|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.151.159.150
i'm using SS amp (boulder) as my speakers (rockport) require it, but am hoping to find a preamp that has the same sort of harmonic completeness that a SET amp has.
preferrably balanced w/ a remote, budget 10k, glad to spend less, new or used. any recs welcome.
mahalo
Follow Ups:
This is a tubed SET preamp.
The dynamic range is so good that you don't need a remote!
All you need to do is set the volume just slightly above your normal listening level.
I never have to re-adjust the volume knob again during playback.
Balanced with scads of harmonic wholosity!
"Your liver suffers dearly now for youthful magic moments...so rock on completely with some brand new components"
I see a few mentions of BAT gear in this thread. BAT gear has an excellent reputation but is I believe all push-pull. The term "balanced" at least in pro audio circles refers to the interconnect method, not the internal amplification. It is perfectly practical to have a balanced input, single-ended amplification, and balanced output. You can even do this (with transformers for example) at either or both ends of an otherwise unbalanced amp or preamp - and you will thereby gain the main advantage, which is immunity to common-mode noise.
I'm afraid that the BAT name and acronym have contributed to this confusion. I can understand the intent - "balanced" has a nice harmonious sound to it, and the word itself has many positive meanings. But as far as I know their gear is not single-ended internally.
If by saying "sounds like a SET" you are after the big and rosy glow of tubes, then I might suggest the VAC Standard pre. It has a remote and a very nice phono stage if I remember correctly.
Audio Note preamps have balanced outputs and come with remote control available and under $10k new. And it's SET. But you would have to check which models come with Remote.
If you consider them - you can probably audition it someplace and then order it exactly the way you want it since their mid level stuff and up is basically made to order.
Audio Note has written an article on Balanced amplifiers called...
"So You Thought Your Amplifier Was Balanced?
No matter what the advertising or manual says it probably isn’t!"
and there seems like a lot of confusion as the Audio Note article points out. But they did not cover all the scenarios.
We offered the first balanced line product to high end audio in 1987, the MA-1, which is a fully-differential OTL, balanced inside and out. We followed that in 1989 with the first fully-differential preamp, which also happened to be all-tube. The BAT founders were some of our first customers.
The scenario that the article omits is zero feedback differential tube circuits, fed by regulated supplies and highly effective 2-stage vacuum-tube constant current sources. The CMRR is greater than the noise floor of the circuitry, well above 110db. But that is what is at the inputs of all of our amps and preamps. It really is symmetrical.
That takes care of the even ordered harmonics (no classic tube sound) and the zero feedback and outright linearity takes care of the odd ordered harmonics (so its not harsh either). When you get rid of distortion, smoothness and detail are suddenly hand in hand; a lot like the sound of an SET at very low volume.
"It really is symmetrical.
That takes care of the even ordered harmonics (no classic tube sound) and the zero feedback and outright linearity takes care of the odd ordered harmonics (so its not harsh either)."
Ralph, there's nothing linear about the operation of the tubes in your output stage.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
-
"20. The operating potentials of a tube must be adjusted so that
conduction takes place in the proper operating regions of the
characteristic curves. Selecting an operating point for a triode on
the straight portion of the characteristic curves [and limiting the input signal so the operation of the tube never leaves the straight portion of the characteristic curve] will providec. a change in plate current that is proportional to a change in
grid potential."This is , more or less, the definition of the linear operation of a triode.
Your output tubes are not operated this way.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
"inflamed, Provoke or intensify (strong feelings, esp. anger) in someone."
This is not my intent.
"extraneous, Irrelevant or unrelated to the subject being dealt with."
This is not unrelated or off-topic at all.
Your claim about your amplifiers, "....and outright linearity takes care of the odd ordered harmonics (so its not harsh either)."
This is meant to be a technical, scientific discussion and analysis of the output stage of your amplifiers as to whether or not they should be described as operating in a linear way.
I am refuting what you have claimed and I am doing so with known science.
What is your technical response?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 05/17/12 05/17/12
i think the main thing is to be sure you're getting what you think you're getting - if so then great.I have not really heard amps that sound like SET that were not SETs. In fact that premise is bothersome - it's the same Carver like statement that he can make a SS sound like tube - but which tube and which SET.
