PREAMPs: Neutral/Transparent vs. Colored/Character

[ArcticSapien]

Hi, I am interested to know why audiophiles here may prefer:

* Neutral/Transparent preamps (eg Holo Audio Serene or PS Audio's BHK Signature),

vs.

* Colored/Character preamps (eg the likes of ARC, McIntosh or Naim).

 

(1) I appreciate that there will be different preferences. I don't think there's a "right vs. wrong" choice but am keen to know the reasons for your preference... this helps me to decide on my own path! Thanks.

Here's a story. A sound engineer I know often expressed his bewilderment on why HiFi folks don't value accuracy as much as them. But of course, it's a different kind of listening. Sound engineers try to reproduce exactly what they hear... voices & instruments. Perhaps they miss out on the "fun" factor. Nonetheless, I thought they may have a point about neutral reproductions.

 

Did I just trigger an Accurate vs. Musical debate? Didn't mean to. Just wanted to hear your reasons for your preference.

 

(2) Is there a magic formula to match or synergise components? Eg do you stick with transparent components all the way (DAC + preamp + amps)? Or mix-and-match along the way to "balance" them out?

 

 

(My own view of preferences is guided by Daniel Kahneman's work on psychological perceptions. To have a taste of this, check out this short BBC clip about the McGurk Effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 ... or recall the Yanny vs. Laurel debate. In short, YMMV. But your reasons are important for me to learn.)

[GregWormald]

I want to have emotional and enjoyment responses to the music, and since I get that from live music, my equipment must preserve that. So that means "transparent and accurate" to me. 

 

Of course that leaves me at the mercy of the recording, but it seems to me that any "colour" added would leave some music "less" rather than "more". That would include both "romantic colour" as well as anything more "etched" and "detailed" than the original.

 

For instance, my latest upgrades have almost ruined my ability to read while music is playing because I get so involved in the music that I stop reading just to listen.

 

 

[GregWormald]

11 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

(My own view of preferences is guided by Daniel Kahneman's work on psychological perceptions. To have a taste of this, check out this short BBC clip about the McGurk Effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 ... or recall the Yanny vs. Laurel debate. In short, YMMV. But your reasons are important for me to learn.)

Of course the conclusion that "you can't trust what you hear" is nonsense. Just because the interpretation of what you hear can be modulated by other senses doesn't change what one sense inputs into the interpretation. (Sigh—experts and their specialisations can sometimes miss the obvious.)

[fas42]

Some of the confusion occurs because many audiophiles can't wrap their heads around the concept that truly accurate always creates musical; the progression of hifi over the decades has generated this myth that you either get one of the other - in part because there is this belief that many recordings are poor, and therefore need spicing up to sound OK. Well, the actual situation is that most rigs by one means or another colour what you hear, usually in a negative way - I call it, distortion  - and much of the integrity of what actually lies on the recording is lost, in the subjective experience.

 

It is hard to make a system subjectively accurate - electrical noise and other artifacts conspire to make this difficult to achieve, even with the latest components ... however, efforts to reach this goal will be richly rewarded . Using gear OTOH which deliberately colours what you hear is always going to limit the possibilities; because it ensures there will always be recordings which are unpleasant or impossible to listen to, because their signature conflicts, badly, with that of the playback chain.

[cjf]

14 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

Hi, I am interested to know why audiophiles here may prefer:

* Neutral/Transparent preamps (eg Holo Audio Serene or PS Audio's BHK Signature),

vs.

* Colored/Character preamps (eg the likes of ARC, McIntosh or Naim).

 

(1) I appreciate that there will be different preferences. I don't think there's a "right vs. wrong" choice but am keen to know the reasons for your preference... this helps me to decide on my own path! Thanks.

Here's a story. A sound engineer I know often expressed his bewilderment on why HiFi folks don't value accuracy as much as them. But of course, it's a different kind of listening. Sound engineers try to reproduce exactly what they hear... voices & instruments. Perhaps they miss out on the "fun" factor. Nonetheless, I thought they may have a point about neutral reproductions.

 

Did I just trigger an Accurate vs. Musical debate? Didn't mean to. Just wanted to hear your reasons for your preference.

 

(2) Is there a magic formula to match or synergise components? Eg do you stick with transparent components all the way (DAC + preamp + amps)? Or mix-and-match along the way to "balance" them out?

