What's the purpose of a preamp?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon_LDT

They are made by the same guy/company. The Hattor are the premium line of passives, hence the higher prices and more bling cases.

---

Indeed - that kind of dawned on me later this afternoon as I was out walking, but thanks for the confirmation. Must say I definitely prefer the less 'blingy' versions (i.e. the Khozmos)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Well, at the end of the day, all that matters about what is 'accurate', is what you hear that's considered as better... We've been here many times before!;)

However, it was you yourself who wrote earlier:



*You* chose that language, when making your statement, so I guess it's up to you how you define "sound slightly soft" and "loses a bit of the leading edge", and in comparison with what... :)

Marco.

---

In comparison with the best active pre-amp I have heard which is Barry's Mark Levinson.

I don't recall hearing another active pre-amp that I would swap my passive for, lets put it that way.

It isn't easy to describe sounds in words but necessary on an audio forum, so I would expect that to be taken in good faith rather than used as an example of faulty logic. I stand by my assertion that the 'softening' can be ameliorated by careful matching. For e.g the Tisbury passive I found to be very soft, unacceptably so, yet other people have not found that to be the case in their systems.

Should also point out that people using an integrated amp may very well be listening to a passive pre-amp although they are completely unaware of it. Do you think you could identify which integrateds use a passive pre just by listening to them? It wouldn't be easy would it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montesquieu

Yes to be fair, 'harsh' is probably the wrong word. 'Unattractive' is probably more like it. Or perhaps 'stark'. It's hard to get warmed up to the sound in the way a nice tube preamp does the business. .

---

For me it (and using a digital source) it sounds closer to the 'control room' sound. So I'd agree it can be 'stark'. That's the sort of sound I go for, personally, although I'll grant that I tend to be in the minority. For me the appeal is not the cheapness since if I was unhappy with my passive I could afford to buy a top end pre on the secondary market, and I would. I listen to enough music to justify the cost.

And having compared my passive to top end passives and actives I've not heard sufficient improvement to think it is worth bothering to change it. In fact only the ML came across as slightly better, the rest were either indistinguishable or just different.

Should point out all my comments reference a digital source. I find a good passive eliminates the 'glare' people blame on digital but which I suspect is actually caused by the ropiness of most active pre-amps. Vinyl seems to be unaffected by this, for reasons I can only guess at (at the moment, I'm working on it. Somebody, somewhere certainly already knows why this is).

Not heard a passive that has been as good as the actives ive heard, but there are many on both sides of fence ive not heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

In comparison with the best active pre-amp I have heard which is Barry's Mark Levinson.

I don't recall hearing another active pre-amp that I would swap my passive for, lets put it that way.

---

Not also the Croft? You seemed to love it every time you've heard it:)

Quote:

---

It isn't easy to describe sounds in words but necessary on an audio forum, so I would expect that to be taken in good faith rather than used as an example of faulty logic. I stand by my assertion that the 'softening' can be ameliorated by careful matching.

---

Then we'll have to agree to disagree [and i'm with Anthony here], particularly if the "softening" concerned is as a result of signal degradation, which I contend it is.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

And having compared my passive to top end passives and actives I've not heard sufficient improvement to think it is worth bothering to change it. In fact only the ML came across as slightly better, the rest were either indistinguishable or just different.

---

I think you'd change your mind pretty quickly on that if you heard the ML in question, or the Croft, in your system. However, that's one we can visit at the bake-off we discussed.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Not also the Croft? You seemed to love it every time you've heard it:)



Then we'll have to agree to disagree [and i'm with Anthony here], particularly if the "softening" concerned is as a result of signal degradation, which I contend it is.

Marco.

---

Your Croft is very good indeed, but I have not preferred it in the 3 times we have baked off now - it's different but not preferable (to me). The ML I have not baked off against but it does the job exactly the way I prefer it done. I don't need to hear it in my own system to be sure of that. Also you can buy the ML which is not the case with your Croft, as isn't really a Croft anymore, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

For me it (and using a digital source) it sounds closer to the 'control room' sound. So I'd agree it can be 'stark'. That's the sort of sound I go for, personally, although I'll grant that I tend to be in the minority.

---

Having been in control rooms, not as an audio engineer but as an occasional session musician in my youth, I'd say a control room is a workplace and would not typically provide the sort of sound I would want in my living room. Any more than I'd want my kitchen to resemble an operating theatre. But I guess it takes all sorts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montesquieu

Having been in control rooms, not as an audio engineer but as an occasional session musician in my youth, I'd say a control room is a workplace and would not typically provide the sort of sound I would want in my living room.

---

Me neither, *unless* that's how the recording in question is meant to sound. All I want is to extract, as faithfully as possible, the musical information embedded onto whatever source material it is I'm listening to, with as little 'signature' as possible, of the equipment used, superimposed onto that sound:)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montesquieu

Having been in control rooms, not as an audio engineer but as an occasional session musician in my youth, I'd say a control room is a workplace and would not typically provide the sort of sound I would want in my living room. Any more than I'd want my kitchen to resemble an operating theatre. But I guess it takes all sorts.

---

Completely agree it is entirely down to what the individual wants. (Incidentally I like 'operating theatre' style kitchens too :) ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Me neither, *unless* that's how the recording in question is meant to sound. All I want is to extract, as faithfully as possible, the musical information embedded onto whatever source material it is I'm listening to, with as little 'signature' as possible, of the equipment used, superimposed onto that sound:)

Marco.

