PREAMPs: Neutral/Transparent vs. Colored/Character

[Kal Rubinson]

8 hours ago, ArcticSapien said:

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 disagree.  Terms like neutral and transparent are, in fact, equivalent  to "doesn't change the original input ."  In other words, the output is the same as the input and that can be tested, electrically, acoustically and psychoacoustically.  I do not understand what the term "natural" contributes to the discussion.

[fas42]

There is no such thing as the output being the same as the input. There will always be degradation to some degree, even though the difference may be hard to give meaningful numbers to ... what counts is the type of degradation, and this is very rarely rarely discussed in useful ways. A 'transparent' setup has degradation in areas which are not so important for one's subjective reaction to the presentation; and this is where the term "natural" can be applied - a magnificently measuring rig may have tiny amounts of extremely irritating artifacts in the sound; which kills the transparency, stone dead - but this consideration is normally always ignored ... hence the never-ending arguments about what's important.

[ArcticSapien]

4 hours ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I do not understand what the term "natural" contributes to the discussion.

It is to avoid endless discussions on what neutral/transparent means and distract from what I'm trying to learn about different preamps that create "Nothingness". Pure transparency can be important to some, but not to me. I'm not pursuing purity.

But I see that I'm not very successful in avoiding this distraction, hahaha. Audiophiles are such a passionate bunch.

 

Here's a Tomato🍅 story:

I like my tomatoes au naturel... with nothing on and straight into my mouth. My friend likes it with a light dose of salt... with imperceptible salinity but which brings out a richer umami. Alas, we can't measure that umami but he likes it nonetheless.

The taste is clearly Different... but Better/worse is relative to that individual.  

Meanwhile it is hard to define the pure taste of tomatoes... depends on the seasons, rainfall, species. So, I don't need to have that defined... I just like them "as is" without the salt.

[ArcticSapien]

6 hours ago, fas42 said:

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.

I can appreciate the simplicity... it makes sense that any thing else added can only increase the likelihood of changing the sound.

 

I'm also reading that a preamp can give it bling (I like your term!). Eg this Jim Austin article describes the PSA BHK Signature as giving "more" to an otherwise Excellent direct setup. https://www.stereophile.com/content/ps-audio-bhk-signature-preamplifier

I don't know if he meant the sound is no longer au naturel, eg it's just a bling effect.

 

But I take your point about the cheapest. Hope others can give alternate views about pricier preamps, eg @GregWormaldspoke for the Simaudio Moon earlier. Just hoping for views on cheap/pricier "nothing" preamps before I start the auditions... besides it is hard to get home trials for some models that are sold directly or that are short in stock (blamed on the pandemic).

 

 

 

[MarkusBarkus]

I have, and very much enjoy, the Luxman c900 pre-amp. They call it a "control amp." I have heard a few very experienced and knowledgeable people say it is a "warm" sounding device. Likewise the two m900 amps that feed it are described that way by some.

 

I have not found it to be warm...or at least not what I would call colored in some way. It just sounds very smooth and musical. I think speakers may have a role here. The Magicos are detail monsters, IMO. And very fast. No bass overhang. 

 

A few weeks ago I bought an MSB Reference dac. The MSB folks feel strongly that I should use the dac with pre module as my pre-amp instead of the Luxy. I could, but this sounds so good, and I have an SACD player to manage too. 
 

The MSB folks say the sound from the Ref will be much more transparent. 
 

One more piece of data: I had a Premiere dac for about 2.5 weeks before the Reference demo of 2.5 weeks, so I was adjusted to their sound. 
 

Previously, I had been using a Chord Dave on a DC4, with a Denefrips Gaia by-passing the Amanero USB workflow. Very detailed and enjoyable.
 

However, after 5-6 weeks on the MSB gear, I had to swap back to my dac to return the demo and wow. What a difference. I find the Reference dac to be much more musical and having a fuller sound. 
 

So what's transparent or what's colored in the audio chain here?
 

You could love either sound forever, but if you compare two "sounds" there is a difference, and one might prefer one flavor over another. 
 

I am keeping the Deconstructed Dave, but moving it to a bedroom for headphones and to directly drive a pair of Omega Super Alnico Monitors, soon to arrive. That should be about as direct and "transparent" as can be. We'll soon see. 
 

[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.

[Kal Rubinson]

47 minutes ago, GregWormald said:

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.

