[Steve]

Yes, to be clear, I'm quite sure the preamp in my Virtue Two.2 (now disabled), and XDA-1 are nowhere near yours. I certainly didn't mean to imply that they could be  .

No sweat. As you wisely posted, your experience matches mine that specs don't mean alot as there are other distortion besides HD and IMD that distorts, adds colorations, to the music.

Cheers. 

[SteveFord]

Not to totally derail this thread (which is a good one) but the amp has a lot to do with the soundstage, too.
Maybe a similar thread for amps? 

[roymail]

Quote:  STEVE, SAS AUDIO
They have been through controlled listening tests for years, and are spot on when compared to cdp direct to amps. (Careful testing protocol must be followed.) So any other pre, whether passive or active, can only equal, not improve upon the sound, unless one wants colorations. (Sorry if it sounds like an advertisement.)

Now that is the most noteworthy comment I've read on AC all day, and it bears repeating.

"So any other pre, whether passive or active, can only equal, not improve upon the sound, unless one wants colorations."

Thanks, Steve.

[brj]

Not to totally derail this thread (which is a good one) but the amp has a lot to do with the soundstage, too.

I would expand that statement to say that your choice of speakers will, to at least some extent, guide your choice in amps, which will then guide your choice in pre-amps - if in no other manner than in impedance matching and gain requirements.  This is at least part of what determines "synergy".  Talking about pre-amps in isolation, without discussing the rest of the system that the pre-amp is expected to drive, seems likely to result in rather scattered and inconclusive feedback on more subtle forms of signal coloration.

[roymail]

This is at least part of what determines "synergy".  Talking about pre-amps in isolation, without discussing the rest of the system that the pre-amp is expected to drive, seems likely to result in rather scattered and inconclusive feedback on more subtle forms of signal coloration.

I absolutely agree.  Very good point! 

[Rocket_Ronny]

Not to totally derail this thread (which is a good one) but the amp has a lot to do with the soundstage, too.
Maybe a similar thread for amps? 

Totally !!!

The reason I even started this thread was to find some of the best, holographic, preamps out there to mate with larger power amps that are most likely either solid state or push/pull tubed amps. Neither one can produce 3D individual images like a good SET amp. Well at least most can't. So if one can pair such an amp with an out of the park pre then one can get one step closer to what folks enjoy with high eff. speakers and single digit power amps.

I am not just talking about an nice soundstage with good width and depth. I am talking about preamps that bring you real flesh and blood musicians before you in a walk around 3D image, with each instrument in 3D in itself. While the latter is more of a stereo effect but it sure makes listening entertaining. 

Rocket_Ronny

[Steve]

I would expand that statement to say that your choice of speakers will, to at least some extent, guide your choice in amps, which will then guide your choice in pre-amps - if in no other manner than in impedance matching and gain requirements.  This is at least part of what determines "synergy".  Talking about pre-amps in isolation, without discussing the rest of the system that the pre-amp is expected to drive, seems likely to result in rather scattered and inconclusive feedback on more subtle forms of signal coloration.

I am not sure I can buy this scenario, at least totally. I think we can agree that synergy is a matter of degree. Let me give you a couple of examples and see what you think.

1) We have a bright sounding speaker, requiring a dark sounding amplifier and/or preamplifier and/or source. Perfect matching is going to be tough to begin with. Even worse, we have an electronic component that corrects the brightness problem, but masks detail so our soundstage is non-existant. What a mess.

If the speaker is flawed, we will always choose inaccurate electronics in an attempt to cancel the flawed speaker. So the question is have we really chosen the best speaker?

But rarely does a component have just one flaw, but nearly always multiple flaws. How does one find an amp/pre/source that perfectly compliments the flaws of our chosen "reference" speaker? It is a matter of degree, which I concur with you.

Let us suppose each component has only 1 flaw. We still have multiple flaws in total. So we need multiple flaws of the opposite to cancel out the flaws. As Andy Rooney would ask, how does that work?

2) First, the only components in a system that can be scientifically tested vs perfection are the preamplifier, and ICs. The speakers, amplifier, and source cannot.

With that backround, let's start with a reference, "perfect" (for arguements sake) preamplifier and ICs as our reference.

