Lightspeed Attenuator - Best Preamp Ever?

True. An endgame to opinion is an endgame to the reviewing game (Tellig has to move on or he will have nothing to write about).

As to coloration, I think all all recorded playback is significantly different from live - simply changing microphones making enormous differences in the recorded sound signature. My ICs (Cardas GR) just happen to be what is used in the design of my speakers, so however colored they might be (accepted for the sake of argument), the speakers are voiced with that in mind.

I just find the LSA to be minimally intrusive in the overall system - whereas the various active tube line stages I have owned made their presence in the chain more obvious - the CAT Ultimate perhaps the most neutral, least flavored of all (and $7000 when I bought it)

All threads, all opinions and comments, are nothing compared with listening. I hope one thing this thread accomplishes is that it makes some folks try a passive (TVC/AVC/Resistor/LSA) and see how it works for them. Are they as good as world-class, $20,000 active line stages? For some folks, getting something that can compete for $1000 or less is reason enough to go passive, and if passive works for them, than the LSA is likely to be a very good option, and if you need a bit more connection flexibility, the BENT TAP-x with autoformers.

As some will note, and Arthur Salvatore now concludes, for some folks an active line stage is absolutely necessary for their systems to perform their best and they should stick to actives, but there are systems in which passives will offer SOTA sound at a fraction of the cost (for volume control).

Your many reviews on here aren't free advertising? The comments you make in them aren't a reflection of personal taste and/or results you are hearing from system synergy?

Maybe in his old age Sam has had a change of heart and prefers the distortions an active linestage adds to his listening experience. He's certainly allowed to change his mind like any of us. Heck even Arthur Salvatore changed his mind and raves about the new Coincident linestage.

Maybe instead of referencing all the techno-babble here you can help Sam out and give us a technical explanation on how an active linestage fills the void in the music created by the LSA, or other passives for that matter.

For those of you you don't know who Arthur Salvatore, he has a website you can easily google with lot's of interesting opinions. His relevance here is that he was a very strong public proponent of passives and it was his commentary and that of Roger Modjeski, the designer of Music Reference amplifiers that convinced me I had to give passives a try. Arthur wrote (and I think Roger would say pretty much the same thing):

" If you are currently connecting a phono stage or a CD player directly to an amplifier, or through a passive device (and then to the amplifier), simply add any decent active line stage, or replace the passive device with any decent active device (it doesn't have to be "the best"). Once this is done, then listen to the results. The Rule...

If there is any noticeable and obvious sonic improvement with the active line stage, then you need an active line stage. It's that easy. All that's left is the most difficult part, choosing the model that you like the most.

What this reader (and many other audiophiles) doesn't understand is that the quality of the active line stage is not critical when it comes to making the determination of whether you need an active device or not. What is critical is whether the source (CD player and/or phono stage) has the required output to drive the amplifier directly (beyond simple volume needs). It either does or it doesn't. This is black and white.

Most sources do not have the required output. When they don't, it's extremely easy to expose their sonic weakness(es). In fact, virtually any active line stage (short of total "junk") will sound better in some noticeable manner (deep bass, dynamic intensity, more natural "body" etc). (It will also sound worse in some manner, but that is irrelevant at this point.)

Alternatively, when the source does have the "required output" (which is my present situation), then no active line stage, no matter how good it is, will prove to be superior in any noticeable manner.

In fact, it will rarely even equal the sonics of the direct connection in any manner (because of all the extra cabling, connections and an imperfect active circuit). Even a theoretically "perfect" active line stage can only equal an equivalent passive line stage with the required output, because they both must share the same passive parts (volume control, selector switch, wiring etc).

In the case of my own system, once I realized, through actual listening experiences, that no active line stage of the day (early 1990's) could improve on what I was hearing, in any manner, than I knew that no future active line stage could alter that fundamental paradigm, no matter how good it was. This was because my source had the required output. The best I could ever hope for in an active line stage would be something that sounded very similar to what I had, but with more gain. The quality of the sound could never be improved on. If it could, I would have heard some improvement 16 years ago.

The above "test and rule" is based on multiple experiences, not only in my system, but in many other systems I am/was familiar with. It is NOT some speculative "theory" I've put together for some irrational or egotistical reason, and I've never heard any exception to this "rule". So...

In short, if you need an active line stage because your source is not up to the task of driving the amplifier(s), then...

Any good active line stage, from any era, will improve the sonics in some obvious and clear manner.
Alternatively, if your source is up to the task of driving your amp(s), then...

No active line stage, no matter how good it is, will ever equal the sonics of your direct connection (or an equivalent passive)."

Of course, as he will admit, a system based on passive attenuation requires more careful planning than one centered on active line stages, but not much more attention than building a system based on low-powered SETs.

Hi Clo09,

To answer your questions regarding my reviews here on Audiogon:

1) Any review posted on this website is "free advertising" including mine. However, I don't believe that any manufacturer on any of my reviews have ever posted scores of times to promote their product and try to make a case that it's better then ever other piece for "scientific/objective" reasons.

2) Let's be fair, every review I have ever posted always says their is not BEST in the world, that personal taste and system synergy is always involved and this is my taste but you audition it to find out for yourself.

Lastly, I do care how things measure, but we all know that how things measure doe not equate how they sound regarding how people experience the sound of real music. I have sat in front of many systems that measure great but sound rotten. So, I have no need to help out poor Sam Tellig, just to point out that techno-babble that says the same thing over and over again on this thread does not prove that George's LSA is in some objective way better then active linestages.

What is important for a piece of gear is not great measurements, but great measurements in things that actually correlate to good sounding equipment - not all things measured matter, some really do. In the world of speakers, Floyd Toole and the Canadian acoustic labs actually study which measurements, of what factors actually correlated to subjective preference - in the case of speakers on-axis frequency response correlates very highly and consistently with subjective preference.

I assume there are metrics that relate to amps and preamps that also correlate to subjective preference - 2nd Harmonic distortion? low noise? I don't know. Not sure how the various passives measure, though I imagine they are quieter than actives and have less measured distortion, and that there might be some correlation between these two things and subjective preference (when there is no gain and/or impedance mismatch). I'm not sure that low noise and low distortion in a "preamp" is techno-babble, seems pretty legit, and why they don't work optimally in certain systems is also pretty well understood.

Not sure what being objectively better would mean, unless noise and distortion were in fact the most critical factors determining what is "best" in a line stage (debatable perhaps) - in that case there is a pretty strong argument for passives against actives, At least by that criteria, passives simply measure better in those two (crucial?) parameters.

None of which means that any passive, no matter how good, will sound better to you than a Concert Fidelity in your system, and there may be very good reasons why that is so - (though I doubt objective measurements would be sufficient to explain it).

On the notion of a thread being an advertisement - I don't quite buy that. It may get people talking about a product, but it also exposes you to having people comment that they tried it and it was the most horrible piece of gear they ever heard. Nobody I know of who has tried an LSA would say that (or a BENT Tap for that matter).

Where this thread differs than simply talking up a product, is the fact that what is really of interest to me is the idea of passives in general, and why they may or may not be an ideal method of controlling volume. The secondary issue is whether the Lightspeed approach to passives is the best type of the genre, why (or why not), and under what circumstances.