I use a switch for that.

[Summit]

On 11/20/2021 at 3:47 PM, ArcticSapien said:

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)

 

Everything is relative, not least SQ. An amplifier that can be considered to fulfill what you mean by "Nothing" in  one system may not do so in a much better audio system. It is an unwritten hifi law that the better audio gear you get the more you will be able to hear the other components of the system's shortcomings.

 

Natural, neutral, accurate, transparent, etc. are just some of the aspects that a good amplifier needs to be good at. Speed, punch, image, soundstage etc. are some other equally important aspects IMO.

[fas42]

How do you get to "nothing" added to what you hear? IME, this is hard, and has always been so; there always seems to be at least one weak spot in an assembly of gear, and most times there are lots of weaknesses - the point of buying something very expensive is that such should solve all the problems; if it doesn't, then I've just wasted my money ...

 

I can give an example happening right now - the perfect material to work with in assessing 'transparency' are tracks which are right on the edge of being unpleasant, if there is the slightest misbehaviour in, say, the preamp. The CD I'm focusing on is a collection of original Glen Miller tracks, and the brass section choruses, at the back of the soundstage, will have a nasty edge to them if I make a wrong move - adding a tiny bit of mains noise, with filtering not at optimum makes it obvious that I've gone backwards, the SQ has just slipped into the unpleasant zone.

 

Full subjective transparency is possible, and if achieved all the other "feel good" adjectives then, automatically, apply - you know you're there when you find it impossible to criticise anything about the sound ...

[ArcticSapien]

On 11/21/2021 at 9:42 PM, MarkusBarkus said:

I have, and very much enjoy, the Luxman c900 pre-amp.

@MarkusBarkus I ended up with the Luxmans as well, C900u and M900u (as stereo, not monoblocks like yours). Can't really say they're "neutral/transparent" but I agree with you that they're certainly not heavily colored. Thought they're under-rated though (and also under-covered as a brand).

 

The views in this topic helped me avoid heavily flavored amps. Thanks. But I also decided to drop trying to chase "full transparency". As @fas42implied above, very high transparency also means walking on a thin edge of being unpleasant, unless all the ducks in my system are perfectly lined up... attempts to get to this level of perfection takes away some enjoyment for me! So, just get close to the neutral zone, then simply let the ears pick!

[MarkusBarkus]

Bravo @ArcticSapien! This concept of transparency is an odd one to me, especially if it gets too analytical. Some say the Luxmans are a little warm, but if they are...that's my kind of warm! I think they offer great detail and grip.
 

I think they're terrific and I'm sure you are enjoying them at your place. Congratulations!

[Jacobsen]

Hello,

the ideal is a device that adds nothing to the sound path. After many years of testing and searching, I found the perfect passive preamp for me. By accident, a friend of mine bought a device that opened my eyes wide. It worked well in his system, where he plays mainly vinyl records. But surprisingly for me, and I listen to DSD files through RME ADI DAC with active Genelec monitors. The sound became really analog, the scene is real. Before, I thought it was cool. But when I connected the Vinius audio TVC 05 - because we are talking about it, I only saw how far in the field I was with the sound. I am very impressed with this device. Right now it's too expensive for me, but I'm starting to fundraise to buy.

[ArcticSapien]

@Jacobsen These passive preamps (and amps) look and sound nice... I often wonder why we have to lose an arm and a leg for them when they seem to have less parts. Less is more! At these lofty prices, it's like buying an artwork. Still dreaming of having one though.

 

Here's Japan's Kondo passive preamps (with eye-watering price tags)

https://www.audionote.co.jp/en/products/pre_amplifier/

[botrytis]

Passive pre's, unless buffered, do change the sound because as you increase the volume you change the resistance going to the amp. They can sound nice at one volume softer or louder will be totally different.

 

Passive Pre's are far from perfect.

[davide256]

13 hours ago, botrytis said:

Passive pre's, unless buffered, do change the sound because as you increase the volume you change the resistance going to the amp. They can sound nice at one volume softer or louder will be totally different.

 

Passive Pre's are far from perfect.

 Can you even use XLR with a passive pre?

[botrytis]

7 minutes ago, davide256 said:

 Can you even use XLR with a passive pre?

 

I know my Bow Tech Wazoo had a passive pre with balanced out and balanced in. It wasn't buffered either.