Lightspeed Attenuator - Best Preamp Ever?

Perhaps a good way to look at this topic is as follows;

Let's assume this for starters. Let's compare three systems.
All 3 systems fit the ideal specs needed for a passive like the Lightspeed. We all agree on what sounds the most real and pleases us in terms of sound. Ya, just assume.

System #1
_________

A+B+C = music

System #2
__________

A+B+C+D = music

System #3
_________

A+B+C+D+E+F = music

Ok, since it's the total system that creates the finished sound I think it is accurate to state system 1,2 or 3 may end up sounding more like the recording was meant to.

The more simple system #1 may or may not be the most accurate system. The fact that it is more simple or has fewer parts along the way does not, by definition, mean it delivers a more accurate and pure sound. It may or may not.

System #3 has more parts along the path to the final music. It may have a power conditioner, separate tube buffer, separate autoformer, a subwoofer and on and on the options go. It may or may not be the most accurate system of all.

My point is one component (preamp) cannot, by itself, always give a more accurate TOTAL SYSTEM SOUND. Even under ideal conditions one cannot assume a passive can do this. Same can be said for an active preamp. The signal passes through too much and the speakers alone in a given system can be the point at which one type of preamp is preferred over another (delivers more accurate sound).

It is the sum of the parts. One combination of wire, resistors, caps, transformers (system) will always sound different then another. The combinations are endless with differing outcomes. Some more accurate then others. Fewer parts along the path does not always equal the most accurate. In all cases it will depend on what parts are combined in the total system.

This is not regarding the LSA since it is really about as "simple" as can be in terms of parts, etc. The irony about "simple" designs, with fewer parts, etc, is that it really requires some design chops to execute a great, simple circuit and I suspect it requires a master like Nelson Pass to design some great First Watt and XA.5 amps with such apparent simplicity in lack of complexity. For masters of their craft, you often see a less is more approach to design. But ultimately, my preference for simplicity may just be a personal peeve that has increased as I have gotten older. But yes, there are many ways to skin a cat to produce a world class system. What makes the hobby so much fun.

Wow isn't this fun. Nothing I'd rather be doing New Years Day after a night of no sleep and a couple Bloody Caesar's in me to take the edge off last night (or actually this morning).

Seriously though, I love it when this thread gets revised because it seems the debate just gets better each time. More people trying the LSA and of course more opinions added to the mix.

I am certain my preamp is not adding distortion or fuzz or any additional "stuff" unless my hearing is not as good as I think :-)
Grannyring

First off I'm not questioning your hearing. It took a while to understand your preferences and clearly they cannot be met through the use of a passive preamp in your system. However, since you like the debate I'm going to nitpick a bit here:).

Active preamps (and tube circuits in particular - we'll get to that in a few) in general will always be additive just for the fact they add gain to the system. Gain results in additional noise and distortion. The designer has control over limiting the effect of noise, but gain is gain no matter how you slice it. It's additive period.

Tubes by nature are microphonic (distortion), it's how they operate. I have a good friend here who designs tube circuits and he admits this. One of his favorite phrases is, "It's in the book, look it up." Microphonics equals distortion. Some tubes are more microphonic by nature than others. Take the 6SN7 for example (and the tube your preamp was originally designed around), one of my favorite tubes but one of the worst for microphonics. Some tubes are so microphonic you can clearly hear the ringing in your system. In some instances tubes (and transformers - but that is another subject) can also pick up RFI more easily. Now do tube (and their inherent) microphonics result in a pleasing sound to some. Absolutely, that's why there are so many threads on tube rolling, etc. The opposite is also true as well, you see enough threads from folks with gear whose noisy tubes are driving them nuts. The designer can again minimize the effects of microphonics in a number of ways, but there cannot be a debate on whether or not microphonics are additive, they are.

My point is one component (preamp) cannot, by itself, always give a more accurate TOTAL SYSTEM SOUND.
Grannyring

True enough, but I subscribe to the theory that less is more and specifically, less complexity in the signal path will result in more accuracy. Now system matching under those conditions is another matter. However, I think I've done a great job of it and like you think my hearing is pretty good.

For masters of their craft, you often see a less is more approach to design.
Pubul57

Just got done saying that from a system perspective, but I'm glad that someone mentioned it from a design perspective as well. The designer of a certain tube preamp under discussion takes a similar approach. In fact in a conversation I once had with him he eschewed balanced designs because inherently they are more complex and add more components into the signal path. You also often read about how some designers create circuits that minimize the wire utilized in a signal path to a matter of inches or the number of parts to a bare minimum.

However, there can be no debate that the LSA adds less to the signal than your VAC preamp if you are hearing more artifacts from the VAC. It is clearly not debatable.
Fiddler

I'm only commenting on this one because I also have VAC components and they clearly have a house sound. It's very distinguishable. IMO VAC gear creates wonderful music, but it does add artifacts and coloration and even the designer will admit it. It's also very pleasing sound and I will admit it. I have just come to prefer less artifacts and coloration from my system.

Did someone say Bloody Caesar, by golly my glass is half-empty, or is that half-full. Don't think I can take another debate today but it's getting crowded in here and I think I better get the bar tenders attention before my cup runneth out. Sorry I went on for so long. Guess I was just having too much fun.

Now back to the real fun. Roll tide...chi-ching.

The irony about "simple" designs, with fewer parts, etc, is that it really requires some design chops to execute a great, simple circuit and I suspect it requires a master like Nelson Pass to design some great First Watt and XA.5 amps with such apparent simplicity in lack of complexity.

Or as my fellow Nutmegger Samuel Clemens once wrote:
"I'm sorry that this letter is so long, but I didn't have time to write a shorter one".

Translating this to the post I quoted, it's usually easier to fix a problem by adding a bandaid than it is to go back and rework the design to eliminate the problem.