There is nothing wrong with folks here nominating favorites as candidates for consideration as being at the top, but, as Charles1dad said, there is no reason for anyone to accept someone else's "this is best" declaration-at this or ANY level of performance/price--personal preference and system matching certainly come into consideration. I like Atmasphere's characterization of a mountain with a very large flat top.
There are plenty of problems, to me, with citing to "best" declarations by any reviewer. For one thing, Jonathan Valin has declared a number of amps/linestages as "best" after so proclaiming the Balabo. I haven't heard the Balabo myself, but, given that it is competing against Audio Research in Valin's pantheon of great gear, I would have serious reservations about such a judgment.
Also, there are hundreds of small builders making very limited runs of custom gear to consider. I've heard and bought some that will never be reviewed by anyone in the mainstream or even underground press.
Use this sort of thread to develop a laundry list of things to hear, and contribute to this thread for that purpose. When I read someone insisting that one thing is the best or that someone else's choice is wrong, the only judgment I form is about the writer of post, and it is certainly NOT the impression the writer intended. |
Larryi, I agree. I have heard the Balabo at shows. It sounded quite good. I now have a Koda K 10. It has a sound characteristic that I find warmer than the best solid state units and more defined and more real than the best tube units. My big problem with it is the gross jumps in its 22 position pot.
In my response to Audiozen, I was merely noting the sharp difference in price of the two linestages. I used to have respect for Valin's judgments in FI, but no longer. Certainly I noted that I said "in my personal experience," Charle1dad. As always I think it is ludicrous to use words to compare sounds and long for the day when a reviewer can merely say, "Listen to this comparison. I found preamp A clearly superior to B; do you?" |
VAC top of the line HELLO!!!! |
TBG,
To me, the ideal review would be one that extensively describes the operational features of the product (particularly any operational quirks or inconveniences) and physical characteristics and largely dispenses with the flowery praise of the sound. Instead, I would like to read about the things that might have bothered the reviewer about the sound. That way, the reader would be made aware of POTENTIAL isses with the product that the shopper might have otherwise overlooked in a quick audition. So much of what becomes an annoyance with a product is somewhat hidden until one has listened to it for quite some time; being able to focus on a potential shortfall early on might help in spotting such problems.
If I were in the market for a new linestage, I would say that this thread IS helpful in that it identified the Koda K 10 as a candidate (I did not even know of the name), as identified by obviously experienced listeners. My issue was with the postings that claimed this choice was ridiculous given that something else received rave reviews and is designed with more advanced technology. There is nothing wrong with liking something else more, I just don't like claims that such judgment is superior to that of someone else based on such specious evidence. |
Reviewers and peoples opinions are just that. It peaks our curiosity and hopefully leads one to hear the item for themselves, either at a dealer or a trade show. It is ludicrous to say this is the best as the best is what sings in ones own system. I don't think there is one universal best item out there of any kind. |
Jwm, reviewers were better when neither Stereophile nor TAS had any advertising and when there were few companies making equipment. Emags and advertising taint the market as does the failure of most dealerships. But we cannot go back. This is why audioexotics and whatsbestforum are so important. |
Tbg, I agree with you 100%. There are way too many companies out there including garage operations to have a hold on everything. I go to CES every year and amazed about how many new companies that crop up that I never heard of. Also lots of companies that are out of business as well. I also agree that I like on line reviews as compared to the heavy advertising magazines. I still miss the magazine started by Jack English years ago I think it was called Sounds Like. |
Audiozen, why attack Jwm? My goodness he is a solid Agon member and your comments seem very out of line. Why attack? |
I have trouble accepting the value proposition of very expensive pre-amps these days in general.
Not that each might not sound very good and seem worthwhile on their own, but the job of a pre-amp at its core is not that complicated. Some will argue a passive done right is as good as any even.
So, from a purely technical perspective, I do not understand the design rational behind a very expensive pre-amp, other than that is what some will look for, so there is a market.
I'd think it better in teh traditional vein of audiophilia to keep things as simple as possible, passive with good volume control if needed perhaps even, but not much more beyond that circuit-wise in even the worst case might really be needed to maintain certain electrical parameters needed to integrate well with other components.
