PREAMPs: Neutral/Transparent vs. Colored/Character

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Summit said:

The biggest problem with measurements IMO is:

1) the conditions has to be exactly the same for them to be of any use, and they seldom is

2) most audiophiles don't know how to interpret measurements very well

3) just like with statistics you can mislead and make something look better or worse than it is

4) the measurements that really would says something meaningful is often missing

5) focus is often on marketing aspects  

6) there is often no established correlation to better SQ for many measurements of electronics

 

I regularly mention that the manual that came with my 40 year old Perreaux amp has a page of numbers that puts anything that comes with modern, expensive amplifiers to shame - you are really putting a finger up in the wind, trying to guess how current gear performs, from the measurements they are willing to show you.

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

16 hours ago, GregWormald said:

 

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

 

Exactly.

And, logically, you cannot expect any more than that without chemicals.

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Kal Rubinson said:

And, logically, you cannot expect any more than that without chemicals.

 

The next question is, how much information is on the recording which allows the ear/brain to build an illusion, connecting your mind with what the musicians were doing, or what the intention of the creator of the music was. IME, most playback setups fail badly to convey the full content of what matters musically; and hence it's hard to focus on that, as a contrast to the various 'defects' of the recording ... I have been repeatedly astonished over the decades by what was nominally a technically abysmal recording to draw me into the world of the music making that occurred, back then - no chemicals were anywhere in the equation, .

[Kal Rubinson]

41 minutes ago, fas42 said:

The next question is, how much information is on the recording which allows the ear/brain to build an illusion, connecting your mind with what the musicians were doing, or what the intention of the creator of the music was.

Fully transparent reproduction of what is on the recording is all there is.  Anything else is imagination.

[fas42]

1 minute ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Fully transparent reproduction of what is on the recording is all there is.  Anything else is imagination.

 

So, how do you know when you have, "fully transparent reproduction"?

[Kal Rubinson]

13 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

Fully transparent reproduction of what is on the recording is all there is.  Anything else is imagination.

I am guessing it is the same way you do but I have only glimpsed it.  Transparency is a vehicle that allows the perception of the signals from which we derive musical or emotional appreciation but it does not change the appreciation, only the effort we need to make.   Transparency (as well as accuracy) are objective terms to me and have nothing to do with musical or  emotional content.   So, I think we are talking about different things and that's why I rarely respond to any of your posts. 

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I am guessing it is the same way you do but I have only glimpsed it.  Transparency is a vehicle that allows the perception of the signals from which we derive musical or emotional appreciation but it does not change the appreciation, only the effort we need to make.   Transparency (as well as accuracy) are objective terms to me and have nothing to do with musical or  emotional content.   So, I think we are talking about different things and that's why I rarely respond to any of your posts. 

 

Over the decades I have evolved a view as to what transparency is, even though I never apply that term to the situation. That which is transparent is a system which adds zero subjective character to what you hear - so, listen to six completely setups which claim to be transparent, which are made up of completely different components, using different philosophies in how they reproduce the sound, playing a particular recording. Behind a curtain, if the systems are all truly transparent, then a listener will find it impossible to determine which is playing. Which is not the same thing as accuracy - measuring instruments will show differences in frequency response, distortion spectrums will vary, etc; none will be fully accurate in that sense. But their accuracy will be sufficient for them to be transparent, to the listener.

 

IME, high transparency automatically provides high musical and emotional content - I aim for the former, because it always causes the latter. Every time. Over the years, what stands out for me is that most rigs I come across fall well short of being transparent; their signature is so intense at times, to the point I have trouble recognising the recording ...

[fas42]

Just came across this review, https://www.dagogo.com/cos-engineering-d1-dac-pre-amplifier-review/. This to me is very familiar - it's a journey of discovery, finding out how a system can become, yes, ever more transparent, the more tweaking and other tricks are applied. This is the world you enter, if you wish to make a setup as transparent as it possibly can get; one in which there appears to be almost no limits, .

