What qualities stand out in really good solid state preamps?

@jc4659
I have a deHavilland type pre, yes.

The word "neutral" is anything but neutral. It’s more like a Rohrshach test that exhumes what people find important in what they listen for in their systems.

Your idea of comparing with vs. without a preamp is useful.

Neutral is not that useful a word, especially given how differently preamps can sound. For example, when I compare two preamps I’m testing, there are differences which come out that are fairly significant. [See photo below of my buddies DIY preamp built around the Burson Audio Buffer using really good caps and parts vs. a low cost L.Pass 2.0 Mos FET ] The DIY is just better in every regard. But neutrality is not at stake.

(FWIW, the L.Pass 2.0 is an amazing bargain. Dead quiet, good imaging and instrument tonal accuracy, good dynamics. $154? Who can beat that for the price?)

Live listening experiences can vary a lot. Sometimes, I find myself questioning whether I’m sitting in the best spot. I have sat 7th row center and I have sat 35th row off to the right. If I sit close to the bass section in an orchestra, I bemoan how "bass-heavy" everything sounds. It’s not balanced enough. Is that a lack of neutrality? Compared to what? -- that’s the question. Here, the answer could be (a) compared to 7th row center or (b) compared to my rig. In other cases, one venue is, itself, worse than another -- or my rig. But "better" and "worse" and "neutral" or "non-neutral" all have to be indexed to a set of criteria or they’re not helpful words -- they’re wobbly words.

“Hey Siri / Alexa, where can I find a dozen + takes on audio neutrality?”

😉

Growing up where only English is taught/spoken and moving to/working where several languages are taught/spoken (and where English is a second language), it became clear the inevitable pitfall of trying to tie down meanings among people for audio kit adjectives that have been adapted from other senses (at the most proximal) or completely unrelated contexts. This seems a very fast-moving target be it for preamps or something else.

But admittedly, the notion of potentially feeding a SS preamp to a tube power amp had me curious just for how unconventional it is!

Great post!

Especially true if we refer to gear pieces to define and learn about any concept instead of acoustics as a reference, the way we create ourself "neutrality" in a system room teach much more than using a new piece of gear...

Then for reason relating to the characteristics of our system parts /room and specific synergy what we look for will differ for each of us. For example i was looking for a more "organic" synergy , then i pick up tubes preamplification to couple it with my dryer active speakers.... Luckily it was a match in heaven....But the same preamplifier may appear as "trash" for another person needs, and system/room characteristics and level ....There is no rule  in brand name choices preamplification  for a synergy... Electrical specs compatibility but it is not enought to create synergy which ultimately is an acoustic experience...

Growing up where only English is taught/spoken and moving to/working where several languages are taught/spoken (and where English is a second language), it became clear the inevitable pitfall of trying to tie down meanings among people for audio kit adjectives that have been adapted from other senses (at the most proximal) or completely unrelated contexts. This seems a very fast-moving target be it for preamps or something else.

But admittedly, the notion of potentially feeding a SS preamp to a tube power amp had me curious just for how unconventional it is!

They are typically very quiet. Neutrality but not at the expense of texture and proper color. Most S.S. preamps I have heard dont get as many things right as the more neutral/linear leaning tubed models. Perhaps oversimplification would be a good word to apply to many S.S. preamps.

I think it more advisable to feed your S.S. amp with a tubed preamp and in my experience this seems more common. Very few if any disadvantages to tubed small signal devices versus tube amps which need to be matched more closely with speakers. Especially true of my OTLs. 

Had Pass XP-12 into Rogue ST100 tube amp. No problems and sounded good. 
Matching tube preamps (typically higher output impedance than SS counterparts) to solid state amps (typically lower input impedance than the tube amps) is where you need to be careful. Everything else is a matter of sonic preference. 

@audition__audio 

I think it more advisable to feed your S.S. amp with a tubed preamp and in my experience this seems more common.

It's more advisable if the question is "What's better? Tubed or SS preamp?" But, if you read the OP, you'll see that is not the question. It's not an "either/or" question. It's about the differences between SS preamps. 

I find it very amusing to read that apparently, for some, there isn't audible differences between solid state preamps?!? 

Come on.

Every circuit has a "sound", even when it seems very transparent / neutral, if you compare it with another circuit, you will spot differences. It can be "more drive", "more depth", stronger bass, whatever. Solid state preamps DO sound different, just like the rest.

Many thought that sound exist or the aspects of sound exist as "neutrality" by itself in an absolute way which is all measurable in some objective way for some or separately all evaluated in some subjective way only . But sound perception is an inseparable objective, subjective and intersubjective and historical conditioned dynamic process.Not a mere state.not an isolated factor.

Then the material conditions as difference between two preamplifier be it two tubes one or two S.S. one will be also part of all the material factors at play...

Sound is like perfume blend , it result from an objective recipe determined by acoustic or chemical  and physical materials parameters and subjective impressions and intersubjective impressions but also statistical studies in acoustics or in perfume industry ...

Sound is as sensual and visceral as odor perception in his intimate revelations(human voice timbre meanings) and as abstract and as concrete as visual conditions in their general and universal display (spatial properties of sound and spatial geometry of sound as in echolocalization ).

«The ears are like two noses who had learned together not only to smell the inside but how to see the outside »-- Groucho Marx studies in kitchen acoustic 🤓

«The nose knows in a primal way what the eyes only believes but which the ears can understand»-- Groucho Marx neurology studies 🤓

«The ears think» -- Groucho Marx studies in the womb 🤓

« Then why did the ears do need so much a mouth? »-- Harpo Marx 🎼

«Because silence is already a music in need of a sound»-- Groucho Marx

«Right the dancing body is not enough I need my harp to think and speak »--Harpo Marx 🎼

Music is thinking rythms dreaming a melody.

Any system well embedded and well chosen , with or without preamplification, will give you that.

The only rules are synergetical choices coupled with acoustics...

Each one of us differ by his needs and by his specific constraining conditions.

Marketers want to convince you that a specific  piece of gear is the solution by itself...It is not even wrong but beside the point ...

@rolox 

I find it very amusing to read that apparently, for some, there isn't audible differences between solid state preamps?!? 

Come on.

Every circuit has a "sound", even when it seems very transparent / neutral, if you compare it with another circuit, you will spot differences. It can be "more drive", "more depth", stronger bass, whatever. Solid state preamps DO sound different, just like the rest.

Exactly exactly exactly.

There are many posts which just rely on lazy words like "invisible" or "transparent." That is evidence to me either of lack of perception acuity or lack of linguistic facility. Ok, maybe SS preamp A is very hard to distinguish from SS preamp B. Fine. But to say this *class* of gear lacks differences is repugnant to reason.

Krell and mark levinson .