Solid state preamp grain compared to valves

[Macca]

I did mention that not all power amps are compatible with a passive.

It was your statement that an active pre offers higher fidelity than a passive pre that I was disputing. I agree on a case by case basis that may not always be true. But your statement seemed absolutist.

[Macca]

Ok

How many recording studio's use a passive pre amplifier in the recording process?

Would you class a recording studio (a quality one shall we say!) as trying to be as faithful as possible to the original sound that the artist, composer or instrumentalist is producing inside that recording environment? Providing the record company isn't compressing the the life out of it (oh wait; maybe the compression filter we use is not a plug but a passive pre in the way? )

Accuracy is being able to recreate what is actually being played with almost zero interference, we not really????

If we used zero compression (assuming the equipment in the mixing booth could cope) right across the board, possible 50 people in the world *may* have the audio reproductive equipment to genuinely play it back as close as humanly possible. Then you would need a very large room to help with this task.

That said cope you or would you wish for true realism? I would suggest not even Marco and the wall of sound (now much polished ) would get out of the kitchen so to speak

You are confusing recording with playback, they are entirely different things.

Could we cope with true realism? For me, mostly no. I've heard playback in the studio, it's stunning but would I want to come home at night and relax to that? No, I wouldn't.


On the other hand I have an idea of what a 'good' stereo system sounds like and I've noticed many times that my idea does not exactly conform to the ideas of others who are also into this hobby. Okay, we all know a bad sound when we hear it but once we are beyond that taste in presentation, and expectations, are personal and do seem to differ quite widely.

[Marco]

I did mention that not all power amps are compatible with a passive.

It was your statement that an active pre offers higher fidelity than a passive pre that I was disputing. I agree on a case by case basis that may not always be true. But your statement seemed absolutist.

It's not absolutist, but simply based on my experience to date. Any opinion I form is never written in stone. I'm always willing to learn and alter my opinions if necessary.

Therefore, if I ever hear a passive that's better in my system, or someone else's I know well, I'l gladly acknowledge it! Plus, all this measurements bollocks aside, the ACID test is always done by listening to something in your own system, and using YOUR ears to judge the results.

So, let's just say I brought the Croft down to yours, and we put it into your system, in place of your current passive, which you already know is perfectly suited to either of your power amps (no electrical mismatch), and we use both as the test power amp, with both preamps, and after doing some listening comparisons, you come to the conclusion that the Croft is better.

I'm not saying you would, but just suggesting the scenario... So would that mean you "prefer the sound of less fidelity", or simply that the Croft is intrinsically the better preamp, or that it just suits your system better than your current passive?

Which would it be?

Marco.

[Macca]

It's not absolutist, but simply based on my experience to date. Any opinion I form is never written in stone. I'm always willing to learn.

Therefore, if I ever hear a passive that's better in my system, or someone else's I know well, I'l gladly acknowledge it! Plus, all this measurements bollocks aside, the ACID test is always done by listening to something in your own system, and using YOUR ears to judge the results.

So, let's just say I brought my Croft down to yours, and we put it into your system, in place of your current passive, which you already know is perfectly suited to either of your power amps (no electrical mismatch), and we use both as the test power amp, with both preamps, and after doing some listening comparisons, you come to the conclusion that the Croft is better.

I'm not saying you would, but just suggesting the scenario... So would that mean you "prefer the sound of less fidelity", or simply that the Croft is intrinsically the better preamp, or simply suits your system better than your current passive?

Which would it be?

Marco.

As I said to Tony I know that I do prefer the sound of 'less fidelity'. So I'd take the pre-amp I liked the sound of the most. Not the one that measured best. I'm not Serge!

[Marco]

So if you prefer the "sound of less fidelity", and the preamp you like the sound of most is what matters, why the fook are you so hung up on measurements?

Ultimately, you obviously don't trust them as much as your ears!

Marco.

[Macca]

I'm not hung up on measurements but the definition of the term 'high fidelity' is based on them. So if you are going to talk about one design having 'higher fidelity' then you are talking measurements. If you are just saying you prefer the sound of that implementation, that's a whole different matter.

Measurements are irrelevant in that case except to maybe explain why, in psychoacoustic terms, you prefer one over the other. I concede that a lot of people have no interest in that.

[Firebottle]

... and no idea how the measurements actually relate to the sound one hears

I've just put my Lenco in a heavier plinth, it has taken the sound to the next level, do you suppose that could be measured, I doubt it.

[Marco]

I'm not hung up on measurements....

Lol - well about three pages of your previous posts suggests rather differently!!

So if you are going to talk about one design having 'higher fidelity' then you are talking measurements.

Yes, I fully agree, but *only* if the measurements concerned 100% prove what needs proved. I contend that in the debate between actives and passives, and which offers the 'greater fidelity', in the real world (when used in a test system), no such measurements are conclusive. That's the bit you're failing to acknowledge or consider.

In any case, please stop pretending to be a measurement-obsessed objectivist, when clearly you're not [trust me, that's how you're coming across if that wasn't your intention], as a) it doesn't suit you, and b) clearly doesn't reflect your status as ultimately a subjectivist!

Marco.

[Marco]

... and no idea how the measurements actually relate to the sound one hears

I've just put my Lenco in a heavier plinth, it has taken the sound to the next level, do you suppose that could be measured, I doubt it.

Exactly, some things genuinely exist, but currently we're incapable of accurately measuring. In my view, that applies to any claimed automatic 'greater fidelity' of passives, over actives, when used as part of a working system, reproducing music.

Anyway, not to worry... Has the heavier plinth allowed the Lenco to achieve greater fidelity? If you think so, remember you must be just be imagining it, if the improvement can't be measured

No doubt your trousers would make it sound louder, though!

Marco.

[Macca]

... and no idea how the measurements actually relate to the sound one hears

I've just put my Lenco in a heavier plinth, it has taken the sound to the next level, do you suppose that could be measured, I doubt it.

You could measure the output of the deck with both plinths to see if there was any change. I suppose a bit tricky with vinyl as the variables of the deck are going to change slightly with each play anyway.