PREAMPs: Neutral/Transparent vs. Colored/Character

[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.)

[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.

 

 

[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.

[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!

[GregWormald]

4 minutes 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.

 

1 minute ago, Kal Rubinson said:

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

 

I remember having the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" explained to me. Good measurements are necessary to provide transparency even if they are not sufficient.

[GregWormald]

I'm with Kal here (again).

 

Just because there don't appear to be measurements that completely describe what we can and are hearing isn't the same as saying that NONE of the measurements we do get are useful. I know from 60 years of experience that I appreciate low harmonic and IM distortion and minuscule levels of noise.

[GregWormald]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Consider this ... you play an old recording which is quite noisy, because of the technology used at the time, on pristine playback - but it captures a deep acoustic, with beautiful tone of the instruments. And you enjoy listening to it; it's 'transparent'. Now, transfer that specific noise spectrum to the playback gear behaviour; and then listen to a pristine recording ... is it, no longer so transparent?

It appears to me that you are using "transparent" in a different way than I am. 

[GregWormald]

13 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

Do you use the Moon 820s as your 740P power source?

No , the built-in power source—it's already pretty special.

 

If I had wanted to go that path I would also have looked at the Pass xp30 and the MOON 850P, but the cost per increase in quality was just too much for me to swallow at the time. Maybe if I'd had more wine before deciding, but I listen sober so ...

[GregWormald]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

Fully transparent to me means I hear absolutely nothing that gives the game away that I'm listening to playback - the illusion is complete, and rock solid, irrespective of the recording ... it's a pane of glass that I am completely unable to detect; not one speck of dust, scratch, or optical aberration which allows me to focus on the presence of some glass between me and the event ....

To me that would imply that transparent doesn't exist in audio. After the performance has travelled through microphones, wires, mixing boards (including engineers' modifications of the signal), and then through playback equipment it certainly wouldn't be indistinguishable from the original event.

 

Back to your question then:

4 hours ago, fas42 said:

Consider this ... you play an old recording which is quite noisy, because of the technology used at the time, on pristine playback - but it captures a deep acoustic, with beautiful tone of the instruments. And you enjoy listening to it; it's 'transparent'. Now, transfer that specific noise spectrum to the playback gear behaviour; and then listen to a pristine recording ... is it, no longer so transparent?

The old recording is definitely NOT transparent, so the rest of the question doesn't make sense.

 

I have some of my father's records from the late 1930s and my own from the late 1950s until today and while I can admire parts of the older recordings—primarily the music and the performers' skills—none would meet your definition of transparent.

 

IMO in terms of playback equipment the most transparency we can hope for is transparency to the recording at hand.

[GregWormald]

While it is true that some people like and advocate using the DAC (or whatever) direct to the amp there are others who say the opposite. 

Of course if you have multiple sources to manage, or a difficult match between your one source and your amp, then a pre-amp can certainly help.

I have 4 sources (CD player, tuner, DAC, turntable) and I would hate to be changing cables all the time or trying to connect sources without volume control to amps or impedance matching.