Lightspeed Attenuator - Best Preamp Ever?

Knghfli - no, I kept the Atma-sphere preamp, ideal match with their amps. The only reason I mention those other linestages is because there is something to be said for the context of what I am use to. Being enthusiastic for the LSA just would not be the same if I came to it from a $300 NAD preamp, of course I would be enthusiastic. But the point is the LSA is not just good for the money, but good to someone who has owned some very fine tube line stages; that does not mean that someone else will come to the same conclusion that I have regarding the LSA, and I'm sure that others might prefer the CAT, Joule, etc. and they great line stages indeed and I could easily live with any of them, but I still like trying different gear. I'm just trying to make the point that it is with line stages of that quality that the LSA should be compared with (and the Bent TAP AVC, K&K S&B TVC, Goldpoint, and the Placette which I have also owned), at least to audition it and see if it floats your boat.

Tube test complete - no ringing or any bad noises at all. Listened to Van and enjoyed it lots!

I have rolled quite a few 6sn7's in my active preamp over the past two years and have never had a microphonic tube issue as an fyi.

Knghifi, funny stuff.

I will try George's tube test soon.
Grannyring

It's not my tube test, it's a well known way of checking for microphonic tubes out in the field among techs without the use of expensive equiptment. You can aslo do the same with tubes in poweramps, not just pre's.

Cheers George

Yep Clio09 your points on the high end builders are interesting. Your real life example with the Transcendent amp is a great example.

Ok, time to listen to Van the Man with my microphonic tubes:-) Van's voice seemed you ring more when he was younger. He now has a warmer, mumbling tone that is more microphonic tube friendly.

I will try George's tube test soon.

Wow!! Out shopping and dinner and missing all the fun.

For the record,
1. I highly recommend the LSA and I plan to use it in my system ... it's all in my initial report.

2. I never said my stuff is the best. I can only report what I hear in MY system. I always emphasize "MY" system.

3. I never questioned anyone preferences ... whether tube, ss ... is the best and frankly I don't care. I buy and keep what I like.

I was simply asking for an explanation on the statement ... the signal from the source will accomplish what the recording engineer wants you to hear. It makes no sense to me since not aware of a PERFECT source or interconnect.

Pubul57 and Fiddler

Can you boys recommend the source and interconnect with consensus from all the recording engineers that will accomplish what the they want me to hear? I want to take the technology and implement it in all the cables, amplifier, speaker ... and then have a perfect system. We can nationalize if like Obama care, one size ...no, I mean one system fits all. Think of all the $$ and time we will save. Then finally all the "Best" and "King of MONO" threads are no longer dumb.

Pubul57, did you really sold your Lamm, CAT, Ferrari 458, Joule, Porsche 997, Atma-Sphere, VIVA ... for the LSA? Only seen it in 5555 threads so wasn't sure.

Bye Fiddler, Happy New Year.

Seems then all the high end preamps, tube or SS, costing up to $100,000 that are not passive, just can't get it right? Or should I say as right as a passive?
Grannyring

Well, I think there is a lot more to it than meets the eye. Let's just say designers have their preferences just like the audiophiles that buy their equipment. What's "right" for one may not be "right" for another. Also, designing something that makes you stick out like a sore thumb, regardless of the quality is always riskier, and in many cases less profitable. Especially when your peers are following a certain formula and marketing hype (eiher from reviewers, manufacturers, or other "experts") is telling the public what their expectations should be. This is not specific to home audio either.

Now I'm really going to throw one out there. These designers that market uber expensive amps. How would it come across from the consumer perspective if they matched it with an inexpensive little preamp? Bearing in mind that us consumers, regardless of whether it's audio components, cars, etc. have certain expectations for how $$$$$ translates into perceived quality or perhaps more accurately, status. IMO, these designers wouldn't be taken so seriously. In much the same way as if Ferrari came out and said you don't need top of the line Pirelli's on our cars, we're now going to supply generic Acme Brand tires and all will still be the same. Really?

Let's assume my active preamp is more noisy then the LSA. If it outperforms the passive in many other areas, then it may still be a preamp truer to the recording. Benefits outweigh the short comings kind of thing.
Grannyring

Again, there are specific definitions and preferences in play here, but this is precisely the point.