 

 

(My own view of preferences is guided by Daniel Kahneman's work on psychological perceptions. To have a taste of this, check out this short BBC clip about the McGurk Effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0 ... or recall the Yanny vs. Laurel debate. In short, YMMV. But your reasons are important for me to learn.)

IMO, if someone were truly interested in going the transparent route they would not use a traditional PreAmp at all. They would instead go straight from their DAC Analog Output to the Amps.

 

The most transparent Analog PreAmp is likely to be the Benchmark Media unit (LA4, HPA4). From there, its just comes down to how much seasoning you want. They range goes from a little up to whole lot of seasoning. How much flavor someone is looking for is a personal preference.

 

I personally prefer to add my seasoning preferences at three points in the signal chain for my current setup. The primary Power Cables, the Amps and the Speaker Wire. For all other components, I prefer them to be brutal in their honesty. If I did use a PreAmp, my current level of seasoning would likely change to keep things in balance.

[ArcticSapien]

Thanks. Great views. 

@GregWormald Totally understand the reading while listening distractions... happens all the time

@fas42 I'm gonna quote this now, "accurate is always musical"!

@cjf Thought of skipping preamps too but the passive volume attenuator seems like a hassle. Some say to keep the front end sources (Bridge/DAC) clean and, if you want, to add character at the back end, say via your tube amps. Wonder if preamp is the backroom or frontline!?

 

Seems like a 3-0 score now. Hope to hear alternate views from those who like preamps with character.

 

I see the choice as "different" flavors rather than "better/worse"... Like sushi with or without wasabi, both can be nice. I guess our pair of ears finally decide for us, but great to hear different views too.

[ArcticSapien]

I must admit I'm leaning towards transparent preamps (thanks for the reminder on Benchmark LA4). 

OTOH I also tested the Arc Ref6SE and Naim 252, and both had Wow factors (McIntosh C22 was meh). But they cost a few times more than a nice transparent preamps (eg LA4 or Holo Serene). My work-in-progress system without a preamp already gives beautiful tingling feelings. Do I really need those big preamps? But I must be missing something... gotta be some good reasons the ARC/Naim are the queens of preamps?

 

The ARC/Naim/McIntosh dealers are telling me the second biggest part of my budget should be allocated to preamps, after the speakers. Well... views from interested parties!

[cjf]

4 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

Thought of skipping preamps too but the passive volume attenuator seems like a hassle.

In case you were not already aware, there are other options to a passive vol control.

 

I use the built-in digital Vol control found within my playback software (Roon) and dont find it to be detrimental to the SQ. If I did think it was a major compromise I would use something else.

 

I think the Pass Labs Pre's are up there with the best of them without stepping into the absurd price category of some other offerings. If I could use a PreAmp in my current system it would be the Pass XP30 but its not a good option for handling multiple channels so that's why I dont use one.

 

ARC is a good option if your looking to add some Tube sweetness to your playback chain without going too far off the deep end into "Tube Bliss". I've heard some Tube Pre's change the sound character so much that the music flowing thru it sounded totally different, and not in a good way.

 

PreAmps have their purpose and many people choose to use them but I dont think your missing anything if you dont use one unless it has some feature that you need and dont currently have. I think Digital Vol control has come a very long way when used at Normal and Up output levels. They do however fall a bit flat when used at whisper quiet output levels. In those instances a PreAmp would certainly be a good use case.

 

Anyone up to speed on the latest and greatest Digital volume control implementations will likely find it hard to justify the cost of adding a good PreAmp to the signal chain these days, especially if their goal is transparency and if they have spent time with a good software based Vol control. Some dont like what they hear when using a software based Vol control but maybe its not the sound of the software that they dislike?

 

Certainly the old school audiophiles and dealers will disagree with this approach but that crowd also tends to be very set in their ways, not up to speed on how far the software based implementations have come and just how transparent they can be or that they have another agenda against the software option (like selling you something).

[granosalis]

20 hours ago, GregWormald said:

For instance, my latest upgrades have almost ruined my ability to read while music is playing because I get so involved in the music that I stop reading just to listen.

Can I know more about your last update :-) 

[Kal Rubinson]

16 hours ago, cjf said:

IMO, if someone were truly interested in going the transparent route they would not use a traditional PreAmp at all. They would instead go straight from their DAC Analog Output to the Amps.

The validity of that as a general rule is dependent on a suitable match of gain, output and impedance between the DAC and the amps.

