AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Audio by Van Alstine => Topic started by: Mark Korda on 16 Mar 2013, 02:37 pm
-
Dear Frank, I always thought that a passive preamp,(less is more) ,was the best way to extract the cleanest signal from an amp, forgoing the preamp,active. You said long ago in Audio Basics that the best thing you could do with your hifi system was to start with the preamp. Well, in the latest Stereophile, John Atkinson,the head honcho, confirmed your statement upon reviewing the Pass Laboratories XP-30 preamp, 16.500 bucks. In summing up he said: The XP-30 has rekindled for me the concept that the beating heart of an audio system is the preamplifier. I know it's not your Fet Valve preamp, 8 x's less in price,but Atkinson cemented what you said a long time ago, just wanted to let you know......Mark K.
-
Dear Frank, I always thought that a passive preamp,(less is more) ,was the best way to extract the cleanest signal from an amp, forgoing the preamp,active. You said long ago in Audio Basics that the best thing you could do with your hifi system was to start with the preamp. Well, in the latest Stereophile, John Atkinson,the head honcho, confirmed your statement upon reviewing the Pass Laboratories XP-30 preamp, 16.500 bucks. In summing up he said: The XP-30 has rekindled for me the concept that the beating heart of an audio system is the preamplifier. I know it's not your Fet Valve preamp, 8 x's less in price,but Atkinson cemented what you said a long time ago, just wanted to let you know......Mark K.
Nothing can mess with a system more than a pre amp. But really the source is what you hear. Everything your hear through your speakers is the source amplified. At the end of the day pre amps are just tweaks off the source.
-
Werd, you are off base here, probably because you have not thought through what a good preamplifier is supposed to do (and that few actually do).
First, the obvious. It needs to be the switching and control center for your audio system so you can choose any source and feed an appropriate signal level to your power amplifier to match the efficiency and gain of the rest of your components no how varied they are. That is the easy part.
Now comes the hard parts:
A preamplifier must be able to isolate the normally very poor load driving capabilities of your source components and drive the shit out of whatever cables and amplifier)s) you have downstream. This requires a low output impedance and high drive current capability.
A really good preamp will also isolate the amplifier and speakers from out of band signal garbage so you amp and speakers don't have to amplify crud, which is much harder to amplify than music.
Finally the preamplifier's audio circuits must not screw up the source music or change it in any way (except for the use of tone controls if these are needed to help out lame speakers or horrid source material).
Note that a passive preamp cannot do any of the functions above. However, a really good passive preamp might be more desirable than a ho-hum active preamp if you don't mind its significant limitations.
Note that a good preamp is not supposed to be a music tweaking device. If it obviously changes the sound, it is not doing its job well.
Regards,
Frank Van Alstine
-
Werd, you are off base here, probably because you have not thought through what a good preamplifier is supposed to do (and that few actually do).
First, the obvious. It needs to be the switching and control center for your audio system so you can choose any source and feed an appropriate signal level to your power amplifier to match the efficiency and gain of the rest of your components no how varied they are. That is the easy part.
Now comes the hard parts:
A preamplifier must be able to isolate the normally very poor load driving capabilities of your source components and drive the shit out of whatever cables and amplifier)s) you have downstream. This requires a low output impedance and high drive current capability.
A really good preamp will also isolate the amplifier and speakers from out of band signal garbage so you amp and speakers don't have to amplify crud, which is much harder to amplify than music.
Finally the preamplifier's audio circuits must not screw up the source music or change it in any way (except for the use of tone controls if these are needed to help out lame speakers or horrid source material).
Note that a passive preamp cannot do any of the functions above. However, a really good passive preamp might be more desirable than a ho-hum active preamp if you don't mind its significant limitations.
Note that a good preamp is not supposed to be a music tweaking device. If it obviously changes the sound, it is not doing its job well.
Regards,
Frank Van Alstine
Frank
The only component that manufactures the sound is the source. It plays the band and its why we have a vinyl market. Pre amps and everything else are tweaks off the source. Not to undermine technical aspects of what makes a good preamp or power amp. They just end up being tweaks off what we hear through our speakers.
-
Very well put Frank.
And as with most components, in my experience a good power supply pays real sonic dividends. Not to be skimped on. IME.
-
when i first started down this rabbit hole of a hobby I made the mistake others do of putting to much emphasis on speakers and amplifiers and the pre amp was secondary. That was a big mistake. Once I started to pay attention to the preamp my system improved by a large margins. Ive had a few passives and a couple of actives and agree with Frank.
Now I use ( and have for a number of years) a high quality preamp driving active speakers, each driver in my system has its own dedicated amplifier.
Now I have never had a quality Tubed preamp, that may be my next toy.
For now it's about time for some irish whiskey in light of st paddys day, tomorrow i will proudly be wearing ORANGE, so WHY will I be wearing Orange??????????
Cheers ! --- Mark
-
I understand the logic of the "less is more " concept but my own experience comparing using my digital source to drive my amps directly vs. running it through my
( active ) preamp is that I really prefer the sound with the preamp in use. I don't think that it's so much a matter of the preamp providing some sonic colouration which I happen to prefer - it's more that the sound seems is more dynamic and more open. My source has a built-in digital volume control and with four 32-bit DAC's per channel, the theory is that there shouldn't be a loss of resolution but...
D.D.
-
Skifastersic, I'm not trying to get off this subject tonight, it has raised a small ruckus, but what kind of corned beef do you prefer today,it's 2 in Maine, the bright red kind, or the traditional gray? Also,to get the cabbage down, do you pepper it with vinegar like I do?.And last but not least,Spicy Gouldens mustard, or Grey Poupon on the beef? It's the only day I ever eat a turnip. Frank VanAlStines answer about anything audio is God with me,but to cause more debate, what if you use a passive preamp with a combined sub woofer which will handle every thing from say 100 hz or so down.Do passive preamps roll off the highs that actives do not, using short cables?....thanks for all the info you guys...always have questions.....Mark K.
-
Werd, you are off base here, probably because you have not thought through what a good preamplifier is supposed to do (and that few actually do).
First, the obvious. It needs to be the switching and control center for your audio system so you can choose any source and feed an appropriate signal level to your power amplifier to match the efficiency and gain of the rest of your components no how varied they are. That is the easy part.
Now comes the hard parts:
A preamplifier must be able to isolate the normally very poor load driving capabilities of your source components and drive the shit out of whatever cables and amplifier)s) you have downstream. This requires a low output impedance and high drive current capability.
