"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. |
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! 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..
See?! Your postings here arent a total waste after all. |
WTF? I don't know where this is coming from and have no intention of trying to figure you out. All I wanted to do was start a thread to get some help on something I knew almost nothing about: multi-channel and HT equipment. People responded. The topic changed somewhat which appears to be business as usual across Audiogon forums. As the topic changed I realized I had more questions that I thought people might enjoy discussing. Meanwhile you argue and argue some more and make misguided/baseless accusations. You're clearly angry about something. How about you get some help and try to keep your problems from messing up the potential for good dialogue here? |
"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. |
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.
All-
Thanks to everyone for helping me get back into the fray. I think what I got most from this thread is that there's a lot of enthusiasm for multi-channel audio/HT, there's a lot of enthusiasm for Oppo products (I'll be keeping my eyes open the next time I need a new piece for my system), and there seems to be quite a few audiogoners out there using pieces of their multi-channel system strictly for music listening. I'm still not sure what my system will look like down the road, but this all helps to get me up n runnin again after so many years. Thanks! |
The by-pass mod Parasound does to the JC-2 lets you set any or all channels to unity gain and takes the JC-2 volume control out of the loop for a by-passed channel. Kal Rubinson claims the pass through is completely transparent as far as he could tell.
In my application, stereo from an Oppo BDP-105 goes through the JC-2 whereas the surround channels go directly to Proceed HPA amps. Setting the input the Oppo uses to by-pass means only the Oppo volume control that controls all the Oppo output channels is active. I had marked the JC-2 for unity gain with the Oppo, but too often failed to reset it after using the Ayre or Thorens. So I didn't expect any change in sound quality with the mod -- but Pete Seeger is again singing in my room now that the C-5xeMP - JC-2 chain is back.
db |
"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!!!! |
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 |
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? |
I got a call Thursday from Parasound telling me the by-pass mod has been completed for my JC-2 and that it was being shipped back to me. Shipping the 300+ miles from San Francisco to Santa Barbara shouldn't take long.
The Ayre C-5xeMP can't be used without a preamp, so I played CDs and SACDs using the Oppo BDP-105 direct to the amps. I was surprised that voices sound so much less natural than when the Ayre and JC-2 are in the chain. I've been listening to very little music since.
I attribute the diminished sound quality to substitution of the Oppo for the Ayre, but I do think the Oppo sounds better when going through the JC-2.
db |
"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. |
"08-11-14: 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? |
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!
I'm now thinking that a great deal of that may have been due to the source components and interconnects used, byenlarge. Dunno..gonna need to experiment w the whole passive approach n compare. |
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.
I make no claims to being an expert about audiophilia which makes all this more fun for me. I do have the experience as mentioned albeit almost all of it was 20+ years ago. I'm learning about changes since then and remember a lot of things that don't seem to have changed at all.
For what it's worth I most certainly did master the subjects I mentioned and many more I studied. Does that surprise you? 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. I make no claims to being the smartest or most experienced or most accomplished here. I don't care if I'm not even of average intelligence here, but I am proud of what I've learned and accomplished. I've put in a lot of work and have often done well like many others here I'm sure. 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? Can I figure out how to design the best pre-amp? I don't know, but I certainly know how to start to find out how if I wanted to. I've learned quite a bit about pre-amp design over the past 2 weeks. Is that unexpected? Does it matter?
I need to move on from this - you seem to just want to argue so I don't see any resolution and doubt you really want to discuss the topic I was trying to open up. No hard feelings. Thanks for the discussion, but let's just go our separate ways please. |
"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.) |
my previous post is addressed to Zd542 only. sorry if there was any confusion about this. |
At least 4 problems with your response:
1. You appear to have missed the main point of my post.
2. You're guessing incorrectly about my experience with the subject matter.
3. You aren't being either objective or factual.
4. You continue to approach the subject from an inappropriately over-confident and apparently authoritative point of view.
Fleshing this out ...