Its the integration end to end that seems key, for me. Not how much money and circuitry is invested in any particular device.
Just wondering..... |
The preamp is the heart of a system and in my experience the difference maker in my myriad of systems over the years.
Think of it this way. No reason for separate amps, preamp, dac, conditioners, as they could all be put into one box. We buy separates because they sound better. Each component can be executed in a more fleshed out and complete manner with separates. A sound card volume control stuffed into the same box as the dac or amp simply does not sound as good as a well executed active preamp. Volume control can certainly be handled in a one box integrated fashion, but no way it sounds as good as my tube regulated, tube output, monster power supply, active preamp.
At least not in my systems, to my ears, and in my room :).
Some like the sound of passives or built in volume controls in a dac, and for them great! Others of us would rather not spend the extra money on an active, but cannot live with the "different" sound of these simple attenuators.
So no, the the total dollars spent has nothing to do with it. It's all about the resulting music from the complete system. For me and many others a great preamp is the only or best means to our hunger for great sound/music. |
Granny,
No doubt, many feel the same way as you, wanting to build around a good active pre-amp.
But there are clearly other ways to do it that involve no or lesser investment in the functions of a pre-amp, which nowadays is often merely to switch sources and control volume.
Granted there are many more bells and whistles possible in a pre-amp, but those are teh core things most must do. Audiophile preferences has already stripped away most of the other features of pre-amps past, like filters, tone controls, etc.
So I just wonder, for those two things, how much cost is justified? If I go with a minimal pre-amp, passive or active, what does it take to really just do those two things well? There are other parts of the system that might be integrated well and tweaked to produce the desired end sound as well, perhaps? THat is what my gut tells me anyway.
AN interesting experiment would be to undertake achieving a certain preferred sound with two unique systems concurrently for the exact same cost for comparison, one using an expensive preferred lovely sounding pre-amp, and another a less expensive minimalist, maybe even passive pre-amplifier.
Could both systems be made to achieve similar result for same or less money? Might one be able to achieve better results at the particular price point?
I have not done this experiment so I do not know, but my technical gut tells me I should be able to achieve desired results both ways, if both are done right.
I would think it possible to reduce the cost of the pre-amp in the "minimalist" pre-amp system, especially for just one or two sources, even more no volume control on pre-amp is needed for digital, and then even invest that money elsewhere for better results, if done right.
I may give it a shot someday. I have several pre-amps around the house already I could try with. I do not own any passive pre-amps. I do have Squeezebox Touch devices with built in digital volume controls that I could use without pre-amp, at least to try. |
If I could configure a system without an active preamp and get the sound I aspire to I'd do that in a heartbeat. Based on considerable listening experiences it hasn't happened. For what I find to be essential sonic attributes for my system an active is irreplaceable. They are capable of reproducing music in a manner that I have not heard approached in their absence.
For those who believe that passives or direct source to amplifier is as good or better I say congratulations, good job and continue to enjoy what you have. This method wouldn't satisfy me and I'd be overtly aware of all that's missing from the music. So there'll always be two camps regarding this issue. I want what I consider a complete and realistic sound and thus far only the very good quality actives deliver.
Charles, |
Charles and I are on the same page and no other way to achieve the music we want without the pre of our dreams. No buffer, no other combo etc... I have tried does it. I wish it weren't so, but it is up till today.
I remain open minded will will try other "things" in the future. |
Interesting topic, there are a lot of possibilities...in comes down to the human characteristic that we all love our children; hence, of course ours are special. If you are able to get your toe(s) tapping and your emotions swaying, then your preamplifier is priceless.
In terms of the value position...if you do not mind, I will make a humble suggestion. Buy, or rent, a musical instrument, of your choice; take some music lessons, find some like minded friends, or drinking buddies, and play your heart out...sometimes it is better to be inside looking out instead of outside looking in...
Cheers! |
I agree with Charles and Grannyring, theory notwithstanding, I have found that I like the sound of active linestages in my system. Moreover, I like tube linestages even though they measure poorly compared to solid state, and I currently use and like one that is fully transformer coupled (transformers on inputs, output transformer feeding input transform on the power amp) even though transformers are both "unnecessary" and have inferior performance characteristics.