A really good preamp will also isolate the amplifier and speakers from out of band signal garbage so you amp and speakers don't have to amplify crud, which is much harder to amplify than music.
Finally the preamplifier's audio circuits must not screw up the source music or change it in any way (except for the use of tone controls if these are needed to help out lame speakers or horrid source material).
Note that a passive preamp cannot do any of the functions above. However, a really good passive preamp might be more desirable than a ho-hum active preamp if you don't mind its significant limitations.
Note that a good preamp is not supposed to be a music tweaking device. If it obviously changes the sound, it is not doing its job well.
Regards,
Frank Van Alstine
Hi Frank,I agree with you on the easy part,for the hard part the only thing that can do is only gain ,and with
todays say source levels is not needed (gain),if needed it's ok,if not it's ok too.
kind regards :green:
-
I understand the logic of the "less is more " concept but my own experience comparing using my digital source to drive my amps directly vs. running it through my
( active ) preamp is that I really prefer the sound with the preamp in use. I don't think that it's so much a matter of the preamp providing some sonic colouration which I happen to prefer - it's more that the sound seems is more dynamic and more open. My source has a built-in digital volume control and with four 32-bit DAC's per channel, the theory is that there shouldn't be a loss of resolution but...
D.D.
It's because the pre amp in your dac sucks. You can fix it though by using a TPV passive pre amp. The tpv houses transformers, a primary and secondary winding with a volume control in the middle. Set the pre amp volume to full and use the dac volume. This buffers the impedance between your dac and amp which is what's wrong with it. You get the impedance matching of the TPV and the active sensation of a power volume control from your dac. You also get excellent isolation between your dac and amp.
Something to try and it still may not be as nice as your Manley. But it maintains the sound of your dac.
-
I am wondering how a single dual triode can provide exact RIAA equalization. It can't be an RIAA feedback loop design because the highest gain tube available that I know of will run out of closed loop gain at low frequencies.
A passive EQ should be way beyond the drive capability of a single dual triode tube too.
And of course then the single triode design will have to drive loads downstream too, and the load and cable capacitance will modify the RIAA curve too.
I would really like to see a schematic of your single dual triode phono preamp design.
Frank Van Alstine
-
Rollin' :lol:
So, what about DAC's with analog output sections (preamp) and volume controls that don't suck?
In researching gear for a high-end (ish) dedicated system, I'm running up against this same question again and again. More than one High-end DAC manufacturer asserts that a preamp is not needed and the sound quality is in fact better driving amps directly with their DAC. Now, if this is true, it might save a guy some money in building a system, while yielding better sonic results. In theory at least.
Of course, only if you have no need for analog inputs, such as from a separate phono stage.
I guess my question would be: How much do you have to spend on the DAC / Pre for this to actually be true? $4k (Perfectwave II)? $6k (Overdrive SE)? Or would spending about the same on say, an FET - Valve DAC and Pre yield better sonic results? Or upon auditioning, might a guy prefer the sound of the Vision DAC and T-8, which cost significantly less?
I think discussion and debate, with its inherent subjective opinion based on either experience or (sometimes) bullshit, is great, but at the end of the day, you have to listen for yourself and decide which combination of gear you prefer. Unfortunately, this is difficult and time consuming to do, and something I would like to make my new career.
"What do you do?"
"I audition audio gear and speakers."
"Really? How's the pay?"
"It sucks. But I get a big hard-on every day at work."
:D
-
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=77206)
Hi Werd, this is a picture of a home made TVP volume control I made with a small article out of AudioXpress. I used 10K Goldpoint pots and transformers from Electroprint (PVE-3) from Jack Elliano, Jan.05 issue. I used an old Dyna PAM-1 chassis,which has holes already drilled for more switchability later on, like when I get to it. I don't own a DAC yet,but have had it hooked up to my Dyna-35 and it sounds pretty good to me using cd's. I got a better picture of the finished TVP, but I only know how to put a picture on one at a time. Cheap Jack, the way I interfaced my passive preamp with my subwoofer is without a crossover. I do have an old Ace 5000 and a Shadow Mark4 a Audiomart pen pal made,the prototype.Parts Express gave me the answer. Y-cables. From the outputs of my cd player I attached 2 Y-cables, Monster,not that exspensive. One pair goes to the Dyna-ST-35, and the other pair goes to my subs amp, a Canadian BASH sub,not much over 100 bucks. The BASH, Parts Express,has a built in low or high pass filter,I don't know which is correct, to cut out anything to the sub from 50 to 150 hz. It is adjustable. So the only thing in the path of the great sound of tubes is a nice clean extra Monster cable, not a exspensive crossover. My favorite cd for sub listening is the Wicked, the broadway hit. It explodes with music right from the start. Frank, when the economy gets a little better for me, save one of your preamps for me,your stuff always sounds stunning! I'm still trying to get those PAM's running and until,I got a PAS-2,the Last PAS mod version,to put in a good 250k volume pot and gold jacks for the back. Then I can make my own musical comparison with passive vs. active. Thanks you guys for all the info I'm learning. Now it's off to the boiled dinner. I have already consumed a loaf of Irish soda bread in 2 days. I feel like a human biscuit. After today it's back to Sparta, my roomate used to say that when he'd go back to the gym.Thanks loads....Mark K.
-
It's because the pre amp in your dac sucks.
Werd: Not sure that's actually the case or the problem. Correct me if I am mistaken but it's basically a digital volume control, no ? I suspect that because a lot of the music I listen to is mastered "hot" and compressed, I can't really open the taps on the attenuator and keep listening volumes at a comfortable level. Using the K-03 on its own running direct to the amps rather than putting my active pre into the chain doesn't sound bad, it just doesn't sound as good. I'm going to have to try comparing using some less- compressed source material and see what I come up with. Again, I don't think it's a question of this pre adding an undue amount of colouration- I have a nice SS preamp here as well and the Manley with it's current tube configuration is more neutral-sounding by a healthy margin. You would be surprised at how little that unit resembles the stereotypical "tube" sound in this system. Perhaps the digital volume control, like a passive pre, doesn't bring some of the benefits to the table that Mr. Van Alstine has mentioned earlier in the thread in promoting the use of a quality active preamp.
c-J: No response required or requested. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
D.D.