[cjf]

IMO, just the presence of a PreAmp in the signal chain will very likely introduce some form of seasoning to the sound of the original source material.

 

There are a few PreAmp's out there that get about as close as you can get to it not being there in the signal chain. The most well known unit likely being the Benchmark I mentioned in an earlier post. It has measurement specs better than most DAC's on the market but it is another box nonetheless in the chain.

 

Obviously you cant listen to any music without a DAC so whatever flavor the DAC has is there to stay. But, you can still listen to music without a traditional PreAmp in the signal chain. I think if you have a real need for the physical connectivity options a PreAmp offers then you should use one. But, if you can do without one you will likely experience a more "Transparent" sounding system. This could be a good or very bad thing depending on the system involved.

 

But despite all this, I do actually like the sound certain PreAmps I have used in the past have introduced to the sound of my own system. Since that time I have gone another direction which is no longer a good option for traditional PreAmp usage. If I ever revert back to 2 Channel only I would likely pursue a very good traditional PreAmp again. One with just the right amount of seasoning as to not throw the whole balance of the system too far in one direction or the other.

[bodiebill]

I can see the concept of transparency of a device in -- or a larger subset of -- the full chain.

Although measured data can provide expectations (that often prove correct), I think that in the end transparency is subjective and can only be blindfold-tested.

F.i., if I cannot (well) hear the difference between having a preamp in the chain and the preamp removed, I subjectively experience the (relative) transparency of that preamp..

 

In that sense I fail to understand the concept of a complete chain being transparant. A blindfold is hardly necessary when testing the complete chain versus no device at all: sound vs silence. A comparison with an original live performance is alas impossible due to many factors.

[fas42]

11 hours ago, bodiebill said:

In that sense I fail to understand the concept of a complete chain being transparant. A blindfold is hardly necessary when testing the complete chain versus no device at all: sound vs silence. A comparison with an original live performance is alas impossible due to many factors.

 

IME, it's quite easy to pick what I call transparency - a whole swag of subjective behaviours switch on, and are so distinctive that once you appreciate what's happening, then the difference between such and the lack of it is obvious.

 

First of all, the sound is "effortless" - this term is thrown about a bit, but does describe the sensation very well - live acoustic music making delivers the same; irrespective of the volume, it is "effortless" to listen to.

 

The presentation becomes fully "holographic" - the performance exists in a space completely unrelated to the room you're listening in, where you are personally is just a chunk of a room attached to the environment where the music is happening.

 

The speakers completely disappear, in every acoustic sense - even if your life depended upon it you wouldn't be able to locate them reliably, just using your ears.

 

You never get a sense of 'wrongness' about what you hear: whether you are attentive right next to the speakers; or only half listening, while doing doing something else, like talking to somebody; or at the other end of the house where the volume is greatly attenuated ... it always sounds, 'right'.

[bodiebill]

I could live with your different definition of transparency. At least we agree on the subjectivity of it, as none of the experiences you mention seems measurable in a meaningful way.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

1 hour ago, bodiebill said:

I could live with your different definition of transparency. At least we agree on the subjectivity of it, as none of the experiences you mention seems measurable in a meaningful way.

 

The fact that something is "'not measurable" should not imply that it is necessarily "subjective". We could all agree to something that is not measurable (though I do not have an example). It's been discussed at length recently and I did not make new friends while doing so 🙄 it's a bit of a paradox, in my point of view, that we all congregate here to discuss the merits of audio equipment but at the same time so many of us hold on to the idea that it's all so subjective. 

[bodiebill]

28 minutes ago, hopkins said:

The fact that something is "'not measurable" should not imply that it is necessarily "subjective". We could all agree to something that is not measurable (though I do not have an example). It's been discussed at length recently and I did not make new friends while doing so 🙄 it's a bit of a paradox, in my point of view, that we all congregate here to discuss the merits of audio equipment but at the same time so many of us hold on to the idea that it's all so subjective. 

 

I guess we learn to trust the subjective opinions of some members here as they seem to resonate with our own. 

