• 04-19-2011, 11:32 AM
    Feanor
    Can any conclusions be drawn?
    Today I compared three preamps in my system. All other components were the say except interconnects which were different but comparable quality.
    1. Sonic Frontiers Line 1 tube. This is generally considered very neutral for a tube preamp. For the unit plus some tubes I rolled, including shipping, etc., I paid >$1400; (the last MSRP was $3500).
    2. Hafler DH-100 s/s from the late '70; this unit modified by replacing all capacitors in the signal path and most in the power supply, and replacing the original 5532-type opamps with OPA2134's. Total cost to me ~$190.
    3. ALPS 'Blue Velvet' potentiometer plus input & output connectors and minor hardware -- i.e. a minimal passive preamp. Total cost <$60.
    My listening observations:
    • The Hafler and ALPS passive were extremely close. Both were clean, detailed, neutral, and dynamic. I had the impression that the passive had very slightly tighter bass, and maybe very, very slightly better detail.
    • The Sonic Frontiers was similarly clean, detailed, neutral, and dynamic; the bass was, if anything, closer to the ALPS passive. Where the SF was clearly, (i.e. not subtly), "superior" was in soundstage depth.
    Assuming the observations are accurate, (you have only my word for it), can general conclusions be drawn?
    1. Tentatively that the commonly-ascribed tube characteristic of depth, (sometimes described as greater presence, palpability, or realism), is in fact an artifact. Of course, based only on such limited observations of my own, and hear-say from other audiophiles, the hypothesis is strictly putative.
    2. You might not have to spend thousands on a preamp.
  • 04-20-2011, 03:51 AM
    Hyfi
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    Today I compared three preamps in my system. All other components were the say except interconnects which were different but comparable quality.
    1. Sonic Frontiers Line 1 tube. This is generally considered very neutral for a tube preamp. For the unit plus some tubes I rolled, including shipping, etc., I paid >$1400; (the last MSRP was $3500).
    2. Hafler DH-100 s/s from the late '70; this unit modified by replacing all capacitors in the signal path and most in the power supply, and replacing the original 5532-type opamps with OPA2134's. Total cost to me ~$190.
    3. ALPS 'Blue Velvet' potentiometer plus input & output connectors and minor hardware -- i.e. a minimal passive preamp. Total cost <$60.
    My listening observations:
    • The Hafler and ALPS passive were extremely close. Both were clean, detailed, neutral, and dynamic. I had the impression that the passive had very slightly tighter bass, and maybe very, very slightly better detail.
    • The Sonic Frontiers was similarly clean, detailed, neutral, and dynamic; the bass was, if anything, closer to the ALPS passive. Where the SF was clearly, (i.e. not subtly), "superior" was in soundstage depth.
    Assuming the observations are accurate, (you have only my word for it), can general conclusions be drawn?
    1. Tentatively that the commonly-ascribed tube characteristic of depth, (sometimes described as greater presence, palpability, or realism), is in fact an artifact. Of course, based only on such limited observations of my own, and hear-say from other audiophiles, the hypothesis is strictly putative.
    2. You might not have to spend thousands on a preamp.

    Again, nice writeup and thanks for taking the time. Pre Amps are tough to compare because they do not all pair exactly the same with a single Amp or Speakers.

    I had a Sound Valves 101i all tube pre that when it came out, I got it for $600 while it's normal price was $800. The VAC I use now is better and will be even better when I get the money to overhaul it. But, is it 7.5 times better? No way. The Sound Valves was a really decent Tube Pre for under a thousand and it had it's own tubed phono stage.
  • 04-20-2011, 07:48 AM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    Today I compared three preamps in my system.

    Attenuator based systems must be carefully matched with low output Z sources, low cap cabling and high Z amps. The Class D amp has a relatively high impedance when using even 10k ohm attenuators. Interconnect capacitance?

    I find no tube "artificial depth" affectation with my ARC unit. The difference in sound quality with a CD source using it and DACT stepped attenuators has to do with image width and resolution. Naturally, added resolution provides depth cues and more realism to these ears.

    rw
  • 04-20-2011, 08:28 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Attenuator based systems must be carefully matched with low output Z sources, low cap cabling and high Z amps. The Class D amp has a relatively high impedance when using even 10k ohm attenuators. Interconnect capacitance?

