"note that this article is from 1995, not that there isn't plenty of relevancy here. just thought it worth noting.
hj"
Not only that, Corey Greenberg was a complete idiot. Stereophile got rid of him decades ago. |
It doesn't get much better than the Ayre C-5xeMP. If I didn't already have an expensive Wadia, I would own one myself. I'm curious to see how much better your JC-2 is with the mods. After you've had a chance to listen to it, can you post your opinions on it? |
"In fact Im pretty certain just about every hiend audio equip you could think of produced better sounding top end preamp during that time, of which the Adcom was no match, if I recall correctly?! I mean if the passive section of that 750 was that good, why wouldn't more reviewers using them as reference pieces in their own systems???!
Anyway, what was I missing then?..."
It looks like you missed what Stereophile had to say about the GFP-750. I believe that it set the record for being the lowest cost preamp to get a class A rating. Here's part of the review where they talk about sound quality and compare it to some active preamps.
" The GFP-750 must be a disciple of Hippocrates, because it does about as little to a system's sound as any preamplifier I've heardat any price. There is a slightextremely slightsoftening of details when it's used as an active preamplifier, but many audio cables have more sonic impact than the '750. So do most other preamps, for that matter. If you need to drive a long run of cable, or if you have a difficult amplifier impedance, I wouldn't hesitate to use the GFP-750's active circuitry.
In comparisons with the $1495 Audio Research LS8 (reviewed elsewhere in this issue by Martin Colloms), the active GFP-750 sounded considerably more open and extended. On discs with deep bass, such as Robert Rich's Seven Veils (Hearts of Space 11086-2), the Adcom quite simply captured the power and heft of the synth-produced bottom end in a way that the Audio Research did not. Without the direct comparison, I would probably have been quite happy with the LS8's bass response, but the Adcom had a lot more impact down under.
Nor did the LS8 reproduce the harmonic overtone structure of the recorders on the Flanders Recorder Quartet's Armonia di Flauti (CD, Opus 111 OPS 30-201) with the harsh and extremely extendedextremely aliveeffervescence of the GFP-750. That harshness, which almost clangs, is what gives this fantastic-sounding CD its sparkle, but it was subdued by the LS8.
Againwhile I clearly heard the Adcom as having superior overtone presentation in a direct comparison with the Audio Research, I did not find the ARC particularly closed-down on its own. It is not as transparent as the best preamps I've heardwhich the Adcom isbut it is by no means among the most colored either. It's enjoyable, if not exemplary. The Adcom is both.
Actually, the preamplifier that most reminded me of the GFP-750 was the Mark Levinson No.380S, which costs $6495. The two had similarly open, grainless characters. In direct comparisons I had an extremely difficult time discerning differences between themand that was a sighted comparison! Blindfold me and ask me to identify which one was playing and I'd probably have to flip a coin.
Unless the Adcom was in passive mode, when it was the sonic equivalent of nothing at all. What's it sound like? After many hours of listening, I'd have to say, "What did what sound like?" The GFP-750 is the preamp for the audiophile who hates preamps.
But if I had to describe the sound of no preamp, I'd say open, open, open. Open as in huge soundstage, uncompressed, nakednary a veil in sight.
Not everybody prefers their sound so unembellished. I'm not sure I always dosometimes a little euphony can be very appealing. That's okay. There's a lot to be said for liking something simply because it's pretty... But if you want to hear what the signal really sounds like, then the Adcom is the preamp for you.
Experiment treacherous, judgment difficult
But sometimes, judgment is simple. Adcom's GFP-750 is a remarkable preamplifier. It's well-built and elegantly designedon the inside, where it counts. I've gone just gaga over it, not simply because it performs well for the money, but because it begs comparison with the best preamplifiers I've ever heard. Period. No matter how much you've budgeted for a stereo preamplifier, listen to the GFP-750 first. If you end up choosing something else, then you'll know that your choice is very good indeed."
I'm not a huge fan of Stereophile, but it seems like they were pretty happy with the Adcom. Also, it doesn't appear that they had any issues with the preamp running in passive mode like you did. Are you sure you had it set up right? |
"Thiel CS2.7 (or something just as transparent if I find it)
Amp to match the Thiels (Pass Labs x-150, Peachtree 220, suggestions?)
I realize it's a pretty open ended question, but can someone suggest other 7+ multi channel pre/processors to match the above hypothetical system?"