The truer to the recording thing aside, I'll give a personal equipment example. I've been playing around with a Transcendent Sound T-16 OTL. No one could ever confuse this amp with the term "graveyard quiet." First, there is a low noise upgrade option for it. That in and of itself should tell you something. Second, its pretty well documented that the layout of the wiring does cause some noise issues, and its slightly louder in one channel than another (and we're talking just at the speaker, not out into the listening room/position just in case anyone was wondering). The designer took some measures to rectify this as best as possible, but even he will admit the amp is not dead silent and doesn't apologize for it. In the end he replies with a simple question, "So how does it sound?" Indeed it sounds great, the benefits far outshine the shortcomings.

Ralph Karsten designs his amps to be used with an active linestages and while I've used mine with the LSA I will say it sounds better matched up with The Truth preamp I have that uses active buffers, and the Berning Micro ZOTL that is a true active preamp design. The LSA matches up much better with the Music Reference RM-10 and VAC Auricle Musicblocs.

The irony about "simple" designs, with fewer parts, etc, is that it really requires some design chops to execute a great, simple circuit and I suspect it requires a master like Nelson Pass to design some great First Watt and XA.5 amps with such apparent simplicity in lack of complexity.

Or as my fellow Nutmegger Samuel Clemens once wrote:
"I'm sorry that this letter is so long, but I didn't have time to write a shorter one".

Translating this to the post I quoted, it's usually easier to fix a problem by adding a bandaid than it is to go back and rework the design to eliminate the problem.

Just to add to my previous post on microphonic tubes, if you hear a bonk in the speaker because of a slightly microphonic tube/s, this in turn when playing music will give and artificial effect of adding ambience/echo to the music, if that your bag so be it.
But I will always be in the camp of what goes in should be exactly what comes out, nothing added nothing subtracted, warts and all.
Cheers George

If I can take this tube microphonics a step further for those who have tube preamps.
Try this little experiment.
Take the top off the tube preamp and turn on your system and set the volume control at your normal listening position. Then with your finger nail flick down the tops of each tube and have someone listen at the speaker for any sound comming through the drivers. This will show which tubes are microphonic. And in the case of really bad ones it will be heard out in the kitchen. And really really bad ones will feed back to the said tube and cause a runaway effect that can't be stoped.

Cheers George

Clio09, nice job indeed and I have a question for you and all. Seems then all the high end preamps, tube or SS, costing up to $100,000 that are not passive, just can't get it right? Or should I say as right as a passive?

Wonder why all of these manufacturers even bother? Wonder why they are considered by the "experts" as the very best.

Perhaps a passive conspiracy..just kidding.

Let's assume my active preamp is more noisy then the LSA. If it outperforms the passive in many other areas, then it may still be a preamp truer to the recording. Benefits outweigh the short comings kind of thing.

I so want a $450 passive to sound as good, or closer, to my active. I tried several passives with no luck yet. Perhaps I need a tube amp like the RM10 and some high efficiency speakers. While the Atmasphere Ma1 amps had a 100K ohm input impedance perhaps my Soundlab's just did not like the signal from that combo. It was 2D and quite thin. Very clean, quiet and detailed, but kind of white - washed. It reminded me of some Nuforce amps I once owned.

I will say the LSA had great promise when I first put it in my system. I did take notice of how much quieter it was for sure. I also noticed it was smooth and extended in the highs. I also found the bass to be pleasing. Over time the white-washed nature seemed to reveal itself on every CD I played. If I played the LSA and had to make a decision after 30 minutes it would hard to pass it up. After longer listening I became fatigued.

Something tells me my Soundlab speaker/Atmasphere amp combo just preferred an active unit. It would have been very interesting to hear the LSA on my previous Silverline Bolero speakers with the same amps.

Wow isn't this fun. Nothing I'd rather be doing New Years Day after a night of no sleep and a couple Bloody Caesar's in me to take the edge off last night (or actually this morning).

Seriously though, I love it when this thread gets revised because it seems the debate just gets better each time. More people trying the LSA and of course more opinions added to the mix.

I am certain my preamp is not adding distortion or fuzz or any additional "stuff" unless my hearing is not as good as I think :-)
Grannyring

First off I'm not questioning your hearing. It took a while to understand your preferences and clearly they cannot be met through the use of a passive preamp in your system. However, since you like the debate I'm going to nitpick a bit here:).

Active preamps (and tube circuits in particular - we'll get to that in a few) in general will always be additive just for the fact they add gain to the system. Gain results in additional noise and distortion. The designer has control over limiting the effect of noise, but gain is gain no matter how you slice it. It's additive period.