    I find no tube "artificial depth" affectation with my ARC unit. The difference in sound quality with a CD source using it and DACT stepped attenuators has to do with image width and resolution. Naturally, added resolution provides depth cues and more realism to these ears.

    rw

    I don't know the output impedance of my Assemblage DAC but it is a thoroughly designed unit so I'd guess under 1k ohms, more likey in the 300 range. The other stuff:
    • The Sonic Frontiers output impedance in case of balanced is 600 ohms
    • Hafler output impedance: don't know
    • The pot is 10k
    • ClassDAudio amp has an input impedance of 47k Ohms
    • The preamp => amp interconnects for passive & Hafler are Belden 1800F, 13pF/foot x 4 feet = 52 pF, (i.e. very low)
    • DAC => preamp i/c's for passive & Hafler are Blue Jeans LC-1, 12.2 pF/foot x 4 feet, (i.e. even lower)
    • DAC => Sonic Frontiers, QED, unknown x 1.5 foot
    • Sonic Frontiers to DAC i/c's are Beldon 1800F, 13pF x 7 feet = 91pF
    Like I said, I notice no difference in resolution per se between the SF and the passive, and little or none between the latter and the Hafler. The SF has a deeper sound stage and sense of ambience -- it seems you are suggesting these are due to better resolution? Yet how there be better resolution versus nothing but a good quality potentiometer?

    I believe you use a passive attenuator yourself: what does it do or not do vs. the ARC?
  • 04-20-2011, 09:22 AM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    The SF has a deeper sound stage and sense of ambience -- it seems you are suggesting these are due to better resolution? Yet how there be better resolution versus nothing but a good quality potentiometer?

    I can only relate to what I hear with my preamp vs DACT attenuators. I agree that it is difficult to "improve" resolution with added gain stages.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    I believe you use a passive attenuator yourself: what does it do or not do vs. the ARC?

    Although I provided the Cliff notes version in my last post, I'll elaborate a bit. Nine years ago, I built an inexpensive passive using Radio Shack parts for use in an office system. Just for grins, I used it in the main system and was surprised how much better it was than the Audio Research preamp. I later built another using better parts and gave the original one to Adam about a year ago. The current one uses DACT stepped attenuators, JPS Labs wire and Cardas connectors in a Par-Metals aluminum case and works better than the original. As compared with the SP-9MKIII, the image is wider. Stereophile tests acknowledge only modest separation figures for the ARC - which really doesn't matter with vinyl since cartridges do no better than 35 db anyway. The biggest difference I hear has to do with improved resolution, especially at the lower end of the dynamic scale.

    A 10k pot will vary in output impedance up to 2.5k ohms depending upon the position of the control and the player's output impedance. I found a Stereophile reference to one of the Assemblage models at 89 ohms which is close to the 75 ohm output of my GamuT CD-1. Another factor in my favor is the player's 4 volt (+6db) output. Full gain occurs between -4 db and -10 db depending upon recording which is better than running wide open. Also, the VTL's 132k ohm input impedance is significantly higher than than the Class D amp.

    While I don't presume to represent all tube fanciers, I have never favored units which mask imperfections upstream in the system. I only shake my head when folks say they want to add a tube buffer to "improve" the sound by lending the "tube sound". What continues to enamor me about tubes is their ability to render the midrange in a more convincing fashion than most SS units in my experience. Both of my music systems are hybrids. The main system uses a SS CDP (or hybrid ARC preamp) driving tube amps. The vintage system uses a tube output DAC driving a SS amp.

    rw
  • 04-20-2011, 10:26 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    ....
    While I don't presume to represent all tube fanciers, I have never favored units which mask imperfections upstream in the system. I only shake my head when folks say they want to add a tube buffer to "improve" the sound by lending the "tube sound". What continues to enamor me about tubes is their ability to render the midrange in a more convincing fashion than most SS units in my experience. Both of my music systems are hybrids. The main system uses a SS CDP (or hybrid ARC preamp) driving tube amps. The vintage system uses a tube output DAC driving a SS amp.

    rw

    You have an enlightened attitude; I like to think mine is the same. I am suspicious that tubes add pleasant sounding stuff rather than truly providing a cleaner signal. That said, I do enjoy my tube preamp.