First, we have eliminated two components with sonic flaws, thus the total flaw count has been reduced. There is less chance of musical information (such as soundstage info) being compromised or lost in my above example.

Second, since the preamplifier and ICs has been proven, by testing, to be a true reference, they will not need to be replaced when we change/upgrade other portions of our system. In fact, it will help by requiring us to find better quality source, amp, and to help determine which speaker is truly accurate and which is not. After all, the preamplifier/ICs will allow all the musical information to pass, thus putting more "pressure" on the source, amp, and speakers to be truly accurate.

In otherwards, imo, by using a tried and tested components as our reference, not only will there be less chance of losing musical information, but it will be easier to determine which source, amp, and speaker combination is truly more accurate/honest. The fewer the flaws, the better one's system will be, the better the synergy.

Cheers.

[BobM]

To my ears not only does a preamp have to be holographic but that also means it must be as transparent as possible. IMO the ability to throw a big image/soundstage can't exist without this transparency. And it goes without saying that the amp it is feeding has to be able to produce this image as well. Tube amps generally do this better, but sometimes leave some of that transparency on the table.

That being said I use an Audio Prism Mantissa into a McCormack DNA 500.

[brj]

I am not sure I can buy this scenario, at least totally. I think we can agree that synergy is a matter of degree.

Sure.

To make some general statements responding to your examples... I certainly don't think that any component can be truly perfect.  (Then again, it doesn't actually need to be perfect - it only needs to surpass our individual level of hearing and perception.)  I also agree that we can't yet measure everything that matters to the overall reconstruction of a live recording in our personal listening environments.  There are, however, some aspects that matter that we can measure, and we can use that information to narrow the field of contenders and establish criteria for selecting those components we do wish to evaluate in our system.

This is a pre-amp thread, but to use your speaker-amp example... if my speakers have a low input impedance with some nasty phase angles, then I know that OTL amps, which generally have a high output impedance, are going to have a hard time driving them in the regions of those impedance dips.  Maybe I love the sound enough that I don't care, but I should at least understand the likely compromise.  (Or I should know that I might want to investigate autoformers to improve the impedance matching.)

Likewise, if I have a source that outputs a lower than typical line voltage and have an amp of only normal voltage gain, then a passive pre-amp may not be a good fit unless I listen at really low levels all the time - I likely need another gain stage in the system.  The passive pre-amp that sounded wonderful in someone elses high gain system may likely sound lifeless in your low gain system.

Similarly, do you your favorite interconnects provide a load that is more inductive or capacitive, and how will that impact the sound of your pre-amp when coupled to your amp?

In short, a pre-amp is one component of a system, and when people state that pre-amp X has sonic feature Y, you really need to understand their system (and personal acoustic preferences) in order to evaluate how just much of the sonic feature is due to the pre-amp alone.  Then, you need to understand your system to have a sense for whether that feature will manifest as you expect when added to your component chain.  Alas, there are few absolutes!

[Steve]

I think we are dealing with at least two different issues. The first is arriving at the ultimate system, and the other issue is what we will settle for.

Sure.

To make some general statements responding to your examples... I certainly don't think that any component can be truly perfect.

Some components brands/models are better than others in absolute terms. We should attempt to purchase the most accurate possible. Unfortunately, the preamplifier and ICs are the only ones that can be tested for accuracy in absolute terms.


 

(Then again, it doesn't actually need to be perfect - it only needs to surpass our individual level of hearing and perception.)

I used the term "perfect" so no one can argue with the reference used, makes making my point easier. However, the better the accuracy of the component, the better. One would be amazed how far off some components are from accuracy in absolute terms.

 

There are, however, some aspects that matter that we can measure, and we can use that information to narrow the field of contenders and establish criteria for selecting those components we do wish to evaluate in our system.

We wish a speaker response flat to 20hz gives us a basic start. Or we wish a certain spl. However, I believe we need a reference component we know that is accurate in absolute terms to arrive at the ultimate quality system. A speaker no way qualifies as a reference. If one chooses wrong, then one will need to settle for less than optimum electronics in an attempt to minimized the flaws of the speaker. Not a good situation imo.