Tubes by nature are microphonic (distortion), it's how they operate. I have a good friend here who designs tube circuits and he admits this. One of his favorite phrases is, "It's in the book, look it up." Microphonics equals distortion. Some tubes are more microphonic by nature than others. Take the 6SN7 for example (and the tube your preamp was originally designed around), one of my favorite tubes but one of the worst for microphonics. Some tubes are so microphonic you can clearly hear the ringing in your system. In some instances tubes (and transformers - but that is another subject) can also pick up RFI more easily. Now do tube (and their inherent) microphonics result in a pleasing sound to some. Absolutely, that's why there are so many threads on tube rolling, etc. The opposite is also true as well, you see enough threads from folks with gear whose noisy tubes are driving them nuts. The designer can again minimize the effects of microphonics in a number of ways, but there cannot be a debate on whether or not microphonics are additive, they are.

My point is one component (preamp) cannot, by itself, always give a more accurate TOTAL SYSTEM SOUND.
Grannyring

True enough, but I subscribe to the theory that less is more and specifically, less complexity in the signal path will result in more accuracy. Now system matching under those conditions is another matter. However, I think I've done a great job of it and like you think my hearing is pretty good.

For masters of their craft, you often see a less is more approach to design.
Pubul57

Just got done saying that from a system perspective, but I'm glad that someone mentioned it from a design perspective as well. The designer of a certain tube preamp under discussion takes a similar approach. In fact in a conversation I once had with him he eschewed balanced designs because inherently they are more complex and add more components into the signal path. You also often read about how some designers create circuits that minimize the wire utilized in a signal path to a matter of inches or the number of parts to a bare minimum.

However, there can be no debate that the LSA adds less to the signal than your VAC preamp if you are hearing more artifacts from the VAC. It is clearly not debatable.
Fiddler

I'm only commenting on this one because I also have VAC components and they clearly have a house sound. It's very distinguishable. IMO VAC gear creates wonderful music, but it does add artifacts and coloration and even the designer will admit it. It's also very pleasing sound and I will admit it. I have just come to prefer less artifacts and coloration from my system.

Did someone say Bloody Caesar, by golly my glass is half-empty, or is that half-full. Don't think I can take another debate today but it's getting crowded in here and I think I better get the bar tenders attention before my cup runneth out. Sorry I went on for so long. Guess I was just having too much fun.

Now back to the real fun. Roll tide...chi-ching.

This is not regarding the LSA since it is really about as "simple" as can be in terms of parts, etc. The irony about "simple" designs, with fewer parts, etc, is that it really requires some design chops to execute a great, simple circuit and I suspect it requires a master like Nelson Pass to design some great First Watt and XA.5 amps with such apparent simplicity in lack of complexity. For masters of their craft, you often see a less is more approach to design. But ultimately, my preference for simplicity may just be a personal peeve that has increased as I have gotten older. But yes, there are many ways to skin a cat to produce a world class system. What makes the hobby so much fun.

Reminds me of my conversation with Ken Stevens when I picked of my CAT preamp and amp. Got into a conversation about capacitors and he said when looking for some, the manufacturer asked what flavor of sound he was looking for, he replied "I want the flavor of water". He decided to makes his own capacitors from scratch to pursue the least "damage" to the signal, he felt good recordings should sound good and bad recordings should sound bad - just one of many approaches to line stage design. The LSA seems to be guided by the same principle. What's best? Who knows. But it is nice to have so many choices.

I am sure I would like the VAC too:)

Perhaps a good way to look at this topic is as follows;

Let's assume this for starters. Let's compare three systems.
All 3 systems fit the ideal specs needed for a passive like the Lightspeed. We all agree on what sounds the most real and pleases us in terms of sound. Ya, just assume.

System #1
_________

A+B+C = music

System #2
__________

A+B+C+D = music

System #3
_________

A+B+C+D+E+F = music

Ok, since it's the total system that creates the finished sound I think it is accurate to state system 1,2 or 3 may end up sounding more like the recording was meant to.

The more simple system #1 may or may not be the most accurate system. The fact that it is more simple or has fewer parts along the way does not, by definition, mean it delivers a more accurate and pure sound. It may or may not.

System #3 has more parts along the path to the final music. It may have a power conditioner, separate tube buffer, separate autoformer, a subwoofer and on and on the options go. It may or may not be the most accurate system of all.

My point is one component (preamp) cannot, by itself, always give a more accurate TOTAL SYSTEM SOUND. Even under ideal conditions one cannot assume a passive can do this. Same can be said for an active preamp. The signal passes through too much and the speakers alone in a given system can be the point at which one type of preamp is preferred over another (delivers more accurate sound).