    I once tried a tube buffer down stream of a cheap DAC I tried and it it nothing but reduce resolution and increase grain. The original rational for these buffers was just that: to offer a higher impedance to the upstream component and a lower one to the downstream. But buffers do put a tube or two in the signal path, and if tubes do indeed "add pleasant sounding stuff" then you can see why some people might like them. The fact that the you can get some tube effect just by putting one almost anywhere in the reproduction change supports my thesis that tubes add something rather than deliver a purer signal.
  • 04-20-2011, 10:35 AM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    The fact that the you can get some tube effect just by putting one almost anywhere in the reproduction change supports my thesis that tubes add something rather than deliver a purer signal.

    Or, asserts that replacing a SS stage with a well designed tube one minimizes lost signal integrity. In find the two technologies converging at the upper end of the market :)

    rw
  • 04-20-2011, 10:51 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Or, asserts that replacing a SS stage with a well designed tube one minimizes lost signal integrity. In find the two technologies converging at the upper end of the market :)

    rw

    No, because, at least in the case of a tube buffer, you are adding a component that wasn't there before and therefore can't be doing anything to preserve integrity.

    Are they converging? Maybe, but I'd guess the convergence is towards the top end. I don't see a $600 tube amp coming along anytime soon that can match my ClassDAudio for signal integrity.
  • 04-20-2011, 11:16 AM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    No, because, at least in the case of a tube buffer, you are adding a component that wasn't there before and therefore can't be doing anything to preserve integrity.

    Sorry, I'm not referring to cheap add on stages that one does not find in the best systems.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    Are they converging? Maybe, but I'd guess the convergence is towards the top end. I don't see a $600 tube amp coming along anytime soon that can match my ClassDAudio for signal integrity.

    They are cost effective. When engineers are able to get rid of the carrier signal from the output (and attendant IM issues) and pass a clean square wave, they will be a force to reckon with. It will be interesting to see if the new $50k Levinson switcher can achieve those objectives.

    rw
  • 04-20-2011, 12:38 PM
    Feanor
    You and Sir T are two peole who are always right , but ...

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Sorry, I'm not referring to cheap add on stages that one does not find in the best systems.
    ...

    People buy these buffers because they add a "tube sound"; whatever that might be, it isn't improving signal integrity.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    ..
    They are cost effective. When engineers are able to get rid of the carrier signal from the output (and attendant IM issues) and pass a clean square wave, they will be a force to reckon with. It will be interesting to see if the new $50k Levinson switcher can achieve those objectives.

    rw

    Indeed, switching amps are cost effective. What's more, many sound extremely good. It will be a nice technical stunt to remove the carrier signal and at the same time produce a square wave. But we don't listen to square waves. The switching frequency of the IRS2092 audio driver used in the ClassDAudio for example, is 400 kHz, distantly above audibility.

    You would probably understand the specs better than me, so you might be interested in International Rectifier's reference design based on above chip; that design does not appear to be identical to ClassDAudio's but it will be similar ... see it HERE. Reference test data is included.
  • 04-20-2011, 12:50 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    People buy these buffers because they add a "tube sound"; whatever that might be, it isn't improving signal integrity.

    I'll agree for the second time that such is foolish. Adding distortion is adding distortion.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    It will be a nice technical stunt to remove the carrier signal and at the same time produce a square wave.

    Which is exactly what Mark Levinson claims they did with their new amp. The carrier frequency is now in the megahertz range such that filtering the remaining noise anywhere near the audible band is more effective The concept is similar to why high sample rate digital recordings are better.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    But we don't listen to square waves.

    Nor do we listen to PWM pulses. Square waves are, however, a good indicator of signal integrity.

    rw
  • 04-20-2011, 01:05 PM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by E-Stat
    ...
    Nor do we listen to PWM pulses. Square waves are, however, a good indicator of signal integrity.

    rw

    Maybe, but many amps with less than perfect square waves sound excellent -- and that includes many highly regarded tube amps.
  • 04-20-2011, 01:08 PM
    Ajani
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    I am suspicious that tubes add pleasant sounding stuff rather than truly providing a cleaner signal. That said, I do enjoy my tube preamp.

    .................................................. ...................

