Lightspeed Attenuator - Best Preamp Ever?

Clio09, I see you point. Removing one sonic signature will improve the overall accuracy of the orig source ... one less to muck it up. For me, when dealing with so many sonic signatures in a system, removing one is not very significant to the overall result. Finding the correct combination is more important.

>> Maybe true to the source should be more about the least coloration added to something that's been colored from the beginning.
...
If I can eliminate one source of coloration from the mix I figure I've taken a step in the right direction (for me anyway).
<< Clio09

You get it.

"If I can eliminate one source of coloration from the mix I figure I've taken a step in the right direction (for me anyway)."

I think that is why things like soundstaging seem to change more than usual from recording to recording with the LSA - it is putting less of a imprint that carries through for every recording. The question becomes does the recording have depth, width, and localization cues - when it does, the LSA sounds like that, when it doesn't the LSA shows that too. The more neutral the system, the greater variation of these types of attributes from recording to recording. I think this was Ken Stevens' (CAT)notion of a preamp having the color of water, for him you should never be able to tell what preamp is in the chain, there should not be a sonic sameness between recordings that the footprint of the preamps sonic signature. No right or wrong here, I think, just a chosen approach to building a system, one that appeals to my sense of things.

I'm having trouble following this debate between Knghifi and George, particularly with respect to the use of the concept of 'source'. Originally, when I read 'source' I thought it just referred to the music as found on the CD or the vinyl record. At other times, the reference appears to be to the source electronics (CD player or TT). On one occasion, George seems to be using ‘source’ to refer to both, “What comes after the source can only be corrupted by more electronics, it cannot fix a "bad" cdp dac or cd.”

Clio suggests yet another sense of ‘source’ when he writes,

Maybe true to the source should be more about the least coloration added to something that's been colored from the beginning. By that I mean we need to take into account what the recording engineer adds to the mix before it gets stamped as a disc or a piece of vinyl and can be played on our sources. Lets even go further, the instruments played by the musicians add color to a recording whether by composition (ex. wood) or effects (ex. tube guitar amps or feedback).

This is ‘source’ in a truer sense, in my opinion, because it takes us back to the original musical activity that was recorded. [One could ‘go back’ even further and speak of source in the sense of the musical composition, e.g. the musicians are only interpreting the source. And if you’re a certain kind of philosopher, the ultimate sense of source might be the music as it exists independently of even the ‘composer’, e.g. one could argue that Mahler only discovered the 9th symphony, he didn’t invent it] Nevertheless, I think we should leave these latter senses out of the discussion because no manner of electronics design is ever going to get us back to them.

The specific understanding of ‘source’ matters because it influences our stand on several different theses. We can all agree presumably that playback should be guided by the norm of neutrality (compare: all action should be guided by the good; all belief should be guided by the truth). And we can say that neutrality is achieved when a suitably situated perceiver (“ideal listener”) can hear the music as it exists on the vinyl or cd. In this sense, the music on the vinyl or cd is the source. Three theses immediately present themselves:

a. There is no such thing as neutrality (compare: there is no such thing as truth, only interpretation or, differently, preference)
b. Neutrality exists but cannot be achieved
c. Neutrality cannot be achieved because of the nature of electronics
d. Neutrality cannot be achieved because of the nature of perception

Knghifi seems to subscribe at least to (c) when he writes, “Every component has a sonic signature. It's not bad or good but just a sonic signature.” George denies (c), at least regarding the LSA, because he claims that it “adds nothing and subtracts nothing.” In addition, George denies (a), and Knghifi’s position on (a) is not clear to me. Could the correct combination of components get us back to the source/neutrality? If Knghifi believes this, then there is yet another disagreement between him and George because George believes that “What comes after the source can only be corrupted by more electronics, it cannot fix a "bad" cdp dac or cd. It can only add corruptions, colourations, distortions and euphonics.”

For my part, I believe that neutrality exists but that it probably cannot be achieved due to the nature of electronics. I believe the LSA achieves partial neutrality in the sense that the signal it receives it leaves more or less unaltered. However, I don’t know of any cartridge or stylus or TT that achieves what the LSA achieves with its own work. Knghifi’s reference to the total system sound is pertinent here because it helps articulate why neutrality is difficult if not impossible to achieve. This isn’t a knock against the LSA. Perhaps we should be speaking in terms of degrees of total neutrality. If so, and if the LSA does what George says it does, that is, leaves the signal as it is, then that explains why many of us like it so much: it gets us closer to where we should be.