It is the sum of the parts. One combination of wire, resistors, caps, transformers (system) will always sound different then another. The combinations are endless with differing outcomes. Some more accurate then others. Fewer parts along the path does not always equal the most accurate. In all cases it will depend on what parts are combined in the total system.

Knghifi, with all due respect, you can move on at any time.

The discussion regarding "coloration" and "alteration" of the original signal by EVERY component is a legitimate discussion here. As much I enjoy some things that tubes do (I have them in my system), there is a limit to the tube "effects" that I am willing to accept.

As I stated earlier, I was surprised to hear just how little my Supratek altered the signal when compared to the LSA. They are virtually indistinguishable. That's why I opted to use the lower maintenance, no-heat LSA instead.

No one is passing judgment here on whether another person should or should not like a particular component's coloration. Clearly there are those who attempt to hear the original source as close as possible and then there are those who prefer the addition of some tube euphonics (I'm one of them). That's not to say that either is right or wrong, it is merely a personal preference.

However, there can be no debate that the LSA adds less to the signal than your VAC preamp if you are hearing more artifacts from the VAC. It is clearly not debatable. Now does the VAC make the music sound more real to you? That is another question. But sounding more real versus accurately reproducing what is on the recording are two different things. Let's face it, some recording are done so poorly that it does sound like something is missing and that something does need to be added. The only problem with a component adding to a bad recording is that the component is also adding to good recordings. The simple question remains - does your ear like what is being added. That's all that matters.

That's why Baskin Robbins sells 21 flavors.

Knghifi, I made the exact same point on this thread a while back. I follow what you are saying and it strikes me as the correct way to look at this. This is a very interesting discussion and the main reason I keep looking at this thread.

I tried the Lightspeed and found my active preamp to be more "accurate" to the recording. I am very intrigued with this debate and hope it continues.

I am certain my preamp is not adding distortion or fuzz or any additional "stuff" unless my hearing is not as good as I think :-)

Things like stage depth, dimensionality, micro details, tone etc... make a stereo system sound more like music and more like a wonderful recording. Not sure distortion of any kind would ever help these things? The active delivered this better in my set up.

I bet a passive does this better in some systems. The reason - because the music that emerges from a stereo system is the sum of ALL the parts.

Let's agree to disagree and move on.

Isn't that what we've been doing for the last 8 pages and nearly 400 posts:)

Let's face it, we're relying on the recording engineer to interpret the event and put it down in as accurate a means as possible given their hearing skills and the equipment used to mix the recording (the first introduction of tone controls). I agree with Knghifi that most recordings are awful. So the process is flawed from the start.

To listen to what the recording engineer intended us to hear, we have to rely on a means to reproduce the sound of the recording. What that means is comes down to preference (and what we can afford). One such preference is to use as few components as possible in the signal path to eliminate unwanted artifacts and coloration. It's not a perfect means (we still have other tangibles to address in the process) and it may not give us the sound we prefer. It's just one means and the one I and others here subscribe to.

But I do see an advantage of a passive preamp in an integrated amp.

Ralph Karsten has indicated that the best approach to addressing passive attenuation is to implement it at the amps input. He offers such an upgrade for his amps (M-60 and above). It certainly simplifies the process (one less set of interconnects) and I wish more designers would offer this option.

Maybe George can come up with a module based on the Lightspeed design he can OEM to amp manufacturers;)

That's my point, there are no perfect cds (over 80% are compressed. I like the music but recording sucks), source and interconnects. By the time the signal reaches the preamp, it has been altered. So what you are saying is if you like the sound of a passive, you prefer how the source and interconnect altered, amplified, added / subtracted ... tone controlled the signal.

I don't understand the statement if you prefer active, therefore you prefer a tone controlled signal. This is only TRUE if the preamp is the only component in the system. The signal gets altered as it travels through the chain of components. But I do see an advantage of a passive preamp in an integrated amp.

Let's agree to disagree and move on.

"...purest reflection of the recording..."

Excellent post Pubul57.

When comparing my Supratek to the LSA, I did find the Supratek to be just as transparent without any "usual" tube colorations. I was actually surprised that the Supratek is as neutral as it is being a tube component.

Where I found the LSA to be very slightly better was in the lack of any sibilance. Admittedly, I only heard a very slight amount with the Supratek, but I HATE sibilance. So in the end, the LSA and my Supratek sounded almost identical to my ear. The only area where I thought the Supratek may be slightly superior was in the depth of the soundstage.

