2. amps-preamps
  3. 1436845499

What's your "diminishing returns" preamp choice?

What preamp would you consider is at the point of diminishing returns for you? I realize this is a vague and subjective question, but I think it will be interesting to hear the answers.

Of course, a $10,000 preamp will (probably) sound better than a $1,000 preamp but everyone has a different point at which they feel they have spent enough money. In some cases, one may feel that there isn't a significant difference between a $2k piece and a $10k piece to justify such a purchase.

I've noticed that there are some gems in the audio world that defy their price point. For instance, Apogee Centaurs, Halfer 9505 etc. I've always found such pieces fascinating.
woofer72
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,639 posts
 
Cost really doesn't have much to do with it- how good it sounds does.

Many preamps have a price tag that is not in line with how they sound. I've seen $2000 preamps take $13,000 preamps and eat them for breakfast- better in every way. Yet people will often think the more expensive preamp is better just because of the price.

You can make things too simple though; passives generally will eviscerate the bass impact as the math . You really do need a proper preamp if you want to hear everything correctly. The exception is if you can run the passive at full up. Even George agrees with this:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1427794264&openflup&12&4#12
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
10,312 posts
 

Your putting words into my mouth Ralph.

I said if you listen to a passive up full and the level is loud enough for you, you do not miss out on anything, as the transients are not smothered even when they're full up.
Passives sound just the same down low as they do up high, so long as the source is not a weak high impedance tube output stage >1kohm

Cheers George
kernelbob
51 posts
 
The biggest surprise was when I tried the Tortuga preamp. It has bettered both an Audio Research REF-3 and a Constellation preamp. It uses light dependent resistors for attenuation and has software controlled auto calibration to eliminate impedance drift over time. Most surprising is that it has the best bass performance that I've heard in a preamp. By the way, it also has user selectable input impedance which allows the user to optimize performance of the source device. The balanced version I have is $1800.
tomic601's avatar
tomic601
12,865 posts
 
I went with REF5se thinking the cost vs performance trade to the Aniv model to be beyond prudent...would probably still make that decision..the REF 10..same thinking...listening, hearing...for me anyway...I guess I lean to upper mid Giant killers...
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,639 posts
 
In fact passives are usually better if they are full up, as there is less shunt resistance to ground, so the source (if a weak tube output) sees an even easier load, which equals better dynamics for them.

Passives sound just the same down low as they do up high, so long as the source is not a weak high impedance tube output stage >1kohm

These two contradict, both written by you. So which is it?

My experience mirrors the former rather than the latter (we used to build a passive years ago and continue to test them); all (and I do mean all) weaken the bass as you turn it down from full. For our testing we used a CDP with a solid state output; it is by no means 'weak'.

Some of this of course depends on the source- for example if an output coupling cap is involved (which it almost always is). But its all moot if you have a preamp as it buffers the input from the output cable.
More to discover