Solid state preamp grain compared to valves

[Haselsh1]

Most older people above 40 have this grain already. Because of hearing damage in that very place

I take it you can prove this..?

[Haselsh1]

Andrew (Rothwell), apologies for me making assumptions about such things. When I had the preamp built by WAD themselves I was under the impression that it only used the 6922's to drive the interconnects. I have never tried to cover up the fact that I know jack shit about electronics and that is why I would never attempt to build my own amplifiers. There are things that should be left alone and for me, electronics and valves are two connected things that I will not mess with. I am in no immediate hurry to die due to a huge overdose of electrical shock. I seriously admire those people who grasp such things with fluency.

[2fastgt4]

Prove that older people have hearing lost compared to normal hearing?
Depending on how you understand my meaning of "most" it should be possible.
But ok, maybe I should say a "lot"instead.
And maybe change "damage" to "hearing lost" .
But yes. There is a lot of older people above the fourties starting to have some kind of hearing lost.
When you start to have hearing problems above 10.000hz . Sounds in the problems frequencies will sound destorded or if you are lucky you will not hear it, depending on your problem.

I'm 46 my self. And have tinitus from time to time.
There is an scale for normal hearing according to age. When my tinitus is bad I score as I would be above 65 years. When I'm fine I score better.
The funny part is that I'm more sensitive now when it comes to destorded sound than when my hearing was ok. ( Or , at least I like to think so)

Sorry for bad English and off topic.

On topic :

The pre-amp pictured above comes with eather a small psu or a big one. The picture is the big one.
There is also an little older version of the pre-amp itself. I have been lucky enough to have all version of it.
To the case. When I started out with the first version with the small psu I felt it was very good. But with a little grain. That psu have only two trafo and no capacitors. (But pre-amp have 20 pieces of 2700uf itself). I was told that it would be better with the big psu. Really I didn't believe that. But you know how it is. I had to try the big one with 4 trafo and 16 pieces of capacitors with 4700uf each. And boy I was wrong. A lot of the grain that I fought was problems with my hearing was lost. This pre-amp is very analytic and reviling. But in the positive meaning. It has an unheard dynamic and attack I always longed for. I was very pleased with it. But then the "designer" made a new print with 25 % shorter signal route. And with better resistor a totally new regulator. This is the one pictured. Even the old one have very good measurements topping the best pre-amp you can get. The new one is even better. The sound feels richer and fuller. And it's more pleasant to listen to. It has more of everything.
So I believe that ss pre-amp can sound as good as valve or better after my own taste.

The discussion about pre-amp vs dac with volume control. My experience is that the volume part of the dac is not that good. Therefore a dedicated pre-amp is better.
But it could maybe depend on your system. If any part of your system are holding back more than the dac then there is no reason to buy a 10k pre-amp.

My dac is the B.M.C dac1. It has also analog inputs and a analog volume control.
I have tried it as a pre-amp. And yes it is pretty good. Doing a good work. It plays a little softer and sounds really nice. Most people would be happy with it. And yes it is (almost) crazy to spend 10k on a pre-amp when the dac does it that good.
But there is a good reason to have it if you can afford it. It has a better soundstage. A lot more detailed bass that hits harder. It sounds faster bigger and more Musical. Vocals sounds more realistic. Acoustic instruments sounds way better. I could go on...
Of course this means a lot to me. But others might not even care. And might say that it is not even worth it. Or that they can do the same with DSP. If someone is interested to know the brand pictured above it is the best brand made in Norway. Musical Innovation.

I take it you can prove this..?

Tommy

[SPS]

That grey sound or grain in some hifi amps is not frequency related... My hearing tails off at around 13khz but it's still easy for me to recognise.

[walpurgis]

That grey sound or grain in some hifi amps is not frequency related... My hearing tails off at around 13khz but it's still easy for me to recognise.

Yes. Same here.

[Barry]

I would have thought 'grain' was the same in the audio sense as it is in photography. A fine grain film is smooth, with no obvious texture. A coarse grain film has a 'sandy' coarseness to it; a surface texture which is not smooth.

I don't see why valve electronics should necessarily be free from grain any more than SS electronics.

[walpurgis]

An older A/B amp in need of a service may be producing audible effects from crossover distortion.

[mikmas]

I would have thought 'grain' was the same in the audio sense as it is in photography. A fine grain film is smooth, with no obvious texture. A coarse grain film has a 'sandy' coarseness to it; a surface texture which is not smooth.

Interesting comparison - wonder if the term migrated from one area to the other. 'Grain' in photography is more literal than in audio though given that it refers to the actual chemical grains which will be more visible in some emulsions than others (and can also be exaggerated through the development process.)

Always loved the iconic image of Omaha Beach by Robert Capa and the fascinating story of how it came to be so grainy ....

Find it confusing in relation to audio because it becomes interchangeable with noise, although I think what is referred to here is something different. Also pertinent that grain in photographs tend to be fairly uniform across all tones of a photo (but obviously more visible in darker greys) - how does that sit with 'grain' uniformity across different audio frequencies?

[Barry]

Interesting comparison - wonder if the term migrated from one area to the other. 'Grain' in photography is more literal than in audio though given that it refers to the actual chemical grains which will be more visible in some emulsions than others (and can also be exaggerated through the development process.)

Always loved the iconic image of Omaha Beach by Robert Capa and the fascinating story of how it came to be so grainy ....

Find it confusing in relation to audio because it becomes interchangeable with noise, although I think what is referred to here is something different. Also pertinent that grain in photographs tend to be fairly uniform across all tones of a photo (but obviously more visible in darker greys) - how does that sit with 'grain' uniformity across different audio frequencies?

I don't know Mike - all I know is I first came across the term 'grain' in reference to audio electronics when reading The Absolute Sound magazine back in the late '80s and early '90s. The term wasn't well defined even then.

A bit off topic: why did Capa's image become so grainy? Did he underexpose the shot and so had to push the development? Whatever, 'grainy' photos can often be very effective. In the day I used to use Kodak Tri-X film (400 ASA) for 'arty' black and white photos. Could never see the point in developing film myself, but did spend many (often fruitless) hours in the darkroom printing up various frames, and messing about 'burning in', 'holding back' and 'dodging' areas of the image.

[mikmas]

A bit off topic: why did Capa's image become so grainy? Did he underexpose the shot and so had to push the development? .

There is a whole mythology built up around the image, mostly around an apparent accident in the lab when a bunch of his films from the day were developed. Some versions say that the assistant used a stop bath that was too hot but the most trustworthy points to the temperature of the drying cabinet being set too high and damaging the emulsion (both are contested either way). Another story has it that the Capa's films (along with those of other photographers from the landing) were entrusted to a General who lost many over the side when boarding; as a result, Life magazine used the few shots that did make it back regardless of quality.

What is apparent from the images that have survived was that light conditions were not ideal for such action shots and Capa would have had to open up the lens to get any kind of usable speed and the resultant combination of softness and motion blur made the grain more apparent than in a well lit exposure with a fast shutter.

(end of digression )