In the end, the LSA seems to give me vitually all of the positives of my Supratek without any clearly identifiable sacrifices. The good news is that the Supratek seems as transparent as the excellent LSA passive and the LSA seems to be as bold, dynamic and full-bodied as an outstanding, highly-regarded tube preamp. They both are excellent.

"If these things "don't add or subtract", why are they so hard to match? Can't perfection be duplicated?"

They are not that hard to match, you just need a tube amp or a high input impedance SS amp - gain is not much of an issue in most systems. But it is not a universal solution, that is why we have so many expensive linestages that are essentially plug & play into any system, what is lost is the simplicity and purity of a signal that isn't messaged to enable to work in any environment. So you can have a preamp that will work in any system, but compromised by the circuit complexity required for that, or choose a simpler device that will not work in all systems, but because of that simplicity provides a cleaner connection to the recording if not challenged by impedance mismatches. A little more work to get it right, but well worth it if you want to take this approach. I'm sure George would make a universal device that could work in any system if he could, but it just doesn't exist. This is a minimalist approach that can lead to great sound, but it can't work without some thought given to the source, cables, amps, and speakers.

If you start with a signal from the source (all the information from the recording you can get), isn't any alteration from that simply an additive having nothing to do with the recording, but some haze thrown over the recording, pleasant thought it may be? Maybe I am thinking about this the wrong way, but the signal from the source is the purest reflection of the recording, and any alteration from that is something having nothing to do with the source, the recording closest to the event. It is some type of alteration. which can be nothing but an alteration that pleasant or not, is no part of the recorded performance. Might that be pleasant? Perhaps, but it is something not true to the recording, and if you accept that, it is only a question of how much you are willing to accept as the overlay of a piece of equipment, but how it can it be anything but a distortion from the original, I don't know. And of course the recording itself is already something lost from the live, presence of the original. A bandaid distorts everything in the same way, better in my book to have no bandaid, no coloration from the source. But this reflects fundamental principles of what the equipment should do to a signal, but no information leading to all the audiophile attributes can be good if it alters what is in the source signal, as best as it can convey the recording; the rest is something having nothing to do with the recorded event. Pleasant and enjoyable though it may be, it is not part of the performance and we are only left with coloration and variance from the truth - the truth contained within the recording transmitted through the source component to the preamp. The ideal to me would seem to be a transmission from the source to the amp as if no intermediary component existed, I think that is what the LSA comes close to accomplishing, and qualities such as timbre, sound staging, bloom, frequency, etc are either in the recording, or they are not, but you don't get something false to compensate for the absence of those qualities when they are absent from the recording.

I knew this thread was going to last like this when it started. It's getting to appear more like a perpetual promotion device.

If these things "don't add or subtract", why are they so hard to match? Can't perfection be duplicated?

If the signal/source is poor, yes you can alter, soften,bloat thin out or whatever with an active pre, depending on it's own character of sound, yes a it's band-aid fix as you said.
With the Lightspeed Attenuator you hear what the source/signal is giving, if it's not to your liking, I say fix the problem (get a better source) not bad-aid fix, as when you fix the source/signal or put on better cd's on then the band-aid is still there in the signal path, with the chosen active pre.
Cheers George

George, I don't understand how the preamp not altering the signal from the source will accomplish what the recording engineer wants you to hear? Is it even possible?

By the time the signal gets to the preamp, it has already been altered (tone controlled) by the source (cdp, phono ect) / interconnect. For me, I want a preamp to improve the signal IF necessary so the overall performance improves.

With the LSA, I much prefer my MW Transporter than TRL Sony having some tubes in the chain. Also I prefer rolling the sweeter sounding Sylvania 6sn7gt than Shuguang BT CV181-Z. So which one of the 3 the recording engineer wants me to hear? Probably none due to my inferior sources? For an end user, do I really care or just configure my prefer setup? With the VAC, I like both source almost equally despite the very very different sound.

I think a passive preamp is more dependent on a good source/interconnect than an active preamp. If a signal is poor, passive just pass through while active can attempt to improve/bandaid.

In a sound system, the signal gets altered as it passes through a chain of components. My goal is to select the combination of components that best create the sound base on my personal preferences.