Lastly, I want to return to an issue raised by the total system sound perspective. Knghifi has asserted, and others have intimated, that finding the correct combination is important. I’d like to ask, “Important for what reason?”

i. Because, irrespective of questions about neutrality, a certain preferred sound is acquired
ii. Because the correct combination helps us achieve neutrality

Point (i) seems to deny the importance of neutrality as a norm. I started above by saying that we can all agree that it is a norm, but the more I read people’s postings, the less I’m sure about this. This touches upon thesis (d). If you don’t believe in neutrality, is it because of the vagaries of perception? Or what?

Point (ii) suggests an intriguing possibility. Does anyone believe it? George gave us a reason to deny it, but I’m agnostic myself. Why couldn’t a known type of distortion be corrected by another? Don’t people use and buy cables based on this possibility?

Here's my 2c worth, after noticing this thread had recently come back to life.

Most good quality high end cdp's are close to each other in sound quality and don't colour the sound much at all. Except for some tube output ones - they can be all over the shop.

This leave us with the interconnect colourations. So, why throw a $14,000 bandaid at a pair of $100 interconects, wouldn't it be saner to change the interconects?

Banquo, where did you study philosophy?

Banquo, where did you study philosophy?

UC Irvine. For more years than I'd like to admit.

Whoa, this is getting deep. I just came back from setting up our room at THE SHOW and wasn't ready for this. I need a martini and then Ill come back to it.

Maybe we should rename the thread Tao the Lightspeed Way.

Deep is right, but I love it! Good stuff and we are getting closer to the truth. I think we all "get it" to be frank and we are just starting to communicate.

The source and its various meanings as related to the LSA:

1. The live acoustic performance. The LSA, and no preamp, has anything to do with this. That event cannot truly be reproduced and perhaps the biggest drop off from the source in this sense occurs in the recording process itself and affected by colorations/distortions/mixing etc caused by the microphone chosen, the electronics, as well as the manufacturing process of the medium that we do bring home. This is the truest "source" - the "absolute" sound?, but preamps (and systems) do not touch it since it is mediated and never really comes home with us.

2. The recording and the information embedded in the medium - digital or analog. This is the limit of the musical information that can possibly make its way through our gear to our speakers to our ears. This contains all the musical information that is possible - including the ever popular audiophile attributes of soundstaging, dynamics, warmth, bandwidth and bloom. Any musical information you hear that is not inherently in the recording as embedded in media is a distortion and no part of the source as defined here. Pleasant though these distortion might or might not be, they are pixie dust that has been spread over the music and no part of the original performance mediated through the recording process - whatever they are, they are not part of the musical source. The LSA only touches this source to the extent that the 3rd-sense of source does not interfere.

3. Finally, the electrical signal coming from the TT or CD/DAC that has been processed from the recording embedded in a medium to an analog signal for use by a preamp or LSA. I think that this is the source that the LSA is true to. It is the only source that meets the LSA one-to-one. The LSA cannot improve upon either recordings or "players" and a bad recording, or a weak turntable/CD/DAC will reveal themselves through the LSA - in fact a poor recording or player might in fact sound better with a preamp less true to the "source" in this sense. The question if this is true of the LSA, that it is true to the source in this sense, is that what one wants, or should want, in a preamp/volume control - is there a right answer?

CAVEAT: The LSA, will not be true to the source if it has insufficient gain from the source or sensitivity in an amp, or if the output impedance of the source and the input impedance of the amp are not appropriate, or if long interconnects have so much overall capacitance as to alter the frequency spectrum of the signal sent to the amp.

Now, just because the LSA may (subject to debate)may be as true to the source as a line stage / volume control can be, that does not mean that everyone would prefer it to something less true - not sure the answer to that can be decided by measurement and engineering, only listening and drawing our own conclusions about what we like.

This is the part I like ...

"2. The recording and the information embedded in the medium - digital or analog. This is the limit of the musical information that can possibly make its way through our gear to our speakers to our ears. This contains all the musical information that is possible - including the ever popular audiophile attributes of soundstaging, dynamics, warmth, bandwidth and bloom. Any musical information you hear that is not inherently in the recording as embedded in media is a distortion and no part of the source as defined here. Pleasant though these distortion might or might not be, they are pixie dust that has been spread over the music and no part of the original performance mediated through the recording process - whatever they are, they are not part of the musical source. The LSA only touches this source to the extent that the 3rd-sense of source does not interfere"

This sums it up nicely thanks Pubul57. After that, as stated, its personal choice as to what one does with this information - Colour it, reproduce it as "accurately" as possible or any variation in between.

If accurate reproduction is the end goal and the LSA is in the chain, then everything else has to be (a) Up to that standard, or better and (b) Optomised to work together in terms of impedance and gain.

I quote, or at least paraphase, both the great Winston Churchill and Lewis Carroll about what this thread has turned into regarding its "deep" philosophical/epistemolical search to unlock the ultimate truth regarding this topic:

" Never before in the history of high end audio... have so many ... received so much jabberwocky ... from so few."