    The fact that the you can get some tube effect just by putting one almost anywhere in the reproduction change supports my thesis that tubes add something rather than deliver a purer signal.

    This discussion reminds me of the recent review of the $26,500 Audio Note Jinro integrated amplifier by Art Dudley in Stereophile. In his conclusion, Art says:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Art Dudley
    Do single-ended triode amplifiers sound wonderful because they're uniquely true to the music, or do they sound wonderful because they falsify and misshape the music, however appealingly? In short: Do single-ended amplifiers sound wonderful because they're right or because they're wrong?

    And in the measurements section, John Atkinson responds to that question with:

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John Atkinson
    I wish I had an answer to that question.

    Art is a SET lover and John is a measurement expert, yet neither actually knows why many persons love the sound of tube gear.

    Now back to your tube buffer point. Clearly the fact that adding a tube buffer in the chain can reproduce some of the tube magic means that at least part of the tube sound is an additive... Actually, I'm convinced that a lot of what audiophiles and reviewers rave about in HiFi is artificial. However I have 2 questions:

    1) Is is possible that a tube could be providing artificial (though highly pleasant) sound and also be doing something right? i.e. being more faithful to the recording with one hand and distorting it in some way with the other...

    2) Is it possible that something artificial can sound more like live music to the listener, than something accurate?

    Consider the discussions we've had on the sound of dipoles/planars a few times: Many persons swear that the whole concert hall like effect of music coming at you from all around the room rather than a single point is more like the live event... Yet that sound can't be accurate, considering that you will experience the same effect using dipoles/planars, regardless of whether the music was recorded in such a venue. So essentially something artificial sounds more like live music to certain listeners...

    Also the appeal of planars is not only the concert hall effect, but also the potential for a truly cohesive sound from top to bottom. So essentially a planar can be adding something artificial (concert hall effect) with one hand yet also doing something right (cohesive sound) with the other hand.

    Perhaps there is a similar situation with tubes....

    http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...ated-amplifier
  • 04-20-2011, 01:22 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Feanor
    Maybe, but many amps with less than perfect square waves sound excellent -- and that includes many highly regarded tube amps.

    Ok. My experience with Audio Research, McIntosh, Manley and VTL is different.

    rw
  • 04-20-2011, 02:25 PM
    E-Stat
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ajani
    Art is a SET lover and John is a measurement expert, yet neither actually knows why many persons love the sound of tube gear.

    There is a difference between the sound and behavior of SET and PP tube amps. You're also morphing the multiple percent distortion and frequency bending output impedance characteristics of single ended power amps with low level line stages that don't share those characteristics.

    Some folks like vintage Pioneer receivers because they were capacitor coupled SS designs which had a soft "tube" sound to them.. The coupling cap simply served to smooth over rough edges of upstream components and recordings. Or as a retired engineer over at AA always points out, you can add a 1 ohm resistor to the speaker leads of a SS amp and make it more "tubelike". This refers to the frequency changes wrought by tube amps to typical speakers with roller coaster impedance curves. While many folks may consider these examples of "tube sound", they are not at all to which I refer.


    rw
  • 04-20-2011, 05:03 PM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ajani
    ...
    1) Is is possible that a tube could be providing artificial (though highly pleasant) sound and also be doing something right? i.e. being more faithful to the recording with one hand and distorting it in some way with the other...

    2) Is it possible that something artificial can sound more like live music to the listener, than something accurate?

    Consider the discussions we've had on the sound of dipoles/planars a few times: Many persons swear that the whole concert hall like effect of music coming at you from all around the room rather than a single point is more like the live event... Yet that sound can't be accurate, considering that you will experience the same effect using dipoles/planars, regardless of whether the music was recorded in such a venue.
    ...

    Question 1: Answer: could be.

    Question 2: Answer: almost certainly.

    I think that agreeble aspects of both tube and dipole sounds are artifacts, yet enjoy both my tube preamp and Magneplanars.
  • 04-20-2011, 07:26 PM
    RGA
    Ajani

    I like the view Art tries to take - although it won't impress the measurement diehards in the least - but then no SET amp would anyway so it really makes no difference since none of them will bother properly auditioning something like the Jinro in the first place.