[bodiebill]

1 minute ago, bodiebill said:

 

I guess we learn to trust the subjective opinions of some members here as these opinions often seem to resonate with our own. 

 

[fas42]

14 hours ago, bodiebill said:

I could live with your different definition of transparency. At least we agree on the subjectivity of it, as none of the experiences you mention seems measurable in a meaningful way.

 

I just posted about a YT video with a review of a system with what to me has a very high standard of transparency, in the tracks played on it - if you think that the qualities audible are measurable in a meaningful way, I would be interested in your thoughts,

 

[bodiebill]

57 minutes ago, fas42 said:

I just posted about a YT video with a review of a system with what to me has a very high standard of transparency, in the tracks played on it - if you think that the qualities audible are measurable in a meaningful way, I would be interested in your thoughts,

 

As I said, I do not think these qualities are measurable :-)

 

A coincidence is that tonight a friend brought his ECdesigns PowerDAC-R and with three we listened to different setups. It was a bit of an apple-pear comparison as this DAC only has optical input so we could not try it with the audio-gd DI-20HE DDC but we all three agreed that with the latter in the chain (with a Musician Pegasus DAC) there was the most perceived transparency, and with the PD-R alone (using its internal volume control) the sound was surprisingly veiled. Might be some unexpected lack of synergy between components.

[Summit]

On 11/16/2021 at 8:29 PM, Kal Rubinson said:

If they are not exactly the same, then they do not qualify as more than inference.

That is unfortunate, for them, so they have to rely on the explanations of those who do.

Such offerings do not qualify as valid and are not worthy of consideration.

They are either valid measurements or not.  If the focus is not relevant, they are just not useful.

 

True for some but not for all.  

Arguing against the acceptance and use of valid measurements is to ignore factual information.    

 

I do not argue against valid measurements, just the lack of scientific established correlation, if we are talking about quality preamps like the OP asked about. 

 

BTW, can you share some scientific established correlation between "better measurements" and better SQ for High End electronics?

[Kal Rubinson]

2 hours ago, Summit said:

BTW, can you share some scientific established correlation between "better measurements" and better SQ for High End electronics?

I cannot but I believe that there are past studies of correlations between high noise and/or high distortion and poor sound quality.   

[ArcticSapien]

On 11/19/2021 at 5:21 PM, hopkins said:

The fact that something is "'not measurable" should not imply that it is necessarily "subjective".

I know what you mean. Just to note that by definition, subjective is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions", i.e. not measurable... Ergo, not measurable is necessarily subjective :)

I believe though you meant, not measurable doesn't mean not nice. Or as @Summit more elegantly put here.

E.g. this tomato has a good umami taste... but oops, we can't measure umami (yet)!

2 hours ago, Summit said:

correlation between "better measurements" and better SQ

 

[ArcticSapien]

Ok, here's my burning question after getting lots of good advice here.

A preamp with natural sounds that doesn't change the original input seems to be good choice.

(I'm avoiding terms like neutral/transparent to avoid triggering a different discussion)

(I also see that the original input doesn't necessarily mean the same as "live music" since these may be inevitably colored by mic or guitar amps anyway.)

 

So, some of us may prefer a preamp that Jon Iverson described as "Nothing". https://www.stereophile.com/content/nothing-what-i-want

 

But why would we pay $20,000 vs $10,000 vs $5,000 for different preamps that give the same "Nothing"?

Won't a $2,000+ Benchmark LA4 or Holo Audio Serene do the same thing?

• Is that because none of them are "truly natural"... i.e. some more than others, hence we might pay more for those which have a higher level of naturalness?
• Or is it because some give a better Gain than others?

In short, why pay more for a preamp if they give the same Nothingness?

Thanks!

