This is exactly why I don't even bother with such tripe. A pre-amplifiers job is exactly that--to pre-amplify. It's not to change the sound, but faithfully render the sound exactly as it is recorded on the source.
So to say that it's best paired with a "romantic" amp is simply ludicrous. (What the heck does "romantic" sound like, anyway?) The gear either faithfully renders the source material, or it does not. And if you want it to add distortion, then just go ahead and say so. But relative to this review, the reviewer is confusing an issue of equalization and added harmonic distortion (which for him, is personal preference) rather than that of simple pre-amplification. I wonder if the author reviews his equalizers as if they were pre-amplifiers? I get the feeling that the reviewer would opt for buying special anti-vibration-stones at $50 a pop to improve his system, rather than moving this loudspeakers to their most optimized and proper room placement (for free).
Why do so many of us actually fall for this snake-oil hogwash?
To me, HP (and his golden ears) comes across as a tweako cultist nut. This reviewer--no different. Most of the "hi-fi" press is nothing more than paid advertisements, yellow journalism, or sheer make-believe quackery. I've always been on Team Aczel anyway.
Please explain how mr. Aczel is any less of a cult than Harry Pearson...
HP claims to be able to hear minute differences in things, while mr. A says there is no difference between components and he's always coming up with his little "rules" to live by.
While there has always been a fair share of snake oil in the high end industry, there is also a fair share of people out there that are scientists and engineers (some of which are even musicians as well)
We have an EEE and a PhD in physics on our staff (that is also an accomplished classical musician as well) and he admits that when in the lab, the measurements do not always document what a component will or will not do. We also have a board certified audiologist who says the same thing.
Personally, I think every hifi component has it's own signature sound (or personality, or whatever you want to call it). Every time you pass a signal through anything, it changes and hence is not exactly what went in the front end. There is a lot more distortion and color used in the recording chain most places then even most mid fi gear, so getting to hear a perfectly accurate anything is pretty tough.
There is not one component out there that reproduces the source material completely faithfully. Really, unless you are listening to someone play a Piano, or any other instrument or voice, can capture it perfectly and then play it back immediately to compare, you have no way of knowing how true to the source it is. Having a library of master tapes would be a start in the right direction, but no one has that either.
The only way an audio review can really be helpful to anyone is if you agree with his taste in music and his perception of recorded sound. If you read a review, investigate the component for yourself and draw a reasonably close assessment, it works. If it doesn't, it falls down.
All that any of us can do on the best day is to describe the product as accurately as possible and help you find the gear you want. Even then, it can fall short of what is needed.
Even when we do a great job, there are still plenty of naysayers, because on top of everything, most people percieve sound differently, as well as having different priorities for what a system should do or not do. Example: Put 10 people that are interested in audio in a room and I guarantee they will all like something different. One wants room shattering bass, the other wants imaging, another dynamics, etc. etc. One person loves mini monitors and hates panels, etc etc. And we haven't even touched on digital vs. analog.
So if you have a better way to do it, I've got a job opening for you...
The truth is some where between both camps. And I'm looking for it every day.