Reading this thread is becoming more fun then watching Monty Python's, Meaning Of Life. Thanks guys.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe

Now where is that martini?

This thread was way more fun before you guys all turned into pantywaists!

Well that first one of mine turned into three and the rest was history.

Going to be a real busy week working two rooms at THE SHOW. The Concert Fidelity, Electra-Print, and Atma-Sphere rooms are in a little triangular area (the first to are the ones I'm working), so it's going to be fun hanging out with all those guys. Too bad I'm probably not going to have time to go over to the Venetian.

Hopefully you'll not be speaking in tongues by the time I get back.

I want to chime in. I deal with color in differnt aspects of my business. I don't know if anybody is familiar with the gray scale? Color is measured, but not perfectly, by three primary qualities. Shade, intensity, and depth. The varieties are infinite as far as our eyes are concerned. Musical sounds are very similar, endless varieties. I think where it went wrong for me was going to digital before it could start to produce the endless varieties of sound that analog can. To me digital is better but it is still struggling. Sound systems I have heard over the last +40 yrs, many giving hours of listening, some with good tone, seem to be to restricted to way fewer different sounds than what I like and can achive. For instance I play the guitar, and when I go look at a new guitar I can look at 2 guitars or more, the same guitar, same brand, same model, same person putting it together, same close time of build, same wood from the same batch of wood(same tree and place on tree), everything possible the same and they all always sound different, quite a bit different. Most audiophiles I know (but there are a few that can) cannot hear a difference between such very similar guitars let alone 2 different but similar styled ones. I like to hear what the musician does with his paticular guitar because he may have 10 guitars but he uses the one he is playing specifically for that sound he wamts to achive. That is lost on a lot of sound systems that I have listen to. The same is true of other musicians and their instruments. And I cannot hear the variety of tones in many sound systems that people love and say it sounds like music. I don't deny it is music to their ears, it sounds good and it is musical. But it short changes the colors of sound that I like to hear. That is where I hear the biggest difference between passives and actives. From my experience even though you do get pleasant 'natural type' sounds from tube equipment(not all but most) it sounds very similar with all its tones and the result is very few colors of sound to me. It does do other things that make listening pleasant such as space, air, adds a bit of continuity or flow a tiny bit like analog off a LP. Solid state has it plus' and minus'. I like the LSA because it gives more variety of color to the music being played. But I do respect everyone elses tastes for themselves. Hope this doesn't confuse anybody but actually helps.

"That is lost on a lot of sound systems that I have listen to."

"I don't deny it is music to their ears, it sounds good and it is musical. But it short changes the colors of sound that I like to hear. That is where I hear the biggest difference between passives and actives."

I think that is what those of us who prefer the LSA to our actives have been trying to say. For us, the music sounds "for what we believe to be" more true to the actual source. (SOURCE being defined as the actual medium we spin vs. SOURCE being defined as what happened in the studio.) We have no control over what happened in the studio, therefore, that discussion is a non-starter for me. I can't change a single decision made during the recording process. I can only try to extract the information from the recording as accurately as my equipment will let me and change the sound of it to the degree that I want to KNOWINGLY change it.

I have tubes in my system. However, I do understand what they do to the sound; how they change it. That's what tube-rolling is all about. I don't try to kid myself. I can change the sound of my system with just two tubes and I am sure you guys can too. That's why I don't understand the debate about actives (tubes) versus passives as far as which one is more true to the source.

There is no debate in my mind that adding more and more caps, resistors, wire, tubes, etc. change the sound. The addition of more or different parts may make the music sound more appealing, but those same additions will never be as true to the source as a straight wire or as close to a straight wire as we can get. Parts have sounds.

After modding some of my own equipment it is abundantly clear what a difference parts make. No need to talk about caps, wire, tubes, interstage transformers, output transformers, etc. Simply swap out a cheap Alps pot with a DACT attenuator and hear the difference. And that's a difference of simple resistors!

For me, the LSA is much closer to a straight wire than my active. I can clearly hear more subtle differences with the LSA whereas my active lends a slight sameness to the sound depending on which tubes I am using (which by the way is the joy AND frustration of tube-rolling.)

If you have a Lightspeed, open it up. Then open your active. See which one is closer to a straight wire. You already know the answer. It's not even close :)

Fiddler

If you have a Lightspeed, open it up. Then open your active. See which one is closer to a straight wire. You already know the answer. It's not even close :)

Is LSA the only component in your system? What if the total parts count in a system (speakers, amp, IC ...) with an active is less then one with the LSA, is it always superior? Design, synergy between the components, quality of components ... there are many many factors.

LSA is not an empty box and has parts so it too has a sonic character.

"LSA is not an empty box..." Pretty close though.

01-06-11: Pubul57
"LSA is not an empty box..." Pretty close though.

So another passive with less parts count than LSA is superior?

>>So another passive with less parts count than LSA is superior?<< Knghifi

Less parts in the SIGNAL PATH than the LSA? only a straight piece of wire ;-)

That is overstating the argument, but a good design will have as few parts as necessary, but no less (in the case of pure volume attenuation you don't need many)and the quality of parts matter, too - especially if you are relying on fewer parts (less places to hide). In the case of the LSA, it also not just a matter of the number of parts, though that helps since you don't need a lot of parts to control volume if you are adding no gain, or providing any buffering (those function do require more parts), but also a contact free interface between the volume knob and the resistors. The freedom from the mechanical connection is one of the reason it is felt to be a better mousetrap than any other potentiometer or stepped attentuator. But hey, I studied philosophy , so I rather the tech folks explain that part of it.

That is overstating the argument, but a good design will have as few parts as necessary, but no less (in the case of pure volume attenuation you don't need many)and the quality of parts matter, too - especially if you are relying on fewer parts (less places to hide). In the case of the LSA, it also not just a matter of the number of parts, though that helps since you don't need a lot of parts to control volume if you are adding no gain, or providing any buffering (those function do require more parts), but also a contact free interface between the volume knob and the resistors. The freedom from the mechanical connection is one of the reason it is felt to be a better mousetrap than any other potentiometer or stepped attentuator. But hey, I studied philosophy , so I rather the tech folks explain that part of it.

Ok, based on the reasoning that less parts and simplicity ALWAYS is truer to the source and more accurate, then this SS preamp certainly must deliver a perverted or somehow “additive” portrayal of the music compared to the LSA….. Also no tubes in this one….

http://www.balabo.com/amps/control/

I suppose one may think it, ague it, but the proof is in the hearing only. This highly reviewed and often touted pinnacle of preamps is full of parts. Looks at all those parts…

To actually get all of the nuances and notes off of that source requires a preamp that can actually extract it and amplify it. It needs to convey the dynamic contrasts and subtleties including those subtle micro and marco details. Perhaps a passive is, well, “too passive” to extract all of that information (on the source CD etc). This requires an “additive” (accurate gain) approach. Our stereo systems must be “additive” to even play a single note through a speaker. A passive may simply leave these higher order musical realities out – they may be subtractive. They may constrain or compress for lack relative drive. That is perhaps why, in my experience, I miss the depth, body and dimension with a passive.

Not sure how it got repeated, another example of too many parts:)

Sources these days, esspecially CD can drive (have enough output) by themselves (without the need of a preamp) a poweramp into cliping, there is your strait wire with no gain (the interconnects only).
All we need is something so we can attenuate that source so it doesn't blow the amp up, we do not need a preamp that preamplifies again on top of the source that can already by itself blow an amp up with the amount of output it has.

Cheers George

I understand why a moving coil cartridge would need gain (and RIAA equalization) to create a sense of drive and dynamics, but why would a 2 volt signal need any gain to drive an amp that plays at maximum output with 1v of input? Is "drive" something different than simple voltage which is either sufficient or insufficent to drive an amplifer? I suppose a source could have a weak output stage, but I would think that would be as much of problem for driving an active preamp as a more direct connection to the amp. There is something appealing about "horsepower", but does it really serve any purpose where input sensitivity is simply not an issue? Does an active really provide something "in reserve" for hearing micro and macro dynamic inflections?

Pubul57

Good questions and they reflect what I am trying to better understand. I am not an expert on these technical questions and feel the questions are reasonable, but would like a better understanding of this topic.

Both Publ57 and Fiddler argue, I think, that the live performance is not relevant to the LSA because (in Publ57’s case) the LSA connects directly only with the output of the TT/arm/cartridge/phonostage, and because (in Fiddler’s case) “We have no control over what happened in the studio, therefore, that discussion is a non-starter for me. I can't change a single decision made during the recording process. I can only try to extract the information from the recording as accurately as my equipment will let me and change the sound of it to the degree that I want to KNOWINGLY change it.”

Of course, I agree with their premises, but I don’t think the conclusion follows.

If we understand ‘source’ generally to mean ‘the standard by which we should evaluate a piece of equipment’, then I think the live performance should serve as that standard—and not either the information codified on the vinyl or the output of the TT/cart/stage. I think Marqmike’s post serves as a reminder of this truth, a point I’ll return to below.

I don’t think the vinyl (or output of stage) can serve as standard because we don’t (can’t?) know what it contains except through ‘corrupting’ electronics (I take it this is part of Knghifi’s point that “Every component has a sonic signature.”). Suppose Claire, using a LSA and other purported neutral and natural sounding equipment, judges that some vinyl sounds like X, Y and Z (fill in with your favorite audiophile vocabulary). She proclaims triumphantly, “I finally got it; the vinyl as it actually is, all the information it contains has been transmitted through my system.” Suppose Claire now swaps out the LSA and puts in a different passive preamp (say the McCormack TLC-1) and plays the same disk again (all else remaining the same). It sounds different (X, A, B; no or diminished Y and Z), and she swears “this time I’ve finally got everything, nothing added, nothing lost.”

Question: on what basis can she decide which judgment is correct?

Remember that this is not a question about which she prefers but rather about which is truer to the information codified on the vinyl or the output of the stage (after all, that’s what she’s after). She can go through many iterations of the above scenario trying to find the one preamp true to the vinyl, but she can never find an adequate basis for justifying any particular judgment because this method does not allow for any external point of view. It will be just more equipment, all sounding great and ‘neutral’ but, alas, different. [it is conceivable, contrary to my hypothesis, that the two preamps deliver the exact same sound—that might serve as confirmation that they had arrived at the truth. I leave that possibility aside because I’ve never heard two different pieces sound exactly the same. “Every component has a sonic signature.”).]

The point Marqmike makes in his post can now play its role. The way to adjudicate between the competing judgments is to assess which comes closer to what instruments played live sound like. This is the ‘external’ point of view. The reason the LSA is true to the vinyl is that it best approximates what instruments actually sound like. Live play serves, then, as the standard of evaluation and ultimate source (this part jibes with how Publ57 describes it).

I experienced something like when I switched from the passive I used to own (TLC-1) to the LSA. The McCormack was a well-received preamp when it came out and I found it a good product. When I got the LSA (as a result of reading this thread) I noticed immediately a warmth and fullness of sound that wasn’t there with the McCormack. Did the LSA add that warmth or did it merely reveal what the McCormack couldn’t? I decided to keep the LSA precisely for the reason Marqmike described: it better approximated the sound of actual snare drums, pianos, etc…

When I used to live in NYC I had season tickets to the Met. My last year there Tristan and Isolde was on the program and I recall very distinctly the sound of the opening notes (as played by a James Levine led orchestra). I was really moved because the orchestra had not ever sounded like that in the times I had gone before. Recently I bought the Furtwangler and Bohm recordings of the same opera and my test was whether the McCormack or LSA could bring me back to that sound. The LSA won and that another reason why I kept it. (of course, that sound never really came to me, even approximately, because my system in total is not good enough).

I tell this story because I conjecture that many of us have a sound we experienced live and we use it, consciously or not, to assess the comparative quality of equipment.

Lest I again be accused of dispensing too much jabberwocky, I include a banal jabberwocky-free report on the LSA:

A couple of weeks ago I was considering buying a new phonostage (the tubed Allnic h1200). I wondered about its compatibility with the LSA and so emailed George the manufacturer’s specs. He told me the output impedance at 1.2 kohms was “a bit too high”, but that he had had other customers who had DACs and phonostages with impedance that high and they had no problems. Slightly hesitant but impulsive by nature I bought the Allnic. I’m sure glad I did because it sounds fantastic and, as far as I can tell, plays well with the LSA. What am I supposed to be losing if the output impedance is too high? The lesson is that even though the numbers may not look promising from a compatibility point of view, it may be worth trying nevertheless.

Publ57: I had a suspicion you were a philosopher; what subjects did you study? (I specialized in moral philosophy).

History of... then Phenomenology - Stony Brook was very "continental". There is a very interesting thread out there on whether the best stereo reproduction is 5% of "real" or %95; I am not sure the %, but no stereo has ever fooled me into thinking it was real, unamplified, acoustic instruments. Yes, what I most want for the system to sound most like the "absolute" sound of the real thing, but I give an awful lot of weight to the recording process in capturing all the vital cues that makes the real sound so distinct form the reproduced. It took me a few years to not be disappointed listening to my stereo after coming back from a live performance at the Blue Note or Vanguard. Like looking for good food in London, I thought it was just a matter of throwing more money at the gap, I concluded it is just the inherent difference between live and Memorex, and I have learned to love recorded music for what it is.

01-06-11: Pubul57
I understand why a moving coil cartridge would need gain (and RIAA equalization) to create a sense of drive and dynamics, but why would a 2 volt signal need any gain to drive an amp that plays at maximum output with 1v of input? Is "drive" something different than simple voltage which is either sufficient or insufficent to drive an amplifer? I suppose a source could have a weak output stage, but I would think that would be as much of problem for driving an active preamp as a more direct connection to the amp. There is something appealing about "horsepower", but does it really serve any purpose where input sensitivity is simply not an issue? Does an active really provide something "in reserve" for hearing micro and macro dynamic inflections?

01-06-11: Georgelofi
Sources these days, esspecially CD can drive (have enough output) by themselves (without the need of a preamp) a poweramp into cliping, there is your strait wire with no gain (the interconnects only).
All we need is something so we can attenuate that source so it doesn't blow the amp up, we do not need a preamp that preamplifies again on top of the source that can already by itself blow an amp up with the amount of output it has. ...

Years ago I had a Krell FPB300 and FBP600 at the same time. They are identical in design except for the power rating. Both are high current and power doubles down to 2 Ohms. My speaker at the time was Gallo Nucleus Reference ... forgot the exact model but one with 2 balls and a can on top. On paper, the FPB300 was more than enough to drive them that can blow out the drivers. But the FPB600 was much much superior in every way. You can feel the extra power, dynamics and sound was more relax with an ease.

Sometimes what's on paper doesn't tell the whole story in a real world application.

Hello everyone. I hope I did not sound condecending on my last post. I just wanted to share my view. Everybody here has shared theirs in a positive way, and no doubt helped others that read them. Personally I hear a big difference between actives and passives. What I mean by big, it is big to me. It's when I sit down and spend some time with other equipment accesing it. It is not always right off the bat I notice I don't like its overall presentation as well. I have had a few passives and actives(mind you not over $4,000.00 though, so not super high end but some good ones. That being said all my passives have been very sensitive to everything I do around it. That is both good and not so good. It is good in the sound it results in but in can be a challenge to get there. But when you do it is like the important nuances of sound going from a newspaper color to a high quality magazine color. When I say sensitive I mean everything in the chain. That includes speakers and might be why Grannyring hasn't met his preconceived expectations with the LSA. Yes power on the back side of speaker can help some but in my experience(I don't mean super sensitive) the more sensitive the better, there is a point where insensitivity can negate benefits of a passive in my experience. I no there is no same absolute standard of neutrality for everyone but in my experience if a source does not sound good behind a passive something down the chain is changing the signal to sound better. Source as is cables and amp all are very important when evaluating a passive. Clio09 said it way back when. He said something like you really have to build your system around the passive. But to me that is a really good place to start. Enjoy your music.

I suppose moving forward we need to get away from what is better, or trying to prove it, but perhaps just hear what experiences folks have had. I expect there will be split between the passive and active sides from a head count perspective, but it is always nice to hear from other folks and their observations. The truth is there is a lot of great equipment out there for us to listen to, but I do want folks to feel that it really is possible to have what some very experienced listeners feel is SOTA for their systems for the very low price of the LSA. Especially important for audiophiles or budding audiophiles on a budget and more of us are probably in that situation than 3-4 years ago.

Knghifi, I', not familiar with the Krell gear, but I assume the 600 has alot morep power than than the 300? I don't want to get side tracked on the power amps, but I think power and current and amps and how they interact with speaker impedances is a different kettle of fish than source volatage and preamp input sensitivity, I say that thinking I am right, but knowing since I am not engineer. That being said, and just as an aside, I would also argue that the exact same circuit, but for power output, the lower power amp will sound better, IF, the power and current needed for low impedance swings for bass, is adequate. But, I think that is another conversation, but a variation on the less is more paradigm (when less is sufficient, not always the case).

made a few grammatical errors, there, but I hope you get the gist of what I was trying to say. By the way, the new Dylan Mono Recordings Box sounds great.

Perhaps a passive is, well, “too passive” to extract all of that information (on the source CD etc). This requires an “additive” (accurate gain) approach. Our stereo systems must be “additive” to even play a single note through a speaker. A passive may simply leave these higher order musical realities out – they may be subtractive.
Grannyring

Passives don't extract anything. They just pass an attenuated signal. Your source is extracting the music off the medium.

Systems do have to be additive to play music. There should be enough drive from a 2V source and enough gain in your amps to accomplish this. Anything more is excess IMO.

The only way a passive can be subtractive is if there is an impedance mismatch. If you are missing depth, body, and dimension with a passive well...

Clio09 said it way back when. He said something like you really have to build your system around the passive. But to me that is a really good place to start.
Marqmike

Just for the record, I built my system around my speakers. I choose amps that have great synergy with my speakers. IMO the amp/speaker synergy gets you more than 80% there. The rest is determined by what your source can deliver in terms of extracting information from the recording. For me the preamp is nothing more that an attenuator. My choice of amps and sources are contingent on their ability to coexist with a passive preamp, but I wouldn't say I build my system around it.

Clio09

"Passives don't extract anything. They just pass an attenuated signal. Your source is extracting the music off the medium."

Passives behave more as you say above. I am suggesting an active or any other part of a stereo system certainly extracts or gets at more of the music. Certainly amps and speakers and wire can extract more of the recording. By extract I mean "get at it and pass it along". This is the point where we are not in agreement.

The best and often times most expensive gear (not always) does just this.
The best "systems" do this. The source is not the only place a stereo system can extract or lose fidelity.

I had a good impedance match with the Atmasphere MA1 amps (100K ohms) but the resulting sound was relatively flat as I have already said. So impedance matching was not all the issue.

Grannyring, I think you are right, there is not an impedance mismatch with the Atma-sphere. And as Teajay cautioned, it would not be fair, or simply too easy to say that something else "must" be wrong or you would necessarily, you must like the LSA better than anything else - of course that is not true, and nobody should try to tell you otherwise. Yet, there might be another "compatibly" issue (electronic, not psychoacoustic)beyond impedance caused by cable capacitance - if too long, or a high capacitance cable, or the input sensitivity of the amps might be too low, I think Atma amps, or at least mine, have a 2.8v input sensitivity which is not ideal driven just by the output voltage of a CD player. Or there may be absolutely no electronic issues and you simply prefer the sound of your TRLpreamp in your system, and that is that, and a perfectly legitimate conclusion and preference.

Grannyring,

You keep arguing with conventional and accepted audio design that the ultimate attenuator would be a straight wire. You can argue all you want about extracting this and that, but your argument flies in the face of generally accepted wisdom.

You may prefer the sound of your preamp. Fine. But it is not extracting more of anything. It is simply adding a particular color and artifacts to the original source that you find appealing. Nothing wrong with that, I like tubes too, but that's simply the fact of the matter.

And I don't understand why you continue to argue when in your own words in another thread you make the case, "In general tubes will get you more midrange warmth and bloom. But this is not always the case. I am sure the TRL will give you this while also improving a host of other things we all want in our sound systems."

Once again, in your own words you are "sure" the TRL Dude, "will give you" ... "more midrange warmth and bloom." That is additive - end of story! And don't even try to say it does that by extracting more of the signal. That's simple nonsense. And it's easy enough to prove. Just roll some tubes and listen to the subtle or not so subtle changes.

You can't have it both ways. Either you were wrong in the thread I quoted or you are wrong here. Which is it? Conventional design wisdom says you are wrong here.

You are beating a dead horse.

I had a good impedance match with the Atmasphere MA1 amps (100K ohms) but the resulting sound was relatively flat as I have already said. So impedance matching was not all the issue.
Grannyring

Yes I agree looking to 100k ohms the LSA would be a good match impedance wise. That wasn't what I was referencing in my last sentence of my previous post.

I can't see how a preamp, active or passive extracts anything. Someone is going to have to educate me on this one. The information is already extracted from the medium prior to getting to the preamp. I don't think it gets extracted any further at that point. Depending on the type of preamp other things could happen to the signal, but as Fiddler said it would be additive, or as you said, it could be subtractive.

Like I said, the maximum and complete set of signal information is at the output of the DAC/CD Player, there is nothing more to be extracted, whatever happens after that is some deviation from the closest thing we have to the "source". In a well matched system, I don't think any active preamp can cause less deviation from that output signal than the LSA. If there is not the right impedance and gain requirements, the LSA will cause deviation indeed, perhaps more so than a well designed active and in those cases an active would be preferred, it is causing less "damage" to the source signal. As Arthur Salvatore put it, if an active line stage, any active line stage sounds better than a passive, then you need an active line stage. I think that is true, but not sure it fully accounts for the fact that some people simply prefer the color of the preamp to a less colored version of the source - and you cannot argue with that preference (indeed, why bother); but less subjective is what the systems does to the signal originating at the source output and philosophically, some people seem choose to prefer the idea that the "chain" is preserving that source signal as it, warts and all. There is no right or wrong as far as preference goes, but there is an objective truth as to which approach best leaves the source signal intact with minimal alteration. Other than a straight wire, I think the LSA does that in a way no other attenuation device can do, where impedance and sensitivity issues are taken out of the equation. But, even if we accept that, it does not mean that any given person will prefer it to their active line stage, that is a different issue, and not readily resolved through discussion.

"But, even if we accept that, it does not mean that any given person will prefer it to their active line stage..."

I don't think even George has, or would, argue that. I don't think any of his claims to with the subjective nature of things.

Fiddler, you are for some reason quite short with me in your remarks. No reason to be so strong with me and this is why.

1) My last posts had nothing to do with tubes at all. You keep bringing up the active preamp I own and digging up past posts that have nothing to do with the current topic. You take these past posts and apply them to a current thread totally out of context. I like tubes as you do. Tubes can bring warmth and other nice things. I am not arguing that and have not tried to in my last posts. Yes, we agree. Some tubes as you know are quite neural sounding. It is certainly possible for an active tube preamp to have a little more "warmth" but to also pass along many other things that are more revealing of the original event. More on this in a moment as this what I am most interested in digging into.

