best preamp ever - cost is no object

Every pre-amp does have its own character no matter how minor it is. Here's my rankings:

On the SS side #1. CTC Blowtorch #2. Lyra Connoisseur 4-2 SE, #3 Boulder 2010.

Now on the tube side:
#1 VTL 7,5. #2 Aesthetix Io Sig MKII with volume controls and additional high input via XLR or RCA. #3 the beautiful Wyetech Opal. #4 Wavestream pre-amp sounds like it got everything right.With phonos in all I could live with several of these. #5 CJ ART-2

My second SS tier is the #1 Daartzeel, #2 ASR Emmitters (intergrated) ans the #3 Boulder 2010 as great SS pre-amps. #4 EMM/DAC

Second tier Tube pre-amp are: #1, ARC Ref 3 mk??, #2, Conrad- Johnson ART-2,

Special considerations: Manley Steelhead MK II, Dood pre-amp, Graaf pre-amps

You really could do well wsith these.

cheers, GerryM5

Coming back to the initial question: Dynaudio Arbiter is a very very special pre-amp to. Made to order only, very expensive and very flexible. The afore mentionned ASR is a very nice product but funny wise its reputation in the US is much higher than in Germany the land of its origin. To me its to slow and to warm in sound (but thats a matter of taste) and detail retrieval and transparency is a lot better with VTL, Ayon, Boulder or FM Acoustics gear.

Mr. Tennis: would be interesting to know how good old Mac would have played his 1984 Wimbledon final against current Roger Federer - would have been a very close call - but then you have to consider Pete Sampras and Stefan Edberg as well..

In response to the initial thread, there is no universal best due to individual taste.

Same with the tennis analogies. "My" opinion is that Agassi was the best, although Laver would make for a great discussion. I base my decision on the fact that Tennis is played on grass, clay and cement. If you are truly the best of the best, you should be able to win on all surfaces. Only Agassi has won all 4 of the Slams on different surfaces. Borg never won the US Open on cement. Connors, McInroe, Sampras never won the French on clay. Federer is something special and still has a shot at the French. Laver had no choice back then as there was only 2 surfaces, grass and clay, but he is 1 of only 2 men to ever win the Grand Slam and only "he" did it twice. Agassi/Laver, now that would be a good discussion. Someone may come around and win the French 25 times in a row but I wouldn't consider him the best IMO.

hi onemug:

if sampras were to consistently beat agassi on grass, split evenly with agassi on hard surfaces and lose consistently on clay, what would you say. you have to look at head to head competition. the grand slam theory does not work.

for example, lets say agassi won a grand slam, but lost to one player every time he played him. would agassi still be the better player ?? i think there are too many variables to determine what is best in any endeavor, from tennis, to art, to cars, etc. . there is no best in life, with respect to any subject.

Hi Mrtennis:

As I said upfront, I based "my" decision on the fact that the game of tennis is played on different surfaces so my vote goes to Agassi. Others may feel it's more important to them that someone won 25 Wimbledons in a row so that's who they would vote for. I do like your point about "head to head". I think you summed things up perfectly in your last sentence with regard to the masses agreeing on any one thing. Often times it's just semantics. If I said I had the best wife in the world, many would disagree. I will say I have the best wife for me and everyone who knew us would agree.

Enjoyed your response.