Hi Mike,
"No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that either so-called neutral systems do not recover the rich, organic flow of music, or that this character does not survive digitization and has to be infused at the playback side. Vinyl is another matter for another discussion."
I think you would be better served if you had a reference point, a foundation. The preamp is the only component that can be tested vs a wire. If I used one method of testing, I certainly could not make a substantial case for myself. But in fact I have three methods, so I can check for any discrepancies. So far none, so I think I have a strong case.
You could have a poor component, or several, compromising components the sound of the CD.
I am able to convey, from a CD, a near perfect (I hate to say perfect) replica of the Peoria symphony orchestra when they performed the Overture to Russlan and Ludmilla by Glinka a couple of months back. Pretty cool to compare a live event to a recording. No problem with a lack of organic flow from my system.
"What is an accurate component? What are the dimensions of accuracy? I aim for what sounds to me like accurate portrayal of instruments. This requires a balancing of component voices. For instance, If I were running a 2A3 or 300B amp, I would likely want a clean, clear preamp. If I had a Krell amp, I would almost certainly be looking for a pre with PFAT tone."
But is the "accurate portrayal of instrumet" optimal across the entire audio spectrum? Sounds like we have the same goals, wanting realism. But one needs a foundation to work from.
The only problem with haphazardly chosing components is that one sees hundreds of components for sale on audiogon, so alot of dissatified customers using that technique.
"I'm sure Krell says their stuff is accurate, as do many of the SS guys. All Krell will drive me from the room. To me, terms like accurate and neutral do not describe what their proponents are intending."
It is difficult with amps, speakers and sources. Those are variables. But the discussion had to do with preamps, and with an accurate preamp a person is one step closer to realism with one less component to worry about. At least one has some sort of a foundation to work from. I found, from experience (47-48 years), that using a sterile preamp with a full sounding amp, or visa versa, always causes problems somewhere in the sound. The less compensation needed, the better the synergy.
"The Zu Definition Pros are not warm speakers, but they're far from sterile. They relay what comes in quite faithfully."
>But how do you know? I am not trying to pick on them, or you. But how do you know how the speaker actually sounds?
"This is a Great question. The Reality of my Experience with my speakers informs me. I've had several different preamplifiers, many amps, numerous digital devices, and lots of cables through these speakers. One of the preamps was a TacT unit and I became intimately familiar with in-room frequency response. Triangulating between all the data points with lots of gear has given me fair confidence that I know how these speakers sound "in isolation", even though this concept is impossible. I'm an enigma within in a quandary wrapped in a paradox blanket."
I have 48 years experience and knowledge as well. But my foundation of a truly neutral preamplifier helps immensely. It is all a guessing game without some sort of foundation to work from. Something always seems to suffer.
"Flipping the question around, if "no sound" is the goal, why use tubes or any active circuitry? Rich is right, gain certainly isn't an issue in most systems. I'd go with a TVC or even resistive passive with hi-gain sources and be done for cheap."
>I don't understand your question? You mean listen live?
>Done on the cheap. But does it sound optimal?? I guess each has to reach his own goals of satisfaction.
"My question was merely, if one wants a preamp with NO signature, a TVC is a cheaper way to achieve that goal than a fully active unit."
Are you sure?
1) One has hysterisis loses in the core which cannot be changed unless different cores are utilized.
2) One also has to deal with non linearities at small signal levels, unless possibly some special circuit is devised.
3) TVCs have self resonant issues, both parallel and even series; from internal and from outside sources (ICs, input cap of device). The result is ringing, or slope deformed. One has to optimally damp those rings at each tap setting on the transformer.
TVCs are not perfect devices by any means.
Then there is the concern of how good is the active "preamp" stage that has been placed in the amplifier? What good is using a good volume control if the active stage is inferior?
"It's great to have you involved in this discussion, Steve. You bring a perspective that I don't think any of the rest of us here have. You bring your views of what makes a great piece into your work and I have no doubt the 11A is outstanding. I hope to hear some one day. It would be instructional to do a side-by-side with my Lamm . . . Hey, mca, what are you using for a pre right now.
Jon L compared the entire 10A to his Bent, and Martin compared the 11A to the Sonic Euphoria. I think both favorably. A whole preamp vs a volume control, which excluded the next gainstage. Check the following gainstage and the results wouldl favor the active preamp.
When I discussed this yesterday, I had completely forgotten that you had just become a reviewer. I certainly did not mean to try to tear you down Mike, and I hope you do not take it that way. I do hope this discussion will help broaden your horizons further than it already is. All my best Mike.
ps. I also found the 10A to be a little more neutral, organic than the Moddie.