-
I get lost in these "true-to-source" discussions. Lack of bandwidth, I suppose. Just how many stages, conversions, manipulations, phase changes, and who knows what else does a middle C on a piano go through until it excites my eardrum? Not from the source in my system but from the microphone and room in which the sound was recorded to my speakers and room the sound is reproduced?
Since that original C note went through so much processing from room to room, does it follow that removing one electronic stage in the total chain will materially enhance the reproduced sound of the C note? If yes, then in all applications, most applications, or some applications? If yes in all cases then why are so many in the audio component industry so wrong by designing line stages? If only some times, does that explain the preponderance of line stage pre amplifiers over passive pre amplifers?
-
Does the output stage from a standalone high output DAC amplify the analog signal? Is the output stage functionally a built-in preamplifier in the DAC?
Is there a difference between a high gain output stage, as compared with a lower gain output stage and a standalone preamplifier?
Aren't each of them amplifying the signal to a level that can effectively drive a power amplifier? :scratch:
-
Ugh, why must these threads on preamps always devolve into having to address "no preamp is best" or "passive is best" arguments?
Best is to actually listen to as many combos as possible. And don't forget that these claims for superiority of one over the other are being made by folks with different gear and musical tastes (both in terms of content and the qualities of music that are most important to that individual).
For me, no passive (incl the Adcom 750, Dodd tube buffer) or DAC with volume control (Wyred4Sound DAC2, Weiss DAC2) has approached the qualities of my active preamp (Musical Fiedlity kW). IME, the active pre provides better drive and dynamics that lacking an active pre cannot match. Though in lower priced active preamps, this can come at the expense of detail retrieval.
-
I'm with roscoeiii so that would make it double Ugh.
The preamp is the heart of the system, the amps are the muscle and the speakers are your ex's mouth!
-
I have to agree that the preamp is rather important. I presently have a simple tube Linestage pre, a Bottlehead Foreplay that has all the tricks and really cleaned up my sound. I sort of agree with Steve, but also feel that a good amp can be both musical and be the muscles.
Simple is better as goes a good preamp.
Jim
-
...and don't skimp on the power supply, like with most else in audio.
-
...and don't skimp on the power supply, like with most else in audio.
Very true!
Jim
-
Principals and musical appreciation don't often go together.
-
Yes, amps make a significant difference but not as much as the preamp can which is why they're so important.
-
No one is talking about the primary benefit of a passive pre: it doesn't have a power cord! :thumb:
Gene
-
It is too bad that this became a pissing contest. Here's a novel thought, choose a preamp that sounds the best for your ears. More important, don't piddle on others and we can all enjoy the music.
Jim
-
Nothing can mess with a system more than a pre amp. But really the source is what you hear. Everything your hear through your speakers is the source amplified. At the end of the day pre amps are just tweaks off the source.
by the same token, nothing can make a system have that "it's real music" essence more than a preamp. the preamp is easily the single most important piece of electronics in the equipment chain, when it comes to the illusion of creating live music in the home. at the end of the day preamps are what brings life (or death?) to the extremely small fragile signals generated from the source. make mine active, thank you very much. :thumb:
give me a good active preamp, and it will make any quality source have life. even tho i might prefer one particular source over the other. w/o a quality preamp, all the sources will be lacking. as sj david mentioned, before the sound ever escapes the speakers in your listening room, the signal has been thru a myriad of stages. there's no way i'm gonna compromise the single-most important one - that which amplifies the fragile source signal - all in the misguided attempt to remove one piece of electronics out of a chain of many.
and a note to c-j and all your audiophile friends who approve of your system: make sure you don't ever audition a quality active preamp. because you will wonder why you have been missing all the great music all this time, or you will have to spend the rest of your days in denial. :lol:
doug s.
-
It is too bad that this became a pissing contest. Here's a novel thought, choose a preamp that sounds the best for your ears. More important, don't piddle on others and we can all enjoy the music.
Jim
hey! i can piss... oh, never mind! :lol:
i agree - choose what sounds best to you. in my system, it happens to be an active pre, w/its gain max'd, and wolume level controlled by an ldr passive remote. one added component in the chain and it sounds better. go figure...
doug s.
-
c-J,
Come on over with the passive of your choice and we can compare its effect with a digital source to the sound with my kW preamp in the chain. We will then see about "ruining" music vs making it better.
Like any audio component, preamps differ in their strengths and emphasis. Neither ruins the sound.
More than anything else, AXPONA the past week convinced me of the importance of hearing components in your own system.
I am also very curious what active preamps you have heard and what passive preamps you have heard.
Actives (especially low priced ones) have tradeoffs. Just as passives (especially low priced ones) do. The more you move up the price ladder, the fewer tradeoffs need to be made. Again, like with most audio components.
-
The "gain" is from the amp built in the programme source, e.g. most, if not all, CD players is rated 2V rms/600R O/P impedance. 2V rms is enough to drive most most, if not all, power amps to their rated full O/P power.
So any more "gain" from the preamp is redundant. A properly design/built passive linestage will do a BETTER job as it does NOT generate any undue distortion & noise onto the music signals that pass thru.
Don't you know any active stages are distortion & noise generators?? They can only ruin the music instead making it better.
c-J
Hi c-j,excellent points...,tho I'm not against preamps (active or passive)...
kind regards :green:
-
See earlier this thread c-J, my active preamp is a Musical Fidelity kW.
You can see Fremer's Stereophile review for details on it.
-
The "gain" is from the amp built in the programme source, e.g. most, if not all, CD players is rated 2V rms/600R O/P impedance. 2V rms is enough to drive most most, if not all, power amps to their rated full O/P power.
So any more "gain" from the preamp is redundant. A properly design/built passive linestage will do a BETTER job as it does NOT generate any undue distortion & noise onto the music signals that pass thru.
Don't you know any active stages are distortion & noise generators?? They can only ruin the music instead making it better.
c-J
ok,so what is your system gain?
-
Brett,
I am so much in agreement with you,' 8)
This is Franks AVA Circle and the best parts of my modest ( I work for a charity) system are AVA. I have a passive pre until I can save up for an AVA active pre. Been missing a bunch of neat AVA stuff since being restricted on the buy and sell but maybe that is good..
And yes :thumb: I have a a bit to my learning curve on active pre and nobody famous has let me listen to their system (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night) so your insight is refreshing. Hope this gets approved and posted as you nailed it.