An Audio Note 300b SET doesn't sound like a Cary 300B SET - not even remotely close to sounding the same. They may both be SET - they may both use 300bs (the same 300Bs) but they don't sound alike. And that does not even begin to address the other variety of tubes 2a3, 845, EL84 etc.
Perhaps the idea is set characteristics - better transients, decay, body, whatever.
But then I start to immediately think - if we want a design to "sound like a SET" then why not simply build a SET they you can be SURE it will have those characteristics.
Perhaps it is about generating higher power to drive difficult to drive loudspeakers - but usually all those speakers sound worse so why bother with the effort. No matter how good the amp is it's just going to be railroaded by the Low Efficiency dynamically dead loudspeakers anyway.
I'm not entirely convinced this is necessary for the average home user anyway. But I always remain open to being convinced. I suppose though comparisons can really only be made within brand. Comparing X amp with RCA and Balanced - because it is not necessarily the case that Amp 1 from maker A in balanced configuration will sound better than manufacturer B with Amp 2 using RCA.
PS - saw your Atma-Sphere amps in Hong Kong and they look very well made indeed - the dealer had the cover off - I believe he was breaking in some new speakers. I enjoy the audio shops all stacked on top of each other. It's a mini CES.
Edits: 05/12/12
Every time I have heard what I thought was a successful SET system there were very high efficiency speakers involved. The SET systems that I felt did not show off the amps did not have such high efficiency.
SETs have unmeasurable distortion at lower powers. Take away distortion and detail is usually revealed. So if they are allowed to operate at low power levels relative to their total output power, I find most SETs to by quite transparent. It is that property that other amps can share *if* care is taken to a) not use feedback and b) get rid of distortion by other means.
How our stuff differs from SETs is that we don't get the 'dynamic' quality at higher power levels, although at those power levels the amps can sound surprisingly relaxed and free of loudness cues- a lot like real music.
But in the case of the OT, a single-ended preamp should not be that hard to sort out. IMO it probably should be zero feedback for best results relative to the OT.
Thanks Ralph for setting the record straight and for producing the finest audio units out. I am still saving my pennies to be able to purchase a couple of your wonderful units.
You can get closer, but not there yet, with a class A PP triode, using DH triodes. Next closest would be class A PP triode, using something like a KT88/6550. However, both these are too probably too low power to drive your speakers and , at the end of the day, they don't sound like SET, just close.
From there, it's a long way to where you want to go, and the only SS amps I have heard that come even close are the designs like First-Watt, but I haven't heard that many SS amps to tell the truth, and these amps are also low in power as a rule.
You can get colorations of different sorts from preamps, also some changes in detail and sound stage, and maybe even balance, but that's about it, at least as far my experience goes.
Observe, don't think
nt
I don't know if it "sounds like a SET" (what is that sound?) but I've been running a BAT VK-50SE preamp for 10 years now and I can vouch for its reliability and the long life of the valves in the unit. In fact, I am just thinking of replacing the tubes to see if a new set of 8 will make a difference in the sound (I think the volume has dropped a little in the last months or so).
It's a balanced preamp (there are no RCA sockets) and has a very handy remote control.
You can find these on the used market for under $4000.
Regards,
Geoff
nt
Most tube preamps are single-ended triode...... But single-ended implies exactly that..... It cannot be "balanced"....... But I do think Balanced Audio Technology products use "single-ended" triode circuits, one for the positive leg and one for the negative leg, in its balanced design.....
If I am wrong on this, please correct me. Thank you.
Shindo, but if you have to have a remote Allnic.
Beatnik's stuff http://web.me.com/jnr1/Site/Beatniks_Pictures.html
.
he did say balanced
.
Then they are not going to sound like SETs are they?
Beatnik's stuff http://web.me.com/jnr1/Site/Beatniks_Pictures.html
.of course not, you can't use a solid state power amp and expect it to sound like an SET, but a balanced preamp that uses SET tubes will inject some of what he is looking for.
.
Edits: 05/05/12 05/05/12
The extremely rare EV-20 by Conrad Johnson, no remote though.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
.
not balanced either so it meets none of his criteria
.
Operative words used:"preferably" "all recommendations welcome"
His words.