    The issues of measurements VS listening experience has been argued about for many decades and may continue. But Stereophile's best writer and best measurer can't figure it out which simply illustrates that they can't make very good predictive links to what will wind up sounding great. UHF magazine made the note years back that for some reason some great measuring amps sound dreadful while others with 80% or more distortion sounded terrific - and it applies to speakers, cd players etc.

    The problem for me is when I have listened in direct comparisons I can't get past some very odd and opposing numbers. The Meishu which is 300B SET sounds Faster, Clearer, more bass depth, more bass weight, just as extended treble without the "sheeny glary nails on the chalkboard sensation in the jaw, as more expensive and 20+times the power SS on the same set of speakers in the same room. The only advantage I guess was that the latter had a lower noise floor but even then that wasn't really noticeable at the listening position.

    I am Richard Dawkins guy through and through and so it is highly and even frustratingly bothersome when time and time and time again the crappy measuring amps and so-so measuring cd players (even outright wrong) and mediocre measuring speakers combined beat the ever loving snot out of ruler flat speakers with good dispersion high power practically zero distortion amps and elite cd players can so utterly butcher music.

    The issue becomes at some point do I continue blindly buying based on so-so research that is nowhere near as proven as say evolution is. And buy stuff based on measured response when the people measuring like JA admit not to really understanding what the hell is going on as it relates to the only thing that matters "perception" or buying stuff that actually sounds more "real."

    Take the initial post's assumption:

    "Tentatively that the commonly-ascribed tube characteristic of depth, (sometimes described as greater presence, palpability, or realism), is in fact an artifact."

    First the assumption here is that because the sound has depth that this is caused by an artifact. the other side of the coin is not addressed however that it could be correct and that the other amplifiers are "missing" this important aspect of the recording. Or that it lacks ambiance or that it lacks the resolution to accurately reproduce decay and all of the sound of the recording - ie it lacks subtle microdynamic elements of the "room" the recording was recorded in. This is what the best SET amp makers like Qvortrup's crew argue at nausea that microdynamics are absolutely critical and resolving ability that reproduce the "Room" the recording was made in - ALL of the subtle finer points of the recording are given via the beat amplifiers (SET amplifiers) that all other designs lack.

    Now let's assume the reverse assumption to the poster. let's say that in fact this SET amp is providing the sound of the instruments the room acoustics - ie more of everything from the microphone pick-up at the time of the recording. Well you are getting "more sound" which now means you are getting depth and all the subtle details and more of the layering of instrument overtones, the actual decay of the piano in the room and cello and the bounce off of walls etc. A less resolving system/amplifier isn't getting those finer points - it's cutting those things out.

    When I listen then to the big SS great measuring amp (sorry Bryston) but I am sitting there turning the volume dial UP and UP to try and hear the piano box, the hall it was recorded in, the cello box vibration that is clearly there in real life. A lack of dynamics and resolution means that my ear brain is saying "but I Know it's there" - let's turn it up a bit and maybe I will hear it. It amazes me that I don't need to do that with a SET and good speakers,

    So here's the thing - if the amp is high distortion and using the word distortion to mean that it is screwing up the signal and causing voices to WARBLE and adding lots of fuzzy noise and blooming and fattening up the bass - then in fact THIS is the amplifier you would be wanting to turn UP to try and make things out clearly. Pretty telling really.

    And I'm not big on the magazines - sorry but Terry I put more trust in - the guy sells a lot of gear - pretty much every technology that has ever come down the pike in the last 40 years. The room - the "whole" of the recording - the whole of the instrument.

    I am sitting here with absolutely GREAT measuring SS amplification and I have a BS measuring SE amp. There is absolutely no comparison in any way shape or form that the SS stuff I have is complete and utter caca in comparison. And we can argue that the SE amp is better because of euphony or second order distortion or that the latter is more accurate because it measures better. But if accuracy makes everything sound horrible then at some point one has to use some common sense and actually trust that the ear brain interface is pretty good and can be exceptional with practice and ability. And Art basically says who cares it makes more sense to buy the one that actually sounds better whether or not you can wrap your head around the worse numbers.

