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?
128x128halcro
Dear Halcro: IMHO I think that depends on which kind of colorations you want to have ( and distortions too. ) along your music sound home system reproduction priorities.

+++++ " purist 'valve' pluses such as....transparency, harmonic richness, three dimensional realism and soundstage .... " ++++++

IMHO all those " pluses " are only colorations on the tube units that degraded the original recorded signal.

IMHO after all music has at least two characteristics: neutrality and natural accuracy.

Like you I was owner for seveal years of tube electronics till I learned.
Today the Atmasphere phonolinepreamp is perhaps the best experience I have with tubes but even this one degraded the recorded signal in higher way that a good SS design.

In a home audio system IMHO the foundation of the reproduced music reside and belongs to the bass frequency range a frequency range where no one tube unit I heard can do justice to the music or to a well designed SS unit.
I can go on with other frequency ranges as the high frequency one where even there the tube units fall short.
Do you want to talk about midrange frequency range because is worst?

If I have to decide between a stand alone phono stage and stand alone line stage IMHO and with out any single doubt I will go fro the line stage.

Tubes were not designed for phono stages, a phono stage is the IMHO the hardest challemge in audio electronics ( I mean a well designed one. ), a phono stage ask for several characteristics to fulfil any cartridge needs: very low noise, very low distortions, wide frequency response, accurate inverse RIAA eq., very high active gain, no more than 2-3 gain stages ( some one named the Asthetix where the top of the line ( all tube ) has around 6-7 stages and even that not only was colored/distorted but noisy. ), that can handle cartridge level output from at least 0.1mv, etc, etc.
All those characteristics is a challenge for a SS unit but for a tube unit is " imposible " to fulfil/match.

Now if you want to " really painted the walls of the recording space through tubes " then you can do it but that has almost no true relationship with the recorded music sound.

My priorities are almost totally different from yours: I'm always for well designed electronics that permit the original recording to be reproduced adding the less along loosing the less. All this has nothing to do on what I like or not. First target: neutral/natural accuracy ( not cold or analytical or warm or lush or just " colored ". ). I don't like " audio clown " items.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
It's really hard to answer your question. If there is a difference, it might be related to either (sub-)component or both together.

In making the call as to which component should be tubes, it would seem logical to test a number of different combinations. Component matching could make a considerable difference in performance of individual components. Some tube equipment requires a high input impedance of downstream components so it can drive them properly. Sometimes a slight brightness of one component works will with a darker sounding second component. Some phono stages just work better with some cartridges than others. Some tube preamps may have trouble driving particular solid state amps but work well with most tube amps.

It may take a while, but the only real way to know for sure is to listen to various combinations in your own system with YOUR source(s), YOUR amps and YOUR speakers.

I agree that once musical detail is lost, there is no way to recover it.
Like Atmasphere, I say "BOTH" should be tubes. Plenty of quiet tube phono stages exist, and the harmonic development improvement is too important to leave behind.
Dear Raul,
Thanks for your input.
I know how you feel about 'tubes'......but I simply do not agree with you based on listening in my own system?
Yes....I agree that there is a slight diminution in bass depth and control compared to the very best SS....but with the Kebschull it's not enough to concern me.
I have listened to many SS preamps in my system including Electrocompaniet, Gryphon, Naim, Plinius and have heard the top MBL and Soulution gear.
The Halcro DM10 preamp comes the closest to matching the 'magic' of the Kebschull valves and does the least 'damage' of any SS I've listened to?
It does however......not quite capture the transparent holography of the tubes?
It certainly has other advantages over tubes which I have to weigh up?
But soundwise....IMHO....tubes rule.
It may take a while, but the only real way to know for sure is to listen to various combinations in your own system with YOUR source(s), YOUR amps and YOUR speakers.
Couldn't agree more Bp......but seeing most tube units I'm interested in are USA made....and usually 'Made to Order'.....and have no representation in Australia......I defy you to find Atmasphere, Vac or Aesthetix preamps to 'trial' at home?