If there is a disconnect between theoretical ideals and what I hear and prefer, I disregard the theory. That comes from a LONG list of experience with design "breakthroughs" in not just audio--not all of them are as claimed.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is." Yogi Berra. |
i think that the new darTZeel NHB-18NS must be considered at the very top level of preamps. i've had the one-only prototype 18NS in my system for the last 10 days and it's a revelation both as a line stage and phono preamp.
my 8 year old current model (with the latest boards and battery charging system) 18NS is still very very good, but the new one has a much much lower noise floor, is more dynamic, and has the best sounding phono stage i've heard. |
My apologies Jwm and Grannyring. |
|
Hi Larryi,
In concept and theory, simpler is better is what I attempt to adhere to. My line stage is transformer volume control- input transformer-DHT tube-output transformer and is a single gain stage=pretty simple/ minimalist design. Passive is simpler yet, but at this point too much is lost. I'm all for simple until it compromises the sound. Practical results trump theory as you astutely pointed out. I like SET amplifiers for their inherent simplicity and the resultant sound. I pursue simplicity as far as I can until it becomes detrimental. Larryi I imagine that your line stage sounds fantastic. There's something about transformrrs that sound so right if implemented correctly. Admittedly using very high quality signal capacitors can sound fantastic as well with excellent implementation. When I come across a passive that equals what I hear with actives I'll happily spread the word.
Charles, . |
Good questions by Mapman a few posts back, IMO, and excellent answers by Larryi, Charles, and Bill (Grannyring).
Regarding the comments about theory vs. practice, as a technically oriented person, and one who also has read a great many posts by the aforesaid three gentlemen over the years, I will say that if I were to perceive a conflict between their experience-based comments and what I understood to be the relevant theory, I would have no hesitation in giving greater weight to their comments than to the theory.
That said, in the case of Larry in particular, and the other gentlemen as well, I have frequently felt amazed over the years at how his invariably well balanced and nuanced posts, which are obviously based on broad experience with exceptionally fine equipment, just about always seem to be technically plausible, and not inconsistent with an understanding of how all of this stuff works. In fact I had left a comment to that effect in his system description thread about a year ago.
Ill add that on occasions when theory and practice seem to be in conflict in audio, my belief is that in general the cause is often not a failure of theory, but rather a failure to accurately recognize its limitations, or in some cases a result of improper application or understanding of theory. One major reason for its limitations being that design decisions, whether at the piece part level, the circuit level, the component level, or the system level, inevitably involve a great many tradeoffs and compromises, and particularly in audio it is often not possible or practical to draw a balance between those tradeoffs in a quantitative manner . That being one reason why, as has often been said, audio is as an art as well as a science.
And all of that is certainly not helped by sales literature, reviews, and other writings that can be found on the Internet which commonly dwell in a non-quantitative manner on the value of an isolated set of design characteristics, without addressing, much less quantitatively assessing, the tradeoffs that may be involved. That being one of the reasons, IMO, that (in Larrys words) design breakthroughs are not always as claimed.
All of which, unfortunately IMO, leads some to totally reject the value of theory and technical understanding, thereby increasing the randomness of assembling or refining a satisfactory system (a point that Mapman for one has often made). The frequent result being that investments of time and money are misdirected.
Just my $.02, and IMO of course. Best regards,
-- Al
|
Hello Al,
Larry, Bill and myself all fully appreciate the point Mapman was making and it was a very sound one at that. Idealy you'd think it's possible to get the very best sound in an audio system without resorting to an active peeamp with its"added" complexity and required IC and anotherP. Cord in the mix. Eliminating these in favor of less is appealing to say the least. I know for a fact that Bill has tried with the most earnest of intentions and effort to go direct source and also passive (Lightspeed). Bill at one point sold his beloved TRL DUDE as to demonstrate his sincerity in following the "simpler" mantra.
