|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.131.186.2
In Reply to: RE: Don't experience that posted by E-Stat on May 15, 2011 at 07:02:16
Don't experience that with my Audio Research preamp. Perhaps the Coincident is "enhancing" that region.
Hi E-Stat,
That's not surprising. Here's another exerpt from that article linked below comparing pre-amp less to my own active ARC pre (not Coincident) Note, especially, the last 2 sentences; "
"The LS3 releases all that lower-mid information to amps and speakers capable of operating in this area. The result is enhanced realism; musical notes become whole, and complete, the resonance of certain instruments is liberated allowing the instrument(s) to sound truly like the real thing and as big as life, notes in this region are more full, they expand, they linger for longer, then they slowly fade into oblivion regardless of the cacaphony around them. I was lucky to have an amp and speakers that were capable of showcasing the considerable advantage the LS3 holds over 'pre-amp-less' (and other pre-amps) in the lower-mids - otherwise, I might never have bought it. If, however, ones amps or speakers also limit the lower-mids, as the vast majority do, then one will never notice that much of a difference in this area."
Here's, also a para-phrasing of Stereo-Mojo's comparison of 'pre-amp less' with the active Coincident pre; [Stereo-Mojo's reviewer reported in his review of the same pre-amp that his wife (perhaps the epitome of a non-audiophile) commented on the 'fuller' tone of this pre-amp, compared to 'pre-amp less'. In their opinion, the difference between the pre-amp less mode's performance and that of the active pre-amp in that system, while not being 'night and day', was certainly as much as 'pre-dusk and pre-dawn' - if you catch the drift. Not the greatest of anologies, perhaps, but by the context, we can safely assume the difference is significant, as the following would further indicate: They both consistently heard and felt the increased timbre and texture of instruments and voices, particularly piano, aboe, bassoon, saxaphone, tympami, close-mic'd strings, and both male and female voices. He and his non-audiophile wife both heard more bite and more roundness to the sound].
I really don' think it's an issue of the Coincident 'enhancing' the lower-mids since I've repeatedly demonstrated and experienced this with my own ARC over the past 8 years, or so. (This ARC also has a 'Direct' or passive pre-amp mode, btw). Oh, and I did run my system pre-amp less for years before being blown-away by the more natural & realistic performance of the ARC. And the more robust, realistic lower-mids is what really makes the difference 'cause the hi-mids and highs are definitely clearer thru the 'Direct' mode, or pre-amp less, but definitely thinner at the lower-mids, sadly.
But to more illustrate the fact that this is not an issue of the Coincident being enhanced, perhaps I could take the liberty of quoting one of our own inmates, Mike555 (from a post late last year) whose Prima-Luna may not be as clear as a Coincident in the highs, but his references to a more 'melodic' and 'better balanced' sound can only be ascribed to the similar performance of the active Prima-Luna at the lower-mids: "Hi. I have a Rega P5 feeding a Graham Slee Reflex M phono stage feeding a Primaluna Prologue 3 preamp feeding a McIntosh MC-2105 amp (with gain controls). I have discovered that, for some recordings, the output sounds better when the Graham Slee phono stage is connected directly to the McIntosh amplifier. The preamplifier mellows out the output, and make it sounds better balanced, but sometimes at the expense of the size of the soundstage and the level of detail. Is this unusual? Am I missing something by taking the preamp out of the chain?" [Re; the full thread at: http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=amp&m=161073 ]
As to your concern about not experiencing the difference, I refer you again to the last 2 sentences of the first quotation, even as I recognize the excelence of both your systems - congrats on that, btw. However, in my experience, many excellent and highly reputed components do not accord the lower-mids a similar level of prominence as they do in their superlative depiction of the rest of the spectrum. I'm not sure if this would apply to any of the components in either of your chains. And though I'm familiar with my own LS3, I'm not sure the SP9 (both ARC) shares the attribute at low-mid, though I think it should. Additionally, all great electro-stat di-poles such as yours depend a lot on 'boundary assistance' for reinforcement at the lower-mids in the sense that their characteristics, here, can be adjusted to cooler or warmer tones by placement. Mono-poles are also affected, but less so, by comparison. My suggestion would be, if you're so inclined, to try this experiment with your double-stacked (New) Advents, the SP9, and an amp renown for lower-mid performance - Mac, C-J, ARC, etc (most high-end tube-amps would do). If any of your own amps share this attribute, then you're good to go (I'm not familiar with their sound). I'm also not familiar with New Advents, but if their lower-mids are similar to Original Advents, and IF ALL other components are proficient at the lower mids, then you should EASILY discern the difference between pre-amp less and active pre.