Some purist designers are aware remotes and volumes pots/attenuators introduce gross noise in a preamp circuit.
"With the L2, Vladimir Lamm preferred to emphasize circuit purity over convenience, which is also the reason no Lamm preamp is remote controlled. "Bad for sound," says Vlad. "So be it," is my response. I'll take the sound of the L1 over convenience, although I still long for remote control."
I am one of those eccentrics, AND am not alone.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
I don't think the remote is a big issue - it may add a slight issue to an amplifier but the thing to keep hold of is, is the Amplifier with remote from Company A better than the amp without remote from company B?
Company A may be a much better designer and thus even with the added issues that a remote presents - it's still better than company B's best effort without the added issues that a remote presents.
The only way to settle an issue on this is to listen to the exact same amplifier that comes in a remote and non remote version and then listen to the difference. Some makers Like Audio Note offer both versions and you get to decide how much the remote affects the sound and if it is is worth it for the remote control.
I personally don;t see the need because I have to get up to change the disc or record and while I am standing there I can turn the volume knob.
But with people who use digital media as their main listening source and with wildly different recording levels then it makes sense to have a remote for the volume control - or better a way to control the output volume at the computer lowering the level being fed to the preamp.
.some purist designers are aware remotes and volumes pots/attenuators introduce gross noise
That is pure marketing BS that appeals to some of the snobs in this hobby.
It is just plain silly. Some of the most highly regarded preamps on the planet have remotes. All preamps have some type of attenuator. Having the ability to control it from a distance does not have to introduce "gross noise" or any type of noise. A designer who can't design a circuit that isolates the circuits controlling the remote function from the rest of the circuit needs to go back to school.
.
Edits: 05/05/12
Have you heard Lamm Preamps?
But then if one is not using say Quad electrostatics or Khorns or any Altec Lansing classic set up, one may not be aware.
Herbert Spencer is called for here...
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which will keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
You are free to remain willfully ignorant.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
.
I found it to be a bit dark and lifeless.
I assure you I have a system capable of making me aware and I am most assuredly not "willfully ignorant."
That, however, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just because he chose not to incorporate a remote proves nothing. Many others do use remotes, and like I said, some are among the most highly regarded on the planet.
.
"I lose a lot of business," Lamm says, "because people ask me for a preamp with remote control, and I say, 'No. No. No!' My company exists to make the best sound humanly possible, and anything other than that..."
He didn't finish his sentence. He didn't have to.
Not that I have respect for Stereophile,
or anyone whom thinks or believes they own the 'best'
The room trumps any consideration regardless and the topic remains any remote renders the signal sub-standard.
then again, I have never been so lethargic as to not stand up and walk.
Perhaps, when I grow feeble, the remote would make sense.
I build for my own pleasure and to a higher degree of quality than any save a couple pieces by darTZeel and the late Allen Wright.
This does not MAKE my system the best.
IT does make for one that provides *contentment*
An extremely rare 'condition' for those engaged in this hobby.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
.
.......and anything other than that..."
He didn't finish his sentence. He didn't have to.
Not that I have respect for Stereophile,
Early morning ramblings of an impaired inmate? How did Stereophile get involved?
.
Character assassination secondary to having run out of ideas?
The quote for Lamm was from Stereophile,
Is proper to give a source.
and yes, Allen Wright did not provide a remote for any of his gear.
You would do well to scope out an Allen Wright design, without a doubt, an entirely new circuit.
Unlike the mass market high end dreck that passes for cutting edge. Top flight industrial design mated with a circuit that was obsolete 30 years
ago, sadly because they cannot read a schematic.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
.Character assassination? It doesn't take a genius to figure out the source of barely comprehensible rambling post at 2:30 in the morning.
I have plenty of ideas, I build all my own stuff, but the idea that putting a remote in something degrades the sound is silly. You have to have an attenuator.... operating it with your hand or with a motor or operating switches with your fingers or with relays is no different other than convenience.
I gave you my reasoning why it makes no difference You offer no proof other than a few designers you respect who don't use them. I can offer you a dozen more well respected designers who do use them. So that puts us at a standstill unless you can come up with a logical reason to support your theory.