I wouldn't do it this way. To be honest, its reckless. If you are looking to get a pair of cs2.7's (or similar), there's a lot to consider. Even more so that you'll be using them for HT. Its not a forgiving speaker and you really need to match the components for it very carefully. Given that, I wouldn't be too fast to use a HT preamp for 2 channel. It would probably be a better option to keep your Emotiva (I'm assuming it has a HT pass-through), and just get a good quality 2channel preamp. If you mess up with the preamp (for 2 channel), the system will never sound right, and you'll go nuts trying to fix it.
Take your time and listen to some components. Make sure you know what you want for your 2 channel setup, and then built the theater around that. Its much easier and you'll probably save a lot of money. |
"08-11-14: Hazyj
You miss the point that I am not asking YOU any question at all directly but was opening up a topic for discussion in a forum. I think my questions are good topics for discussion with people who really want to contribute rather than argue or just promote themselves (remember I NEEDED to list my experience for you - i did not want to do that but you seemed to need the info). Clearly I'm opening up the topic in the wrong forum though. I know mine are not home theater questions. That's fine - I'm still curious about how people might respond so I'll probably try to open the topic elsewhere."
You started this thread under false pretenses. You clearly stated that you were seeking opinions in the context of upgrading your system. Have another look at it.
"I like this Emotiva unit, but got it just before deciding to upgrade almost everything in my system. I can still return it tho and am now hoping to setup the two front channels as follows:
Thiel CS2.7 (or something just as transparent if I find it)
Amp to match the Thiels (Pass Labs x-150, Peachtree 220, suggestions?)
I realize it's a pretty open ended question, but can someone suggest other 7+ multi channel pre/processors to match the above hypothetical system?
Thanks,
hazyj"
What kind of replies did you think you were going to get? Then, in the middle of all this, you bring up all this BS about you being an EE, and all the rest of it. People do this almost on a daily basis here. They start these endless arguments that go on forever, that can neither be won or lost. I know the difference between a very small difference in SQ that may be difficult or impossible to hear, and real differences. We were talking about passives like the Placette, Adcom and other ones around that level, and then comparing them to some actives. And then I have to listen to you tell me about how overconfident I am because I can list the sonic differences between them. I've heard all those preamps and can easily tell the differences between them. They were answers given in the context of you needing a new preamp. You changed the rules, not me. Here, maybe this will make you happy: Would I notice a difference in SQ if you were to cryo the rca connectors on the Placette? Probably not. Happy now?
"I'd guess that at least half the members on audiogon have studied engineering and science and am absolutely certain that many also have graduate degrees in these disciplines."
That's the problem. They all say that but are they really? I don't think so. You can believe whatever you wish. Also, you did clearly state that you are a master in the disciplines you list in your post.
"I have no idea how to design the best pre-amp - why in the world would i know such a thing and why would you ask that question?"
If it didn't apply to audio, why bring it up at all? |
"I did also read this article from a year ago, claiming that passive preamp require careful cabling and source component selections for good results from passive preamp, so maybe that's it."
You're right. That is it. Passives can be great, but there's a lot of equipment out there that doesn't work well with them.
"I do think I'll experiment, but am guessing already that the quality of a passive that I'm looking for will be too expensive. I'll probably start with a Placette Passive Linestage to at least see if I like it better than the Emotiva and then go from there by comparing with a good active in the same price range ($1500 used most likely)."
See if you can find an Adcom GFP-750. Its both active and passive, so you can switch back and forth between the 2. It also has a remote and is balanced. |
And here I thought we got rid of you. I knew it was too good to be true. If any of you guys are thinking of responding to this disaster, I can tell you from experience that you're just pissing in the wind.
There's only one upside to Avgoround's posts. If you have kids, make sure they read them. If there is a more compelling example as to what happens to your brain when you do drugs, I don't know what it is. |
I told you it was like pissing in the wind. lol. He completely ignores everything you say and then just makes stuff up out of thin air. lol. Soon, he'll start talking about his famous, reverse engineered, alien technology meter. Now that's a treat you won't want to miss. |
"Feel free to intelligently address this observation, anytime you feel the need to actually provide a valid point."
OK. I'll do just that, although it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Here it goes:
"08-06-14: Avgoround
Imaginary equip? Yes thats valid. Once again, you are merely stating as FACT that the industry pros all recognize the Oppo as the leader in world class audio direct from its analog outs..no need for a preamp, to attain the best possible digital sound reproduction. That's all im trying to verify, really."