Tom
That's a classic audio poser technique, this sort of thing is what drives most of the "high end" industry. People bragging about how much everything costs, who they know in the industry, etc. It stems from basic insecurity an terror that someone will find out they don't know what they are talking about, or that everything their golden ear hears is psychosomatic.
I am in this forum because there is relatively little of this BS that comes in here. How anyone with a lick of sense to read this sort of nonsense on a regular basis is beyond me.
Brett
-
My preamp experience has been with both active and passive. If anyone remembers I was hot and heavy over the Promitheus Trannie based passive. Was so smitten in fact went to Malaysia to form a partnership with Promitheus which unfortunately turned sour.
anyway during that time and after, a Stevens & Billington, Bent, Mapleshade all were auditioned to compare to the Promitheus. The winner was the S&B hands down. Then Uriahs LDR based passive graced our doorstep. That babie was equal to the S&B but lacked the weight of the S&B which was not much to begin with. However more weight than all other contenders.
The clear advantage of any of the passives was the clarity and openness of the sound. A clear advantage over most actives. Air, decay of notes and harmonics appeared in spades. Bu but something was missing.
Gestalt is the only word I can use to describe what was MIA with all passives we tried in direct comparison to the actives. Where we found the passive to be almost equal was when a darker richer system was being used. The passives shined. With say a brighter system they were tiring.
The active BTW a Loesch & Weisner [ tubed ] and Miracle Audio [ SS] were used for comparisons. Non of the passives could equal in direct comparison of the weight and body of the actives. Nor could the actives reach the see through presentation of the passives.
Trade offs for both. However IMO the actives were more engaging and got more emotion going than any of the passives. Both have merit. In our experience using a passive with tubed gear over SS was an advantage but not for all.
Remember - ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL.
charles
-
Rollo,
Excellent post. I'm not sure if the difference is distortion related but IMO a well designed active preamp just sounds more like real music to me. Passive preamps have their strengths but they lack the body and depth of a good active. I can't put my finger on it because unwanted to like the passive preamp. None of the passive preamps, including a highly regarded LDR passive sounded as good to me as a good active like the SAS 10a.
Passives are dead quiet, and I understand the allure. It might just come down to personal preference. I think it's cool to have options and I'm always willing to try them. Passives are usually more cost effective but they just don't sound as good to me.
CJ - you conveniently cherry picked Rollo's post. You skipped the part that said something was missing from passive preamps. This is my experience as well. None that I've tried sound like real music to me. That is a deal breaker. Maybe you are just too cheap to buy a good active and are deluding yourself into thinking passives are better sounding or maybe you just like a listening to music that lacks body and realism.
Jack
-
There was as well a continuance of sound with the passives. My preference were the transformer based or Slagle Autoformers over the resistor based contenders.
The LDR model had the most see through quality of all contenders. As much as the passives did at creating clarity and detail, there was something amiss. Sheer slam and grunt were MIA with the passives.
When at Carnegie hall the Orchestra has slam and power. Only the actives were able to remind me of that. To say anything has the slam and power of a live orchestra would be BS. Drum kits as well. Here trade offs again. While the decay of the cymbals was better defined by the passive. Rim shots and the snare were more lifelike. Tradeoff. Decay of cymbals was longer and more closer to real with the passive. However the tonality with the active was more closer to reality.
Horns with the passive were fatiguing. Just thin sounding. Now horns when produced correctly are brash, shrill and bright and quite dynamic. The active was just more involving.
Try both passive and active. The only way to tell. My take anyway.
charles
-
There was as well a continuance of sound with the passives. My preference were the transformer based or Slagle Autoformers over the resistor based contenders.
The LDR model had the most see through quality of all contenders. As much as the passives did at creating clarity and detail, there was something amiss. Sheer slam and grunt were MIA with the passives.
When at Carnegie hall the Orchestra has slam and power. Only the actives were able to remind me of that. To say anything has the slam and power of a live orchestra would be BS. Drum kits as well. Here trade offs again. While the decay of the cymbals was better defined by the passive. Rim shots and the snare were more lifelike. Tradeoff. Decay of cymbals was longer and more closer to real with the passive. However the tonality with the active was more closer to reality.
Horns with the passive were fatiguing. Just thin sounding. Now horns when produced correctly are brash, shrill and bright and quite dynamic. The active was just more involving.
Try both passive and active. The only way to tell. My take anyway.
charles
Another excellent post. On acoustic music, like a guitar and singer, with no slam or weight to the music, actives (LDR in my experience) are excellent. They are very transparent and silent. Passives have well documented strengths as well as weaknesses. It all comes down to personal preference and tradeoffs or music preference. I've never heard the Slagle Autoformers but I've heard very good things and have been lurking at the Slagle site. I hope to hear these sometime in my system.
Cheers,
Jack
-
c-J,
I see 1-2 live shows a week. I know what live music sounds like, acoustic and otherwise.
If you distrust reviewers, then at least Stereophile provides measurements that you can examine. And you will see that the kW measures extremely well. Well enough for me to doubt your claim that what an active preamp adds is necessarily sonic colorations (I will stay away from scary bold test). Not that there aren't sonic colorations in many preamps.
What I object to most is your insistence that the benefits some of us hear from an active preamp must be due to "sonic colorations," along with your claim that an active "ruins" the sound (no active or passive has ever "ruined" the sound for me, but each had its own strengths and weaknesses). Not to mention your claim that others opinions must be uninformed due to lack of experience with live acoustic music, or due to some "inferior complex." I choose to come here to AC because the conversation is generally civil and the community supportive. Please help us keep it this way by not casting aspersions towards other members' POVs.
As Rollo suggested: "ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL."
-
...What I object to most is your insistence that the benefits some of us hear from an active preamp must be due to "sonic colorations," along with your claim that an active "ruins" the sound (no active or passive has ever "ruined" the sound for me, but each had its own strengths and weaknesses). Not to mention your claim that others opinions must be uninformed due to lack of experience with live acoustic music, or due to some "inferior complex." I choose to come here to AC because the conversation is generally civil and the community supportive. Please help us keep it this way by not casting aspersions towards other members' POVs.
As Rollo suggested: "ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL."
+1! :thumb:
the fact is that all recorded music is not the real thing, and no matter how it is reproduced, it is a copy - an illusion. everything about it is a "colouration"! so, who cares if if an active preamp imparts "sonic colouration"? in this context, it is meaningless. what if an active preamp imparts something to the recording that makes it seem more like the real thing - live music? even tho it may be less true to the recording itself, less accurate on paper? which is correct? i know which i think is correct... 8)
doug s.
