PrimaLuna Prologue 1 or 2?


To anyone with an informed opinion (which obviously includes Kevin Deal if he sees this):

I'm considering a PrimaLuna Prologue 1 or 2 for my system. I've read various descriptions of the sound qualities of each, at least with their stock tubes, but I'm having some difficulty in translating that info into what I'm likely to hear with the equipment I've got. So here it is:

Sources: VPI Scout/Sumiko BPS; modified Sony SACD; Rega Planet 2000 with ModWright Channel Islands DAC
Speakers: Meadowlark Kestrel 2; Hsu Research VTF2MkII
Room: 15'x18'x8'-8"
Music: pop, rock, jazz, vocals, classical, acoustic (folk/bluegrass)

If it makes any difference, I'm coming from a B&K ST-140 and Adcom GFP-710.

Thanks!
craigb_in
Tvad - the published specs on the Kestrel 2s are pretty skimpy - with no other parameters given it simply says impedance is 8 ohms (it doesn't even say it's nominal) and sensitivity is listed as 89dB (with nothing said about input or distance).

Rich - thanks for the thoughtful comments. I *have* considered just upgrading the preamp alone, but as I was trying to suggest toward the end of my last post (I could have been clearer, but figured I'd gone on long enough as it was), I thought if there was going to be a sonic benefit to introducing tubes into the mix, the best way to be sure of getting that benefit would be to go with tubes for both power and pre. But your question begs this next one - leaving aside issues such as the relative quality differences between my current power amp and preamp, and assuming I'd have the money to replace both with separates (which may or may not be the case), which approach is likely to have the greater effect on the sound of the system - switching out the power amp or the preamp?

I know a *whole* lot of it has to do with the actual equipment being evaluated, but with the nearest opportunity to hear any PrimaLunas in person being a drive of, well, however far it is from Indy to Kansas City, we've got to talk in hypothetical terms for now. Unless I get an unusually strong craving for BBQ in the next few weeks.

Anyone have any thoughts on that?
Post removed 
Craig:

Between the power and preamp, I would say the biggest sonic benefit is in switching out the preamp. But then you are getting into a hybrid situation (tube preamp/solid state power amp) and you may or may not want to do that. Supposedly that hybrid combination gives you the best of both worlds ... more analog sounding front end with solid state power for control and volume. I do the reverse (tube power amp/solid state preamp), because it worked out that way and I like the combination quite a bit.

At the time that I purchased my Prologue 2, I had an email exchange with Kevin Deal as to whether to go with the 1 or the 2. The price difference was about $200 or so. Kevin wrote back that the P2 would give me more "oomph in the bass" and "the parts were slightly better." That was as technical as it got, but it helped me make my decision. I was planning to run the P2 with full range speakers that went down to 35hz and figured that the P2 would support those speakers better. I did not know from tube swapping then and that a quartet of KT88's accounted for at least 40% of the price difference.

In the end, I think that you are correct in saying that a tube integrated will give you the most sonic benefit bang for the buck. I would still go with the P2 because it gives me the tube swapping options, which may become valuable to you later down the line. I would also go with Prima Luna, in general, because of the auto biasing and soft start features, which just make ownership so much simpler.

Regards, Rich
Craig, Your question to Rarl re power v pre, is sort of a chicken/egg question and you'll get many folks taking up both positions. For folks just coming to 'tubes' the pre-amp is usually the best choice if only for the reason that its easier to maintain and integrate into your system. Tube amps are a whole different ball of wax, they do require some maintanence and if poorly chosen can be a PITA. But if you buy a tube pre and like it, you'll eventually get a tube amp. Then your hooked!

Apart from the principal benefit of tubes sonically, a liquidity, air, and dimensionality, not usually available in SS stuff, in my budget anyway, you can if you wish alter the tone by changing tubes. For example you buy a new CDP - it has a bit of brightness, but otherwise you like it. With SS stuff you're kind of stuck, but with tubes you can usually accomodate the new CDP by just changing a tube or two somewhetre in your system.

From a pratical point of view, at least IMHO, the principal benefit in having a pre/power seperates is the flexibility it offers in being able to use different amps in the future, but also gives you far more alternatives when it comes to system tuning. For someone anal about getting that last iota of tone, seperates are a must, if for no other reason that sooner or later you're going there. Just go in the first place. But, by the way you have described your needs, I would think that a good tube integrated would be a great choice. While it might minimize your options it will also minimize your angst and let you enjoy the music.

Tvad has mentioned some other integrateds that could work for you - there are others as well, however if you decide to research these units pay careful attention to the tone issues. Your BK amp has a warm signature (I used to own one) if you get an integrated today which is described by reviewers as neutral, compared to your BK you might well find it bright, not neutral. A unit described as warm, you might consider neutral. There has been a substantial change in usage of these terms in the past 30 years. The emphasis today seems to be placed on detail retrieval. Personally, I'm very wary of any review of equipment which dwells on this - i.e. "I heard sounds on my favorite record I've never heard before". Usually all this means is that the unit has either an up-tilted high end or the amp is over damped and the normal decay time is shortened and you hear the highs more clearly, but artificially.

FWIW, I have not heard the other amps mentioned by Tvad. But, the PL's err on the warm side of neutral. The sound of the 1 would be far more of the sound of a tube amp from the 70's and 80's and the 2 would have more of the crispness found in todays tube amps, albeit still having a warm signature compared to a lot of the competitors.

JMHO, Hope this diatribe helps a bit.
Rich, Newbee, et al -

Again, thanks for the further thoughts and clarifications. At this point it looks like I'll be shopping for a used PL2, especially since a nice-looking unit has just come up here on Audiogon. I'd probably jump on it immediately if it weren't for some fantasizing about popping for a pair of PL7s that have also just come up at what appears to be a pretty nice price for essentially brand new equipment. Of course that alone would be a bigger budget stretch than I'd planned, and would still leave me with an additional expenditure to get a preamp. Easy enough to discard the idea except there's a good-looking used PL3 out there right now, too. >sigh<

Craig