2) My interest in this thread is not on the level of my preamp vs. another. My scope is actually much broader and I was hoping to have some great dialog. I try to avoid bringing up the brand of preamp I own so we can have a broader discussion. Fiddler, you keep bringing it up? I have owned many, many active and passive preamps. Yes, the one I now own has pleased me well beyond the others, but that is not why I am on this thread. You seem to suggest I am not worthy of this topic and to stop having input on this thread.

3) As my last posts have pointed out. I think it is a reasonable and valid argument to suggest some aspects of music reproduction demand a preamp that has a great ability to powerfully attenuate. In fact, overbuilt to the point it looks like an amp. Big and powerful power supplies etc… Bass reproduction demands this kind of a preamp based on my experience. I am also suggesting other things like dynamic contracts, micro details and the like. That is why I gave the link to the $60,000 preamp considered by many experts to be the finest preamp available today.

Straight wire with gain! Yes, but the gain part is very important and the ability to really drive a system to realistically recreate the original recording is tantamount.
Certainly this is a realistic approach adopted by many first class companies. Some of these same companies offer both passive and active preamps. Most of them will tell you the active does the best job of recreating the recorded music. It is usually their very top of the line preamp – First sound, Placette ….

So yes Fiddler I think my points are worthy and not sophomoric in any way.

"Fiddler, you are for some reason quite short with me in your remarks. No reason to be so strong with me..."

Wow, are you an overly-sensitive guy or what, Grannyring! Like I said earlier, "Quit your whining."

(BTW, if you haven't seen it, look for this commercial. "Ask your doctor, it may be as simple as Low T.")

You said, "You take these past posts and apply them to a current thread totally out of context."

Nonsense. Your quote from that past thread was in perfect context here. Go read the thread. You just don't like it because you got busted in your own words. "You took me out of context" is the last refuge of a desperate man.

"You seem to suggest I am not worthy of this topic and to stop having input on this thread." Nope...didn't suggest that anywhere. I simply said you are beating a dead horse and your argument flies in the face of conventional audio wisdom.

And if you feel I have been short with you, I didn't mean to be - I meant to be direct.

"No reason to be so strong with me..."

This statement concerns me a little. Would you prefer I use a feather boa next time? Please refer back to the aforementioned commercial.

If you want to continue to tilt at windmills here - knock yourself out.

How to kill a thread "By Grannyrig"

Well this thread was going along nicely, until it turned into something personal, discussing the virtues of zero colouration of one resistor in the signal path against active preamps, tube or solid-state with 100's of different components in the signal path.
The simple truth, active preamps have colourations/distortions, because no two ever sound the same, (even though they measure flat 20hz to 20khz) that's why people keep changing them to get the colouration/distortion they can live with.
Cheers George

George, other than providing a product category that people can build and make money on, I suspect that active preamps have their advantages, like running long interconnects, and providing enough gain and impedance matching to work well with almost any amplifier, a more universal application. So it seems they certainly have there place and serve a purpose besides simply adding coloration, and it might very well be that the very best actives converge in sound quality with an LSA, but will be able to provide the sound quality to a much broader range of listeners and system contexts. Any other advantages to actives?

Yep, no arguments from me there Paul.
If you have less than 2mt interconnects a CDP or Phono Stage with less than 200ohm output impedance (which most are) and a poweramp with 47kohm or more input impedance (which most are), there is no need for preamplification, as it is a backward step in transparency to be true to the signal from the source.
Preamps in my view are a left over dinosaur from the analogue days before the advent of stand alone high gain phono stages and cdp/dacs with high outputs.
Cheers George

If you need something that can drive long interconnects and provide impedance matching there are still active buffers like The Truth, Pass B1, and Burson Audio that will get you there while still providing a high level of neutrality.

The long interconnect advantage is really only valid for active preamps that are true balanced designs. Most audiophiles are running single ended systems and while you might be able to stretch the interconnect a meter or two further, I suspect it's the color of the month they're really looking for. On top of this perceived notion that 10db or so of gain is going to make a real difference in dynamics, slam, and 3-D presentation.

"perceived notion" - you know, I think part of that must come from the fact you might have to turn the volume control to 2-3 position at times and there seems to be an intuitive conclusion that there is something lacking, drive if you will, that makes it necessary to go to such "extremes", where with an active it can be hard to go beyond 10:00 on the dial, making you feel you have to have tight reins on the surging power lurking within the preamp beast. Perhaps Nelson Pass touch upon this psychological dimension to the perception of power and drive.