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.
BTW "LSA" is a registered speaker manufacturer, hope he doesn't get the -----.
Cheers George

that's the way i hear t too. i think that at this point it is not a matter of comparing LSA with others and deciding which is "best". i think it is enough to say it is well worth trying and that some folks might just find it does what they want a preamp to do (or not do), and if you are on a budget, SOTA quality is within reach of those that cannot afford much pricier, and excellent ones too, linestages. within its limits it is worthy of the finest systems IMHO.

Perhaps it is simply getting out of the way and revealing with the RM10 can do - the combo may be a very, very good match.

That's a big part of it, in addition to remaining true to the source.

I've not yet tried the LSA with my Atma-sphere amps because I have a lot of 6sn7s and 12au7s for my Atma-sphere preamp, and I'm not sure the M60s will be sensitive enough to go passive.

They are sensitive enough, trust me.

What is the LSA does exceptionally well, where I really see it shine is how right it gets the timbre of instruments, wide and balanced frequency range (plenty of bass), and dynamics. I don't hear anything remotely like 2D sound staging, width, depth, and relative positioning (layering?) seems just about right.

The designer of my speakers top priority was getting the reproduction of natural timbre right. Putting the LSA in the chain did nothing to disrupt the natural timbre being reproduced by my speakers. It's one of the reasons the LSA is a hit with me.

I agree on the other comments as well regarding dynamics, tonal balance, and sound staging. I'll also add I notice much more how the sound staging varies by recording.

Since I had the Joule LA150 SE at the time I got the LSA, I wanted another good linestage to compare it with. So a buddy of mine who has the CAT SL1 Ultimate MKII came over with his unit (70lbs!) just to compare. Well we went through some Lester Young, the Mile Davis Quintet Live at the Plugged Nickel, and some 1960s folk music. The amp I was using was the incredible Music Reference RM10 MKII.

Both preamps sounded wonderful. Could live with either. Let's say my friend was so impressed with the LSA that he is questioning whether to keep the CAT, not that it isn't wonderful, but....

What is the LSA does exceptionally well, where I really see it shine is how right it gets the timbre of instruments, wide and balanced frequency range (plenty of bass), and dynamics. I don't hear anything remotely like 2D sound staging, width, depth, and relative positioning (layering?) seems just about right. Perhaps it is simply getting out of the way and revealing with the RM10 can do - the combo may be a very, very good match.

I previously owned the CAT pre and replaced it with the Joule, after getting a good A/B comparison I still have no qualms about the LSA and its merits. And when I take cost and tube rolling into account, well - I don't think I'll be changing "preamps" and time soon, excepth maybe ot get a dual volume control version of the LSA for channel balance control.

I've not yet tried the LSA with my Atma-sphere amps because I have a lot of 6sn7s and 12au7s for my Atma-sphere preamp, and I'm not sure the M60s will be sensitive enough to go passive. But as I switch to the M60s tomorrow for the winter months, I might give LSA a trial with them.

12-30-10: Clio09
$13,550 is a lot of spare change. The way things are going right now I might be able to turn that into $50,000 here in Las Vegas by the end of football season:)

Don't forget all the tubes :-) It's the law of diminishing returns ... in this case, the last 25% is well worth it.

Last week had friend over that's familiar with my system pleaded with me no more changes. The system never sounded so good after rolling in some Tele 12au7 ribbed plates and 1960's Tele e88cc. I still want to roll some 1960 Siemen cca or e88cc and Paul is making me more goodies.

Odds of a stock market correction is better but is tough to fight the fed printing $$.

LSA is my 1st preamp without a remote for volume since my SF SFL 2 many moons ago. In serious listening I like to fine tune the volume on each track and it's a PITA without it. The last thing I need is more exercise :-)

Betting against the Giants has been very profitable the last two weeks. I think we're going to take the Redskins this week as well.

You bet against the Giants?

$13,550 is a lot of spare change. The way things are going right now I might be able to turn that into $50,000 here in Las Vegas by the end of football season:)

Apologies to Grannyrig, you did not state the Samson was 100k, I misread the statement you made, it was the Atmasphere you were eluding to.
This has got a bit out of hand, because I had mentioned "was the Lightspeed seeing the ideal load".
It was and was beaten out by the $14,000 VAC Signature MKIIa in Knghifi's setup, I wait for future posts Knghifi after the dust has settled and all has burnt in.

Cheers George

Pubul57
The TRL amps are all SS? Not hybrid?
Pubul57

Samsons are all solid state 68k, fet input, dc coupled.
Cheers George

Georgelofi, I think you misread my comments and want to clarify for you. You stated;

“Grannyrig check your facts before you double swear it was 100k input.”

