"Reference" Preamps

Requirement for a remote limits my (already limited) choices here. As ALbert notes, given the wording and the clues in yr wuestion, the AR-3, the VAC (above)would be possibilities, as would be the big Aesthetics (many tubes there).

Generally speaking, however, only three-and-a-half line stages impressed me as being definitely superior to all other (excellent /outstanding) pre's I heard(including no pre):
*FM acoustics 245/255 (no remote ASAI recall)
*Goldmund mim. 7.1 i think (old model; no remote, single ended)
*Goldmund 27.3 (remote & balanced -- OK; expensive)
*EInstein acoustics tube pre (not sure about remote; didn't use one)
*Dartzeel pre (no remote AFAI recall; you get a phono however). This is the "half": I only listened to it once.

Cheers

Ghunter, the Placette Active Linestage, in the context of my system, exceled in the following sonic areas:

1) The Placette offered the most natural timbres of any preamp I have ever had in my system.

2) The Placette was far more transparent then the other preamps I had auditioned, which lend it to offer great details/microdynamics.

3) The Placette produced the largest soundstage of all the preamps with "air" around each player and precise layering on this soundstage.

4) The extension of both the top and bottom frequencies were terrific and lends itself to a very natural and dynamic presentation.

All of the above sonic virtues are presented in a very "easy/organic/musical" way, not a "HiFi" or over dramatic fashion. However, this linestage is not euphonic in anyway, it will tell you about your upstream gear in a total honest way. As we both know, personnal taste and system synergy are always the most important factors, so I hope your interested enough to possible set up a home audition.

I have some relative comments concerning the Callisto Signature to three other models in my own system: Calypso, BAT 31SE and CAT Ultimate II. The Callisto Sig and the Calypso have very similar tonality and frequency extreme coverage but the Callisto Sig definitely has more low-end coverage. But as we learn so quickly when we hear the Callisto and Io models, it's not just tonality. I suspect that the Callisto's tube power supply has much to do with its significantly greater portrayal of space and decays over the Calypso....in fact it is not even close. And the sound with the Callisto goes much farther out from the speakers' edges. Once you hear these two models side by side, back and forth a time or two, it is really darn tough to return to the Calypso. Both of these models greatly benefit from tube changes and this has been discussed heavily on many other A'gon threads. If anyone is comparing either of these models with stock Sovtek tubes to other line stages out there, whether those other models are 6H30 based or not, they are NOT hearing the true potential of the Aesthetix pieces ... and as far as I am concerned, any conclusions as to the merit of the Aesthetix models in such cases has to be taken lightly.

The BAT31SE performed fairly well against the Callisto Sig in the context of the dimensionality but the BAT was just too soft on the top which resulted in loss of detail and ambience. Perhaps a 51SE might improve upon this one area over the 31SE, but the other BAT line stage I have heard, the VK5, had a similar tonality on the top.

The CAT Ultimate II line stage has awesome dynamic contrasts and great tonality but not the incredible dimensionality of the Callisto Sig. The CAT also is single-ended only and has no remote.

One thing to keep in mind is that just because a line stage has XLR outputs does not mean these are truly balanced. And the same for an amp's XLR inputs. I would be more inclined to find a product that is a sonic fit with your system rather than be concerned with whether or not it is balanced. I use the Callisto Sig into CAT JL-3 amps with a 10m RCA-RCA cable with incredible results. The Io-to-Callisto link absolutely needs to be balanced to get the magical Aesthetix sound, but otherwise everything else runs mighty fine with single-ended connections.

I own both a Placette Active and a Levinson Ref. No. 32. As far as control flexibility, ease of use, and all other non-sonic considerations are concerned, no question that the Levinson is better. As far as sound, both have their strengths. The Placette delivers a huge soundstage and is very dynamic and dramatic sounding. The Levinson is a touch dull sounding dynamically speaking, but it is also a bit less harsh and sounds more refined. I like both for different reasons. I guess that makes the Placette an incredible bargain given the price differential.

I current use a tube linestage, the Emotive Audio Epifania, that I prefer over both the Placette and the Levinson sonically. It is not as flexible and easy to use as the Levinson, but is a bit better than the Placette (includes a balance control). This linestage somehow manages to extract more detail, particularly room acoustic cues, without being harsh or analytical sounding. But, it is considerably more expensive than either, and I will have to deal with replacing tubes, etc.

I have heard a few other really nice linestages, but not in my own system, such as the Connoisseur 4.0, Audionote M-10, a Kondo (don't recall the model number) and a custom linestage made from old Western Electric parts. I suppose these are also candidates for a reference system.

I agree with some of the others who listed the VTL and VAC linestages as possible candidates. I heard nice sounding systems that had these linestages in them.

If you will consider a minimalistic passive preamp of the highest quality, audition the Audio Consulting Silver Rock TVC. It can be had SE or balanced at no additional cost, with or without a battery-powered input buffer. A balanced Placette Active doubles the price.