But why bother. Were I you, I'd just wrap myself in the rapture of those SoundLabs. (Is it A-1? I don't recall).
Congrats, again, on 2 great systems!
Follow Ups:
I was lucky to have an amp and speakers that were capable of showcasing the considerable advantage the LS3 holds over 'pre-amp-less' (and other pre-amps) in the lower-mids - otherwise, I might never have bought it. If, however, ones amps or speakers also limit the lower-mids, as the vast majority do, then one will never notice that much of a difference in this area."
I agree about the importance of the "warmth" region. In my case, I find no difference in tonal quality between using my ARC preamp vs. DACT attenuators with a GamuT CD-1. Only a loss of transparency and stage width using the preamp.
And though I'm familiar with my own LS3, I'm not sure the SP9 (both ARC) shares the attribute at low-mid, though I think it should.
I originally bought the unit as a MKII and had the factory update it to MKIII specs. That change itself improved the lower midrange output and removed a touch of thinness with the MKII flavor. I don't perceive any change of tonal balance when the preamp is bypassed and replaced by attenuators.
Additionally, all great electro-stat di-poles such as yours depend a lot on 'boundary assistance' for reinforcement at the lower-mids in the sense that their characteristics, here, can be adjusted to cooler or warmer tones by placement.
Couldn't agree more. I spent a considerable amount of time experimenting with speaker placement, backplate setting (bass control for the Sound Labs) and bass trap placement. Through listening and verification with measurements, I arrived at a roughly eight foot out from the back wall placement for the speakers with all the 18" trips behind them. I got extremely smooth response from 25 hz to 200 hz.
My suggestion would be, if you're so inclined, to try this experiment with your double-stacked (New) Advents, the SP9, and an amp renown for lower-mid performance - Mac, C-J, ARC, etc (most high-end tube-amps would do).
In the vintage system, I run a Manley DAC with tube output directly to a Threshold Stasis 3. As for New Advents vs. old, they have more power handling and better top end response with a simpler crossover (which I have updated). Advents don't mate well with tube amps at all because of their high output impedance. The Stasis works significantly better with them. And having the DAC line stage drive the amps directly improved resolution.
Is it A-1?
U-1s with the steel frame using the "Hot Rodded" backplates with improved passive parts. Click my moniker to find more details and pics.
Congrats, again, on 2 great systems!
Thanks.
rw
"I agree about the importance of the "warmth" region. In my case, I find no difference in tonal quality between using my ARC preamp vs. DACT attenuators with a GamuT CD-1. Only a loss of transparency and stage width using the preamp.
"
You are sure about this? I have always heard a loss of dynamics when going passive and any slight gain in transparency is offset by a distinct loss of drive and bleaching of the tone. This has been true with many amps, speakers, sources etc. and many passives.
...in my system a passive unit I previously used had greater or equal dynamics to two different tube preamps (Audio Res. LS-7 and a Decware ZTPRE) and had much better leading edge transient attack or impact. The one area where the passive was lagging was in the trailing edge where the sound wasn't as sustained as it was in the actives.
Interesting, of course the problem with a passive design is that it is always taking something away from the signal and giving nothing back. Almost all active preamps first attenuate and then feed that attenuated signal into a relatively high gain section and then out to the amp. This means that the full drive of the preamp is going into the amp and not a resistor before going to an amp.
This could be why you were losing the decays earlier with the passives. It takes a VERY good preamp not to smear the sound somewhat on leading edges and most are not up to it. I had one of the best passive pres ever made (little known company called Purist from Germany) and my Silvaweld preamp still walked all over it in terms of tone and dynamics, although maybe not leading edge transients.
As I have stated on numerous occasions, I acknowledge that attenuators don't work optimally in all systems. If anything, I find that bypassing the superfluous gain stage improves dynamics at the low end of the scale. For me, it's not a question of having a preamp or not. I use a preamp where its gain is needed - for phono. And leave it switched off when I choose the CD source.
If you find passives wanting, why is it that you choose one for use in your system?
rw
wasn't really a choice as the amp I stock came that way (I was a dealer for KR Audio for a while).So its what I have and I could bypass it for better sound but don't feel its worth the effort. I do use an active preamp behind it though and turn the pot up to max as a work around (minimizes the effect of the pot at that way). So my system isn't really passive.