6 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

@fas42 I'm gonna quote this now, "accurate is always musical"!

Some people have been saying this for a long time.

6 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

@cjf Thought of skipping preamps too but the passive volume attenuator seems like a hassle.

Yes, even more so than with matching the DAC output to the amp.  John Siau, from Benchmark Media says:

Quote

 

THE "FULLY PASSIVE" MYTH

Most people understand that active buffers create some noise and distortion. But many people falsely assume that these active components are the only source of noise and distortion in an audio circuit. The truth is that passive components are usually the primary source of noise and distortion in an audio circuit!

In a search for perfection, many audiophiles have bought into the "fully passive" myth. I suspect that this explains why most relay attenuators are fully passive. On the surface, "fully passive" sounds like a good idea.

 

LOW NOISE REQUIRES LOW IMPEDANCES

What many audiophiles don't realize is that a single resistor can create far more noise than a good active buffer. For example, an LME49860 opamp produces about the same noise as a 440-Ohm resistor. This means that the LME49860 is 13.6 dB quieter than the thermal noise produced by a single 10 k resistor! Buffers can allow the use of much lower impedances in an attenuator's resistor ladder network. When the impedances are reduced, an active design can be far quieter than a fully-passive design. Low-noise can only be achieved when resistors have very low impedances and signal levels are kept high.

 

PASSIVE DESIGNS FORCE A TRADE OFF BETWEEN NOISE AND DISTORTION

If the impedances are reduced in a fully passive attenuator design, the noise can be reduced but distortion will increase. This distortion is caused by an overloading of the upstream device. When an audio output is overloaded, distortion increases. Contrary to popular myth, distortion can be reduced by adding high-quality active buffers.

 

PASSIVE DESIGNS CAN CAUSE FREQUENCY RESPONSE PROBLEMS

A third problem with passive attenuators is that they may not provide enough drive for downstream devices. Cable capacitance and input capacitance can cause a high-frequency roll off. Worse yet, the frequency response may change as the volume is adjusted with a passive attenuator. Low output impedance is important for maintaining a wide bandwidth. Output buffers are essential for delivering a predictable frequency response.

 

NOISE AND DISTORTION ANALYSIS OF FULLY-PASSIVE ATTENUATORS

In the fully-passive designs we examined, the thermal noise produced by high impedance resistors exceeded what could have been achieved with a well-designed fully-buffered design. Furthermore, the loading imposed by the passive attenuators tended to cause distortion in upstream devices. It was clear that buffers would be required in our design.

 

 

17 minutes ago, cjf said:

I use the built-in digital Vol control found within my playback software

Me, too, but I find that a low noise, high output active device can be useful under some circumstances.

 

[GregWormald]

4 hours ago, granosalis said:

Can I know more about your last update :-) 

Sure.

 

Denafrips DAC—Pontus II

SGR Active speakers—MT 3.3 

Simaudio MOON pre—740P

Simaudio MOON phono pre—310LP

(The highly modified Linn LP12/Ittok LVII/Troika remained the same.)

 

Some comments:

 

First off the line was the Denafrips. I chose that when I heard their entry level Ares II and it easily bettered my old DAC.

 

Next were the MT 3.3. I ordered the MT 3.2 because of the excellence of my CF4X II by the same company and I wanted to upgrade. They also took my CF4X back in trade and offered me a good price. A couple of weeks later they sent a message saying that the 3.2 was being majorly upgraded to the 3.3 and they had upgraded my order without charge, despite the new price increasing by 25%. There was a wait time because the upgrade was indeed major: the shape changed, the internal volume changed and the construction changed. Still actively tri-amped (they are current drive rather than voltage drive), still 800 watts a side with extensive controls (all analog), the new construction upped the weight of each channel (2 boxes) from 65Kg to 130Kg! They also painted them any colour—I chose Porsche Jet Black Metallic. The controls are pictured on their website but the 3.3 hasn't yet been uploaded, so there's a pic below.

 

These were so spectacularly involving and detailed that I went looking for a pre-amp upgrade as my existing pre was more than 30 years old. I wanted transparent and neutral, musically involving, fully balanced, and with a very small increment volume control. A R—>L balance control was a must because of my crazy-shaped living room that reacts differently at different volumes. In the end I chose the MOON equipment because all the reviews commented on its neutrality and transparency. My listening to its little brother confirmed that for me. I ordered one as there wasn't one currently in Australia but Simaudio agreed to make one specially for me and get it out ASAP.

