Pre amps cost vs. value ... what I discovered last month.
Actually, isnt most “audiophile” equipment overpriced for what you get inside the box anyway? From what I understand, good studio equipment conducts, transfers, etc the sound with as little noise, distortion as possible. I never understood audiophiles knocking Outboard equalizers but look for components ( even wires and cables) that have a certain sonic charater ( bright, warm, bass heavy, etc). Personally, i like neutral sound as close to the source as possible and I can add flavor ( eq, tone controls) as I see fit. |
Brian, welcome. Very insightful, and appreciated from your point of view. I have been at this audio thing for almost 50 years, and was in the consumer audio industry ( NYC ). I knew many musicians, and spent some time in studios. Most of the equipment back then was analog ( really liked the Allen and Heath units, and some Yamahas ). Never saw tube amps in the studios to drive the monitors. Recently, I decided to modify an 80 wpc Yamaha pro amp ( of which I have several pro amps ), and since it has input level controls ( as all pro amps do ), I decided, for the 1st time ever, to go straight from my dac to the amplifier. Why haven’t I ever done this before ? Well, spending mucho dollars on preamps, and modifying many, I just assumed I needed the preamp. Well, to my surprise, I like what I am hearing. On certain discs, such as the Bob James " Cool ", " The Sheffield Drum Record ", M.D. " Kind of Blue " , and so many other wonderfully mastered pieces of music, I am hearing, so much more " life " to the performers, their instuments, their voices, and the 3 dimensional illusion of the space they are in. Even on Jethro Tull " Aqualung ", which imo is very compressed, I can hear more of everything. I have never been good with tubes ( rather than saying tubes have never been good to me), because I favored non coloration, dynamics, speed and detail, which I always favored good ss. I know the attributes of tubes, and owning horns, I have had many pieces in and out. But the noise levels, microphonics, colorations, and the lack of prat ( pace, rhythm and tempo ( with all the tube products " I " have owned and tried ), did not satisfy me. So,
ow I am looking for a good passive unit, with multiple inputs, as there are many amplifiers in my stable without input level controls. Just my 2 cents. Enjoy ! MrD. |
Ah, a discussion close to my heart! Couple things: firstly, I "hate" preamps. They go against all my audiophile religious sensibilities. I want transparency, detail, fidelity. Adding a component in between that really does nothing...yadda yadda. BUT, I also know it's needed. In the real world, maybe half of the stuff I have ever used doesn't benefit, or work better, going "passive". But the other thing, I believe as listeners, we get used to and accept coloration in components we have had years with or love for years. We just listen past it, listen through. Even a less resolving or capable component or system, if we can still hear differences swapping other components, we can still hear the more transparent components or more detail and such. |
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. |
I don't know if you're looking, but the other side of the fence would be something like the newer Krell Illusion preamps. There is a used Krell Illusion with separate power supply up for sale at $7500 (which matches the BAT costs). Fully discrete bipolar Class A audio stages (both input and output preamp stages) with full resistor ladder volume control. Massive separate power supply unit. Equivalent older model would be something like Krell Evolution 202 or Krell Phantom. The Krell side of the fence will lead towards more resolution and transparency without adding the "FET" color/texture. |
Just to add some observations. The Crane Song Avocent may be an older device, but I cannot see that it uses op amps of any type (unless they are to be used as assists in power supply or other circuits. As far as I can tell from images, the Avocet uses fully discrete circuits (as it is labeled "Discrete Class A Studio Controller". It's interesting that you did not like the Boulder. I have never heard it, but I believe that it uses bipolar audio stages (as opposed to FET based). Each has it's own sound, but bipolar is usually cleaner sounding. I have read that BAT equipment is nice, but it does sound a little dark. That particular BAT preamp looks to be a fully solid-state FET based device (no tubes, which is unusual for BAT). It has a seriously massive main power supply, which is great for bass and midbass response. However, I don't see a lot of smaller capacitors and I can't identify where the gain stages are. Anyways, interesting product. brianlucey - I suspect many of your responses are due towards personal taste as well as system synergy. Like everyone else here, welcome to the journey of buying and selling. It has been a journey for me as I have learned what types of equipment I like and what I do not like. Many people will agree with my results, but many will also disagree with their own preferences, lol. For comments on "pro equipment", there are different levels of pro equipment. Brian is obviously playing on the top tier of equipment. If you look at "common pro equipment", you will actually find a lot of junk, such as anything Behringer (etc.). Lot's of mid-level stuff. You won't get to the top level until you start getting stuff that uses discrete op amp modules (such as MM-99 or JFET-993, etc.). This is very expensive stuff. Bryan - maybe you might look into whether you like more of a FET based sound or a bipolar. The bipolar are usually cleaner (less distortion), but they can also be somewhat clinical/sterile at times. The FET based circuits do add a color or texture to the sound which can be very pleasing to some people. The Boulder 1010 is bipolar. I suspect the Crane Song may be FET based. The BAT vk-43SE is definitely FET based circuit. Maybe look into one of the Pass Labs preamps (such as XP-30). Pass likes to use discrete FET based audio stages. |
