Using Double Preamplification vs X10D V3

A good tube preamp can handle all the input output of the ss preamp. I can't understand why in the world you wouldn't just ditch the ss preamp altogether in favor of the tube preamp. The point of the x10 is that it is cheap compared to a full blown tube preamp and gives you that 'tube' sound. Two preamps is redundant.

Drmoles, actually, I tried and am presently using such a setup with great success. I kind of happened upon this combination by accident when trying out a new TAD-150 Signature preamp. I first hooked up the TAD exactly the way you described with my solid-state Parasound P/LD-2000 feeding its auxillary inputs.

It sounded quite good to me. The tube piece seemed to smooth out the sound a bit and make the midrange really lovely, and the highs and bass just perceptibly softer. Depending on the recording quality and the source, it offered a very nice effect.

Curiously, when I removed the Parasound preamp from the system and used only the TAD, the sound softened and relaxed even more and lost some of its dynamic impact. It became a little too laid back for my taste. So, I ended up putting the Parasound back into the system, feeding the TAD-150, as before, and I like it very much. My intuition says that this particular "hybrid" combination will outperform some highly touted, higher-priced preamps.

So when the conventional logic results in worse sound, sometimes you need to think unconventionally and go with what sounds best to you. :)

BTW, that's a gorgeous system you've assembled. Congrats, and Happy New Year!

I tried using the X10 D V3 attached to the output of my MF 3.2 cr. This would make my 3.2 cr almost equal to the newer A5 preamp. The results were dissapointing, to say the least. I sold the X10D and recently proceeded to put together the set up mentioned above with striking results just like those that Plato referred to. thank you for your comments.

It sounds like there is something seriously wrong with your system and you're using a band-aid approach to treat the symptom rather than address the root cause. Just because it works doesn't mean it's right.

I believe there is more to this phenomenon than people realize (impedance/gain matching issues, and such). As Onhwy61 says, just because it works doesn't mean it's right. But on the other hand, since it works so well, it could very well be "right." We're talking about relatively subtle differences here, not huge glaring changes, so for Onhwy61 to suggest there must be something "seriously wrong" with our systems is sheer blatant hyperbole. So I must ask, why all the drama? Is this finding that upsetting?

I find a lot of closed-minded thinking in this hobby, and it's a shame. The simple fact is that the "purist" strategy does not always yield the best (or most musical) results.