-
Actually a live event can sound colored. Ever been to Lincoln center before the last renovation. Bright bright and more bright. Never would we go there for a violin concert.
The Bottom line was a rich room colored. So if one wants to try and recreate as close as possible to those rooms the sound must be altered [ colored ] to recreate that.
when Carnegie Hal was redone the contractor decided to remove the bedding for the wood sleepers that support the floor. the cinder ashes were removed and concrete was installed instead of replacing cinders. The hall lost its natural character. Both conductors and musicians complained and the cinder was put back. Since Carnegie has retained its house sound.
So the room is key as well in recreating or creating great sound. just to many factors to determine the real culprit in reproduction. Since it is a recreatio then adding color just may be the ticket for some.
My bet little if any actually have experienced a recording session. Listening to the live feed agaisnt the recorded feed is mind boggling. Listened to both digital and analog feeds. Both were close but no cigar until the engineer did his thing. Added this added that took away this and added this. A boost here a boost there. At the end of the day the recorded music was very close but again no cigar.
Our brain can be fooled with tone but not with phase. both in phase and more importantly out of phase signals are key when right to recorded music. Shoot man if we could not process out of phase info we would not know to run away or to the roaring Lion.
Electronics due to there cancel out phase ya know plus one and minus one equal zero. To me that is the biggest difference between live and recorded sound.
charles
-
CJ - I'm not going to argue with you or state how often I get to live shows. We all have our preferences and if you feel passives are closer to live music, more power to you. It's cool that you found a system that meets your needs. To be completely honest, or frank, after hearing a good live show in a venue with great acoustics, it's hard for me to listen to any system. Even the big buck systems at Axpona and at my local B&M stores or friends' homes. Amplified Rock music is different. I've been to too many shows (at Soldier Field, United Center, Allstate Arena, etc.) that sounded much worse than most home systems. Even home systems with passive preamps! :thumb:
We are all trying to get as close as possible (or as close as our budgets and rooms will allow), and everyone has different preferences and opinions regarding what sounds "real". Passive preamps have strengths, but I can't live with their weaknesses.
I noticed you didn't respond to Frank VA's offer. Afraid of what he might find? :scratch:
Cheers,
Jack
-
Guess what, I think its about time to send this entire thread to the garbage bin.
I also ask that cheap-Jack refrain from posting on any further Audio by Van Alstine threads.
I will give this a couple more hours to simmer before trashing it.
Frank Van Alstine, designer of phono preamplifiers that actually are real and actually do work quite well. :)
Good call to end this Frank. There is some good discussion here, amongst the other mess. Maybe could we trim the thread to keep the useful POVs on preamps? And end this back-and-forth with c-J (who seems to still be posting despite being asked to not post any further on AVA threads)?
-
I have taken the the time to sift out the garbage from this thread, let me know if I have missed something too offensive.
Frank
-
I have taken the the time to sift out the garbage from this thread, let me know if I have missed something too offensive.
Frank
Frank, you did an excellent job....too bad that you had to.
Jim
-
Frank's preamps really do rock. :rock:
I would love to have an AVA passive line stage, though. :thumb:
-
I could build a passive preamplifier (volume control in box) with four sets of inputs, one set of outputs, and a precision 100K ohm stepped volume control for $200.
It could use the same basic chassis as we have done for the HumDinger, just different holes for jacks and controls.
It would not sound good though, not expensive enough. :(
Frank Van Alstine
-
I could build a passive preamplifier (volume control in box) with four sets of inputs, one set of outputs, and a precision 100K ohm stepped volume control for $200.
It could use the same basic chassis as we have done for the HumDinger, just different holes for jacks and controls.
It would not sound good though, not expensive enough. :(
Frank Van Alstine
c'mon, frank, you know the real reason is not its low cost, but that it's not active. :lol:
doug s.
-
Hi Frank,you forgot to put a BALANCE control... :green:
-
I could build a passive preamplifier (volume control in box) with four sets of inputs, one set of outputs, and a precision 100K ohm stepped volume control for $200.
It could use the same basic chassis as we have done for the HumDinger, just different holes for jacks and controls.
It would not sound good though, not expensive enough. :(
Frank Van Alstine
I'll call tomorrow to place my order.
Thanks, Frank. :beer:
-
Frank, Just wrap the same circuit in a fancy heavy shiny metal box, add some battery powered LED lights that do nothing, wood trim, heavy lead weights, etc, and you can sell it for 10X the price :green:
-
Frank, Just wrap the same circuit in a fancy heavy shiny metal box, add some battery powered LED lights that do nothing, wood trim, heavy lead weights, etc, and you can sell it for 10X the price :green:
and if you powder coat the chassis with a color, 20x....
Jim
-
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=77206)
Hi Werd, this is a picture of a home made TVP volume control I made with a small article out of AudioXpress. I used 10K Goldpoint pots and transformers from Electroprint (PVE-3) from Jack Elliano, Jan.05 issue. I used an old Dyna PAM-1 chassis,which has holes already drilled for more switchability later on, like when I get to it. I don't own a DAC yet,but have had it hooked up to my Dyna-35 and it sounds pretty good to me using cd's. I got a better picture of the finished TVP, but I only know how to put a picture on one at a time. Cheap Jack, the way I interfaced my passive preamp with my subwoofer is without a crossover. I do have an old Ace 5000 and a Shadow Mark4 a Audiomart pen pal made,the prototype.Parts Express gave me the answer. Y-cables. From the outputs of my cd player I attached 2 Y-cables, Monster,not that exspensive. One pair goes to the Dyna-ST-35, and the other pair goes to my subs amp, a Canadian BASH sub,not much over 100 bucks. The BASH, Parts Express,has a built in low or high pass filter,I don't know which is correct, to cut out anything to the sub from 50 to 150 hz. It is adjustable. So the only thing in the path of the great sound of tubes is a nice clean extra Monster cable, not a exspensive crossover. My favorite cd for sub listening is the Wicked, the broadway hit. It explodes with music right from the start. Frank, when the economy gets a little better for me, save one of your preamps for me,your stuff always sounds stunning! I'm still trying to get those PAM's running and until,I got a PAS-2,the Last PAS mod version,to put in a good 250k volume pot and gold jacks for the back. Then I can make my own musical comparison with passive vs. active. Thanks you guys for all the info I'm learning. Now it's off to the boiled dinner. I have already consumed a loaf of Irish soda bread in 2 days. I feel like a human biscuit. After today it's back to Sparta, my roomate used to say that when he'd go back to the gym.Thanks loads....Mark K.