Here's a review of the Cranesong Avocet by Bob Katz |
Brian, Thanks for stopping by for this chat. I think your sample of audiophile preamps was too small. I'm pretty sure you could find something at a reasonable price that could outperform your current pre. I'm a little surprised that you jumped to the conclusion that audiophile preamps are poor quality/value when all of your other gear is audiophile gear. Can you tell us what is going on with overcompressed recordings? I can see the argument for dynamic ranges of 5 or 6 for hip-hop or contemporary pop, but why is everything else being squashed too? Who is responsible for this and what can be done about it? |
Brian, Thanks for your posts and insight which are very much appreciated given your credentials and experience. So many times in high-end audio we find and we believe that component synergy of the electronics can create the best results. Many times it’s advocated to use electronics of the same manufacture to achieve this. Do you find that other audio engineers believe this doctrine? In the pro world do others usually use electronics of the same manufacture to achieve this? From your posts it seems that you do not necessarily subscribe to this. Interest in your thoughts. Thanks for your time. |
| Post removed |
Hi Brian, If we can set 'dweller' aside for a moment and talk about pre-amps... Here's another endorsement for Zesto Audio. Also... the Townshend Allegri+ passive preamp. A friend recently replaced a mega-buck pre with the Townshend with excellent results. I'd be very interested in your response to the Townshend pre. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Brian, I happen to agree that preamps have become pretty expensive when the designer chooses to lean on their early successes and brings out new models with new bling on top of overpriced "improvements". I'm not saying the new models aren't better, but it is an excuse for jacking up the price over time. I recently down-priced my preamp to a bargain, the Linear Tube Audio MZ2. Its David Berning design is a marvel of neutral transparency, big soundstage, and imaging. It was designed as a premium headphone amp but as a preamp it is amazing, if a bit limited in its features. It certainly has limited bling factor although I love the look. Fully optioned (remote, linear power supply, NOS tubes), it goes for < $2,300 but can be had basic for just over $1,200. It sounds so much better than my prior $4k preamp did. I love it when you can improve the sound, and drop cost. |
| Post removed |
Thanks to OP for
observations. Wonder if he knew what he was wading into and how little his
reasonable credentials matter to the religious belief based sub-groups here... It would be nice to be in a situation to have 2 clearly “better” and “worse” sounding pre-amps in the studio and put them on the bench for the more obvious measurements. Although pre- amps are dealing with smaller signals, at least they do not have the “power draw” issues to deal with. It is fine by me when a poster indicates something like “I think this is bogus…because” knowing it is obviously one person’s opinion and that is what we are here for, but no need to directly rude to another even if widely divergent opinions. I happen to believe that if sound differences repeatedly can't pass a double blind test they are likely non existent, and certainly not worth big money chasing, but you know, I could be wrong. |
@brianlucey; your assessment brings up the age old observation that how a unit measures does not necessarily reveal how it will sound. The Boulder equipment, same as the Levinson generally measure impressively, but can draw different subjective observations. Stereophile when it measured the Boulder 2110 concluded - "Boulder's 2110 is the best-measuring preamplifier I have encountered."; however its cost will draw pause. Yet, the cost effective Benchmark DACs and Amplifiers measure impressively and have both home and "Pro" following. Your system with the exception of the preamp is very high end, so the value of high end is something you appear to appreciate. Of course, the industrial design of high end with the sculpted and precision machined cases adds a lot of cost. Also, high end generally applies a lot of emphasis on input power to accommodate the wide variety of source power - few have the arrangement you have. Also, the distribution and dealer hands-on adds further cost that "Pro" hardware designed for racks and sold mass-market do not incur; and home equipment is expected to be routinely updated