1. The point of my post was three-fold: a.) prove that all components necessarily add or subtract something to/from the "sound" & b.) start a discussion regarding "just what IS the sound of the source?" & c.) reopen the topic of what listeners hear and want to hear. You appear to have addressed c.) but ignored the others.
2. 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. 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. I then sold everything I owned and swore off all of it because I couldn't afford it, and I needed to concentrate on other things. 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.
3. I'm not sure what to write here but I'll take a stab at it... You don't seem to want to be involved in an objective discussion, or maybe you don't understand what an objective discusssion is. That's hard to believe so I don't think that's what's going on, but you made a mistake by writing "that statement is pure speculation on your part" regarding my statement "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." Do you realize that I'm stating this as a fact which I do in fact know? It is a fact that audio listeners can hear differences between components. It is a fact that some listeners are better than others at hearing differences. It is a fact that I realize this. I don't understand how this can be confusing to you and/or why you would waste time arguing the point.
4. You seem to think you're educating me and twice now I think you state that you're helping me. You appoint yourself as an authority, but I don't find any reason to recognize that self-appointment. I do recognize that you've probably been involved in high-end audio for quite some time and that you've probably listened to a lot of equipment. That means something to me, but not much wrt the current topic. You did help me earlier in the thread wrt a question or two I asked about multi-channel pre-amps. Thank you, but if you read closely you realize that I came to the same conclusion with regard to trying out a separate 2 channel preamp prior to your advice. |
"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.
|
Zd542-
I find your response to my devil's advocate question to be neither objective nor factual. I do understand the opinions quite well, but doubt they move this conversation forward in any meaningful way.
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.
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. |
"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. |
Avo-
Yes - I understand now. "Amplifying" makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. |
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.
Where is this all going? In my opinion this is going in the direction of asking "just what IS the sound of the source"? I don't think that's been adequately addressed anywhere I've been reading. Why? Because this sound is dependent upon the recording specifics, the other components and the listening environment. I don't think it's too bold to state that the only way to reproduce the true sound of the source is to have the vocals, instruments and venue almost perfectly reproduced (whatever that means) in your listening room. Is that even possible when most audiophiles (I believe) listen through only the two channels in their own home listening environments?
My true opinion about all this (losing the devil's advocate point of view now) is that for almost all of us extremely analytic listeners of different recordings of various musical genres it doesn't matter! You either do one or the other of these ...
1. spend all your time and $$ trying to reproduce the sound of the source - a very expensive endeavor that's not possible because every recording is different and a single system just cannot truely reproduce each soundstage & venue recorded. Even the most expensive and/or well engineered systems can only come close to truely reproducing SOME recordings and venues but will fall far short of others ( though in a pleasant sort of way). Or ...
2. spend only enough time and $$ needed to achieve compromises that result in an enjoyable listening experience for as many recordings of your preferred musical tastes and recordings as possible. Will it be as enjoyable as approach #1? That's completely up to the listener to decide.
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? Does it even matter?
|
HAZYJ, sorry about that. It was an auto word spelled TYPO!
The word I was trying to type was "AMPLIFYING" ..not oversimplifying.
My understanding has always been that source components, have not historically outputted the same level of amplified or buffered analog signal as say you would from a good active preamp output signal!! In fact, if you read through both old and even more recent threads and reviews on passive preamp n such, you'll get similar feedback (which often is commented as "constricted dynamics" or even rolled highs, on occasion) from those who have tried passive pres and direct both!
My years past results ,using high end CD and DVD players with passive pres and direct to amp ,BOTH have only resulted in softened dynamics, unfortunately, as well..otherwise I would have stayed using Pass Aleph L passive pre, or direct analog out from my 24/96 DVD player w built in volume control, amp direct, if I had gotten stronger overall sounding results! It just never worked out, and I was much more satisfied using meow expensive active preamp, accordingly.
That make sense?
Now, however, looks like I'm unna look into trying, yes, the likes of a modded Oppo, direct to tube n ss amps BOTH, with short ICs n see if that player handles the passive, or even no-preamp approach, better than years past. If it does, I'll be most encouraged, certainly!
I mean, seriously, who wouldn't want to be able do without an unnecessary extra component in the chain if they can effectively do without it?! I would, sure. ...just can't live with with whimpy dynamics nor constrained soundstage from my sound. No no..that I WILL NOT do. It's just uninspiring n weak sounding, otherwise, you know... |
"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. |
Am very happy to find people having 'fun' with this thread, and am more than ready to jump into the melee or would be if I didn't have equipment comparisons to get to ...
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.
Avo - you've written a lot and I've enjoyed most of it and appreciate quite a bit of the writing. I'm getting plenty out of it as well, but always with a keen eye on the lookout for extreme subjective commentary. There is a lot, but that's true with most of the posts here. I find that to be useful at times as well. However you never even tried to answer the question I posed to you about your claim that "Not properly oversimplifying the initial signal before the amp section, will cost you in that area." There's no way for me to understand what you mean, either as an engineer or an wanna-be-audiophile. "Oversimplifying" just isn't a word that means anything at all to me. Can you at least try to explain this comment you made? |
Avoground, you're reading far too much into my posts. For stereo, I prefer my Ayre C-5xeMP for CD and SACD or my Thorens TD 124 with SME Series III arm and Ortofon SMS 30H cartridge through the Parasound JC-3 for vinyl. Of course, both of those sources go through the JC-2. OTOH, an opera on Blu-ray DTS HD MA played on the Oppo 105 and projected onto our 100" screen is a treat.
db |
Great! So direct Oppo vs Oppo to passive pre vs Oppo to active pre should be easy to judge the differences and quantify??. Like to hear the results posted, if u dare?? Yes,please compare difficult dynamic large scale stuff to compare would be awesome, n inform us all what differences u found comparing the diff connect arrangements?
Yes, oppo is as I suspected, read reviews as better than most, but bellow world class disc spinners for more money. From what I gather, I'm sure I could live with moded versions. Which ver is best bang fer???
yeah yeah...probably look into getting one for all it accomplishes.
Then again we WILL be going 4k and even disc-less real soon. Soooooooo....... |
The JC-2 is packed for shipping to Parasound for the by-pass mod, so I've been listening to the Oppo 105 direct to Proceed HPA 2 & 3 amps that drive KEF Reference 107/2 mains and 102 surrounds. I think the sound is pretty damn good, a quality of sound I could easily be happy with.
db |
Mid-fi gear..my bad.
..Same goes fer the Oppo, it seems, as no stepped forward to defend its direct analog connect to an amplifier, passive application merits vs others, nor active pre comparison.
Oh well...tried |
No no..not needed anymore, thx. No one reading hear needs care if some specific inference or special form of answer to your question gets answered in some unique manner! Thx for the games though.
You know what you are!...and that's all that counts, "Mr avoid THE IMPORTANT POINTS IN QUESTION!" - which was making your case of the Adcom actually being what some paid off biased review in an audio rag said it was..when CCCLLLEEEEAAARLY the entire audiophile community found out otherwise, including myself! That's fine..just skirt around the meat of the matter here, for what anyone cares to discuss. Surely we all think you're cool and edgy with your redirect of a redirect! WWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! Isn't this fun.??!!
Summation, apparently without rebutal: Adcom GFP750 was/is NOT so special!..so as we all could share in your heart felt sentiment towards this overrated piece of mind-first gear!!! If it was, I surely woulda bought one for a few rooms in the house, years ago, when I had the chance at dealer cost!
Thx fer the giggles! Don't bother with anymore circumventions of actual audio talk...cause that's all u got |
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. |
ZD542, If that doesn't work for you, then how about "if the Adcom GFP750 at such a cheap price on the net is such a killer world beater deal, then why aren't lead industry respected audiophile reviewers using this thing in their reference systems, in DROVES??!!..instead of the ridiculously expensive ones their likely using instead?!
Clearly, they must be foolish not to, I suppose??..
Again..Ur response?? I'll wait |
my apologies Zd542. I lump both you and the PhD-in-DP's guy into same "passive camp". Yes, simply provide some FACT based on submitting ur position that the Adcom is world class A rating worthy.
Oh, since any opinion is relative ,obviously, fer some sort of relevancy here, let's count FACT as at least half or more of those classifying themselves as audiophiles agree on an position. In this case, since pretty much every review or comparison on audition, pertaining to the 750, state that the thing ain't all that! Good enough, in my opinion.. |
"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. |
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.
No really, so these are the facts? Seriously, someone please confirm here. Really. I wanna know cause its just a little suspect position, however, since when I read all the reviews n go to all the hiend audio shows, I simply never see any vendors or reviewers using this setup.
Feel free to intelligently address this observation, anytime you feel the need to actually provide a valid point. ..that and feel free to point out why the aidiophiles here cant seem to hear the superiority of the Adcom GFP750.
Anyone? Anyone at all?..
All I here are jokers cackling |
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. |
Oh, Dunno what I was thinkin! You guys are obviously correct..I'm half baked,..the Oppo is a world class transport n dig audio source, clearly on the level of a Wadia tranny from its analog outs, n the gfp750 is most certainly the same or better sound than the CAT, Reference AUD Research, etc. ..no really, musta mised all of this over the years probably.
Me n my tin ear, n spaced out tendencies towards watching the Tv that was playing in the store window.
Errr, um, yeah. ..Well at least you guys can sleep at night knowing you have found the end all be all reference system pieces, that are without equal.
..so ya got that goin fer ya...which is nice. |
Avgoround,
If it's any comfort to you, I'm shipping my JC-2 to Parasound for the by-pass mod, so I'll be in Oppo BDP-105-direct-to-Proceed-HPA-amps hell for at least a couple of weeks. I'll be denied access to the JC-3 phono stage and the Ayre C-5xeMP. That should be sufficient punishment for holding such a heretical view that a preamp might not be necessary for those without analog sources.
db |
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. |
Zd542, I'd like you to please type in "gfp-750" into the search bar on home page for the discussion forums here on audition, and then proceed to read through ALL the postings pertaing to the Adcom ((mostly all are pertaining to the Adcom vs other preamps) ...
Then after you read how All the experienced posters here DOWNGRADE the actual performance of the GFP750,do be sure n get back to us on your new newely reinforced position on this piece as a legit Stereophile world class A rated component!!!!
YYEEAAAHHH ..OK. No really.. I'll wait |
Zd542, case in point: Sound and visions Sep 2014 issue reviews a few new AV receivers on the market, including a $2000 Anthem far and a $600 entry level Available receiver. AND GUESS WHICH RECIEVER GOT THE FULL FIVE STAR RATING??!! ..That's right, the $600 light weight Sony mass market surrounds sound piece got the highest rating possible, and was lauded as sounding dynamic, open, airy and uncolored sounding!!! Comparatively, the $2 grand audiophile ambitious offering from world renowned high end audio equip mfr Anthem, got dinged with a 4.5 star rating, criticized as analytical sounding???
I'm Gunna go out on a limb, from having sold all this stuff for decades, that the Anthem indeed is the higher fidelity piece, with more refined sound, better power n dynamics and refinement, period!!
Really??!! ..you think the little Sony is REALLY FIVE star worthy, cause a review said so??!!! ..um yyeeeaaAAAHH NNOOO!!
Buyers beware..n proceed at your own risk before buying (particularly new) |
Sure, I will check into more Oppo postings and such...
But besides all that,..just blanketedly, It's probably safe to presume that, simply due to the fact that probably most all of the pro Hifi industry magazine reviewers use an actual -mostly active- preamp in their own personal reference systems ( and not to mention that the "Amp/preamp" forum here on Audiogon is easily 5Xs THE SIZE of this home theater forum..why is that???? ), that the entire informed audiophile world understands that preamp are merely convenient SWITCHERS, and far inferior options to simply bypassing straight from the Oppo Direct??!! ..so, what, The Oppo direct analog is undisputed the purest most high fidelity analog option that a system can attain??? Sounds like it from what I heAr here...so I'm just making sure that that's the proven position, from both audiophiles, industry pro reviewers, n hobbyists alike, fer highest fidelity 2 children perspective digital sourcing, correct?
just wanna be clear. ..cause it sure doesn't add up, when I look at the storyline thus far...but maybe I'm underestimating the Oppo alltogeth??
Let's look into this.. |
"..it looks like u missed what Stereophile had to say about the GFP750" "I believe it set the record for the lowest cost preamp to ever get a Class A rating" - Zd542
Zd542, no no NO NO NO!! Hate to break it you, ..don't care one iota what bogus rating Stereophile got paid to give,..ADCOM NEVER MADE IT INTO A LEGIT CLASS A STATUS!! Let me reiterate, just incase you didn't hear me ,..NEVER HAPPENED! (Yeah, let's just say it was, ahem,...conveniently "placed" there at one point) ..Used this piece in several systems, in different stores, and it's not a world class piece! I'm tellin you. It's just not. MUCH better in lists even bellow it, yes.
lemme just go ahead inform you that, after having worked directly in hiend audio retail sales in 4 different very hi end av salons for over 15 years, TO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ REGARDING AV EQUIPMENT REVIEWS!!!..YES, EVEN IF ITS STEREEOPHILE MAGAZINE!! Yes, reviewers are, have been, and always will continue to be incentivized and paid directly from equipment manufacturers-desperate for GLOWING OVER REACHING REVIEWS - because they know for proven absolute certain that such favorable write-up will SELL PRODUCT!! SEEN this over and over for decades now. That's just business. And, if anyone is naive enough to believe otherwise, then I dunno what to tell ya - but it's historically proven to be EXTREMELY difficult for small esoteric equipment makers ( let alone even larger mainstream manufacturers ) to stay in business, let a lone turn a profit. Yup, reviewers definitely play their roll..and the money changed hands in this very tight knit hiend industry. Believe it! ..as a famous competitor once said .."man,I got kids ta feed!"
So sorry to say, but no, Bryston nor Parasound never made it as an elite product line, nor was the Modulus 3A actually Class A, nor was the Mirage M1 tower class AB, .and neither did the B&W DM302 speakers really make, class B stereophile, ..and nor are Def Tech the greatest loudspeakers, as Brent Butterwort lead u to believe, and neither were Paradigms,. Also, nopeTHE Arcam AV300 AV receiver also WASNT better than separates, as crazy over zealous reviewer claimed to "sell soap", etc, and so forth.
All I'm sayin, is you gotta try this stuff out with actual hands on!...otherwise don't just always believe what's printed somewhere..cause there may be an agenda. It happened. I swear.
("Money answereth all things" -Eclessiastes 10:19) hummmmmm.. |
Avgoround, your question about whether the Oppo has a volume control suggests you have never heard one and have little or no knowledge about the 95/105 analog capabilities. You can visit the Oppo 105 owners site at AVS for an extensive discussion of the pros and cons of taking a 105 direct to amp. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the work you could do yourself if you really had an interest other than promoting your belief that an active preamp is required.
db |
"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? |
Dbphd, thx. Now if you would also be so kind and steer me to either some profession Audio reviews, or also postings here on this kind of site's chat forum, where there is in-depth discussion pertaining to SPECIFICALLY comparing Oppo direct from its analog outs, vs passive preamp vs active, I'd like to see it!
Does Oppo have built in volume? Otherwise,what,..us need passive pot or pre??.. Thx |
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/54/
http://thecarversite.com/yetanotherforum/default.aspx?g=posts&m=178039 |
"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. |
ahh ... ok i see it as this:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/54/
note that this article is from 1995, not that there isn't plenty of relevancy here. just thought it worth noting.
hj |
Avo - the stereophile url you provided was incomplete. can you try again? thanks. |
