My vote is for the Resoluton Audio CD50, it is both splendid and mezmorizing. To all those who have tangled with me before on this, I don't need to hear from you again here, or anywhere. |
Actually it is not a "passive pre" at all, it just doesn't provide gain above unity (a "passive preamp" implies there is no active device in the output stage, and thus passive preamps are simply resistor networks outside the chassis). It is not comparable to a CD player with no internal volume control when combined with a passive preamp, and I strongly disagree (again) that any preamp, tube or ss, will improve the performance of a CD50. I have listened to mine in a splendid system with a correctly treated room for much longer than Sedond has even heard of Resolution Audio, much less actually heard the unit. It just doesn't need "smoothing out", nor does it need help driving any amplifier load. Your opinion simply isn't as informed as mine, Sedond, and yet somehow you feel that is of no importance, and you keep pushing an uninformed one. |
"who cares if you have listened to res-audio for 50 years, & i only heard it the 1st time yesterday? what's important, is how one thinks something *sounds*." I agree, and you certainly wouldn't better know the signature after one evening, and me having 50 years. The point is, as you state above, that you "don't care" what my expereince has been, and I'm ok with that...it only helps my position here, and helps to show your pathetic bias. |
Or to use spellcheck, apparently.... |
No, you are obviously using a voice recognition device and software, since your words are all phonetically spelled. In any case, the spelling comment was directed at Subaru, not at you (I had thought that was obvious). I am plenty helpful here, doug. I will reveal which preamp I tried, if you reveal how long you personally heard this CD50 WITHOUT a linestage, and also reveal your brother in law's personal e-mail address, so that I can contact him, and verify this story. THAT WOULD BE "WERY VELPVUL" to all of us. |
Gee, I guess this imaginary in-law is right, and I'm wrong. What other explanation could there possibly be? Oh yes, and the designer would also have to be an idiot for putting a volume control in there to begin with, since it sounds so awful "straight in". You should build a better player Doug, since you are such an expert in the field of CD player design...............It seems you never tire of making your little blanket proclamations about this player based on not much of anything Doug, and I do find them pathetic. |
The output impedance of the Line 3 is no lower than that of the CD-50, it is actually much higher (thus it drives the amplifier load with less aplomb). That said, if your power amplifier has an input impedance higher than that of typical amps (i.e., like SET's, higher than 100k ohms), I suppose it is possible that a CD-50 might drive the amp "too well", and turn bright. HOWEVER, MY EXPERIENCE IS WITH THE CD50, AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE CD-55 HAS BEEN COMPROMISED IN SOME WAY (since others have found it to be brighter than the CD-50). I also considered the Theta Miles, but it only uses 18 bit DACs. |
Actually, the CD-50's is only 50 ohms, single ended. OK, there is essentially no difference in the impedance (between Line 3 and CD-50 or -55), then. Like I said, other CD-55 owners, who also owned the CD-50, have all said that the CD-55 was bright by comparison to the 50. So according to the specs, the output impedance must not be the factor at play, here (assuming the specs are accurate, which can be a problematic assumpiton). Perhaps it has to do with the output devices, or the DACs. In any case, I submit that no one could listen to my CD-50 in my system (either se or balanced), and come away not thinking it's the best buy in CD players with volume control. If you doubt it, come by anytime. |