This is a pre-amp thread, but to use your speaker-amp example... if my speakers have a low input impedance with some nasty phase angles, then I know that OTL amps, which generally have a high output impedance, are going to have a hard time driving them in the regions of those impedance dips.  Maybe I love the sound enough that I don't care, but I should at least understand the likely compromise.  (Or I should know that I might want to investigate autoformers to improve the impedance matching.)

Yes, that is a basic criteria that one must understand. My question is,  is this for the ultimate stereo system? I would say no.

Likewise, if I have a source that outputs a lower than typical line voltage and have an amp of only normal voltage gain, then a passive pre-amp may not be a good fit unless I listen at really low levels all the time - I likely need another gain stage in the system.  The passive pre-amp that sounded wonderful in someone elses high gain system may likely sound lifeless in your low gain system.

Your comment is correct in some situations, but is ill advised in others.
Yes, gain is a factor, but only one factor among many if ultimate musical quality is to be achieved. Individual situations can lead to different conclusions. My previous posts explain the ultimate situation for maximum quality music and synergy.

Similarly, do you your favorite interconnects provide a load that is more inductive or capacitive, and how will that impact the sound of your pre-amp when coupled to your amp?

As I mentioned earlier, one needs to find the optimum IC, which can be tested and verified as truly accurate. ICs and Preamplifiers are the only components that can be tested for accuracy in absolute terms. Remember, I am addressing the highest possible musical quality, not what most of us are limited to because of funds, WAF etc.

In short, a pre-amp is one component of a system, and when people state that pre-amp X has sonic feature Y, you really need to understand their system (and personal acoustic preferences) in order to evaluate how just much of the sonic feature is due to the pre-amp alone.

 Not really an issue except the following:

1) Different materials, termination techniques etc affect the quality of an IC. One must use an accurate one, in absolute terms.
2) the IC capacitance is quite large,
3) the input impedance (Z) of the amp is quite low, with capacitive coupled output
4) the input capacitance of the amp is huge. This adds to the total capacitance the preamp output sees.
5) the amp input draws current. This should not be an issue in any design.
6) the amp input jack is of poor material. But that is the amps fault.   

The only other problems one needs to deal with is signal distribution between components and issues with pin 1 that could cause a problem in ? number of systems, but not all systems.

I would have to say there is a difference between what we settle for and what is optimum when creating a system.

Cheers.

[Jon L]

Quote:  STEVE, SAS AUDIO
They have been through controlled listening tests for years, and are spot on when compared to cdp direct to amps. (Careful testing protocol must be followed.) So any other pre, whether passive or active, can only equal, not improve upon the sound, unless one wants colorations. (Sorry if it sounds like an advertisement.)

Now that is the most noteworthy comment I've read on AC all day, and it bears repeating.

"So any other pre, whether passive or active, can only equal, not improve upon the sound, unless one wants colorations."

Thanks, Steve.

Agreed.  I currently have 5 preamps (all nice) but use none, going DAC direct. 

However, there are things some preamps do that can "seem" to give you more "3D" or holographic sound.  I have noticed that certain preamps with ginormous power supply, usually tube-rectified, can give you a little extra blanket of low bass that almost seems to give you a floor of vibrational cloud, which makes it seem like the soundstage echoes have expanded and floating, thus more "3D." 

Similar things can happen in mid/highs when certain signal tubes, e.g. Mullards, inject images with just a smidge more volume and puffed air that makes it "seem" more holographic. 

I would hate to call some of these effects "colorations" per se, but they really are not in the original master.  Then again, what piece of gear or cable in our system is 100% colorless?

[brj]

Steve, I was merely giving a few examples to highlight the fact that a component doesn't exist in a vacuum of performance and that different people design their systems to achieve different ends, which will impact how they characterize any individual sonic characteristic.  It was not my intent to say they were the only factors that matter, or that they are even the most important factors in all situations.

I was specifically not trying to assume any given level of understanding, as I don't know who is reading this thread.  Nor was I trying to propose a specific system for you, the OP, or anyone else.  Your "ultimate system" may very well not be my "ultimate system".  I was merely pointing out that context is important when evaluating people's opinions of any given sonic characteristic.