 

(Let's assume they all have the same types and quantity of inputs/outputs)

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

18 hours ago, bodiebill said:

A coincidence is that tonight a friend brought his ECdesigns PowerDAC-R and with three we listened to different setups. It was a bit of an apple-pear comparison as this DAC only has optical input so we could not try it with the audio-gd DI-20HE DDC but we all three agreed that with the latter in the chain (with a Musician Pegasus DAC) there was the most perceived transparency, and with the PD-R alone (using its internal volume control) the sound was surprisingly veiled. Might be some unexpected lack of synergy between components

 

That's completely to the opposite of all the comparisons I have done (with volume control as well) and with other ears - no one found the powerDAC-R "veiled".  That's in 5 different systems, comparing to quite a few DACs.So perhaps what you are finding is that the Pegasus exaggerates/accentuates things? Distortion could sound pleasing in certain  systems ? 

 

The difficulty in this hobby, is that even if one were to find a component that was perfectly neutral/transparent, it would be difficult to know as a single component is always used in an imperfect system.

 

With a source it is practically impossible to know as the rest of the system degrades things. 

 

To test a preamp, you can always try the "Bolero test": http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Linestages.html#BOLERO

[bodiebill]

2 hours ago, hopkins said:

 

That's completely to the opposite of all the comparisons I have done (with volume control as well) and with other ears - no one found the powerDAC-R "veiled".  That's in 5 different systems, comparing to quite a few DACs.So perhaps what you are finding is that the Pegasus exaggerates/accentuates things? Distortion could sound pleasing in certain  systems ? 

 

The difficulty in this hobby, is that even if one were to find a component that was perfectly neutral/transparent, it would be difficult to know as a single component is always used in an imperfect system.

 

With a source it is practically impossible to know as the rest of the system degrades things. 

 

To test a preamp, you can always try the "Bolero test": http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Linestages.html#BOLERO

 

I must say we were also also surprised, all three of us. When previously comparing the Pegasus and the PowerDAC-R they were much closer together and the difference was a mere question of taste. To our ears the Pegasus is certainly not exaggerating things or adding distortion, at least not more than any DAC including the PowerDAC-R.

 

Last night's main discovery was that the Audio-GD is our transparency hero. It provided great detail, smoothness and inviolvement and we no longer wanted to be without it for the rest of the evening. Luckily in this case there seems to be a correspondance between this subjective experience of transparency and (GoldenSound's) measurements.

 

The MiniDSP's preamp again seemed to be very neutral whereas the PD seems to sound better at higher volumes (7 and up out of 9), which was not always possible. Son maybe it was not a fair comparison.

 

Nice find that Bolero test!

[fas42]

7 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

So, some of us may prefer a preamp that Jon Iverson described as "Nothing". https://www.stereophile.com/content/nothing-what-i-want

 

But why would we pay $20,000 vs $10,000 vs $5,000 for different preamps that give the same "Nothing"?

Won't a $2,000+ Benchmark LA4 or Holo Audio Serene do the same thing?

• Is that because none of them are "truly natural"... i.e. some more than others, hence we might pay more for those which have a higher level of naturalness?
• Or is it because some give a better Gain than others?

In short, why pay more for a preamp if they give the same Nothingness?

Thanks!

 

(Let's assume they all have the same types and quantity of inputs/outputs)

 

The cheapest preamp is that which costs nothing ... because you don't use one, . In fact, I haven't used a preamp in over 40 years - a big reason for why I am able to approach fully competent SQ with less effort; the added complexity of having one just gets in the way of the main goal.

 

However, if you must have one, then the cheapest which is completely invisible, "nothing", is the one to buy - paying more should just add visual bling to the situation, if that's something important to you.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

4 hours ago, bodiebill said:

The MiniDSP's preamp again seemed to be very neutral whereas the PD seems to sound better at higher volumes (7 and up out of 9), which was not always possible. Son maybe it was not a fair comparison.

 

I have not found that the powerDAC-R's volume control affects in any way the sound. In fact at low volume level with headphones the level of detail is very impressive... The volume control is achieved with a combination of software bit-shifting and power regulation (not something you will find in any other preamp). When you listen to the S model (it's big brother) it becomes even more obvious as you don't have the amplifier killing all the transparency of the DAC. The same technology is used in both models. 

 

Our experiences of this product could not be more different.