Since I'm stating this as FACT, can you please define what that means? I know what fact means, but your version of FACT is clearly different than mine. Can you point out my quote that you are referring to. Here's an example of a quote is just to be clear: "Once again, you are merely stating as FACT that the industry pros all recognize the Oppo as the leader in world class audio direct from its analog outs". That is a direct quote by you. Its something you said. Now, using that as a template, can you quote me this time and show me where I made that statement of FACT that you refer to?
I won't hold my breath. lol. I've never seen an Oppo, let alone heard one. lol. I couldn't comment on its SQ even if I wanted to. lol. |
Avgoround,
Its like I said in the other thread. If we could read your mind, it would put Barnes & Nobel out of business. It doesn't matter what anyone says. You just ignore it and make up something.
I'll make a deal with you. I asked you a question in my last post. Here it is.
"Since I'm stating this as FACT, can you please define what that means? I know what fact means, but your version of FACT is clearly different than mine. Can you point out my quote that you are referring to. Here's an example of a quote is just to be clear: "Once again, you are merely stating as FACT that the industry pros all recognize the Oppo as the leader in world class audio direct from its analog outs". That is a direct quote by you. Its something you said. Now, using that as a template, can you quote me this time and show me where I made that statement of FACT that you refer to?"
If you give me an answer to my question (And not any answer. I need the answer to the question I asked. Not just something else you make up.), then I'll do my best to give you some of the answers you want from me. If you can't do that, don't bother asking me any more questions. I'll just ignore you like I should have done in the first place. |
"As stated earlier I was going to do some testing with a Placette passive pre and compare with an active (a Forte Audio Model 2). So far inconclusive except for the clear fact that there is no "dynamic" rolloff of any sort whatsoever, and I see no reason why there would be given Placette's attempts to prevent it. It's been nothing but a pleasure to listen to the passive in concert with Pass Labs x250 and Vandersteen 2Cs. If you doubt it, give me some source material to listen to that should convince me. I want to hear the rolloffs but simply can't - highs are well extended and bass is beautiful and as "dynamic" as is delivered by the Forte."
I'm familiar with the components you are trying here, and if I had to guess what kind of results you would get, it would be what you just stated. Pass, in my opinion, is much better with amps than preamps. Going from the Forte to the Placette, I would expect dynamics and resolution to increase a bit, even though you are using a passive. But the argument here isn't passive vs active, its the Placette vs Forte Model 2. Each component has its own sound, regardless of design. So, while you can make some generalizations as to the overall merits of one type of design over another, in the end, you still have to take things on a case by case basis. And in this case, I don't think you overlooked anything. Your findings make complete sense. |
"08-12-14: Avgoround
ZD542, I NEVER said I liked the ANY mode, neither active nor passive, regarding the adcom 750 pre! I merely stated that the active section was more dynamic and weighty over the passive.. didn't care for any part of that preamp, actually!"
Sorry. But the way you worded your post, it looks like you preferred the active setting over the passive. |
"08-17-14: Avgoround
WAIT WAIT WAAAAIIIITTT!!! You guys mean to tell me that an expensive hi end preamp inserted in between the All mighty Oppo sounds better than direct bypass to the amps from the Oppo analog outs??!!! NO WAY!!! How's this possible?!!! After all, should totally be another unnecessary window in the chain, to mess up the purity of the sound, having the active preamp in the signal, yes???
Well I'm jus all confuse ed now!. ..was already to go pick up that unflappable Oppo... but just got derailed!!
Back to the drawing board, I say"
Don't you get tired of making a complete jackass of yourself every time you post? You make everything up and get mad when no one goes along with your false delusions. I'll prove yet again. Close your eyes and pretend you don't see the next few lines.
"07-20-14: Avgoround
As much as I LOATH ZD542, I kinda concur. :-) If you're going "music speakers", and focusing on improving 2 ch, then you should go dedicated 2 ch amp/pre and maybe separate the two systems for maximum."
Now that you didn't see that, you can start off with something like: no, no, NO, NO, NOOOOOO!!!! |
"08-08-14: Hazyj
Zd543 says "But the argument here isn't passive vs active, its the Placette vs Forte Model 2. Each component has its own sound, regardless of design"
I'm going to play devil's advocate here to see what the responses might be, as I find this to be one of the big topics in the audiophile community. It interests me greatly and I'd like to know others' feelings as well ...
