Macca's Lash Up 2: Lash Harder

[Macca]

Is it a variation on the DCB1 I know Olly and Alan spent a long time researching and building those?

I don't know, It's the same principle as DCB1 I suppose.

[Ubi]

Deleted

[struth]

Not valve. Solid state buffer, zero gain.

so, whats your initial take?

[Macca]

so, whats your initial take?

well, it's better than the Philips Black Tulip pre, and that's not a bad pre-amp but it's a bit veiled by comparison to this new one.

Had too many distractions today so only had a couple of uninterrupted hours to listen earlier on and then got distracted watching 'The Alamo' when I was having my dinner. I forgot how long that film is.

Should be able to give it a proper go tomorrow afternoon.

[struth]

well, it's better than the Philips Black Tulip pre, and that's not a bad pre-amp but it's a bit veiled by comparison to this new one.

Had too many distractions today so only had a couple of uninterrupted hours to listen earlier on and then got distracted watching 'The Alamo' when I was having my dinner. I forgot how long that film is.

Should be able to give it a proper go tomorrow afternoon.

lol, yes its getting on for 3 hrs.. well if its an improvement on a good pre like the philips, then its a step in right direction..

[phonomac]

Is it a variation on the DCB1 I know Olly and Alan spent a long time researching and building those?

It is not based on the DCB1 in any way. It is a new design produced by myself using modern high-performance components.

[Jimbo]

Deleted

Why was this post deleted?

[struth]

Why was this post deleted?

he deleted it himself.

[Macca]

Okay second listening test, serious this time

Took out the old pre-amp, put my patented washing machine feet in to separate it a useful distance from the transport below, redressed all the cables round the back.



I don't tend to listen for the usual audiophile things like soundstage and imaging since I find it impossible to recall what they were like with other equipment unless instant switching is available. Instead I listen for problems like colouration and distortion, and for what might be missing.

I also like to note whether or not I have to concentrate to perceive subtle elements of the recording. A good system should just present them.

In terms of comparison my recent preamps have been the Philips AH280 'Black Tulip' and Nelson Pass DCB1. Not used the Pass pre in a while so bear in mind my memory may not be so good on that one. The Philips is a bit warm but with sparkle. It's a bit generic in its sound, especially in the bass. It's a relaxing and enjoyable listen but it's not neutral by any stretch.

The Pass DCB1 is almost the opposite, quite scarily open and revealing of the differences between recordings, and of different instrumental tone.

So I kicked off with 'Gaucho', an easy one to get right - and so it was, this recording did not really tell me anything, it's an impeccable recording it was impeccably reproduced. Only thing I noticed was that the keyboards tones seemed to be very real and natural, more so than usual.

Moved on to demo favourite 'Brothers In Arms', again an impeccable recording (this was the 1990s re-master). But I wanted to listen to one thing in particular. In the outro to the tune 'Why Worry?' the rhythm meanders for a while and then picks up again with the drummer working a snare in the back right of the soundstage. With the DCB1 the snare could be heard in its own acoustic, sounding very real, and moreover this was totally obvious, not something you had to listen out for or concentrate on to hear, it was just there. I distinctly recall this from the first time I listened to this recording through the DCB1 because it had my jaw on the floor.

You don't get it with the Philips - sure you hear the snare and it's in the same spot in the soundstage, but it's acoustic is not there, at least not so blatantly. You can listen for it and maybe then it becomes apparent but this is the difference between the best and the also rans. With the best you don't need to listen out.

So with the BT2 the snare was there, the acoustic was apparent, the only difference was that the snare sound seemed slightly softer. Or maybe slightly blurred. It was not quite as sharp as with the DCB1.

Next couple of albums I listened to sort of confirmed that impression I had when first plugging the BT2 in yesterday. Simply Red 'Stars', which is a workmanlike studio recording, all the best equipment used, not too many gizmos or effects just a fairly stripped-down band, well-recorded. With DCB1 this was like listening in the studio, serious impact, quite raw, the recording totally dissected. With the Philips, just a pleasant, musical sound. With the BT2 it was like the DCB1 with its 'full-on' nature just dialled back a fraction.

Last up Rolling Stones 'Emotional Rescue'. More of the same. Sound is somewhere between raw studio control room and relaxing home listening. With vocals added reverb and doubling was obvious, as was their own acoustic space. Instrumental timbre was beautifully resolved, I noticed this with electronic keyboards especially.

These are all attributes I valued the DCB1 for, they have not been lost with the BT2. What is' not there is that super-rawness of the DCB1. I sort of liked and hated that rawness at the same time. It was mesmerising to hear a recording so completely revealed, but it did make listening a little exhausting, especially with rock music.

I was hoping from my memory of hearing the BT2 previously that it would not be quite so explicit, whilst still keeping the qualities I value reasonably intact. So far this does seem to be the case.

[walpurgis]

I reckon you've got a keeper there Martin .