---

I'm not interested in that at all. I want to enjoy the music on the record. There are ways to 'faithfully extract' what's on the recording - every detail - and still have it sound less than enjoyable.

Not in my experience, *if* that goal has been genuinely achieved. Otherwise, all you've created is some sort of contrived/coloured sound, and that's fundamentally not hi-fi, or indeed what I got into this game for:nono:

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Your Croft is very good indeed, but I have not preferred it in the 3 times we have baked off now - it's different but not preferable (to me). The ML I have not baked off against but it does the job exactly the way I prefer it done. I don't need to hear it in my own system to be sure of that. Also you can buy the ML which is not the case with your Croft, as isn't really a Croft anymore, is it?

---

Fairy muff, but it's pretty hard to properly judge either the Croft or the ML in an alien system, at a bake-off or otherwise. The only way you can get properly to grips with something is when hearing it your own system, thus judging it against a known reference.

That's all I meant:)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Fairy muff, but it's pretty hard to properly judge either the Croft or the ML in an alien system, at a bake-off or otherwise. The only way you can get properly to grips with something is when hearing it your own system, thus judging it against a known reference.

That's all I meant:)

Marco.

---

Yes, I only have comparative assessments to go by, that is true. After 30 years in this game, man and boy, I sort of feel that is enough experience to be able to take a punt with confidence. 'Gut instinct' as you're always saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by montesquieu

I'm not interested in that at all. I want to enjoy the music on the record. There are ways to 'faithfully extract' what's on the recording - every detail - and still have it sound less than enjoyable.

---

If it wasn't for the EAR pre-amp you would have a pretty handy studio system though. I've heard the RFC Canterbury and they are by far the least coloured Tannoy DC I've heard. And the Radford power amp needs no comment. So you've really got 90% of the way their and then just ameliorated it to your personal taste with the pre. IMO exactly the way to do it. Aim for neutral then ameliorate to taste. Getting the presentation exactly how you want it is the real 'Art Of Sound' and it isn't easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Yes, I only have comparative assessments to go by, that is true. After 30 years in this game, man and boy, I sort of feel that is enough experience to be able to take a punt with confidence. 'Gut instinct' as you're always saying.

---

No worries, but regardless, it wouldn't do any harm to test your gut instinct in the 'real world', as it were. Whenever I've done that, I've usually found it a rather enlightening experience:)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

No worries, but regardless, it wouldn't do any harm to test your gut instinct in the 'real world', as it were. Whenever I've done that, I've usually found it a rather enlightening experience:)

Marco.

---

Okay look at the Cranage show we were at the other month. That Welsh blokes system that you really loved? No way I'd have it. Nowt wrong with it just not the sort of presentation I like. I was keen on the Lampizator system, You weren't that much for it. There wasn't any difference in quality between them, but the presentation was quite different. Once you are beyond a certain level of quality it gets down to personal taste, there's no automatic 'best' or 'better'. I think that applies to any component, not just pre-amps.

Yes, I agree on the series type being the one to go for, I have tried all three types over the years, and have stuck with series type Attenuators in both my Solid State, and Valve preamps.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RothwellAudio

The Khozmo stepped attenuators look to be extremely well-engineered, but I would advise anyone considering one to choose carefully. They do three different types of attenuators which they call shunt, ladder and series.

In my opinion the series type is the best. The ladder type is really just the same as the series type but switches resistors unnecessarily which introduces an additional switch contact. The rationale for this type of attenuator is (presumably) that there are fewer resistors in the circuit at any one time, and fewer resistors must be better. No, more resistors is the better option in my opinion because there's less voltage dropped across any one resistor therefore less distortion, and thermal noise is reduced slightly by using more resistors.
The least desirable is the so-called shunt type. This type of attenuator has no merit in my opinion because the input impedance varies wildly with the volume setting and the output impedance is always higher than it needs to be. The rationale for this type of attenuator is that "there's only one resistor in the signal path". Well, no there isn't. It betrays a basic misunderstanding of electronics to believe there is.
Anyone who has tried a "shunt" attenuator passive pre-amp and found it wanting should try again with a series attenuator.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Okay look at the Cranage show we were at the other month. That Welsh blokes system that you really loved? No way I'd have it. Nowt wrong with it just not the sort of presentation I like. I was keen on the Lampizator system, You weren't that much for it. There wasn't any difference in quality between them, but the presentation was quite different. Once you are beyond a certain level of quality it gets down to personal taste, there's no automatic 'best' or 'better'. I think that applies to any component, not just pre-amps.

---

I *completely* agree. However, that doesn't negate the notion of only being able to judge something properly, after hearing it in the context of your own system.

I mean, I don't know about you, but if the option were available to me before buying any piece of kit, of trying it my system first, then I'd always take it, regardless of any gut instinct I'd formed on it beforehand.

At the end of the day, whatever my gut instincts said, I'd never conclusively judge ANY piece of equipment until, or unless, I'd heard it in my own system, and thus against my current established reference. For me, that's the only way you know for sure what something is doing:)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

If it wasn't for the EAR pre-amp you would have a pretty handy studio system though. I've heard the RFC Canterbury and they are by far the least coloured Tannoy DC I've heard. And the Radford power amp needs no comment. So you've really got 90% of the way their and then just ameliorated it to your personal taste with the pre. IMO exactly the way to do it. Aim for neutral then ameliorate to taste. Getting the presentation exactly how you want it is the real 'Art Of Sound' and it isn't easy.

---

Interesting comment. Actually the EAR pre has holes for rack mounting ....