 

That's the upgrading. Here's a current pic.

 

 

[ArcticSapien]

15 hours ago, cjf said:

I use the built-in digital Vol control found within my playback software (Roon) and dont find it to be detrimental to the SQ. If I did think it was a major compromise I would use something else.

 

15 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Me, too, but I find that a low noise, high output active device can be useful under some circumstances.

Cool. Helps alleviate my anxiety order about blowing up the speakers!... in case Roon controls screw up. Thanks for the other tips @cjf @Kal Rubinson. Good reading from Siau.

 

Will check out:
* no preamps (digital control), vs

* passives (wrongly assumed earlier they don't have remotes), vs

* transparent preamps, vs

* colored preamps.

 

I'm not enamored with "perfection" or "precise accuracy". Other than acoustic music, all other live performances are already colored anyway with mic/guitar amps etc, aren't they?

 

Hmmmm... I'm now wondering if I may need two flavors: one transparent system (digital volume or transparent amps) for jazz/classical/acoustics, and another with a tube amp for those loud/fast hard rock stuff. Ahhh, complicated hobby!

[ArcticSapien]

11 hours ago, GregWormald said:

Denafrips DAC—Pontus II

SGR Active speakers—MT 3.3 

Simaudio MOON pre—740P

Simaudio MOON phono pre—310LP

(The highly modified Linn LP12/Ittok LVII/Troika remained the same.)

Very nice. You're right that MT 3.3 isn't even on their website yet.

I similarly got hooked on R2R ladder DACs after hearing Ares II. Ended up with Holo May instead... but wondering since then if I missed out on the Denafrips Pontus or Terminator.

Holo May is so dark, transparent and resolving (I'm sure Denafrips too) that it started me thinking about transparent preamps. Or to skip them altogether.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

On 11/12/2021 at 2:35 PM, ArcticSapien said:

Neutral/Transparent preamps (eg Holo Audio Serene or PS Audio's BHK Signature),

 

How did you determine that those preamps are neutral/transparent? 

[ArcticSapien]

19 minutes ago, hopkins said:

How did you determine that those preamps are neutral/transparent? 

 

Review from others. Holo Serene was nicely reviewed by @GoldenOne and Ron/New Record Day. BHK has been around longer and well-covered, but seems to have mixed views on its neutrality. Benchmark LA4 also earned strong reviews on its transparency.

 

I'd rather not get into measurement discussions, which I believe belongs to another section ;)

[GregWormald]

52 minutes ago, ArcticSapien said:

Review from others.

Yes, reviews certainly counted for me—especially in covid times. I guess it's experience with a variety of equipment and music the provides food for good reviewers. Some reviewers have that experience and use it in their reviews. Some reviews are nothing more than a repetition of the manufacture's PR release and tell me nothing about how it reproduces different musics. Here's a review of the MOON 740P by Fred Kaplan that helped me look at Simaudio MOON gear. At the money I was spending I read everything I could find on pre-amps that had the features that were a must.

 

I've been listening to music since I was 7 or 8, and to hi-fi equipment for coming up to 60 years. As a member of the local chapter of Stereonet I make it a point to attend get-togethers around music and equipment. I've heard systems (amps and preamps) where I didn't like what they were doing to the music. For instance some took off all the sharp edges so that everything was 'smooth', even though I knew than some roughness should be there. Some gave everything 'etched edges', even smooth melodic pieces. Different music should have different sounds, homogeneity is not what I wanted. Some seemed to do everything right but the music was lifeless!

 

I once bought a set of interconnects (without listening) that were immediately impressive and detailed. I noticed a few months later that I wasn't listening to as much music and was turning it down or off more often. I went back to my old interconnects and my enjoyment and listening time increased again. That was a good lesson. Artificial detail is tiring. Reduced detail is boring and 'unmusical'.

 

I want the music I have (700 lp albums, 100 CDs, 3,600 computer based albums) to suck me in, keep me enthralled and spit me out at the end with big smile on my face.

[Kal Rubinson]

49 minutes ago, ArcticSapien said:

I'd rather not get into measurement discussions, which I believe belongs to another section ;)

IMHO, measured technical excellence is a prerequisite for being neutral/transparent.  

[ArcticSapien]

1 hour ago, GregWormald said:

At the money I was spending I read everything I could find on pre-amps that had the features that were a must.