Given Larry's very extensive experience and background I'll assume that he has heard or tried numerous attempts to remove the active preamplifier from the signal chain. I've been exposed to many passive/direct source system approaches.I can honestly say that some of these did indeed sound good and in some cases very good. In my listening evaluation none could match the realism and completeness of what a high quality active is able to achieve. Theory would predict that less circuitry or parts in a signal path should yield better sound. I strongly believe this is true, until a critical point is reached and them simpler becomes a compromise and a obstacle to the best sound that's possible.
I'll say a minimalist active will more often than not, out preform a more complex active (multiple gain stages, parts and circuitry). Here is where simplicity shows its superiority.
Charles, |
Mapman, regarding your comments about the value of expensive preamps, here's a thread from a few years ago. |
"Ill add that on occasions when theory and practice seem to be in conflict in audio, my belief is that in general the cause is often not a failure of theory, but rather a failure to accurately recognize its limitations, or in some cases a result of improper application or understanding of theory."
Nicely put and I totally agree.
There is value in making things easier for people. That would apply to active pre-amps as well. No doubt they have an impact on how things sound. |
I know the former distributer who did Hegel for some time in my country. I never heard any demo what was stunning. I never heard any person who also work in audio that Hegel is a stunning brand.
Maybe you life in another world than we do..... |
Studio gear is a reasonable place to look I think for the nuts and bolts of quality sound.
Quality sound comes in many flavors. Quality alone does not assure acceptance. Personal preferences do mostly. |
So audiozen, did you buy this ideal system and are now done for good?
If not, why not, if others should?
Just wondering.... |
World's best? That's a tall request. But, I suspect close would be the Ayre KXR and even better the newly updated KXR-Twenty. The KXR can be found used for about $10K- a bargain in my opinion. And, yes, I believe a great active preamp is an essential part of a great system. |
Only buy what you hear........and make a decision by yourself! |
Oh, cool. Another World's Best Thread....and of course we will find every expensive Product on our Planet. But my choice is rock solid:
No. 1: Chips
and
No. 2: Coke |
Audiozen, I have owned many of the pieces you recommend and tell you that I sold them for one reason, namely I found better.
I think that many here are using the wrong words about science. Theories are plausible explanations of what we have discovered to be relationships. Engineers like to talk about the "laws of physics," but physicists do not. We can only "tentatively" hold some relationship to be true. So in reality we can only say that many designers of audio equipment stress one thing to be most important and others something else.
Some years ago at a Rocky Mountain show, Stereophile had a demonstration of a Boulder amp's reaction of loads on it versus an unknown black amp. They had everyone in the audience sneering at the black amp. I ask to hear some played on both amps and was told they had no speakers. I then suggested that THD might not have been so all important to the black amp designer. There was a gasp! I left the room as devoted to mindless discussions. |
Mmmmmmm...xtc makes music a lot more fun :)
a lot cheaper than an expensive pre-amp! |
Regarding the old post about the mps-5 comparing to any top vinyl and master tape rig. What I heard was not even close at all and just another reminder that digital still has a long way to go still to ever compete with the sound of analog. |
Audiolabyrinth, isn't that just bells and whistles stuff? |
The old Blowtorch Preamp from CTC was world class. It's hasn't been made for quite a while so rotsa ruck finding one. CTC was Curl, Thompson and Crump. |
Hi Charles,
I have heard TVCs and I do think that they are the best way to implement a passive linestage. I also do wonder if they would be even better if incorporated into an all out active linestage.
My main "problem" with TVCs are practical/ergonomic issues. Most of the available TVCs are not switched by remote control and I really don't care to live without at least remote control of volume. The other common problem is that most have far too few steps of attenuation. I am not a fan of stepped attenuators with 2db or so steps-the "right" volume just seems to always be somewhere between adjacent steps.
Also, unlike most systems, mine actually needs active amplfication from the linestage. My headphone amp is surprisingly low in sensitivity and I need the additional gain when I play my records (phonostage with 60 db of gain, and a cartridge with a .3 mv output).
A friend of mine built a remotely contolled linestage that used a light-dependant resistor attenuator. He had the right set-up for a passive (very short interconnects, suitable input and output impedances). I thought it sounded quite good. But, just out of curiosity, we substituted in a pretty decent tube active linestage (capacitor coupled, 310 tube). We all agreed that, with this particular setup, the active was better--more dynamic and engaging. This was a bit surprising because this system was already pretty dynamic sounding (the speakers utilize Feastrix fieldcoil drivers). |
Hi Larry,
My line stage comes in two versions
1) TVC without remote control, the one I use.
