first and he won't be the last, but he still did it. Now there are people out there, both DIYers and manufacturers, building their own versions of LDR preamps (using all or parts of George's ideas) or incorporating LDR volume controls in their active preamp designs. I'd say that's another compliment to George.

Please Fiddler, accusation has such a negative and bombastic tone to it. The only example I will give of someone who has given so much to the DIY community is Nelson Pass, yet he has never on any post here on Audiogon marketed his wares or ever stated his opinions as the only veiwpoint regarding performance as the absolute truth as far as I can tell, like the man that you say I'm unfairly challanging.

I just shared my opinion regarding my impression of how George comes across to me on this thread, somewhat negatively towards any design that he deems not being totally true to the source, what ever that means, and secondly this not DIYaudio, but Audiogon were threads normally are not used by designers to sell products, and if they do they are rightly called out on it.

Finally, your statement regarding George's reason for posting have nothing to do with selling because he gave it away for free to the DIY community, hum, has not Nelson Pass done the same thing, yet has never pushed his products like George has on this thread.

Sorry, if my impressions regarding George's motivation comes across as a personal attack on the man to you. I don't know George, I'm not a member of the DIY community, and I don't want to jump this fine thread with this side bar discussion regarding George. I'm sure George is a good guy who makes a very good product at a very reasonable price.

Teajay,

I haven't for a moment felt that Georgelofi was "selling". Defending? Sure, and rightly so.

In my opinion, there have been numerous manufacturers, modders, retailers, etc. that have been egregious in attempting to sell their wares here on the 'Gon, and possibly even Ralph Karsten. I have great respect for Mr. Karsten, but I have ocassionnaly thought that his responses on the 'Gon were as much about sales as defending his products.

If George's motive here was about selling, why would he have given his product away to the DIY community for free? Jump over to DIYaudio and look at the thread there. He gave his design away for free from the very beginning and he made countless posts there trying to help guys with their build. The LSA thread at DIYaudio makes this thread pale in comparison. I reiterate, why would a guy who has freely given his design away for free push hard to sell it here? It doesn't make any sense and it would be counter-productive.

I suspect, based on results, George could be selling the LSA for easily twice what he is selling it for.

Given the facts, your accusation appears hollow, in my opinion.

Pubul57, you a good guy. Thanks for having a good sense of humor :-)

I think we can all agree in that in many ways Nelson Pass is one of the greatest designers on the planet. I always wonder what he might have done if he applied his efforts towards tube amplifiers, but at he said in his manuals, there were already a lot of great tube amplifiers and making a great sounding SS amp was a bigger challenge for him, he obviously succeeded!! I also suspect that if I had different speakers, I would have kept his XA30.5, the best SS amp I have heard, but my speakers are really designed for tube amps and damping is not a particular advantage for them. Why you can really judge a system, but much harder a piece on its own, and why there never will be can never can by a "best" in any product category, and why a good dealer or a good cadre of fellow audiophiles are so helpful in building a satisfying system. And Terry, your room doesn't hurt:)

Hi Paul, thanks for your kind words towards me. As to be expected from you, words of wisdom:

1) Everybody finally has to audition for themselves to really know what works for them.

2) That unless you use tube power amps the Lightspeed might lack depth in the soundstage and what I call image density or air around individual players. Also tubes still offer, regardless were you have them in the chain, more natural timbres and the the body of the harmonic then SS or passives in my opinion. When I heard the Lightspeed it was with SS amps not tube amps. That's why I believe Paul gets such great performance out of this passive because he does use tube based amps. For me in my system I like SS amps with a tube based linestage to get what I'm looking for sonicly.

To respond to another great GON gentleman, Clio09, who was nice enough to even offer sending me his Lightspeed for me to audition and we have had nice chats regarding his experience with Concert Fidelity gear and his personal relationship with Mr.Tsuda. I'm not attacking George or his product. If you find it appealing to what you refer to in George's attitude as, "a bit cocky", I personally don't like arrogance in any form by anybody. You know George personally I don't, I still think he comes across not as a designer/builder with great confidence or pride over his product as he should, but somewhat condescending towards other viewpoints other then his own.Was your own example regarding that Nelson Pass on a DIY board posted a different version of the LDR proves that George ranks with some of the great designers of the audio world? My take on this is Nelson Pass is open minded about experimenting with different designs, gives credit when credit is do, and is the antithesis of cocky or arrogance. Enough said.

Clio09,when I used the term that George was forcing his product on this thread this was refering to how he comes across to me as being somewhat of a salesman, with the position that his take on what a linestage should offer is the only objective/correct one and this thread was turning into great unpaid advertisement for his piece. Finally, I don't care what happens on AA, my comment was regarding that I have no historical awareness that Ralph or any other well known designer has ever pushed as hard to sell his product as George has, if you can remember someone please share.

Well, tubes definitely do "something" I like, my amps are loaded with them and even the great First Watt and XA.5 designs by Nelson Pass were not enough to convince me to keep them and replace any of my amps, though I very much wanted to get rid of the maintenance issues with tubes, but at the end of the day, for whatever reason, I prefer tube amps - distortion or not. In fact, I'm not sure I would be so keen on the LSA if used with an SS amp as I would hear the amp more clearly, and I think an SS amp needs a tube line stage to sound the way I would like it. I have been focusing on the sound stage through the LSA, as Terry did write to me about the listening sessions he refers to any he reported the same issue with the group feeling the LSA was missing some of the sound staging capabilities of the actives. No way am I going to question that is what the group heard, these are seasoned and unbiased folks as far as I know. After Terry's note I really looked for that up against the Joule which is particularly well regarded for its sound staging abilities and I honestly did not find that flattening, but that was on my systems with my amps and might not be so with other systems. Why you really have to audition and decide for yourself if it works for you - as you would with any piece of equipment and with a few grains of salt in concluding about any piece of equipment simply based on the honest opinions of others.

Very well said Teajay. Thanks to Paul/Pubul for stimulating people. He has an interesting perspective as someone who owns both the LSA and an active tubed pre-amp due to system requirements. That dialectic would bother me at the end of the day, but he seems to straddle the divide admirably.

George made some interesting statements about tubes and tube distortion. I love Jazz, and a lot of my favorite recordings were done in the 50s. If I am not mistaken, that means tubed mics, tubed microphone pre-amps, and tubed consoles, etc. Paul Weitzel has done a lot of recording for Sony, FIM, Fidelis and others. He produced some of the first SACD offerings and is a Grammy voter. Paul still uses tubed mics with their own regulated power supplies, tubed microphone pre-amps through a Neve console (which is known for having a warm midrange and uber gain). His recordings are some of the best I have heard. Distortion is not the first word that comes to mind.

While playing with the lightspeed and a direct drive scenario (source driving amps), I did appreciate the apparent clarity and speed. On the other hand, I noted compression of the sound stage, particularly depth, that all important third dimension. If that depth is a tube or gain-based artifact, I like it. It mimics the real thing which should be our frame of reference.

Please I'm not referring to the information to help members understand his design or optimize its performance, but it seems to me that he really believes that his piece is the "BEST" there can be in linestage.

So, I still believe that the way this piece is being "marketed" on this thread or how George comes across in his "conviction" that his linestage is the "BEST" regarding his design is quite different then anything Ralph Karsten has ever done on any Audiogon forum.

Why shouldn't he believe its the best? That's one of the things I like about George (a bit cocky for a designer, kind of reminds me of me in fact). You don't think Ralph feels the same way about his OTL designs? He might be more politically correct (in some peoples views) about how he goes about it, but he often refers to his white papers here to back up his work. Some people consider that a marketing ploy, but I don't blame him one bit for displaying his research and expertise. There's also a little thing going on over AA where he posted a review of one of his amps. Some people have been critical of that, but I take no exception to it.

I don't see where George is forcing his product on anyone here. Does he come on a little strong sometimes with his convictions, sure, but I don't care. As a consumer I get to make choices. This thread has been going on for a while. If something were truly wrong I'd have to think the moderators would put an end to it.

Your other remark that George, "proably could have made more money developing an active linestage", but chose not to because of his conviction to this design is not only pure conjuncture on your part, but kinda silly that he rather make less money then more from a business sense.

Yep, it's conjuncture. However, I get the feeling from reading stuff and dealing with George directly that he being retired had a successful enough run in his career that at this point he'd rather be surfing than working any harder than he chooses to. It's a hobby and something fun for him to do. I can appreciate someone who can make these types of lifestyle decisions when others are slaves to their work.

His use of the LED design instead of transformers or resistors is quite interesting, but does not put him, in my opinion, in the patheon of designers like Ralph Karsten, Nelson Pass, or Masataka Tsuda.

I think Nelson Pass paid George one of the highest compliments when he went public on the DIYAudio thread with his own variation of George's LDR design. Enough said.

I know two of the three designers you mentioned personally and respect them enough that I use their equipment. I consider Masataka Tsuda a friend and one of the most gracious men I have ever met in my life. I'll be working with him again at the upcoming CES/THE SHOW in Las Vegas. So with that in mind I will say that design principles and preferences aside, as well as differences in personality, I think George and Masa are more similar than they are different. Both use some very unique concepts in their designs that should be heard by more people.

I think Terry is a very gifted listener and reviewer with exposure to some of the finest equipment in the world and have nothing but respect for his observations and conclusions about his views on equipment, but though we have owned similar equipment at different times, I think we lean towards a different kind of sound and we might not come to the same conclusions - though I have no doubt I would love his system. He might be right that part of my enthusiasm is in part what the LSA does for the $$$, though I would have no problem buying a more expensive line stage if I wanted to, but ultimately I think it is simply that the LSA works really well in my system and after quite of bit of A/B I felt it offered just as much musical pleasure as my tube linestage, which up to that point was my favorite after several years of listening to various preamps, a line stage with Terry also heard but wasn't exactly his cup of tea.

