Anyone tried one of these:
http://www.luminousaudio.com/zcart/i...ggjlu82m1h8ur5
Seems to have a lot of love on line.
Printable View
Anyone tried one of these:
http://www.luminousaudio.com/zcart/i...ggjlu82m1h8ur5
Seems to have a lot of love on line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jandl100
The Marsh is good so you should get the Tisbury, Marco. We thought (Apogee man Jon Oakey) the sound in your room was best stood up at the back.
Good strong sound from those 66s - I figure I like them as much as I do due to the active/passive bass drivers. Lots of surface area to move air with.
The Emission Labs tubes showed up yesterday. Very nicely made things and sonically so far seem very good - even from new. I always seem to like Eastern European tubes.
Oops.Quote:
Originally Posted by jandl100
What can I say?
.... the Tisbury is goin' nowhere. :nono:
The Marsh is a nice active pre, but it lacks that last layer of rez and tonal purity of the Tisbury passive. I am still madly/deeply in lurv with the Tizzie and it would drive me crazy to do without it for a few days! Sorry Marco! Sorry folks - you will have to wait a while longer to get the judgement from On High! :eyebrows:
Hm Jezzer's Tizzer is OK... but it had that passive problem of NOT having gain enough to drive the Apogees to decent levels yesterday when partnered with the Krell KAV250.
With some lowly recorded stuff I have the same problem with the Air Tight passive and the 211s.
The Tizzer has nice "knob feel" for the money... but the Marsh is IN ANOTHER LEAGUE for facilities/flexibility and having GAIN. Sometimes, gain is important:D And so is a remote control.
The Marsh is quite transparent but it ain't gonna beat a passive - not much will.
But is the Tizzer more enjoyable to listen to than a euphonic valve pre? The Tizzer lost 2 to 1 against on a Daft Punk track.
I reckon your Aps are waaay less sensitive than the spec suggests!
Perhaps the mods / rebuild changed things in that regard?
I voted for the Tizzer. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by User211
... simply more rez all round, deeper bass and better bass control. Not an easier listen, but I reckon a more accurate and revealing one. Music isn't always "nice" you know. ;)
No I reckon the Aps are to spec. Same very flat 4 Ohm load, same ribbon clearances, simplified x-over compared to the originals - still essentially the same but with much more foo. It is not as if the Krell didn't have the power - it did.
As I said the Air Tight seems to reach deeper too. No douting both are more accurate. But that Cayin is just so enjoyable I am loving it, fibber that it is. It is hanging around here for a long, long time:)
Anyway, Restek is next up:)
I purchased one of these a couple of days ago it's a great little preamp for the money and punches well above it's weight.
With my digital source it is plenty loud enough for my room and it is a very revealing listen and slightly more transparent than my normal Paradox pre, bass is fine and tuneful.
The only downfall is when playing my LP12/Prefix/Troika where there is not really enough volume available due to the very low output of the Troika and the bass through this bit was not as well controlled as with my cdp/dac.
So I will be sending it back as I don't fancy swapping pre amps all the time but if anyone is looking for a very good pre for a digital only system then I recommend you give one a try.
Well, that's only because of the low output on your cartridge - my LP system works fine with a Tisbury - any passive pre is only good if there is sufficient overall system gain.Quote:
Originally Posted by roob
But I'm glad you liked it anyway! :)
I did like it Jerry and I would say to potential buyers do not be put off by its low price, if the rest of your system is compatible give one a whirl.
I have had mine for a couple of weeks, it noticeably improves with a few hours under its belt.......very good pre in my set up.
I've been meaning to try a passive pre for years - I borrowed the Tilbury off of Jerry JANDL (thanks Jerry) and have to say it is a bit of a revelation. You get to a point with your system where you are just trying to lift veils, most of them gossamer-thin. This is like lifting a pillowcase off the sound. I've been listening quite carefully to see if there is a lack of bass and drive which are the downsides of using a passive - maybe there is a tiny bit but the gains in every other area far outweigh it. Absolute clarity and sweeteness of sound, individual tracks in the mix are clearly defined and real texture to the instruments. That 'digital glare' that has bugged me as long as I have had a CD player is gone, plus some mush I didn't even realise was there until it disappeared. If you are using an all digital set up I would strongly urge trying a passive pre if you have not done so already.
my experience reflects yours, i hadn't realised my previous active pre was having such a negative impact....great pre regardless of priceQuote:
Originally Posted by Macca
cant help chaps with a record player could add a seperate phono stage and ask tisbury to configure the pre accordingly they charged me a tenner for different configuration.