You can't have a logical discussion about something if the only thing you have to offer is "Allen Wright didn't do it so it is not a good thing to do" .... So tell me.... HOW does a remote introduce "gross noise?"
Next we need to examine your role model the mad Russian. He claims purity of circuit but uses electrolytic caps. Those two things are mutually exclusive.
He also claims this for his phono stage which is also marketing BS.
Its unique circuitry utilizes specially selected very low noise high trans-conductance Western Electric 417A / 5842 vacuum tubes.
He doesn't use WE tubes. If you ask they tell you that the slash means "or." I guess they contacted Bill Clinton on that one. They say the supply of WE is not reliable so they use Raytheon 5842. If they don't use WE and never intend to use WE why put it in the literature? Obliviously they are deliberately misleading us wanting us to think they use WE.
I can't trust a guy who operates like that.
.
Edits: 05/06/12 05/06/12
Let me make it simple for you Sport. A high quality attenuator transformer exerts the least detriment to a signal. Explain to me how one implements a remote with that setup? I do not know how.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
.
I too am a big fan of the AVC especially the work Dave Slagle is doing at Intact Audio
The link below has a great one with a remote? Take a look at the TAP-X.
P.S. I see you have nothing so far to back up your assertion that a remote introduces "gross noise."
If you come up with something there is no need to keep it simple. I can keep up.
.
Cannot work {passive}, I change out too many amps I build and others have built and the impedance changes too much.
I thought you were serious.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
That is not the point. You could use the same remote controlled AVC in an active pre if you wanted. Typical internet loser. Get proven wrong and create a diversion by ignoring the facts and coming up with yet another excuse.
Passives are indeed a very good path if you follow a few simple guidelines. .I would tell you what they are but you would ignore it. Even if a passive is not a good match for your amp you could easily add a buffer to it, but I'm sure you would come up with some lame excuse again to avoid saying you were wrong. You do know that an active pre is simply a passive attenuator with a buffer don't you?
I'm done with you. . I see your kind over and over. You simply can't admit you are wrong so you ignore being proven wrong and create a diversion by moving on to some other topic.
You say a remote introduces noise but when asked why you ignore it.
You say you can't have a remote with an AVC and I show you that you can and you ignore it.
I show you that Lamm is full of marketing BS and you ignore it.
I show you his circuits are not "pure" as he claims and you ignore it.
I ask you below to explain why SETs and remotes are opposites and you ignore it.
See the pattern?
In any case since you can't address any of my points I am done with you.
good day sport
.
Interesting, so successful designers such as Arthur Loesch, Allen Wright, Vlad Lamm are losers because your mindset {conceptual continuity} is such that YOUR experience is superlative.
I can agree to disagree and YOU,
Can
Refuse
to grow up.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Arthur and Allen are no longer with us so I would be careful quoting them.
dave
You can find your answer for Allen in these forums.
Arthur is on record.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
.
NOT!
Thank you for continuing to prove my point. I said you are a loser because you continue to offer absolutely no reason why a remote adds "gross noise" and you continue to ignore every point I make and you continue to create diversions.
Now you've done it again.
I never said those guys were losers; you made that up... diversion.
I never said that my experience was superlative; you made that up.... diversion.
I thought perhaps after my last post you would speak to at least one of my points. I laid them out very clearly but all you can come up with is repeating that a few successful designers don't use a remote while ignoring the fact than many do. Of course that can't be refuted so you continue to ignore it.
grow up indeed, now that's funny
...
Feel free to consider me 'a loser' if that assauges your ego.
Hubris is not a trait I aspire to.
If you refuse to accept another point of view there is another word for that too.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
.
great.... another diversion... at least you are consistent
It is not a "different point of view." Either a remote introduces "gross noise" or it does not. I was just trying to get you to explain why you think it does other than because somebody else does.
I do enjoy these little discussions and it is fun for a while to see guys like you avoid any type of meaningful exchange, but you have us stuck in an infinite loop. You have offered nothing of substance, ignored every point I made, ignored every question I asked, ignored every time I showed you you were wrong, and attributed things you made up to me while I clearly explained my position. If that is hubris I guess I am guilty. I’ll break the loop
.