I believe your opinion is the Placette Passive "has it's own sound", and my D.A. response is that I'd expect that sound to be that of the source. If you tell me that no, the passive adds or subtracts something then I'd ask for an objective if not factual basis for that statement."
That's actually pretty easy to answer. I think you are letting the terms active and passive trip you up a bit. It's not that an active component adds something to the music/signal, and passive components do not. Both active and passive components have an effect on the signal. Its just a matter of what and how. With regards to passive preamps, they will all sound different from each other. How much of a difference they sound from each other can only be taken on a case by case basis. Also, the difference, will mostly be subjective. Alot to me may not be alot to you. I like to think the differences in passive preamps, resemble very much the differences in cables. Cables, which are also passive devices, sound different from each other. But the differences usually are not anywhere near as big as the differences between active components. Active components, preamps or otherwise, "do more" to the sound. They impose more of their will on the signal. If we now look at active preamps, the differences can be a 2 edge sword. Active has the potential to be alot better or alot worse than a passive. In context of this discussion, its the alot worse, possibility that's of concern here. This is also where the arguments become most subjective.
Here's my personal view on when to go with an active preamp or a passive (Include in passive category sources like CD players/DAC's that have a built in volume control. Components like that allow you to eliminate an active preamp). There's a price point of about $3000 that many feel to be a cutoff between active and passive. The general rule is that unless you can afford a stand alone, active preamp in the $3000 range, its best just to use a passive. But you need to keep in mind that this is my own personal, subjective judgement. There are plenty of people who feel the same way and use the $3000 rule of thumb. Many, however, do not. If you'll remember, Avgoaround said he preferred the active setting on the $1500 Adcom preamp, I mentioned. There's nothing wrong with that. Some people just prefer an active, no matter what. Its like some people prefer vinyl even though its a lot of work and have to deal with the ticks and pops. Its what they like. I also know other people on this web site that won't use an active preamp at any price. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Its just personal preference.
You ask quite a bit more in your post. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to get into anything else. Later on, I'll try to comment on some of the other issues. But here's one last thing.
"A closing question as a case in point: do some audiophiles prefer tubes and vinyl because those technologies and approaches give them the feeling of the most accurate sound reproduction or is it because they simply like the sound?"
Its a combination of both. |
"Your over-confident approach to this topic is misplaced in my opinion. You can't listen to all equipment in all combinations. You don't know objectively that all equipment has a noticeable effect on the "sound" of source reproduction. Your (apparent) opinion that all equipment has it's own "sound" implies that someone somewhere (you?) can definitely hear that "sound". I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences. That does not imply that all equipment must contribute a noticeable difference."
Understand that you are guessing here. My overconfident approach is just me trying my best go give you some useful info that you'll be able to use to help you make a selection. Remember, you're the one that has almost no experience here. Since you want to pick things apart, lets start here.
"I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences."
That statement is pure speculation on your part. You don't have the experience to make a statement like that. You can only come up with that from what you are reading. And before you say no, remember that you are the one asking the questions and giving your list of experiences. So don't try and back track and come up with a whole list of components that you have heard but just didn't mention. For someone who is demanding scientific proof, "There is no physical law or set of laws that necessitate that a piece of audio equipment must contribute it's own noticeable (to the ear, not the oscilloscope) "sound", but you seem to have the opinion that such laws exist. It's a simple (but meaningless) statement to say that most equipment will contribute its own "sound", but another entirely different statement to profess that all equipment has a "sound" that is noticeable." (those are your words), maybe you should hold yourself to the same standard.
Now, about the part where I don't know objectively about all equipment and my apparent opinion, blah, blah, blah... Great. I couldn't agree with you more. Its silly to even mention it. It's impossible, no one can do it. Why bring it up? The only answer that makes sense is that you just don't know any better because of your lack of experience.
Last, can you point out some examples of my overconfident, know it all approach?
"Both active and passive components have an effect on the signal. Its just a matter of what and how. With regards to passive preamps, they will all sound different from each other. How much of a difference they sound from each other can only be taken on a case by case basis. Also, the difference, will mostly be subjective. Alot to me may not be alot to you."
"In context of this discussion, its the alot worse, possibility that's of concern here. This is also where the arguments become most subjective."
"Here's my personal view on when to go with an active preamp or a passive (Include in passive category sources like CD players/DAC's that have a built in volume control. Components like that allow you to eliminate an active preamp)."