Good Kaplan article. Thanks for sharing. I saw your endorsement of the Moon 740P in another post. I've to add it to my list now. 

That's an awesome collection of music too!

 

Can you share your list of must-have features for a preamp?

[ArcticSapien]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

IMHO, measured technical excellence is a prerequisite for being neutral/transparent.  

I agree, of all attributes, neutrality can and should be measured. I'm just not chasing perfect precision. 

 

Having said that, I'm less certain of some audiophiles' assertion (not yours) that measurement alone, sans hearing, can determine how good an equipment or a synergistic system is.

 

I imagine folks 50 years ago trying to measure sugar content and salinity to describe umami taste, before savoriness was even well understood.

I don't know if soundstage depth, height and width are measurable. Or imaging precision or airiness. Ok we digress... 😁

[Kal Rubinson]

13 minutes ago, ArcticSapien said:

I imagine folks 50 years ago trying to measure sugar content and salinity to describe umami taste, before savoriness was even well understood.

Yes but now that science has defined the receptor mechanisms and their distribution, the measurements can be properly directed.

 

18 minutes ago, ArcticSapien said:

I don't know if soundstage depth, height and width are measurable. Or imaging precision or airiness. 

In audio, those are perceptions (illusions?) which can, at the moment, be tested only with rigorous, blind, population testing and that's not going to be applied to the review of any single audio product (unless there's a lot of money on the line). 

[fas42]

9 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

 

Hmmmm... I'm now wondering if I may need two flavors: one transparent system (digital volume or transparent amps) for jazz/classical/acoustics, and another with a tube amp for those loud/fast hard rock stuff. Ahhh, complicated hobby!

 

This is a good indicator that one is looking for something that is not truly accurate - a competent system that is able to bring out all the subtleties of a string quartet recording will also be able to handle the most aggressive, driving rock, with ease. And why that occurs is because the latter is recorded just as well as the string quartet; if a setup makes a mess of high energy music, then it's because the replay chain is not, well, accurate.

 

Audio in the sense you imply is not complicated. But the knowledge of how to make replay chains fully accurate is incomplete; hence, the level of confusion in the hobby about how to go about it ...

[fas42]

6 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

Good Kaplan article. Thanks for sharing. I saw your endorsement of the Moon 740P in another post. I've to add it to my list now. 

That's an awesome collection of music too!

 

Can you share your list of must-have features for a preamp?

 

The introduction in that article nails it - IME, most audiophiles don't get it; rather, they are excited about some aspect of what they hear; they are so busy acutely examining some tree that they are completely oblivious to the forest ... .

[GregWormald]

12 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

Can you share your list of must-have features for a preamp?

The ones that I wanted most were in a previous post—

"I wanted transparent and neutral, musically involving, fully balanced, and with a very small increment volume control. A R—>L balance control was a must because of my crazy-shaped living room that reacts differently at different volumes."

 

There are other standard ones, like enough connections for inputs and outputs (out to headphone amp for me); remote control of inputs, volume, mute, etc.

 

What really caught my eye about the 740P were the ability to set sensitivity and name for each source, the very precise volume control, and the overall design. On my previous pre-amp the music often went from too loud to too soft with one push of the remote button. 

 

I liked the "Standby" function so that it didn't need to be turned off completely. My previous pre, like the MOON, took 3 days to stabilise at full quality after it was turned off and it was actually made with no Off switch at all. The switch labelled off was really a Standby; to turn it off it had to be unplugged.

 

The fact that they were confident enough in their quality to offer a 10 year warranty also helped.

 

Funny: When I was trying to decide whether to buy the restrained silver or black, or the more 'stand-out' two-tone, the saleswoman pointed out that since I drive a bright yellow convertible she thought restraint probably wasn't relevant! When the rather huge box wouldn't fit anywhere but standing up in the passenger seat she had to take a photo. She also said she liked the car enough to buy one for her next vehicle!

[Rexp]

13 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

IMHO, measured technical excellence is a prerequisite for being neutral/transparent.  

If only that were true...unfortunately current measurements are next to useless in determining whether or not a pre amp is revealing the nuances in a recording.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 minute ago, Rexp said:

If only that were true...unfortunately current measurements are next to useless in determining whether or not a pre amp is revealing the nuances in a recording.

Are you positing that a preamp with measurably high noise and/or high distortion is capable of transparency?