where "Pro" unit may remain stable for many years, so R&D costs can be very different. So, as spoken above synergy (whole exceeds the sum of its parts) is that elusive item that once achieve, some of us will not touch for fear of its loss; and once disturbed can take months if not years to achieve again. Some technical items, the Boulder while having PINS 2 hot can change the polarity, and this 'may' be the source of the weak center image; but not everything. Nelson Pass in a recent Stereophile article has a interesting observation that positive phase 2nd order distortion can widen and deepen the soundstage while negative phase 2nd order distortion can reduce and focus in your face; so synergy with tube amplifiers can be sometimes be a mine field. Quick review of the Crane Song Avocet manual does not list many technical specifications and quick web search shows a number of positive "Pro" reviews, but no technical measurements. It would be interesting to see you opinion of the new Crane Song Avocet and whether 15 years later is it voiced the same? and of course in this community we can hear the chorus/mob yelling for blind testing. At the end, everyone has their own perceptions/desires for how they want their system to sound; this is readily observed with the printed press that understanding they are for profit; but JA from Stereophile who is a recording engineer favors equipment that measures perfectly with speakers that measure flat. Different strokes, different folks. However, the cost-to-value item is a bit more complicated - what are the buyers priorities; what is the intended market; how much will the market bear; but to throw them under the bus is bit strong - IMHO. |
Hello Brianlucey, I appreciate your sharing of experiences and perspective from the vantage point of a professional in audio recording. You have made some very interesting observations in regard to the listening experience. I absolutely agree with your comments about emotional involvement and connecting with the artist and their music. I’ve always believe this is the entire point of listening to music. It is a very subjective and personal interaction and thus by default will vary amongst individual listeners. I’ve written in this forum on several occasions that the audio components capable of permitting the higher degree of emotional connection and musical enjoyment are the ones to buy and keep. If an audio component or system fails at this task what else matters or can make up for this glaring deficiency? BTW I’ve had the opportunity to hear Boulder components and my overall impression is similar to yours. It seems the quest for ultra detail retrieval can "potentially" result in an analytical/clinical presentation and lack the vital emotion and soul touching aspect of listening to music. Charles |
1. Have you tried driving the amps directly from the Bricasti by using its volume control instead of the Avocet? 2. Have you tried some SS amps on the Allegras? Their non flat impedance affects the frequency response of your tube amps and they're not an easy load either. https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonics-joachim-gerhard-allegra-loudspeaker-measurements |
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. |
@brianlucey Interesting findings. I've been mildly curious about how pro gear compares. I have no experience with BAT, but the two times I heard all Boulder electronics, it was very disappointing. They have extremely impressive build quality, but they were unequivocally NOT musical IMO. As others have suggested, it would be interesting to hear your comparisons to Ayre, Levinson, Pass Labs, etc |
dwellerI loved this album, and have two or three version one being the MFSL, and yes there is no good copy of it very compressed, as this DR shows all green means good, only track 11 (The Word) has good DR. And this site has never let me down on which one to get, click on the one with the highest and most green and you have the cat no of it and go search ebay for a used copy. http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=In+Search+of+the+Lost+Chord Cheers George |
| Post removed |
@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. |
@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. |
| Post removed |
Dweller, why so rude, my man? Brian’s sharing his opinion based on his system and makes it clear that it’s his experience. Instead of disputing his claims, you’re just attacking him. If you have a specific technical question, ask. But you’re making all kinds of invalid assumptions and you sound like you’re just picking a fight for no reason. If anything, it just undermines and credibility you think you may have. |
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 |
| Post removed |
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? |
A close friend of mine who is an electronic a musician and producer with a pretty intense studio set up tends to scoff at high-end audio components when compared to professional audio components. And he and I always debate the relative listening habits and needs of each group of components. It reminds me of the crown discussion last month on this for him. And it makes me wonder if there are any professional components that could serve double duty, so to speak, in a high end consumer audio chain. |