"But you need to keep in mind that this is my own personal, subjective judgement. There are plenty of people who feel the same way and use the $3000 rule of thumb. Many, however, do not."
"If you'll remember, Avgoaround said he preferred the active setting on the $1500 Adcom preamp, I mentioned. There's nothing wrong with that. Some people just prefer an active, no matter what."
"I also know other people on this web site that won't use an active preamp at any price. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Its just personal preference."
I don't know about you, but it looks to me like I'm pretty clear about what my personal opinions are from fact, and keeping the objective and subjective separate.
At this point, if you are still going to still insist on objective proof, you should realize by now, in many cases, its not even relative. Even if you can measure some tiny difference in a lab there's no guarantee that you'll be able to hear it in absolute terms, have the potential listening skills to hear it or have a system that is able to realize the differences regardless. So, in the end, the most impotent thing you can really rely on, is the experience you gather from working with this type of equipment. That's how I do it and I make no apologies. Not only that, I'm done wasting my time trying to help you. Just to put things into perspective, if Avgoaround was able to fix his personality issues and have a normal discussion, with me, and some of the others, he could do so. You're no where near qualified to have a discussion at this level, so when people try and take the time to help answer your questions, don't be a jackass.
|
"That statement is pure speculation on your part. You don't have the experience to make a statement like that. You can only come up with that from what you are reading. And before you say no, remember that you are the one asking the questions and giving your list of experiences. So don't try and back track and come up with a whole list of components that you have heard but just didn't mention."
"24 years ago I spent hundreds if not thousands of hours listening to high-end audio equipment throughout Los Angeles and the Bay Area. I met and had many discussions with "audiophiles", dealers and manufacturers, went to audio shows, read what I could, and took a lot of time mixing and matching several pieces of equipment in my own system."
"I've been away from high-end audio for 24 years and only since May this year have I even looked to see what was new and what has remained the same. I've never heard of some of these new companies and I'm only now learning about multi-channel systems, hence my questions about multi-channel pre-amps."
So I was right. How on earth can you claim to have experience from May until now? Well I guess 24 years ago, you would be the man to talk to. lol. I'll give you some credit. Why don't we change any experience to any relevant experience.
"During my schooling/training as a physicist and electrical engineer I studied semiconductors and circuitry, built simple amplifiers, mastered priciples of sound propagation and materials science."
And this is where we get to the heart of the matter. I knew it was coming but I just couldn't decide if you were and EE or a psychologist. You knew everything all along and were just waiting for the right time to drop it on us, and therefore win the argument by default. All due to your superior intellect and education. You are, after all an EE.
Let's try something different. I've done my best to answer your questions, now see if you can answer one of mine.
You state that you "mastered priciples of sound propagation and materials science". Can you back that up? Since we're on the topic of preamps, tell us how you would design the best preamp, be it active or passive? If you really are a master it should be light work for you. (I know. You're probably waiting for the pattens on your state of the art designs to come through, so you can't divulge any proprietary information until that happens.) |
"08-20-14: Hazyj
Zd542-
Not worth my time or anyone else's to write here under "false pretenses". Not even sure what you mean by that, and no wish or need to argue and restate what's already been written."
If you want to find out what I mean, read your own posts. You start out asking for help choosing a preamp for yourself. Then we find out that you're just chasing the never ending argument, and claim to be an EE and all the rest of the BS. If you want to start a thread like that, fine. Just tell people your intentions. I don't get involved in discussions like that and don't like being tricked into them. Its a waste of time (my opinion). If you are looking for those kind of endless threads that go absolutely nowhere and everyone's a genius, try Computer Audiophile. They have threads over there that have been going on for several years and have thousands of posts. Its just the kind of thing you are looking for.
Just to be clear, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Its not possible that you don't understand what I mean. The only reason you say you don't understand is so you don't look bad. Nothing more than that. |
"08-24-14: Avgoround
Zd542, just cause I agreed with you on the lone point, doesn't mean that your still not a total douche,nor were we gonna hold hands n sing com bay ya together!"
I'm really disappointed that's not going to happen.
"However, make no mistake. U ARE an intentional irritant and a wart on the audioenthusiast azz of society! Well played sir!..you've made even more people loath u fer all eternity, this post alone.."
The line is now so long that I can't see when new people are added to it. So thanks for pointing that out. I would have never noticed. |