    And Wes Philips is more telling than Art to me in the sense that Wes is a Solid State, Digital, Wilson measurements guru - he's the guy that always touts the best measuring gear - dynaudio speakers and the like. In other words NOT in the SET world camp. So it was when he auditioned the all AN comparative crapfest of measurements set-up which is "cumulatively bad measuring gear not just individual components of badness measurements and hailed it as the best hi-fi of CES and the best sound he had ever heard - well now that's not coming from a tube guy like Art - that's coming from a SS measurements freak guy. Fact is I was Wes Philips back in the day. It's just been so damn long now that people don't remember me from the 1990s.

    Now in this situation directly with the SF 1 it's hard to say - some tube amps do in fact add a certain haze which could be mistaken for added ambiance and it could also be that that with audible distortion you would have to listen in more to the recording which could be coined as added depth since the music might sound more recessed. This could be what Feanor is talking about which would in fact mean that it is operating like a distortion generator. I actually got something like this with the Grant Fidelity Tube DAC 09 and I mentioned this in my review that it was kind of acting like a tube buffer and I felt it sounded pleasing but also additive.

    That is not however what good SE amps like the Jinro or even my amp are doing - not at all. Now granted the PQ writings essays etc are all fine and dandy but why trust any manufacturer - could just be BS. So I put stock into the listening. If the Jinro sounds so real and right and some SS amp (virtually all of them) don't then it's pretty easy to say - well I am going to put the trust in the guy that proves the damn point when the play button is pushed or the needle drops - in other words he proves it with the "sound" the gear makes when it is playing music. That is the standard of verifying the truth of the argument. There can be no other standard. And personally since I possess perfect listening pitch and have way above the average frequency hearing for my age group and detect distortion at a very high percentile then I feel I have enough reason to allow my ears to be the "judge" in deciding the merit of the case.

    And frankly I hate the whole premise here - the preamp is being attached to a digital amp on speakers of not the highest resolution to begin with. I like the 1.7 - probably the best speaker in the price range IMO and I am happy to say it sounded very good with the gear I used on them - but it still isn't a good resolver because all of my recordings from Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata to Lady Gaga to Sarah McLachlan to Jackson Browne, to the Outfield to Sade, Sophie Milman, Loreena McKennitt, Deodato, the YellowJackets and a few others sounded more alike across all these recordings than they do on my speakers for example.

    I never understand the point or logic of matching a tube preamp from a tube amp maker who believes that tubes are superior to a SS or digital amplifier from makers who typically believe tubes are crap. Neither manufacturer with these belief systems and design goals would make such a match so why owners think it's a good idea is beyond me. And then they want to blame one of them when the sound isn't terrific?
  • 04-21-2011, 05:31 AM
    Feanor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RGA
    ...
    Take the initial post's assumption:

    "Tentatively that the commonly-ascribed tube characteristic of depth, (sometimes described as greater presence, palpability, or realism), is in fact an artifact."

    First the assumption here is that because the sound has depth that this is caused by an artifact. the other side of the coin is not addressed however that it could be correct and that the other amplifiers are "missing" this important aspect of the recording.
    ....
    Now let's assume the reverse assumption to the poster. let's say that in fact this SET amp is providing the sound of the instruments the room acoustics - ie more of everything from the microphone pick-up at the time of the recording.
    ...
    Now in this situation directly with the SF 1 it's hard to say - some tube amps do in fact add a certain haze which could be mistaken for added ambiance and it could also be that that with audible distortion you would have to listen in more to the recording which could be coined as added depth since the music might sound more recessed. This could be what Feanor is talking about which would in fact mean that it is operating like a distortion generator.
    ...
    And frankly I hate the whole premise here - the preamp is being attached to a digital amp on speakers of not the highest resolution to begin with. I like the 1.7 - probably the best speaker in the price range IMO and I am happy to say it sounded very good with the gear I used on them - but it still isn't a good resolver because all of my recordings from Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata to Lady Gaga to Sarah McLachlan to Jackson Browne, to the Outfield to Sade, Sophie Milman, Loreena McKennitt, Deodato, the YellowJackets and a few others sounded more alike across all these recordings than they do on my speakers for example.

    I never understand the point or logic of matching a tube preamp from a tube amp maker who believes that tubes are superior to a SS or digital amplifier from makers who typically believe tubes are crap. Neither manufacturer with these belief systems and design goals would make such a match so why owners think it's a good idea is beyond me. And then they want to blame one of them when the sound isn't terrific?