"He claims purity of circuit but uses electrolytic caps. Those two things are mutually exclusive"
As Does your solution to my No remote stand,
This is known as a non-sequitor,
Illogical and or hypocritical, choose your adjective.
As an audio signal is passing through the volume control the signal IS @ its weakest. At this stage, the audio signal is VERY vulnerable to noise pollution and interference. A major source of such distortion is the commonly used remote volume controls that you {or those audiophiles such as yourself} proffer. Why you fail to understand such a basic premise yields the point being
ON
YOUR
HEAD.
Actually, am surprised you had not mentioned a method newly introduced BY dartzheel which WILL enable a remote to work unobtrusively.
{all though it has not been implemented in THAT way as of yet, it IS now feasible}
Gas filled relays CAN work, albeit VERY expensive.
Evidently, ignorance is not bliss as had you known You might have achieved your elation of trying to maneuver {believing your intellect superior} in the proper fashion by telling me you WERE aware.
P.S.
Your Hubris {skirt?} is still showing.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
After being asked like what, nine times??? You finally offer something. Thanks. However, I disagree. Here’s why.
Your premise presumes that it is impossible to make a remote controlled switch that won’t inject noise into a signal. That is just not true. Examples…
1. A stepper motor controlled by a circuit that goes to sleep when not being used. It can control whatever rotary control you do approve of. You could even put the receiver and control circuit in another box and the motor on a long shaft away from the switch if you were so worried about noise. It would be absolutely no different than walking up to the pre and turning it by hand.
2. Same thing with relays, if you are concerned with the signal going through a relay you could have it on the ground leg of the voltage divider.
3. I can come up with more if needed.
Despite that, let’s presume for a second that it can’t be done. It would still make no difference since any well designed system is set up so you are using it with the volume control set to the top part of its range. If you are turning it down so low that the signal is significantly weaker than that then your system is poorly designed i.e. it has too much gain. Think about this… a phono stage can be designed to handle signals that never go above a few millivolts which means the low level info is down in microvolts yet they can be dead quiet and sound quite glorious. Don’t you think the same people can design a way to switch volume without doing any damage?
That being said, this will never be settled, but thanks for finally participating. You evidently believe in what a few designers tell you. I’ve heard way too many systems using remote preamps that sound fantastic to believe it is limiting factor.
Take care
.
Implement remote completely separate from the audio circuit....Bent Audio (used by Slagle in his autoformer units), Placette, EVA, etc....not all that expensive either.I believe the guy from Dartzeel is using LDRs in his preamp...certainly not a pioneer there either.
Thought the post made by your enemy on the Lamm bullshit was a great one.
Edits: 05/07/12
I can confirm this. The key to the EVA is that the remote volume control only varies the light intensity on the LDR. There are no moving parts or multiple contacts. It's as transparent and noise free as can be. I believe I read somewhere that it's been determined that typical switch contacts are more detrimental to sound quality then adding another set of interconnects.I've written this before, but it's worth repeating: at a little over $400 including shipping, the EVA 2 has to be one of the best values in all of Audio. To further insure there's no added noise, I replaced the wall-wart PS with a linear/regulated supply for about $40. Let's see, EVA 2 LDR attenuator $400 or Dartzeel LDR attenuator $20,000. Or is it $30,000?
Gerry
Edits: 05/08/12 05/08/12
I put my name in for an EVA 2 some time ago but it doesn't seem like we will see them again. Haven't heard anything about another production run.
In the meantime, I acquired an AVC from Dave Slagle. This thing is a revelation. It is far superior to all of the higher priced preamps I have owned (some much higher). I hope to find an EVA or perhaps try the LDR from Australia but I think I reached the pinnacle already.
#
-andre d
.
There are a lot of tube preamps with remotes. Why do you say they are opposites?
sort of like When Louis Armstrong was asked to describe Jazz,
"If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand"
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
.I understand jazz and I understand SETs I just don't understand why having a remote control is "opposite" of having an SET amp.
.
Edits: 05/05/12
nt
Cut-Throat
maybe some DSP designer can add a few more options to the list:
1. Concert hall
2. Stadium
3. Jazz club
4. Make it sound like SET preamplification
5. Make this POS sound like perfect SET sound
(:
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: