Interesting conundrum. If I recall correctly Harry Pearson from TAS during the "golden age" of audio had a preference for SS phono stages because of the revealing speed and detail.
Valve phono or valve linestage?
Which do you consider more influential in the creation of the purist 'valve' pluses such as....transparency, harmonic richness, three dimensional realism and soundstage?
I lived with a top valve preamp (which included a phono section) for 25 years.
The last 5 years I've had a top SS preamp (including phono section) but have recently re-installed the 'old' valve preamp and can hear the differences.
What I don't know is......which stage is providing the greatest contribution?
I lived with a top valve preamp (which included a phono section) for 25 years.
The last 5 years I've had a top SS preamp (including phono section) but have recently re-installed the 'old' valve preamp and can hear the differences.
What I don't know is......which stage is providing the greatest contribution?
- ...
- 19 posts total
09-14-12: Halcro One you didn't mention is the Macintosh C2300. An all in one tube phono/pre with balanced in/out....and just about every other conceivable feature. HP (of TAS) was a big fan of the C2300's sound - review here. Great build quality and resale value....and its available in Australia. |
When I swapped a CJ Premier 10 for my CJ PFR, I was surprise how much more I enjoy listening to records. Yes, the sound is different with CDs and LPs, but there was a qualitative different most apparent in even old rock LPs. I wonder why. I like both preamps, but it's the result with LPs that convinced me to part with my PFR (so I can upgrade my 40 year old Thorens TD 150 for a VPI Traveler, perhaps). I guess I move slowly. |
- 19 posts total