So this comparison wont take weeks or months of careful listening while blinded in the vacuum of space holding an Apx-500 precision measuring device after all.
In sum, the LTA Microzotl level 2 pre is warmer and denser with ’beautified’ string tone/woodwind tone and excellent detail etc and the SPL has comparatively a more expanded airiness and spaciousness/instrumental separation while imparting (allowing through?) a bit more overall scale/size to the proceedings. The entire presentation of the LTA is very obviously more ’humid’/warmer/denser though not really syrupy or rolled up top (particularly with my MA3 DAC, pianos and triangles still have enough ’ping’ and original instruments on a bad recording can still annoy sufficiently ;) It retains excellent detail retrieval such as the breaths between clarinet phrases in clarinet concertos and the valves being clicked as the notes change.
The SPL is not quite as ’dense’ in terms of instrumental presence i.e. there is a might more solidity and corporeality to the image itself with the LTA. But as I say, perhaps as a consequence of less density (?), with it there is more air all around and the players are more perceptibly separated when spread around a venue. The SPL also seems to stage a bit wider left to right and possibly front to back. I guess you could say things -- everything-- sounds ’bigger’ through the SPL. I had the image of taking a piece of paper folded many times like a paper fan, then holding the ends and half expanding it (LTA) vs. fully stretching it out (SPL) though that’s a dramatization of course.
All this means system synergy is again key, particularly with regard to tonal qualities; with my Holo May KTE DAC for example, for my ear, with the Mac amp, the LTA pre is a bit too much of a good thing- a bit too humid/warm, though this does lend a beguiling tonality to sax/woodwinds etc. But pianos for example, aren’t as lit up and pingy as I feel they should be - more felt and wood and a bit less string maybe? With the Meitner MA3 as DAC (balanced out into LTA level 2 balanced inputs), it is less warm- better- but still a bit much for me in this regard. Certainly a click or two more though back toward the perceived ’neutral’ line though.
I’d say both pres are a bit warm overall, but there is no doubt the LTA offers the more humid/dense/compact view of the two at least when paired with my relatively high powered (and maybe slightly tonally warm) Mac MC152 solid state amp. Quite sure this isnt necessarily the intended pairing for the LTA pre, but on the other hand, I understand many have felt it to be an able and versatile performer in their various systems.
As it stands, I dont think the LTA will be for me in this particular system and I am deciding whether the SPL will be the ticket, as it does truly excel with space/airiness, imaging and pace, but it also a bit ’warm’ or ’analogue’ as The Music Room calls it. They’re right in that regard.
I’m actually starting to think that, for this particular set up, especially when employing a slightly warm DAC like say, the Holo KTE, perhaps a more ’straight wire with gain’ approach would be the way to go preamp-wise so as not to pour honey over a bit of caramel.
Actually, while not as dense/beautiful sounding as the LTA or as spacious and expanded as the SPL, the Freya S I had here for a while, particularly in buffered mode run full balanced, was maybe a better fit here tonally speaking. I do wonder now about pres like the Benchamrk LA4 and the other ’straight A students’ majoring in Measurements and Objectivity (M and O) for this particular system.
I’m going to do a few more back to back comparisons before I decide, but this is a snapshot for now... Hope this might help some thinking about these two excellent preamps. Nice thing though is either could certainly be a beautiful thing with the right ancillaries and neither ’smokes’ the other, regardless of the considerable retail price gap. Can I say ’horses for courses’? I love that Brit HiFi saying and it’s definitely fitting here.