So what about no pre, would that be better yet?
Is be really interested for someone to give it a go, especially in the digital realm.
This is what I'm doing but (and its a big but) I've got new speakers and and amp, so I can hardly be subjective; yes it sounds better than it ever has done, but is this due to the new gear, how much can be put forward to having no pre in the chain?
Flipping it on its head, how can adding more wires and boss be good for the sound?
A passive pre is just a potentiometer in a box so it is effectively the same as having no pre in the chain. You could plug a DAC or CD player with variable output straight into a power amp but the variable output on these things is just a pot anyway so I don't see there being much difference.
I do want to listen to my vinyl as well so that is a hurdle to be overcome somehow if I stick with the passive option.
That's what I was thinking; I run my DAC straight into my power amp.
The only problem and genuine threat is that everything on my PC has separate volumes, which I initially forgot and nearly destroyed an old set of speakers :stalks:
Then you are already reaping the benefits that I have only just discovered :)Quote:
Originally Posted by realysm42
Richard Dunn on his site was talking recently about the difference between systems that produce musical instruments realistically and those that are effectively a refined P.A. That struck a chord with me as that is really what my system sounded like - a good, small scale P.A and it had occurred to me that was possibly the cause of the underlying dissatisfaction I have had for a long time. Trying this passive has opened my eyes a bit, I know he is a strong proponent of the passive pre approach, and it seems to me that he is onto something there. (Although I am sure he knew that already ;) ).
I might not bother with the whole preamp thing in that case.
I'm glad you've found another, higher level of fidelity!
Keeping it simple really can reap benefits sometimes, that's one of my main reasons for going pure digital; do one thing as well as I can, instead of a tonnes of sources averagely.
lol - there is a lot of bollocks talked on that site but there is the occasional gem of wisdom from the man himself when they do get around to discussing hi-fi :)Quote:
Originally Posted by realysm42
Umm, no, I don't think I agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
There are pots and then there are pots. I've tried quite a few passive pre-amps in my time, and the Tizzie is one of the best. Some are pretty grotty, tbh, with at worst a murky uninvolving sound and I'd expect that sort of performance from a random pot stuck in a CD player.
Get a good passive pre, like the Tisbury. ;)
Don't get me wrong Jerry, obviously the quality of the pot used is going to make a difference. My point was there is no other gubbins involved to add noise or distortion, as a powered pre-amp might do.
Martin your PM is full :(
Now sorted. Don't know how that happens nobody ever PMs me :)
theres a good video on youtube explaining the difference between digital and analogue volume control........using your pc volume removes bits( not too good methinks) am a renowned daftee watch the video it explains it properly.......i did without a pre driving amps with the computer as the volume....inserting the pre improved the sound (dont ask me why)....
I don't think it's as simple as that Tony.
This is how I understand it works (and I'm happy to be corrected by someone that knows more than me):
It depends on the bit rate of what you're listening to and what resolution the volume control is (read: how many bits).
I mainly listen to redbook cd ripped as APE files (so, lossless, 16bit files).
I also don't use my pcs volume control, I use Jrivers internal control.
Jriver has a 64 bit volume control (Which is actually very good). It's also fully dithered @24 bits (this is the limit of my knowledge, perhaps someone else can jump in here). I think dithering helps to improve the quality of the digital volume.
In theory, because 16 is 1/4 of 64, I can listen at 25% volume before I I start losing bits (and therefore sound quality).
Because my amp is such a beast (500 wpc), my speakers are pretty sensitive (90db) and I have no attenuation, this low level listening does occur, especially at night, so perhaps a preamp would help me.
I've also been told that a good preamp can help inject dynamics etc into the music. Maybe it will, but I can't be sure until I've had a go with one.
An active pre may well give better drive, due to giving better impedance matching between your components, but YMMV depending on your kit. A passive will not provide better impedance matching, unless there are buffers either side.
the wee Tisbury doesn't add or take anything away......to my ears either on speakers or headphones its invisible just lets me adjust the volume (the headphones are via a line out not a variable-cant hear any difference with the pre between head amp or connected straight to the dac)
Ali, has forgotten more about hi fi than I will ever know....maybe better listening to him.
A passive can be the simplest and possibly best solution, if there are no impedance or gain issues I think. Tempted to give one of these a go, but just bought what I'm hoping will be a very nice active jobbie, with from what I've read has a very good phono stage. Might tempt me to get that 401 down from on top of the wardrobe!