    Stunning verbosity once again from RGA, but I thank him for taking some much time to respond to this thread -- he must have been motivated.

    RGA says that I'm assuming that the depth affect is caused by tube artifacts: no! I am postulating that the perceived depth is so caused.

    Yes, of course I'm suggesting that the Sonic Frontiers preamp is causing the depth effect. I am further suggesting that it was something added to the signal by the SF. That because it doesn't occur when the signal is passed through a simple, purely passive component. On the other hand, the Sonic Frontiers did not apparently reduce resolution of the sound vs. the passive, so I don't consider RGA's term, "hazy", to be accurate in this case.

    RGA assert that Magneplar 1.6's because they aren't highly resolving on the basis that he, RGA, finds less differences between recordings than when listens to some other, mystery speakers, (Audio Note?). The "differences between recordings" criterion comes from RGA's acknowledged audio divinity, Peter Qvortrup, although Qvortrup was referring to speaker quality in general, not specifically to resolution.

    I have no trouble hearing difference betwen recordings on the 1.6's myself, sourge Richard to listen for the resolution inherent in each recording itself, rather than be so concerned about "differences" per se. The QR Magneplars, by general acknowlegement, have very good resolution, as than the typical dynamic speaker close to their price range, though not as good as electrostatics or pure ribbons in general. For what it's worth, you can take my word that the 1.6's were resolving sufficiently well that effect I described was what I was hearing.
  • 04-22-2011, 08:43 AM
    RGA
    The issue of resolution is pointless talking about with people who own panels. The dealer here everyone who sells them and the guy that rebuilds them my listening sessions and many of the audiophiles who I have talked to who have heard them "generally acknowledge" that they're not very good resolvers.

    To resolve it needs to be able to meet the criteria of revealing the "most" differences amongst recordings and in order to do that it has to be able to do all recordings of all genres incredibly well. And since virtually every forum post I read from the few objective maggie owners out there even they generally acknowledge that they're not good at amplified music or difficult content.

    This doesn't mean they can't sound good - not saying that - they do (the 1.7 anyway) and it does because it creates a clarity in the midrange a non fatiguing top end and reasonable bass depth - and more importantly the bass it has is clean (although not very dynamic for what a rock band wants the listener to hear). Some people will choose to take the clarity of the bass if they listen to acoustic instruments over "impact" bass that rock and hip/hop artists are going for. Personally I want a speaker that can do both types of bass equally well but at the 1.7 price you usually have to pick one or the other - I would pick the 1.7 simply because of the superior clarity in the midrange which say a B&W floorstander doesn't have - although it will have more "slam" that slam is less important to me strictly speaking because I listen much more to music like Jackson Browne or Eva Cassidy than I listen to Aerosmith and the like. So a single singer with a single instrument for me is better on a 1.7 than a B&W or Paradigm floorstander for the same price. The 1.7 with a good tube amp is IMO much better. But If I am going for trance music - the clear winner would be the bug B&W floorstander. For someone who listens to 99% classical chamber music then the choice is obvious but if you can't understand that someone who listens to 99% house trance music would take the B&W/paradigm then I can't help you.

    Since many people listen to all sorts of music then they need a speaker that will play all sorts of music and IMO finding a speaker/system that can play all sorts of music equally well are A)very few in numbers and B) the best loudspeakers for resolution and overall ability. They also tend to cost more and requires owners not to blindly go by appearances.

    As with most speakers as you move up in price the speakers get better at their difficiencies. The big better panels will hve more "slam" ability - they will better negotiate amplified music because they move more air as the saying goes. But that's also true of boxes - the refinment of the box and drivers improve dramatically so that their midrange clarity gets a lot better - so they retain their superior amplified music but also get better on acoustic music. And it goes without saying that as you move up you get more bass - sometimes more and better bass to boot.

    Like I say - the SF-1 may be adding depth due to distortion - I can't remember it as they've been out of business for a long time now.

    What I would do as an experiment is to get a "known" good "all tube amplifier" match for the 1.6 anc compare that - rather than just a preamp matched to a power amp that neither designer would likely opt for. The SF-1 may be showing up more weakness in the CD player - or bringing more of the CD player to the fore. Unless you assume that passive preamps zero impact on the sound.