[woodsyi]

I am a tone first sound stage second kind of guy but rich tones usually go hand in hand with 3D sound stage.  Whether they are distortions or not l like a "phat sound."  I would put my Purity Audio Silver Statement right up there with any of them.  Here is a review I wrote comparing it to Aesthetix Callisto Signature and MBL5011D. 

I have had SAS 10 in my system (pretty much the same as now) before on a tour and I thought it was a very neutral preamp.  It isn't "phat."

[TONEPUB]

So what are you really saying here?

[Jon L]

I am a tone first sound stage second kind of guy but rich tones usually go hand in hand with 3D sound stage.  Whether they are distortions or not l like a "phat sound."  I would put my Purity Audio Silver Statement right up there with any of them.  Here is a review I wrote comparing it to Aesthetix Callisto Signature and MBL5011D. 

Looking around a bit, I am saddened to see that Purity Audio is $20K and equally saddened that the latest Callisto Eclipse is $22K, which is too bad since Callisto Sig was one of my very favorite preamps. 

More power to those able to enjoy these SOTA preamps but kudos to those companies that offer great performance at more reasonable pricepoints, SAS being one for sure..

[woodsyi]

What I am saying is that I prefer Purity Audio Silver Statement over SAS 10, Aesthetix Callisto Signature or MBL 5011.  YMMV as preferences vary.  They all sounded good but I am looking for some je ne sais quoi at this price range and frankly "neutral" becomes a code word for "plain." The spine tingling "magic" wasn't there.  The elusive emotional connectivity must happen for me...

[jackman]

What I am saying is that I prefer Purity Audio Silver Statement over SAS 10, Aesthetix Callisto Signature or MBL 5011.  YMMV as preferences vary.  There all sounded good but I am looking for some je ne sais quoi at this price range and frankly "neutral" becomes a code word for "plain." The spine tingling "magic" wasn't there.  The elusive emotional connectivity must happen for me...

One man's neutral is another man's transparent I guess.  Just as one man's phat is another man's bloated. 

I agree with you that the 10A is not "phat" or tubey but I enjoy the sound I'm getting.  I don't have a $20K preamp so I guess I'll have to get back to you on the the "emotional connectivity" thing. 

I do agree that the 10A is neutral and transparent, but I would not call the sound I'm getting boring or plain.  It sounds pretty darn good in my system.  It's a bit plain-Jane looking so maybe I'll get more emotionally connected once I get to know it better...


Cheers,

Jack

[KJ]

Looking around a bit, I am saddened to see that Purity Audio is $20K and equally saddened that the latest Callisto Eclipse is $22K, which is too bad since Callisto Sig was one of my very favorite preamps.

More power to those able to enjoy these SOTA preamps but kudos to those companies that offer great performance at more reasonable pricepoints, SAS being one for sure

The top model in a line up shouldn't necessarily squelch the lower cost ones.  Purity's most popular pre-amp is their $10K Reference.  Uses a lot of their older brothers' design, but fewer exotic parts.  I think you can still obtain great performance at reasonable price points.  Simply a matter of how extreme one wants to go.

[woodsyi]

I really did try to answer the 3-D aspect of the musical presentation.  As I get deeper into this hobby and my pocket, what I am finding out is that excellence comes with decreasing domain of application.  There is no universal solution that works on every recording, every medium or every genre.  SAS 10A may be the one that does everything well in the jack of all trades but master of none kind of way. 

I am tailoring my system to make it play my music the way I like to hear.  I am not after some "objectively transparent" preamp that doesn't add anything.   

[jackman]

I really did try to answer the 3-D aspect of the musical presentation.  As I get deeper into this hobby and my pocket, what I am finding out is that excellence comes with decreasing domain of application.  There is no universal solution that works on every recording, every medium or every genre.  SAS 10A may be the one that does everything well in the jack of all trades but master of none kind of way. 

I am tailoring my system to make it play my music the way I like to hear.  I am not after some "objectively transparent" preamp that doesn't add anything.   

I think you are doing the same thing we are all doing, tailoring a system to play music the way you like it.  Not sure I agree with the "jack of all trades master of none" assessment, but everyone is entitled to an opinion and we all have different tastes.  I enjoy a 3D presentation but will not sacrifice accuracy for soundstage.  Not saying the 10A is the last word in either but it sounds good to me.