Still, I do the "best" concept really makes no sense, it makes no sense universally, independent of system context, not does it make sense to any particular listener. But it sure does make sense to try an LSA to see it how it works for you and then decide for yourself.

Ralph Karsten and Nelson Pass? You are right, they are at the very top of world class design talent, as is Roger Modjeski in my view, who also is in the passive line stage camp feeling no active line stage would better for use with his RM10 MKII and RM9 SE amps. Now, while Roger sells a $135 Pot-in-a-Box with a very high quality Noble pot, I think George has simply built a better mousetrap by avoiding a physical connection to change resistor values.

I think there is more debate about active versus passage than between the SS/tube divide in that even within the very same listener one might find ambivalence of conviction over which approach is best over time. I've made that journey several times, the allure of tubes is always there, but at least for me, the Music Reference amps have never sounded better than through the LSA.

Hi Clio09, I too have great respect for Ralph Karsten's designs and his passion for what makes the most sense to him sonicly and design wise.

However, I have no awareness historically that he ever "pushed" his design/product on an Audiogon thread like it seems to me that George is doing now on this one. Please I'm not referring to the information to help members understand his design or optimize its performance, but it seems to me that he really believes that his piece is the "BEST" there can be in linestage.

Your other remark that George, "proably could have made more money developing an active linestage", but chose not to because of his conviction to this design is not only pure conjuncture on your part, but kinda silly that he rather make less money then more from a business sense.His use of the LED design instead of transformers or resistors is quite interesting, but does not put him, in my opinion, in the patheon of designers like Ralph Karsten, Nelson Pass, or Masataka Tsuda.

So, I still believe that the way this piece is being "marketed" on this thread or how George comes across in his "conviction" that his linestage is the "BEST" regarding his design is quite different then anything Ralph Karsten has ever done on any Audiogon forum.

There is something to be said for those that have a conviction and stick by it. I have a lot of respect for what George did with the LSA because he has determined what he feels a preamp should accomplish, and while I agree that his way is no more right or wrong than anyone else, he has developed a product based on his conviction regardless of the fact he could have probably made more money developing active linestages had he chosen to go down that path.

Its like Ralph Karsten's approach and his conviction about using output transformers in amp circuits. He is in the minority among his peers (even though his research and papers do a great job explaining why his approach may be the better one), but he keeps plugging away at it when IMO it probably would have been easier for him to just design a circuit with output transformers and call it a day.

Lightspeed ahead...

Have enjoyed reading this thread from the very start, so here's my take on the Lightspeed Attenuator:

1) I and a follow group listners auditioned it in a very high end system and thought it was good but nothing earth shattering, I had shared this with Paul I believe with a voice mail or E-mail, that its sonic performance was not a significant or qualitative shift over the sonics of other great passives which I have used as references such as the Bent Tap TVC or the Placette buffered. I choose not to put the results of this auditioning experience on this thread for two reasons. I had a hunch it would be dismussed by some of the true believers in the Lightspeed because of this or that, impedence mismatch or something else, not fully broken in, which power supply, etc. Secondly, this is not Paul's position, well that's just your personnal taste anyways. Absolutely, personnal taste and system synergy is and will always be present. My system just does not offer the same illusion of real music with any passive including the Lightspeed compared with a reference tube based linestage.

2) It's the price dummy, it's the price! Yes, I totally agree with the permise that this piece offers tremendous valve for the money, even if it's no better then the above mentioned passives which I have used as references at different times in my system, it still costs thousands of dollars less! However, that does not mean, taking out the performance vs cost ratio, that it ranks as one of the world's great linestages because it stills lacks what great active tube linestages have to offer in my opinion. I have no worries regarding heat or tubes wearing out.

3) I have nothing but respect, trust, and kind feelings towards the man who started this thread, Paul, who writes extremely well and helps spread very interesting and useful information here on the GON. Happy new year Paul. However, if I did not know better, and I do, I would think that Paul is either George's private partner, owns lots of shares in George's company, or finally gets a piece of the action. Now none of this is true, please, I'm trying to make an attempt at humor and Paul, if you take what I just stated seriuosly, I apologize in advance. However, George should be very greatful, this thread at times comes across to me like an unpayed advertisement or a missionary message to Gon members to save us from ourself's regarding the slippery slope of performance vs cost ratio. I know it's a flaming bargain!, but how many times is it necessary to state this over and over again. It's makes perfact sense that George has an invested interest regarding his baby, I think him taking the time to help out on this thread with useful information regarding how to maximize your Lightspeed's performance is terrific, but please you have not invented the "sonic wheel", even though you offer a great product at a very reasonable price. I do totally accept that you have a position regarding what a linestage should offer sonicly in one's system, however your take, is no more right or wrong then my take or anyone's else's. It's personnal taste not an objective measure in the long run in this hobby. It just seems to me, and I understand why, George, is stating to come across as a salesman on this thread.

Well, that's my take on this marathon discussion, it's always fun to see what the next post will be, so I'll keep reading this thread, but I'm keeping my tube based linestage for now, even though it would be great to save so much money, but just don't like passives in my system any more, but the Lightspeed might be great for you in your system!