Counterpoint SA-5000 or First Sound Presence Pre

jes45@aol.com, based on your preference, you liked big open sound like the ARC SP-11 MKII and CATs Ultimate and SL MKIII. I wouldn't said that First Sound is in a different league but rather in different sound. Audio is so subjective that I always recommend everything you need to hear first hand before you buy anything. If a buyer don't know what he's looking to get then I would always suggest him don't buy anything at all because he'll never be satisfy. As far as your SA5000 goes, sorry to hear that you got much issue with it. I have yet to hear any preamp that's best at every play back.

I agree that system integration plays a big role in anyone's preference, however with Bigkidz listed system, I'd assume that the First Sound would be a better choice for him than the SA-5000 and that the Tube Research GTP-3 or GTP-4 would be even better.

I hope that my sharing my first hand experience with the SA-5000 didn't upset you. It's difficult somethimes to share experiences without stepping hard on someone else's toe. This was not my intent. My Counterpoint had reliability issues and it was too dark, recessed, slow, lacked dynamics (micro and macro) and lacked the detail for me in my system. This is not to say that it may not match perfectly for someone else in someone else's system, or that anyone else's Counterpoint has reliability issues. Maybe mine was built late Friday afternoon?

I'd listened to the three pre-amps you'd mentioned, S23Chang, and even considered the CAT until I heard the TRL GTP-3. In my system, there was no comparison. To me, the Tube Research IS in another league all of its own. YMMV, (Your Mileage May Vary).

May I suggest something here?
Although one tailors one's system to one's taste, there are components that provide a truer sense of what hears in real life. I am not suggesting that the First Sound is closer to that sound than any other preamp, but it seems that music has wandered away from what it sounds like (i.e., what a cello or double bass, or flute sounds like in real life) and what one prefers. They are not, to my ears, the same thing at all, unless one doesn't know what a cello sounds like live.
I hear live instruments all the time, due to my boyfriend's being an opera singer, and having a piano in his living room. His friends are similarly musical: one is a music teacher and recently had a recital with a cellist, a flutist, and a baritone. Without some sense of live music, it all becomes a matter of taste, which is of course, one's prerogative. But to say that such-and-such a component is merely a matter of taste is ignoring what High End audio was once about: a reference to live music and what live instruments sound like.
Some components reach this. The First Sound, which I've owned, among other preamps, is very true to, say, the human voice, a cello, oboes and a few other instruments. How do I know this? The boyfriend unit, who has listened to the components in my system, and comments, "yes, that's what the oboe sounded like when I played it." He has been just as quick to say, "That sucks. It doesn't sound like the real instrument at all, and the oboist is playing poorly."
It disturbs me to see remarks that seem more intent on defending a unit (usually one owned by the person posting) in contrast to suggesting that one component actually sounds more like the real thing than another. For example, ANY component that cannot reproduce most of the dynamic contrasts of live music is less "alive" than one that does reproduce the contours of dynamics. Of course, to add a disclaimer, the non-dynamic component may possess a clearer bass, midrange, etc., but I'm assuming that the (more)dynamic component is quite capable in this area as well.

If it doesn't sound like the real thing and one likes it anyway, that's valid. But an acknowledgement that one does not necessarily care that one component approaches the sound of music more truthfully than other component should be honored as well.

Mphnkns: I think what you said is pretty much what everybody believes.--Which is the very reason we all do this hobby. Also;I can't imagine a system in which the 5000 will sound more like actual music---unless the FS is broken. I own one /just the meager delux mk2. I did own the 3000 about 12/13 years ago. 'Fit my needs at the time.

I think it is subjective at this point. Unless you have both unit on hand and same time with the right combination, it is hard to give a real good evaluation based on your believe. Also, 5000 is far more superior than 3000 so you can't really draw conclusion base on 3000 because it is a totally different product. One thing for sure, newer products suppose to be better in technology but sonic wise is subjective. I currently own 6 different preamps and 5 different amps and I do find something different and something I like about each one.

5000 is more for more seductive sound. It is known for seductive musical characteristic and not for dynamic or pace or pin point imaging sharpness. The 5000 will make all music sound nice and gentle but not to the point where it become muddy or smear. That's why they choose tube retification in the power supply. It is in the class of its own. In audio, it is either you like it or you prefer something else. There is no real answer for every question about musical preference. If you can affort it, why not own both?