What can you tell me about First Sound pre-amps?

the other variable not mentioned in the above post is tube set. The FS really comes to live, very harmoinically rich, not at all lean with the Amperex 6922 PQ tubes; even richer and lusher with old 6DJ8's (e.e.g bugle boys from 1959-60). Others have had great results with the Siemens 7308's.

anyway, I insist the FS tubed preamp rackon listened to is not anywhere near the preamp in my LR. OTOH, I've not heard the Herron so I would not be able to compare.

Artg, of course tube sets make a difference, and that's part of the fun of having tubed preamps. I originally heard a FS PD MkII with Siemens, and that's why I decided to try it.

As I said, the FS is an excellent preamp. I didn't like the stock tubes at all, and I know what my ears heard. However, the ergonomics were what really killed the deal for me, it was just too damned heavy and awkward, and I hated the permanent umbilical. I could live with the dual attenuators. But if I hated the ergonomics, why would I roll the tubes?

I sold the FS to a guy who upgraded it, rolled the tubes, has a tubed amp, and is thrilled to death with it. I've since heard the FS with the Siemens again, and I'm still not sorry I sold mine. I can see where it would be a killer preamp in someone ele's system. But not mine. Different strokes for different folks.

The Herron is kind of a special piece, "lush" it ain't, and lush isn't necessarily what I'm going for. As I said, it's hard to decribe its "sound" - it's neutral but not bland. It just makes good recordings sound "alive" in a way live music does. It's a coinnoisseur, music purist's kind a preamp. It will never have the groupies on audio forums that the Supratek and others have. But it is very well respected amongst reviewers and those who have heard it.

If you read CES reports, writers and showgoers always comment on how musical Keith Herron's room sounds, but the fact of its excellence has gotten rather taken for granted - another year, another great sounding room. Keith doesn't bring out a lot of different models, just does what he does very well. I actually see a lot of similarities between Keith's and Emmanual Go's design philosophies, and the two preamps are different flavors in the same "sound family". The biggest difference is I wouldn't roll tubes in the Herron for nuttin' - Keith does some kind of voodoo with those stock tubes, and I ain't messin' with success.

System synergy plays a big role in these things, and we all tend to be partial to our own gear (we bought it and live with it after all, we must like what it does for in our systems). In my system, Herron preamp and mono amps, Alon Vs, the synergy is great.

Happy listening.

YMMV. Ain't no right or wrong.

I can't stand dual volume controls myself and do not need or want balance control. And to not have remote capabilities to me is super bad. There is no reason I can see for not having a remote control. There are ways to implement it without affecting the sound if you know how. But that's just my opinion and others may feel differently.

TWWEAR, I understand your preference. All My preference is different: my remote controls are at the bottom of a long forgotten drawer: I never use them. As for twin volume controls, a mitigating usability factor is that the attenuators click at discrete points, so it should be quite easy to match them exactly. Furthermore, as I already mentioned, twin volume controls act also as a very high quality channel balance as well, without introducing the artifacts that a balancing circuit would. By coincidence twin volume control and a single volume control plus a balance control amount to the same number of knobs on the unit. Strange but true!

rackon - well, stated. i understand your points clearly, especially about "system context." tell us what amp, source and speakeres you had around your FS.