Right on
nicer homer. Mine is pro built with S&B toroidal transformers that hardwires every volume step on the volume dial with the two transformers. Its pretty nice and looks great. its also switchable between 6 and 12 db.
-
Werd: Not sure that's actually the case or the problem. Correct me if I am mistaken but it's basically a digital volume control, no ? I suspect that because a lot of the music I listen to is mastered "hot" and compressed, I can't really open the taps on the attenuator and keep listening volumes at a comfortable level. Using the K-03 on its own running direct to the amps rather than putting my active pre into the chain doesn't sound bad, it just doesn't sound as good. I'm going to have to try comparing using some less- compressed source material and see what I come up with. Again, I don't think it's a question of this pre adding an undue amount of colouration- I have a nice SS preamp here as well and the Manley with it's current tube configuration is more neutral-sounding by a healthy margin. You would be surprised at how little that unit resembles the stereotypical "tube" sound in this system. Perhaps the digital volume control, like a passive pre, doesn't bring some of the benefits to the table that Mr. Van Alstine has mentioned earlier in the thread in promoting the use of a quality active preamp.
c-J: No response required or requested. Thank you in advance for your consideration.
D.D.
Well the problem with them is they cant drive a power amp 20 to 20khz with authority. They sound saggy compared to a good active pre. They do have excellent resolution though. Using a TPV pre will fix this and maintain the resolution due to its impedance buffering characteristics.
-
Put it this way, if you like tube amplification, you will need some gain in your preamp...
Jim
-
Put it this way, if you like tube amplification, you will need some gain in your preamp...
3 (out of 5) of my tube amps disagree. :D
-
The source will always be the most important component. The greatest preamp on the planet, active or passive, can't fix a mediocre source.
-
Put it this way, if you like tube amplification, you will need some gain in your preamp...
Jim
I have seen few preamps using variable gain (1,2..etc),but my question Jim is why we need gain in tube
amplification?,can you please explain? :thumb:
-
I will take a guess that gain added to tube amplification will lead to less tube related noise. IME, the lower gain in a tube amp, the better. As long as your overall system has sufficient gain.
-
I will take a guess that gain added to tube amplification will lead to less tube related noise. IME, the lower gain in a tube amp, the better. As long as your overall system has sufficient gain.
True...I tried running directly from my amps (when I had monoblocks) to my CDP, and it was not so good. My Bottlehead has 10db of gain and it is sufficient to do what I need.
Jim
-
I will take a guess that gain added to tube amplification will lead to less tube related noise.
Hi roscoeiii, no!,the amplification will amplify the noise as well as the audio signal...
Have another guess :green:
-
Well the problem with them is they cant drive a power amp 20 to 20khz with authority. They sound saggy compared to a good active pre.
Well, you got me curious enough to do some audio-guy stuff ie: disconnect my pre and run the K-03 direct into my monos using the on-board attenuator. I also checked the specs on this thing - 2.45 vRMS via either RCA or Balanced so I think it'll drive power amps without issue. Audiofool duty having been accomplished, now I'm listening to the new Bowie album ( it's very good BTW ) and now that it's run in a bit and warmed up, it actually sounds bloody good...I've owned a few SS preamps ( and still own one that's pretty cool ) and heard plenty more but this actually sounds better than what I remember. Not a bit of steeliness or brightness, really nice tight bass with mucho slam, excellent detail...the one area where the Manley has an obvious edge is that it conjures up a monstrous soundstage and a more 3-D presentation. It probably gives up a little on the bottom end, but with 300B's, well duh...not the first choice of bass-freaks, I would venture. Still, Werd, not too shabby and better than I recall. File this under " Things that make you go Hmmm..."
Gonna listen some more. :D
D.D.
-
Hi roscoeiii, no!,the amplification will amplify the noise as well as the audio signal...
Have another guess :green:
Not so fast, all tubes will have some microphonics, at the same time will still have a black sound floor. It is when you have to over saturate a tube is when you begin to introduce noise. Gain introduced in preamplification actually reduces noise.
Jim
-
Not so fast, all tubes will have some microphonics, at the same time will still have a black sound floor. It is when you have to over saturate a tube is when you begin to introduce noise. Gain introduced in preamplification actually reduces noise.
Jim
Hi,thanks for correcting me Jim... :green:
-
There is some good data here. This is a good topic for audiophiles to discuss and understand.
Personally, with digital sources, the integrated amp seems like it could be the best solution. For example, the Pass Labs INT-150 seems to provide a slightly superior performance compared to a separate preamp/power amp Pass Labs setup. From a noise perspective, it certainly has the potential to be quieter. Nelson Pass has written about how many systems have excessive gain in the preamp/power amp combo.
Frank makes some excellent equipment (including integrated amps). Would like for him to weigh in on the advantages/disadvantages of an integrated vs. a separate preamp/power amp combo.
-
The source will always be the most important component. The greatest preamp on the planet, active or passive, can't fix a mediocre source.
i disagree. no one here is talking about using a mediocre source. i will simply repeat what i said earlier in this thread, which explains why i disagree:
"give me a good active preamp, and it will make any quality source have life. even tho i might prefer one particular source over the other. w/o a quality preamp, all the sources will be lacking. as sj david mentioned, before the sound ever escapes the speakers in your listening room, the signal has been thru a myriad of stages. there's no way i'm gonna compromise the single-most important one - that which amplifies the fragile source signal..."
what "the greatest preamp on the planet" will do ls make your fave source sound better... 8)
imo, of course! :wink:
doug s.
-
I fail to understand how a preamp can provide more dynamics to a signal. If it is altering the sound in some way, that to me is a completely undesirable trait. If you have a competently-designed DAC that is capable of driving the input stage of an amplifier directly (and assuming 24 bits used for digital volume), what possible benefits can a preamp provide? It can only add noise and distortion, it can't take it away. Certainly if a DAC cannot provide enough voltage to obtain the required volume, a preamp would be required, but short of that, I fail to see any point at all.
I suppose all of you who expressed a preference for a preamp in the chain have done ABX testing?
