any comments on the threshold fet ten/hl pre-amp?

Edle, that's the funny part and why we can't explain certain things. You can put in any combination of test tones and a well designed SS piece can typically duplicate it flawlessly. Doing the same thing with a piece of tube gear will typically produce lesser results in several areas.

On the other hand, SS can sound "harsh" whereas tubes can sound "sweeter". Is the SS gear "more accurate" because it exactly reproduces what is fed into it, blemishes and all, or is the tube gear "more accurate" because, even though it doesn't reproduce what is exactly fed into it and is much higher in distortion, it sounds "better" ???

Hence, the age-old battle of Tubes vs SS.... Sean
>

I think using a combination of test tones to test any audio equipments are wrong and irrelevent. Human voices or any other musical instruments produce sound that are more complex than the simple test tones.
I believe the ultimate testing of any audio equipments are by comparing the real thing(be it a human vocal or any musical instrument) to the reproduction. If it sounds real, then it is more accurate. Very simple....

Edle, if I am following you correctly, you are implying that tubes are poor at simple replication yet superior at complex replication. Perhaps tubes present a sound closer to what we desire but solid state presents a sound that is closer to the original recording.

Good points Unsound. I also tend to lean that way. It is not that tubes sound "better" due to being "more realistic under adverse conditions", i think that SS typically just shows us how bad MOST of our recording process really is or can be. Since most recording gear is SS though, one can run into a compounded problem if care is not taken in regards to the selection of both the recording and playback components. Kind of like a "double whammy" of reality which might not be pleasant at all. One can either use tubes to "gloss over" or "fill in" the mistakes ( i.e. errors of omission ) or listen to those mistakes with bleeding ears from most "sterile" yet "accurate" sounding SS gear.

In order to get SS to both sound good and measure good, you have to have gear that is VERY fast, wide bandwidth and uses very high quality parts. At least that is my take on the situation. Obviously, others may have different opinions and experiences.

As to using test tones, one can create tones that are as complex as musical patterns but are easily repeatable. Obviously, this is far more convenient in terms of product R & D ( research and development ) or independent testing than trying to rely on other means to obtain a calibrated point of reference.

Having said that, I do agree that while the standardized test tones used ( sine and square waves ) do have their values, they are over-rated and relied upon too heavily by many in this field. Moncrieff demonstrated that components that show similar results with standardized test tones can still sound different and test differently with complex ( i.e. musical ) waveforms.

In this respect, he was the first that i know of to be able to explain ( and literally show via test equipment ) why one digital playback system had better transient response, improved inter-transient silence ( blacker background ), less ringing, etc... over another piece of similar cost and design. Too bad we don't have more "reviewers / audio scientists" around like him. If we did, we might have a few more answers and a few less questions. Sean
>

Sean, I agree that having more "reviewers/audio scientists" would be most advantageous. While our ears are the measurement tool that demands the highest criterion priority.While our ears may be the most sensitive measuring device they may also be the least consistent and the most arbitrary. You keenly noted that too much emphesis is put on certain measurements rather than the whole gamut. Much like taking a slice of an equation. Recently I had a friend tell me he was putting up acustical tiling on his low ceiling because it attenuated sound at X number of decibles. When I asked him if this was consistent through out the audio frequency range, he was unsure. What may have appeared to be desireable may in fact have made things worse. When I irst became interested in "HI FI" I auditioned speakers with a preconcieved prejudice. After listening to various products I soon abandonded my preconceptions. I was consistently drawn to Time and Phase coherent designs even though I didn't know it at the time. Even though some the speakers had very different sonic signatures (think Thiel/Vandersteen). I asked the salesman how such different sounding speakers (in my ignorance I could not find a commonality) could sound right. He pointed out that the designers had a like mind as to design, testing and enginering. I mention this to point out that consistent thorough testing may lead the way to consistent quality products.