I actually said this;

“I can tell you the Samson amps by TRL do have the input impedance spec mentioned already. I can tell you I tried the Lightspeed with Atmasphere Ma1’s that have an input impedance of 100K ohms”

As you can see I said the Atmasphere amps had a 100K input impedance, not the Samsons. The input impedance that Knghifi mentioned was 68K and I referred to it. I and others simply stated it was higher then 47K.

Hope this helps clarify.

12-30-10: Georgelofi
OK now here's the truth from the horses mouth, the Lightspeed was seeing a happy load and Grannyrig check your facts before you double swear it was 100k input

Grannying was talking about his Atma-Sphere Ma-1 OTL Tube Amps in his LSA evaluation so his facts are correct.

12-30-10: Pubul57
So Knghifi heard it under "appropriate" conditions and prefered his excellent VAC, fair enough, and a valid preference. The TRL amps are all SS? Not hybrid?

All SS as far as I know :-)

That explains a lot, thanks for following up George.

Georgelofi, I did check my facts. I said my Atmasphere MA1 amps were 100K? Please read above. I said Knghifi's Samson
amps were over 47K and just as Knghifi stated - 68K.

I never said the Samson amps were 100K. Not sure where you got that George. You simply confirmed what I, Agear and Knghifi have already said.

So Knghifi heard it under "appropriate" conditions and prefered his excellent VAC, fair enough, and a valid preference. The TRL amps are all SS? Not hybrid?

OK now here's the truth from the horses mouth, the Lightspeed was seeing a happy load and Grannyrig check your facts before you double swear it was 100k input. And as I said for it to be over 47k it would have to be Fet input. Below is Paul Weitzel email to me. Cheers George

Hi George. Answers to your questions.

1. 68K ohms

2. FET input

3. DC coupled

They have pretty normal specs.

Take care.
Paul
TRL, Inc.
tuberesearchlabs.com

Fair enough Clio09. I agree with your thoughts and let’s move on. I and Knghifi were not attacked and I did overstate that a bit. Ya, I did purchase the preamps in the threads you posted. Liked them both. I will always tell the Agon community of gear I find to be awesome as time goes by.

Please understand that one can reasonably take the comments of the Lightspeed builder as implying, if not directly stating, a match/impedance issue was present This is especially true when the owner gave the spec asked for and it was still questioned?

That is the way I read it, but the Lightspeed builder may well be confused on the amp in question and really having trouble understanding how it has the spec confirmed by Knghifi. This is certainly possible.

I just report what I (and several audiophile friends) hear and didn't felt I was attacked. But I do understand Grannyring point in Georges questioning of the Samson input impedance, which can be construded negatively, after it was confirmed by multiple sources it's well above 47kohm and my personal listening experiences eventhough I don't have golden ears.

3 more points:

1. My MW Transporter has the ability to drive amps directly so it has more than enough gain.
2. Liveline IC between LSA and Samson is 1M.
3. TRL Dude has a tube regulated power supply so it makes no sense for the Samson to have an input impedance below 30kohm.

Let's just leave it at this. The LSA is pretty good, and "not bad" for the money. Give it a try and decide for yourself if it competes with the $$$$ gear, I think you might find the test interesting and well worth keeping even if you decide it does not better your $$$$ linestage, or, some of you just might sell your $$$$ linestage and spend the money elsewhere, including, possibly, more music:)

Everyone, have a great New Year, I hope is 2011 is better for all of you.

I am talking about honest dialogue here and not about product cheerleading. I would have not posted a thing if the builder did not quickly run to the catch all "bad synergy" comment on Knghifi's Samson amp. According to the amp's spec it is indeed good synergy. I simply want accurate and productive discussion that is open to the facts.

I think you're reaching on this one Bill. George was curious as to what the load was on the Samson. He couldn't find any specs and it's well known that TRL doesn't publish them. So all he had to go on was his experience.

Here is what George actually said:

One question Knghifi the poweramp TRL Samson you used for the comparison, it's a solid state amp and I have looked everywhere for it's input impedance and nowhere can I find it, as the Lightspeed Attenuator likes to see 47kohms or higher for the poweramp it's feeding. If the TRL is lower than this you have still not heard the Lightspeed at it's best, and heaven forbid it may beat out the VAC Signature if it sees an amp with the input at 47kohms or higher.