[I know I'm going to ruffle some feathers here...it's meant to be thought-provoking]
-
Hi roscoeiii, no!,the amplification will amplify the noise as well as the audio signal...
Have another guess :green:
I was talking about the tube amp's gain potentaily adding noise. Not noise that may be present from the signal coming into the amp.
When I had an Atma-sphere amp and very efficient speakers, I employed attenuators that Atma-sphere supplies to lower the gain. That nicely lowered my noise floor.
-
I fail to understand how a preamp can provide more dynamics to a signal. If it is altering the sound in some way, that to me is a completely undesirable trait. If you have a competently-designed DAC that is capable of driving the input stage of an amplifier directly (and assuming 24 bits used for digital volume), what possible benefits can a preamp provide? It can only add noise and distortion, it can't take it away. Certainly if a DAC cannot provide enough voltage to obtain the required volume, a preamp would be required, but short of that, I fail to see any point at all.
I suppose all of you who expressed a preference for a preamp in the chain have done ABX testing?
[I know I'm going to ruffle some feathers here...it's meant to be thought-provoking]
See Frank's first post in this thread. In particular, I would attribute this to his point on current. But just a guess, as I have not
-
"...If it is altering the sound in some way, that to me is a completely undesirable trait. If you have a competently-designed DAC that is capable of driving the input stage of an amplifier directly (and assuming 24 bits used for digital volume), what possible benefits can a preamp provide? It can only add noise and distortion, it can't take it away...."
a dbx 3bx will make a highly compressed recording sound much better - more dynamic. still better than not having one, for those compressed recordings. even if the sound is "altered".
if the "altering the sound" and "distortion" of a preamp is making the recording sound more like real music and less like a recording - which is all it is, after all - bring it on!!! 8)
i still cannot comprehend the "logic" that "more pure", etc., necessarily means better sound, when it comes to something as artificial as recorded music playback. there are still far too many unknowns regarding what makes something sound "real"... distortion figures of 0.0001% instead of "only" 0.09%, for example, does not mean the lower-distortion unit will sound better...
doug s.
-
Preamps still rule, BUT, a little less gain might be nice. It seems like just a "little" turn of the volume knob and things get WAY too loud. Perhaps no gain in the line stage? :| (a buffer perhaps, to drive cables and amps?)
My speakers are only 83db with 1 watt and it seems like no matter preamp I use I still have limited range of the volume control.
-
Preamps still rule, BUT, a little less gain might be nice. It seems like just a "little" turn of the volume knob and things get WAY too loud. Perhaps no gain in the line stage? :| (a buffer perhaps, to drive cables and amps?)
My speakers are only 83db with 1 watt and it seems like no matter preamp I use I still have limited range of the volume control.
What amp do you have? How much gain does it have?
-
... a little less gain might be nice ...
That is one of the reasons I purchased a Mapletree Audio pre - customizable gains built in for each channel.
-
What amp do you have? How much gain does it have?
you beat me to it! 8) amps can be driven to full power typically anywhere from 0.5v to 2.5v... more sensitive amps mean the preamp's gain needs to be reduced...
doug s.
-
That is one of the reasons I purchased a Mapletree Audio pre - customizable gains built in for each channel.
and any decent tech should be able to reduce the gain of your preamp simply by adding or replacing a resister in each channel...
doug s.
-
and any decent tech should be able to reduce the gain of your preamp simply by adding or replacing a resister in each channel...
Nice to know. Never considered that. Thanks for the tip. :thumb:
-
Preamps still rule, BUT, a little less gain might be nice. It seems like just a "little" turn of the volume knob and things get WAY too loud. Perhaps no gain in the line stage? :| (a buffer perhaps, to drive cables and amps?)
My speakers are only 83db with 1 watt and it seems like no matter preamp I use I still have limited range of the volume control.
Actually, depending upon your amp, a lot less gain. There are many SET amps that reach full output with 1 volt or less. Given the output of a typical CD player / DAC or phono stage you will always be in attenuation mode. At that point the gain is useless. So do you operate your volume control below unity gain?
It's all a case of balance, knowing what each stage contributes can help determine if line stage gain is really necessary.
-
other alternatives to reduce gain:
http://www.goldenjacks.com/
http://www.rothwellaudioproducts.co.uk/html/attenuators.html
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=266-244
or roll your own. i built a pair of interconnects w/a 2-resistor attenuation circuit in 'em over 10 years ago, when i first got my art di/o dac, which outputted 7v (pro audio spec) before mods...
http://www.uneeda-audio.com/pads/
doug s.
-
It comes down to matching the preamp with the amp. Gain wise that is. Some preamps IMO are to hot. If you are using a CDP with 2v r more output that as well impacts gain.
Synergy and matching come with experience. Just throwing money at something without a knowledge of the outcome is futile. Most go laterally with no gain. It all comes down to balance and compatibility.
So buy a AVA pre and amp and be done.
charles
-
Actually we do have one passive preamplifier in production right now!
It is the front end of our Synergy Control Amplifier.
In this case we were able to achieve the necessary overall voltage gain by simply engineering a high gain version of our Synergy power amplifier circuits. This is matched with a passive preamp secton with nearly identical functions as our Insight+ SL preamplifier but without the active gain stage.
Since the loads the passive section needs to drive are well known to us and the input and circuit capacitance is very low (very short runs) the effects of loading are eliminated. The functions this configuration cannot support are Line Out circuits and a RIAA phono option. We can't expect the passive section to drive external equipment so no line outputs, and there just is not room in the chassis for a phono section, it is full of heat sinks, audio and regulated power supply circuits, and a humongous power transformer.
The sonic quality is excellent and it makes 100W/Ch and drives our inefficient speakers (Salk HT3 and B&W 801) just fine.
The price is $1799, lots less than the equivalent separates and with great musicality and no "compression" at all.
Regards,
Frank Van Alstine
-
I think I need line level attenuation for my system, probably due to my efficient Zu speakers. Whenever I use my Avastar pre with either Ultravalve or FET Valve 400r, I really can't turn my volume knob much more than 9-10 o'clock, without blasting my room with sound. Fine volume control can be difficult.
I assume that the attenuator with be attached with the RCA interconnects between the pre and the amp? Can anyone give me the approx. dB attenuation that I should use?
Thanks.