Tony, dunno about your last statement there, it's more the blind leading the blind. :scratch: :lol:
Is there someone there.........who said that!!!!!!!!!
Can you hear me motheeeer?
I bought one and sent it back for a refund - it didn't work for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by wee tee cee
It seemed to be a nicely put together piece of kit too, but the passive thing didn't groove my truffles :eyebrows:
What didn't it do for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratmangler
Aye, it's just yer truffles are a funny shape.. :eyebrows: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratmangler
My system sounded worse with it in circuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by realysm42
The issue is one of impedence matching.
I have had the same sort of experience with passives. They just don't do much of anything except completely deaden the sound. I much prefer actives that bring out the sparkle and life and energy in music.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratmangler
Funny you should say that Shaun as sparkle life and energy are just what this particular passive has brought to my system. I guess the main factor is the matching to the power amp, and that's not going to work in every case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haselsh1
Yep - it's all down to technical matching - my system sparkles with life and energy with the Tisbury in circuit. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
They said they can do a dual mono, single source, balanced in and out version for me, with black knobs :)
Case would be silver though, I'm getting good at spraying things anyway!
martin.....did you order one? they only charged me a tenner to spec it for my needs......let us know how it goes,seems some systems really need the oomph an active pre provides.
After extensive listening over the past two weeks I have had to conclude that I am missing that little bit of bass when using the Tisbury. The quality and definition are excellent but with bass-heavy material there is something lacking. Club bass in aprticular has lost its 'growl', also I noticed on Live At The Sands that the grand piano lacked body and the double bass was slightly lighter than it should be. Very minor quibble and overall you would not say the system sounded bass-light BUT I am a perfectionist and I can't live with this long term. Dammiit! I am a bit pissed off really as otherwise this pre is giving me the best sound I have ever had from CD by a country mile.
It doesn't help that I have to use the speakers 6' out into the room as moving them back 3' or so I suspect would go some way to restoring that soupcon of missing low end. I am not willing to give up this gain so easily, I am wondering if a sub or some equalisation (analogue or digital) would resolve the problem. Any thoughts, anyone?
Jerry, I noticed from your latest speaker cable review on hifipig that the tisburys no longer part of your system, did you have enough of it?
Tony, I've bought an MFA tvc pre, so am anxiously awaiting its arrival into my system.
Martin,
Thanks for the update.....bit out of my budget but would be interested if you could post up your impressions-lovely looking bit of kit!
Jons a great guy to deal with, he's got a version without the source selector, which is perfect for me as I'm purely digital, which helped get the costs down a bit.
Of course, it'd be my pleasure to write a review once I've had it delivered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wee tee cee
look forward to reading it....thanks.
Well, I have enough of most things after a while - boxswapper! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by realysm42
I just like to try different things, although in this instance I returned to my old Restek pre. It's a lovely thing. :)
The Tizzie still gets a very strong vote from me for great sound at a low price. Most pre-amps can't compete with it for detail and transparency, imho.
Fair play. Is your current pre a keeper, or is nothing safe?
My MBL speakers are for the long term (I say that with something of a heavy heart, superb though they are, as I did love my speaker boxswapping dearly) anything and everything else is in short- or medium-term rotation. :)
I've got a Channel island PLC-1 mk.1 passive preamp. It's ideal for me, I tried for ages to find a passive preamp with a home theatre bypass.
This one's remote control as well, which is a bonus.
CI audio don't seem very well known in the UK, I had to import mine. Here's a link for the mk.2 version http://www.ciaudio.com/products/PLC1MKII
Hi guys
I just stumbled on this great thread
I wondered what the latest thoughts on the Tisbury passive is ?
I've just ordered one to try with my Quad 2/40 valve , and although sceptical I hope I'm pleasantly surprised. I've been buying AV boxes stuffed full of superfluous electronics for years. The philosophy of a straight line approach to the pre amp appeals to me. I'm advised by Tisbury that the unit will suit the input level and impedance of the Quads.
Any thoughts guys ?
Best wishes
Graham
I have a Tizzie on loan from Jerry (jandl100) just now. I run a Classé Audio DR5 which is presently driving a Quad 306 and B&W DM2 speakers and it is a stunningly capable pre-amp. It is also humongous and built like a tank. You could fit 15+ Tizzies within the casework of a DR5 and yet with it in circuit I have never heard my system sound so transparent, it is a wonderful little marvel in my eyes (or should that be ears) :D
aye a wee cracker for a very affordable outlay....hidden hi fi jem.