Where's the cheerleading there? Where is the dishonest dialogue? Again, he indicated what has been said here and elsewhere about LSA requirements. Had the specs been published and he could of seen them I'm going to assume we wouldn't be having this conversation. He would have known right off the bat that the input impedance requirements were met.

I don't see where Knghifi is being attacked (pretty strong word don't you think). As for you being attacked when reporting your findings IIRC correctly there was a lot of confusion in that dialogue regarding the definition of transparency. Yours being different than what others here including myself interpreted as the meaning. We all stated our opinions and preferences. Personally I found it a pretty interesting dialogue and it made me think about how I listen.

This thread has had a pretty decent life. Sure it dies down but it always comes back. I think it's done a good job of opening up some peoples eyes as to what is possible sound wise for such little investment. As Fiddler indicated there is a fair amount of cheer leading in the forums, take for example the Supratek and Audio Horizons threads. Do you happen to recall these?:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1142509250&openflup&2&4#2

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1016931418&openusid&zzGrannyring&4&5#Grannyring

These are just the first posts I ran across.

I'm surprised there isn't a "Dude best preamp" thread on here. Maybe there should be. If there was I'm sure we'd see our fair share of cheer leading, as well as a lot more controversy than what we've seen here based on past TRL threads I have read and participated in. Heck it probably would get deleted just like the last TRL thread on the digital forum.

"Seems I am being attacked for no real reason by you."

"This has not been done by all, but by some. It happened to me and Knghifi when we reported our findings in an open and honest manner."

Sure sounds like whining to me.

This is a typical Audiogon exchange seen here everyday where owners or designers defend their equipment, legitimate or not. And I don't see anyone being attacked in this thread. The closest thing I see to someone attacking another person is you attacking Georgelofi.

Georgelofi simply asked a legitimate design question relative to synergy with the TRL and you got your panties in a wad. Apparently Georgelofi isn't entitled to question a TRL product or its specs because as we know, the TRL is, ""An utter and complete step beyond anything (you) have heard regardless of price."

Maybe if TRL was more forthcoming on their website with some specs other than a picture and a price, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Two months ago, a friend loaned me his LSA as I was curious and wanted to do a shootout between it and the TRL Dude. Like King, I also own the Samson monoblocks.

The critical "Heather test' was performed (blindfolded wife + one glass of wine as a bribe). It is an even more sensitive test than the beloved Bolero test George referenced. Result: Dude. It was not close. I live in Charlotte, NC, which gets toasty during the summer, but the Dude does not heat up the room that much, so I am not in need of a cool running SS pre. I am glad King and Pubul57 can use the LSA in that capacity.

I guess the real question now is the validity of George's statements above about bipolar resistors and the Samsons. From what Paul Weitzel has told me in the past, the Samsons possess higher impedance and gain than most amps and thus should be perfect for evaluation of a passive unit like the LSA.

Fiddler, I am not whining at all but making a reasonable point. Sorry you are upset. I am not talking about cheerleading at all and want to hear it when someone has found a great piece.

Seems I am being attacked for no real reason by you. That is to bad, as I simply tried to broaden the scope of discussion by pointing a real tendency to "blow off" comments by some based on the general "bad synergy" catch all. This has not been done by all, but by some. It happened to me and Knghifi when we reported our findings in an open and honest manner.

Both our amps were well over 47k and we used a digital source with plenty of output.

My comments have nothing to do with "mine is best" but points out that some have had good synergy and while liking the Lspeed preferred their current preamp.

You can quote my gear praises all day if you like, but you are off point.

I am talking about honest dialogue here and not about product cheerleading. I would have not posted a thing if the builder did not quickly run to the catch all "bad synergy" comment on Knghifi's Samson amp. According to the amp's spec it is indeed good synergy. I simply want accurate and productive discussion that is open to the facts.

I have stated and state again that the Lspeed is a wonderful buy and a great value. I am not trying to hurt it's reputation or upset owners. Seems my point is clear and I am sorry if you misunderstand.

Quit your whining. Virtually every thread on Audiogon displays this type of "mine is the best because I own it or I built it" post. Why are you so surprised it happened here.

And the posters in this thread have certainly not been cheerleading the LSA any more than you do TRL products. Does this sound familiar, "TRL ST-225 is the best I have owned. No remote however. It absolutely opened up my music collection like no other high end piece of gear I have ever heard. An utter and complete step beyond anything I have heard regardless of price.

I cannot imagine a better sounding set-up. If so, I want it yesterday!"

And this is just one example.