2) A resistor based VC with remote control. The builder acknowledged that lack of a remote is a deal breaker for quite a few people. I don't miss the remote and I really like the transformer volume control sound quality.
Charles, |
Bob Crump (may he RIP) brought his CTC Blowtorch around to my room on his cross-country trip back in 2002 (I think?), and I compared it to my Placette Passive RVC which was my reference at that time. I liked the Blowtorch, but not enough to change.
it took a lot to get me away from passive. |
Geoffkait, Mike reminded me that I heard this preamp as the Blowtorch when Bob brought it up to compare with two passive units that I was experimenting with at the time. As I recall, I preferred it but thought it was too expensive. My H-Cat P-12 looked cheap when compared with the Blowtorch but in some ways was better.
I miss Bob and his curmudgeon ways. We argued constantly, especially when I experimented with old compression driver horns. |
Our friend has listened to Master Tapes through State of the Art systems. Okay, then I guess that is where he auditioned the playback systems of which he spoke, except for the CD player, right? Right!? Or is there a difference between End All and State of the Art? |
Spiro, who is your message directed to? |
As said before, go and audition a Dan D Agostino momentum pre-amp, Dan has taken what was krell to new levels of organic sound, as in real sounding, tube sounding, warm sounding with the resolution you never expected. |
To me, the FM Acoustics is the best. The audiophiles abroad are right. Especially if you're a mostly analog guy. Hearing is believing. But exactly how they justify the prices, I dunno. It used to be less...a lot less!But, that's progress right?! lol. |
And the winner is......?
And why exactly again? |
Always go with the most expensive unit. It might not be the absolute best but it'll get you in the ballpark. Then tweak the crap out of it, of course.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. |
If its worth the most on the used market after 10 years or so chances are its also the best.
List prices of new gear is not nearly as reliable an indicator of overall quality. What people end up actually paying over time is more like it. Its probably more predictable in advance with products from well know vendors with a history of good products under their belts. |
Hello, concerning the Hegel P 30, I agree with Ralpheburns who wrote: "I do have one complaint though, that the P30 remote control jumps the volume in steps bigger than the 1 db than I had grown accustomed to. Because I generally listen at low levels, I simply take advantage of the bit-headroom of the HD25 DAC and reduce input levels, but I'd be interested to hear if others have another approach" There is a very sharp rise in volume around 10 o’clock on the volume, so it can be difficult to set up the volume with accuracy (too low or to loud). furthermore when you push up the volume with the rolling button, you can hear a slight distorsion in the loudspeaker... Hegel is fully aware of these concerns, I discussed with them in 2015 and asked them to call me when they find an upgrade/design solution. I've never been contacted ... The P30 is a good machine, but in my opinion, at its level of price it's not acceptable to have these defects. Indeed, the P 30 is hegel's preamp flagship. |
Just to add to the Topic Hegel.
I added a P20 to my setup, separating the preamp part of the Benchmark DAC 3HGC.
This is a fantastic preamplifier. Transparent, detailed, well shaped and deep bass. Clear but not sharp or edgy.
Source digital is Bluesound Node 2i and for Vinyl a Transrotor Darkstar with SME 309, Lyra Kleos and Phono Preamp Whest PS.30DTSE
DAC is a Benchmark 3HGC version, loudspeakers are Dynaudio Sapphires, 2 Monoblocks AVM M30.
Cables are inakustik LS-1102 and moderately priced Coax and XLR Starquads from Canare.
Holy Grail components for me are Hegel P-20, Benchmark DAC3, Lyra Kleos, Whest PS.30DTSE.
The other components value very much because their excellent performance and price / value realtionship.
|
All the best audio components I have heard are the product of decades of evolution and fine tuning not the latest technological 'breakthrough"
|
Not sure they still have it but the last time I was at Fidelis in Nashua NH they had a CTC Blowtorch pre amp in excellent shape.
|
|