-
My McIntosh MX-110 has gain controls to allow the user to adjust the gain from 0 to 20db. I suspect via a series of resistors. My speakers are 86db and with 10db of gain have no audible distortion, compression and has a very black sound floor.
I had the Bottlehead pre in my 2nd system which consisted of a factory wired Dynaco ST-70 and Dynaco A150 speakers (similar to A25's and around 91db) and it also was dead silent. Note: The Bottlehead now resides in my main system as it sounds better.
It is true that you can have too much gain, but it has already been pointed out that gain can be easily changed via a simple resistor or more, depending on the circuit.
If you can achieve aural nirvana with a truly passive pre, more power to you :thumb:
Jim
-
I think I need line level attenuation for my system, probably due to my efficient Zu speakers. Whenever I use my Avastar pre with either Ultravalve or FET Valve 400r, I really can't turn my volume knob much more than 9-10 o'clock, without blasting my room with sound. Fine volume control can be difficult.
I assume that the attenuator with be attached with the RCA interconnects between the pre and the amp? Can anyone give me the approx. dB attenuation that I should use?
Thanks.
In line attenuators are OK. If it were me I would have AVA adjust the gain in your preamp.
charles
-
Actually we do have one passive preamplifier in production right now!
It is the front end of our Synergy Control Amplifier.
In this case we were able to achieve the necessary overall voltage gain by simply engineering a high gain version of our Synergy power amplifier circuits. This is matched with a passive preamp secton with nearly identical functions as our Insight SL preamplifier but without the active gain stage.
Since the loads the passive section needs to drive are well known to us and the input and circuit capacitance is very low (very short runs) the effects of loading are eliminated. The functions this configuration cannot support are Line Out circuits and a RIAA phono option. We can't expect the passive section to drive external equipment so no line outputs, and there just is not room in the chassis for a phono section, it is full of heat sinks, audio and regulated power supply circuits, and a humongous power transformer.
The sonic quality is excellent and it makes 100W/Ch and drives our inefficient speakers (Salk HT3 and B&W 801) just fine.
The price is $1799, lots less than the equivalent separates and with great musicality and no "compression" at all.
Regards,
Frank Van Alstine
It very well may actually sound better than a preamp/power amp combo. There are less gain stages, no interconnects to worry about, and should have a slightly better noise floor. This is what I have observed with the Pass Labs INT-150 vs. separates. Honestly, the main reason for preamps back when was for phono RIAA equalization and signal boost.
-
Yes, we can do that - - - take the line stage gain of an Avastar preamp down quite a bit. We need to see the preamp here to do it as it requires changes on the circuit board, not an amateur project.
Its not expensive to do here, mainly shipping costs. Call me about this if you want.
Frank Van Alstine
651-330-9871
-
I was talking about the tube amp's gain potentaily adding noise. Not noise that may be present from the signal coming into the amp.
When I had an Atma-sphere amp and very efficient speakers, I employed attenuators that Atma-sphere supplies to lower the gain. That nicely lowered my noise floor.
Actually noise can come from many sources,then it becomes noise floor noise if you amplify it will become
louder... :green:
-
Actually noise can come from many sources,then it becomes noise floor noise if you amplify it will become
louder... :green:
Certainly not the case in my system, noise...maybe a problem in yours?
Jim
-
I was amazed at the noise that I never really acknowledged, and that I now know I had from my old tired Mac SS preamp that I felt served me so well.
Since I hooked up the T-8 that I received from Franks Place, the quietness in the music has been very pleasing, direct and to the point accurate.
This includes recordings of which I know intimately and have heard versions live from artists that I know very well and even personally and in some cases
was there.
Now I know my meager system as it is presently cannot do proper justice to a live show. But it does not audibly add anything unwanted. At least not anything
that I or in one recent case, one of the performers themselves who was over the other day can determine. But we were also relying on memory from many, many moons ago.
Anyway, as close as we can get, sometimes just has to be good enough.
James
-
Frank, I'm glad that you can alter the gain on the Avastar. I'll call you in a few days on how to get it back to you.
My only problem is that I will go into Avastar withdrawal. The unit is by far my most favorite piece of audio gear. It is on all of the time! It will be hard to part with it. Seriously.
-
Ok
so its settled then. The source rules.....Yah. :thumb:
-
What amp do you have? How much gain does it have?
Bi-amped with Classe Audio DR-9 and DR-3's. I think the DR-9 needs 1.0v for full output and the DR-3's need 1.2v
-
and any decent tech should be able to reduce the gain of your preamp simply by adding or replacing a resister in each channel...
doug s.
Yes, but that's a little like slowing down your car by dragging a trailer with flat tires. :? Better to engineer in less gain in the first place. 8)
-
Actually, depending upon your amp, a lot less gain. There are many SET amps that reach full output with 1 volt or less. Given the output of a typical CD player / DAC or phono stage you will always be in attenuation mode. At that point the gain is useless. So do you operate your volume control below unity gain?
It's all a case of balance, knowing what each stage contributes can help determine if line stage gain is really necessary.
I'm sure the preamp is below unity gain unless I'm using phono and playing a recording from ViTaL Records (David Manley's old label). They seem to be cut at really low levels. Easy to get the volume up to about 1:30 or so. 8)
-
Yes, but that's a little like slowing down your car by dragging a trailer with flat tires. :? Better to engineer in less gain in the first place. 8)
i completely disagree. it's more like slowing down your car by letting your foot off the gas. 8) change a resistor walue, or change the wolume pot, which is basically a waristor - there is no difference in the result.
doug s.
-
Dusty C, there are many different ways to reduce gain. The the two methods we would choose (perhaps in combination) could be, but not always, simply a change in the active circuit feedback loop and/or a voltage divider to reduce the level of the input signal. Either or a combination of both will reduce signal level without screwing up the music and without "dragging the trailer".
Read up on basic electronics and try to keep your posts a bit more positive.
Frank Van Alstne
-
Certainly not the case in my system, noise...maybe a problem in yours?
Jim
Hi, no noise problem in mine!!! :green: it's dead silent :green:
-
Dusty C, there are many different ways to reduce gain. The the two methods we would choose (perhaps in combination) could be, but not always, simply a change in the active circuit feedback loop and/or a voltage divider to reduce the level of the input signal. Either or a combination of both will reduce signal level without screwing up the music and without "dragging the trailer".
Read up on basic electronics and try to keep your posts a bit more positive.
Frank Van Alstne
Sorry about that. :oops: