Pre amps cost vs. value ... what I discovered last month.

Parts matter, yet Dave Hill knows what he’s doing.

Avocet distortion is in the range of .001% at +20 dbu -3db is up between 200 and 300KHz

My listening tests are not "respectable"? A rude and ultimately hilarious reply.  Listening is what I do all day every day, for hire by others who can afford anyone, and not for fun. The credits are all online. Have a great day.

Up to you @simao  ... It's all balanced, and I have not used the new one.   It has a nice DA as well, he keeps upgrading the DA as one would expect.

@jond Yes mods could work on the BAT without transformer, 6 caps a side on the 42 I think would be a good path, but it’s not worth the hassle.  Sonicraft Jeff does my mods, he’s a genius with great ears.


@dweller "I listened to some equipment and didn’t like it so whomever does like it must be fool"   False my friend, ... I said the Boulder was junk (too many negatives to detail) and the BAT 43se was very good but still veiled.

I never called anyone names, I’m taking about price to performance in this thread. Defensive posts are a waste of time, let’s not bother, ok?

@simao Yes, of course I understand synergy ... I can also listen to one component for it’s factual sound on an island. When you work on the same system in the same excellent room for years, any one piece is clear when swapped out.

Allmusic.com is your friend @dweller
Looks like a 1968 recording that has been remastered more than once. https://www.allmusic.com/album/in-search-of-the-lost-chord-mw0000650513/credits

Fair enough.   And I question the intelligence and experience of anyone who can’t read the words "highly modified" and the use their experience and imagination from there.  Signed, of course slightly insane to use a tube amp daily.
Genelecs ... are terrible, sorry.   And what are your credits in the audio engineering profession again?

Well to be fair sounding "bad" to me is "interesting" to others. The older Boulder sounds like one would expect from the design. I was just hoping they had pulled a magic trick. The center image power was non existent, the shape of the freq bal was way off, the tone overall was synthetic. Great people and a great company but a sound I was told would make me cringe, and I should have listened. The BAT was very nice, very nice. It was simply a bit veiled as compared the older Avocet, either from the cap or more likely from the transformer. Plenty of low end, a touch more than I was used to but not a problem either way. The gain up/down was rock solid, the image L/R at gains was solid. The volume from 60-100 Viktor told me was the sweet spot and he was of course correct. It’s a very nice unit. A bit veiled in the realism category is all.   And I’m just saying the price, whoa. A new one is $10k. It’s a low volume market, yet so is pro audio gear and a new Avocet is like 3000?

@jnovak I would not say that listening is about copying any mastering room, that is in fact, actually impossible. What you want to do is enjoy music. Whatever that requires. Upgrade your room treatments as you find that is the weak link. Upgrade the X or the Y when that is bothering you. Active listening is not based on a hypothetical measurement or a grand theory of reproduction. Our listening evolves over time, we would hope, and as it does our needs in playback evolve. The weak link is the next thing to address, and NOT addressing anything is a beautiful thing. We can simply enjoy music in those periods of time. For the audiophile the listening room is an instrument, it’s your contribution to the recording. For the mastering studio engineer the listening room is both our set up space for assuring translation and it’s our template space for doing the work that results in our unique presentation as a ME. All mastering rooms, like all ME’s work products, are different. Nothing is perfect or repeatable in music playback across rooms, time, temperature, pressure, etc. Translation means that something has it’s integrity in ALL playback forums. There is no one perfect playback situation. When I listen to my work in the world, in all manner of locations, I’m happy to hear it always sounding like itself. That’s translation. The essence is there, with the local color added. From 24 bit to mp3, from radio to TV to sports arena, to strip club, to local restaurant to $200,000 system in a stupid hotel room, to a nice home set up at any price and age. But there is NO PERFECTION in music making, or music reproduction. There is no "sound as the artist heard it". Music playback is a moving target, not a fixture.  It's not about perfection it's about translation with a lower case T, local color added ... and it's about emotional captivation of individuals, a connection with the artist or composer, that happens through the listening experience. This is a concept that too many seem to miss.

@Initm Have not heard the Ayre, have heard the Levinson line a couple of times now (too dry for me)

@soundsrealaudio I’ll look into that one, thanks.

@dweller you are simply a rude person, from the first reply "To many variables (should be ’too’ by the way) to consider your opinion respectable. Please specify everything pertaining to your listening trials and I’ll get back to you." ... to your next reply "Please find someone to read my post to you as you obviously have poor comprehension skills. " to your last reply.  A hole attitude.

My opinions are respectable based on credential, and you are no one to my world, yet I am giving you the most respect possible given your tone.
Please post your full name and credits in production and "I’ll get back to you" ... how rude would that be to say to you?

Sure, I could spend 20 minutes typing out my equipment mods, and testing methods and all manner of information on how and why I do things in depth, and yet I’m busy. I'm not here to work   I get paid to use this studio and paid to teach. Maybe be happy I want to banter here in a respectful way with others who love music. Be not demanding. That is an a hole attitude, factually speaking.
When you come out of the gate with these kind of bad attitude replies, and then you can’t GOOGLE Allmusic as you’re bitching about a 1968 recording that is off topic, then you have too many emotional issues for me. Maybe issues with "Mastering Engineers" as a profession, or just with audio engineers ... I have no idea who you are or what your deal is. But you are rude and wasting everyone’s time. I’m here to banter with cool people. You’re out.

@simeo in my experience those who are both too impatient or maybe lazy to do the research, and also so fast to be defensive and start quoting words that were never said to support their state of mind, are not rational enough to engage in a healthy way. So while I thank you for your support, I would caution you that some people are past engaging in reasonable replies once they get fired up. I can get fired up, and I can back it down. Yet I can read the tea leaves too.
My first post was IMO a sufficient explanation of the set up. My room, I would hope very obviously, is going to be better than 99% of the rooms that anyone here is using .... and since the room is maybe half the sound, that should be enough to engage with basic respect. Sure, I could have mentioned how I helped Bricasti to reprogram their filters after hearing a flaw in the the unit 4 years into it’s life in the market, and how my required mods are standard now for all M1 SE. I could have mentioned all the tube and cap testing done on the 211, or a host of techniques on listening and A/B comparison that I use that are never discussed online. But again, I get paid to teach. I didn’t think that was needed to converse here and it’s not fun for me to go there ... way past the nerdy gear lust stage, and proving my value stage of this game. My life’s work is elevating humanity by connecting one artist with one individual, very deeply, on a physical, intellectual and emotional level. Then the credits. Easily Googled. My clients at the top, can afford anyone in the world, last year four Billboard #1, and The Greatest Showman was #1 in 77 countries on iTunes. Many Grammy winners and Aria winners, etc. And that should all go without being said, available to anyone doing 4 slicks of research.
Back to work.   Let's keep this thread about Pre Amps, and costs and not get in the weeds any further.

Yes @spenrock poor matching is always possible yet the Boulder sounds to me as it sounds to others I trust who I’ve talked to since. Again, great company, so well done, just not right in any way that I know of. And I’m not saying pro gear across the board is better or worse, not going there ... just talking about these 3 units in the pre amp category only.  Levinson is dry, analytical, well done, just not very engaging.  At this point I'm looking to completely rebuild and upgrade cost no object the crossovers in the speakers (fairly complex) and stay with the old Avocet.

Appreciate the sane and thoughtful replies. I will go through them later but just a quick sample. Anyone or group who wants to bring over a balanced (XLR) pre amp is welcome to, just have to find the right day. I can’t go out of the DA for gain as I need a router to switch between MIX and MASTER and do volume offsets. Loud records are from fear, the human disease on the other end of love, there is no remedy for fear except for each person, in each moment. Modern records can sound good and I would suggest some of mine as examples of low dynamics that has punch. DR sounds old, bottom line, the music sounds dated. Unless that sound helps the artist to connect, it’s not going to happen. I’ve been playing with the much worshiped and I think not so great early release Steely Dan from 16 bit CDs and a little MORE compression, plus some harmonics from the chain can actually help those sound more live and real, less perfected and cold. Early CD mastering was lame. The Krell Illusion sounds like it’s worth a look, as are the others mentioned earlier like the Linear Tube Audio and Ayre. Yes most "pro" gear is junk. Pro is a sales term not a category. As far as synergy, yes that’s everything ... I would never want to use all one company for anything, the design / philosophical artifacts just pile up on top of each other. That’s not how we work in production generally speaking. Some mastering studios maybe but no one I respect. The cocktail of artifacts creates the palate and that is what we do, bring a palate to the table, a perspective, even in mastering. As far as "flat" this and "flat" that I am 100% opposed to such nonsense on 2 basic levels. 1. nothing is truly flat or truly neutral, there are many flavors of vanilla, there is no straight wire with gain, not even in a cable or a capacitor. 2. the goal of music is CONNECTION and ELEVATION of humans, not PERFECTION. We are not doing a science project here. The person engineering matters, we cannot be invisible and shouldn’t try. Stereo sound is not the live event, no matter what we do. Wrong goal. Quite the opposite from being invisible as engineers we should do what we were born to do, create, even in mastering. I don’t work from perfectionism or fear. I work from musicality toward physical/emotional/intellectual connection and elevation of the listener. That is what makes fans and money. Immediate impact and a timeless result is my phrase for what I do.I make an Invitation to connect... that completes the vision of the production team and removes the unhelpful energy from the offering. People want to love music, and they want to hate on it. My aim is to open the door to real listening.

As far as DR, please do not blame the ME, we are service providers. We are not running the show on DR. My comments are based on the reality today, not my view on it per se. My chain adds punch at the DA and the tube EQ and can sound great at low DR thanks to the elements in it. So again, I have some loud records that are punchy and not obnoxious. 80s CDs were lame, 90s were overcompressed. I don’t compress as a rule, unless it’s needed. I limit and EQ all day long.
As far as DA (yes I love the M7 verb for mixers) I have 2 x M1 SE DAs. As said above, I helped them to tune the filtering 4 years into it’s market life, hearing some issues with it the immediately fixed and that are not sold as standard, with free upgrades to all past owners. Bricasti is a great company. I was happy to help them to master their DA if you will.
As far as how do things sound here vs there, no idea what you have there. Yet who cares No two systems are ever alike as was said, and there is no perfect anything, including the perfect system.

Further point since we are way off topic ... I have no issue with 16 bit audio and no issues with 44.1 when the converter and engineering are great. I print 44.1 with the Pacific Micorosonics AD for 15 years. The whole HD market is like the remastering market, mostly BS to make money and evoke fear in audiophiles that they are missing out. Remastering is a huge topic on it’s own. Most of it is not great IMO. Sample rates also a huge topic. Higher rates alter the presentation of frequencies and the details up top are greater, but details are not music and higher SR do NOT ALTER THE QUALITY of a converter. The box is the box, Clock, Chip, Analog path, Filters. Those 4 don’t improve at higher sample rates. A cheap AD can sound better at higher SR but a great AD at 44.1 or 96 is still great, just a different layout of energy. I prefer 44.1 for the low end density, actually. Mastering is about the gear and the engineer not the SR ... this is a massive marketing myth that is taking up too much time in too many lives, IMO. When you have very dynamic and very spacious music then the details up top matter more, but for 99% of the music out there, pop types, it’s not a real thing. And even for highly spacious and dynamic musics the converter and the engineering are WAY WAY WAY more important than the SR. Men like to measure, and are plagued by fear of not measuring up. Yes, I mean that in every way. SR is a red herring. Higher quality is not found in more samples per second.  What you want to buy and hear is the SR and bit depth of the mastering session, not higher, not lower, not more, not less, just the file that was done in the room. That is the ONLY THING that is true to the source, and even then, it’s always new in your room.  P.S. there is no "improving" that approved master file.  MQA is beyond BS, it's a near criminal enterprise, looking to take over the audio market for streaming income.  People who are dead in the water on the video market, here in 2018.

@soundsrealaudio Bricasti is close to releasing a 2 IN and 1 OUT pre amp.  Balanced.

PS, it seems like we have moved into the "anything goes" portion of the thread, so if anyone wants to banter re: anything related to mastering, I'm game

@antinn the Sonics Allegra speakers (older birch not the newer and better Canalis Allegra in bamboo with better parts) were actually only $5000 used, although I am currently having my spare pair rebuilt internally for more money than they were new. Every part in the crossover and every wire in the box new, tip top parts ... Jeff @ Soniccraft in Texas doing the Xovers in an external box (easy to ship to him to tweak, holds larger caps) with a low end and a mid/high input post. Basically upgrading the Xover while ALSO matching it to the amps that he previously upgraded as well. The Avocet’s designer Dave Hill agrees with you that there is "different" but not "better" so I am staying as is on the pre for now. It has feature and familiarity that make any changes sideways not worth the cost to practicality. Analog VU meters for example, follow my input source selection, and VUs are still better than digital meters for overall volume/RMS.
@audiorusty I appreciate the kind words. Have been told I have a unique way of speaking about these things, which some people like, some don’t. I am daily working in the connection and elevation business. Taking approved mixes to other levels of awesomeness. That’s what music does, connects an artist with a listener and connects listeners to each other in the live moment. This elevates us. Joy. That’s the game. Not feeling alone. Music is about connection and elevation. There is no perfect human, perfect music or perfect system. Perfection is actually a fear-based mindset, built on proving things to others and external validation and fear of not being good enough, not measuring up. We all struggle with it, but overall fear is not a good way to live. Fear is a very bad idea when it comes to music, makes thing ignorable, unoriginal and worse. One of my clients The Black Keys, on "Brothers" 2010 intentionally left some imperfections in the performances in order to connect better. That was a fearless and intelligent decision. Vocal performances today always deal with this line in the sand, so does every other stage in production with the modern tools available. Not all styles have so much room to play with imperfections but in this era everything from pitch to time to tone can be perfected and it can all goo way too far, losing the humanity that connects us to an artist. This balance is always style dependent and about this one release, this one moment in time for the artist and their relationship with the market and their audience (current audience and potential audience)
@brhatten given my room acoustics and overall playback system, I have never heard a better room in a studio or home. When I go to the shows I’m always shocked how terrible everything sounds in those rooms, with a few exceptions per show that are almost good. My speakers are VERY dynamic and that’s something I don’t hear in most speakers, for example. What I listen for in good or bad rooms is the integrity of the music coming through. That’s translation. My room is tuned to my ear, so it’s the best, to me.  When it comes to building a home listening room I'm always sad to see people chasing things based on concept and not their own relationship to the room.  We only need to upgrade the one thing that is bothering us.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it !   Enjoy it.
@astewart8944 what exactly did I say on SR that got you excited? That’s a topic I’m passionate about. My interest is in respecting the integrity of the masters that have been approved by the entire creative team. All this post processing of masters is disrespectful, profit driven, and built on using fear of missing out to engender sales. MQA for example, all my work is being batch processed for sale as "Master Quality Authenticated". It’s neither master quality nor authenticated. Cynical marketing manipulation. Not happy at all with that business model.
Thanks all for the good banter. I like online friends in agreement or in argument while I work, keeps me in a good place.

@charles1dad  um, about your comment that others "have not succumbed to this recording technique"
Firstly, I didn’t say large DR sounds dull, or bad, I said it sounds dated and like an older era of music. Not current.

Secondly, I said that mastering is a service job. We are not here to put the genie back in the bottle. "Make it louder" has been around since vinyl, there was simply a physical limit to what was possible. In 2018 I find most records I print are approved where I would like them to be, and the client has the say. Again, if you want a list of my records where there is lower DR and it sounds great I can provide. DR measurement, like all measurement is a bit of a mythical standard of goodness. Each record is uniquely worked, we have to look at the whole.
Yes, some clients push me past sanity and I can say something if it would matter, and sometimes I do. 99% on deaf ears. Fear and ambition are the driving force in these cases. Can’t stop humans from that.

@rsf507 yes 2 inputs and 1 output all balanced

@charles1dad my only thought is that DR is only a number not an actual quality rating of the mastering.  Listen to the music, and if it moves you, it moves you.   Modern music is more compressed and limited in mixing.  Mastering is then asked to go further in many cases.   It can still be good music and great mastering ... or not.   And it IS ALWAYS AS THE ARTIST INTENDED.  Don't blame the ME, we are service providers.  Those who sign off and drive the train are the artists and sometimes labels, but usually artists and producers.

@astewart8944 you have hit the nails on the head in each aspect. FYI, I print with the Pacific Microsonics AD at 44.1.  That converter in the modern market would take a retail of $70k to create, and it's my fave AD by far.  Sounds great at 44.1.  I like the low end density and there is plenty of air in the sound of the box.  Actually I have 5 of them (model one and two), just in case, as there is only one man in the world who can do repairs.  Thank God for him, the sweetest and most honorable tech you could hope to find.  Mohammed Kahn.

We agree that a database of sample rate and bit depth (mostly 24 but not always back in the day) is what is needed to be hearing the mastering session as intended.  If only that were the case.  Instead there is fear based greed in the midst of our quest to hear the masters.  My work, again, always 24/44.1.  MQA screws it up.  MFiT, screws it up.  Universal was for years putting an audible watermark (yes, audible) on all their digital releases.  I'm told that has stopped.  CDs are the safe way to go for my work.  Others print at 96k, etc.  To each his/her own.

@shadorne I was never a fan of the original Benchmark DA, have not heard yours.  The Avocet DA is very good, yet I don't use it so can't tell you the sound of the latest generation.  All DA are very good these days it's a matter of flavor.  The Solaris is not to my taste, too dry, too cold.

Remastering can be great, sure. It’s a mixed bag. Generally the place to being with any remastering is to figure out WHO initiated it, and WHO oversaw the process creatively and WHY was it done at all? Intentions and persons matter. Some of Bob's work is excellent.  He is the granddaddy of mastering along with Bernie Grundman in LA.  

All work is approved by the artist, or label, or someone ... so factor that in always. When a record sounds great, everyone did their job well.

no worries @simao i didn't notice.  Again, no fear of perfectionism around me, we are communicating here not posturing to be the smartest person in the room

@brhatten I'm not sure how to respond to "most natural, life like reproduction of the music that was heard during the recording process?"  Recordings in the modern world, like aways truly, are distorted and mangled and manipulated on purpose as part of the presentation.  It's an ongoing sculpture of intentional distortions and non life like filtering.  The aim of music is not the live event.  Even live recordings will never and CAN NEVER measure up to the live event.  That is a mythical unicorn that takes up too make people's time as a criteria.

Similarly I'm confused by "compromised the end product in terms of dynamics, soundstaging"  

The recording process does not end at mixing.  Everything that comes to me comes out better in terms of musicality, punch, artistic statement, clarity, soundstage, freq balance, ability to connect, etc.  Now does that mean that it has more DR? Usually no, does not. 

So if DR is your main criteria, on an island, then you will be disappointed.   Yet my argument would be that LOWER DR sounds like MORE DR when it's done correctly. 

I can get into that more if you like but if you are looking for DR at 10db or greater, I do hundreds of records a year and can't point you toward one of those.  I would say the same is true of most MEs working today.

Every record is a journey of creation, and you are hearing all the moments added up in the product, as you can tell.  That is very hard to dissect in an abstract conversation.  There are intentions, and there are results. Intentions vary and skills in getting results vary, wildly.

It’s hard to say anything without hearing a record and talking in specifics. If you heard the mix/master here it would be clear what I do.

I do not mix (panning, dynamics, relative level and EQ, distortion), record (tone, dynamics, distortion), arrange, or write.
Each step has tremendous power: Moment of Inspiration, Arranging, Performance Tracking Engineer, Mixing Engineer, Mastering Engineer.
Sure, I make everything better musically and technically (the way you’re talking about it is technical). Thus the career.   More spacious, clear, powerful, detailed, etc. Yet the way I approach mastering is about CONNECTING artists to audience. The tech side are just tools.

Very true @soundsrealaudio

I'm having my speaker crossovers upgraded (same design, better parts) for the cost of the speakers themselves.
A lot of parts in many crossovers.