I noticed under your equipment profile you list nothing under preamp.
rw
That's because the Monarchy M24 DAC ALSO has a separate line stage (with a separate input so I can run my phono stage through it as well) and you can switch the DAC output thorough the preamp or you can take it directly out, which I would do if I had another preamp. The preamp in the DAC has its own power supply and is even on its own board. It is a simple 1 tube per channel SRPP configuration that has a relatively low output impedance (a few hundred ohms) without negative feedback. The DAC output stage is also feedback free and I believe a similar SRPP circuit using one tube per channel.
It turns out that the preamp inside the Monarchy DAC is excellent. No, its not quite as good as the Silvaweld SWC1000 preamp I used to have (not much else is as good either...what a machine) but its far better than anything close to its price and better than anything I have heard SS. So I use it and then to switch from digital to analog is just a push button away.
Of course now I have an extra volume pot in the way, which is less than ideal but when its a full open I figure its impact is not major, sure sounds good anyway!
E-Stat,
I realize, now, that you are serious about getting more 'warmth' from your (main?) system, in particular. I'm very sure your VTL 450 is absolutely capable in that regard - so that's not a problem. I wonder, though, if with the SoundLabs 8' out from the wall, whether the lower-mids are sufficiently reinforced. I'm not sure, another inmate, Duke LeJuene of AudioKinesis, is a SoundLab fan and (former?) user - let's hope he sees this and jumps in to advise you.
But from where I sit, and from what you've said, I'd be more inclined to take a serious look at that SP9. I know some ARC fans think the SP9 is not amongst the best of ARC pre-amps. And you 've mentioned: "I originally bought the unit as a MKII and had the factory update it to MKIII specs. That change itself improved the lower midrange output and removed a touch of thinness with the MKII flavor. I don't perceive any change of tonal balance when the preamp is bypassed and replaced by attenuators."
Regarding the SP9's 'thinness' you cited, I wonder if ALL of it was removed. I know no such thinness existed in (others around that era) the SP8, SP10, SP11, or LS3. The LS1 & LS2 are not highly rated, as I recall, and those were derived from (you guessed it) the SP9, I believe. Perhaps this could be where your issue lies.
Another of our inmates, Bambi, is expert on ALL things ARC, she owns SP8, LS3, and SP10, among others (amps included). She knows all about every pre-amp ARC has ever made (and perhaps some W.Z. Johnson hasn't thought of as yet, LOL) Let's hope she also sees this and jumps in to advise you on the SP9.
Bye the way, as far as tubes go, all ARC's tend towards the 'neutral' (some more than others). If it turns out that the SP9 is the actual cause for your concern then, in seeking an alternative, I'd look at the Conrad-Johnson line - notorious for bringing extra 'warmth' to a 'cool' system.
Oh, and regarding the 2nd system, I know the Threshold was totally awesome in most respects - not sure it was renown for its performance at the lower-mids, though, certainly not to the level of your VTL, I'm sure.
Best of luck with the SP9.
I realize, now, that you are serious about getting more 'warmth' from your (main?) system, in particular.
Why on earth would I want to do that? As for me, I prefer a neutral overall response.
I wonder, though, if with the SoundLabs 8' out from the wall, whether the lower-mids are sufficiently reinforced.
This is a very important point. Regardless of the sonic signature of various components, you want a neutral result in the end. In room measurements vary by +- 1.5 db from 30 hz to 200 hz. As compared to live sources like my wife's baby grand, the lower midrange is as neutral as it measures. You might, however, prefer the garage system where there are 3db peaks at 160 hz and 320 hz which creates some artificial warmth.
rw
E-Stat
If one were to go back over the history and content of our correspondence, one could get the distinct impression that there were issues with your system(s) you were seeking assistance at resolving. I use the word 'could' deliberately because I feel you were deliberately ambiguous in your outreach for advice so that you could get that advice , and then turn around and pretend that you were never seeking that advice in the first place. [A man of your (assumed) intellegence ought to be able to express himself vastly more clearly than you have, consistently. Therefore, there must have been a clandestine motive for the ambiguity}.
As to your motive for such a charade, my guess would be 'pride'. Perhaps you want to convey, to your peers, the impression that all is well with your system(s) even though you have significant issues that need resolving. At the very least, this would be extremely hypocritical. There are other descriptive terms I could use, but I'll refrain, in the interest of civility. Suffice it to say, I do not appreciate being used in such a manner. In keeping with your custom, I'd expect you to deny every word of this, but that is entirely expected, under the circumstances. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I sincerely doubt it.
With the above being said, I've already consigned that issue to the realms of ancient-history.
However, there is another issue which cannot be so easily written-off (or explained away) as there's no excuse for it. It is unfortunate that in the course of discourse, so to speak, some feel inclined to sneek-in snide remarks laced with tongue-in-cheek cynicism bordering on the blatantly insulting - for no good reason.
Your words; "As compared to live sources like my wife's baby grand, the lower midrange is as neutral as it measures. You might, however, prefer the garage system where there are 3db peaks at 160 hz and 320 hz which creates some artificial warmth."
What could have motivated you to say such a thing? You need not bother to respond, as I've lost my interest in conversing with you. Perhaps some other time - not this minute. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an apology to make elsewhere.
Thanks for another of life's lessons.
...one could get the distinct impression that there were issues with your system(s) you were seeking assistance at resolving.
I sure don't see how. First, I point out that I hear no difference in tonal response to using the preamp or not. You didn't accept my opinion and pressed on. In my second response, I reinforced the fact. Remember this?
In my case, I find no difference in tonal quality between using my ARC preamp vs. DACT attenuators with a GamuT CD-1.
And for the second time, you once again ignore what I said and press on. What part of "no difference in tonal quality" don't you understand? Then you introduce the ridiculous notion that I am "serious about getting more 'warmth' from your (main?) system". Huh? You continue to miss the point. Three times in a row. Is English a second language for you?
What could have motivated you to say such a thing?
You ignored my previous comments twice and for some reason, think I need or seek more output in the warmth region. I don't. If, on the other hand, you really like ripe output there, then you would clearly prefer the tonal balance with the garage system. Which is more a function of the room than the components.
Time to move on.
rw
E-Stat: - Well, you're certainly a piece of.....work. Now I'm certain of the reason for your deliberate ambiguity. (Talk about bait & swoop). But why bother with that charade? You must really lead a miserable life. The evidence is there to see, you're already exposed for what you are. Look back at the thread - and then move-on. I'm gone!
Edits: 05/16/11 05/16/11 05/16/11
The evidence is there to see...
Indeed it is. My comments have been clear and consistent:
1. Don't experience that with my Audio Research preamp.
2. In my case, I find no difference in tonal quality between using my ARC preamp vs. DACT attenuators with a GamuT CD-1.
3. I don't perceive any change of tonal balance when the preamp is bypassed and replaced by attenuators.
4. I got extremely smooth response from 25 hz to 200 hz.
5. Regardless of the sonic signature of various components, you want a neutral result in the end. In room measurements vary by +- 1.5 db from 30 hz to 200 hz. As compared to live sources like my wife's baby grand, the lower midrange is as neutral as it measures.
6. No, I don't want *more* warmth. I took considerable pains to get audibly and measurably flat response and that is where I want the sound to stay.
I recommend that you redouble your efforts with understanding the English language. Best of luck with your crusade. :)
rw
E-Stat:
By picking out snippets to show yourself in a favorable light, don't you think the astute amongst us will immediately recognize your ploy to divert them from looking at the full thread and comfirming what a diabolical creature you really are? Why should you want to be so 'helpful'? Let them see for themselves.
I'm not inclined to bother with your quip about the english language, except to remind... no.. ...inform you.... that the onus is on the comunicator to get his message across, in as clear and concise a manner as is possible. Mixed-messages, garbled ambiguity, and a general lack of clarity (deliberate, or otherwise) causing 'misunderstandings', is a reflection on the sender (the communicator) not on the recipient of said (mixed) messages. Or weren't you aware?
...that's the only explanation I can think of to explain your responses.
You've overstayed your welcome here. Next time you ask for input, accept it for what it is. Don't try to convince everyone that they need to adopt your point of view.
AbeCollins: - Don't be a fool. It's good the thread exists to look back on. I do have an opinion on the subject, but the content of my posts does not support your dishonest arguments. You are the main individual who has tried persistently to imply that I'm seeking to impose my views on others. Of what benefit would that be to me? What do I care whether you do as I do, or share my views? Your nefarious mind refuses to accept that this may just be a quest to gauge opinion on a pertinent topic. No, you prefer to highlight my own opinion, and attack it. Get real!
E-Stat,
Here's what you said, "I agree about the importance of the "warmth" region"
Now you say, "Why on earth would I want to do that? As for me, I prefer a neutral overall response." I do too. But aren't you somewhat confused? And does your concept of 'neutrality' preclude the presence of 'warmth', as you call it?
As to your 'gracious' offer; a glance at the post above will comfirm that I'm perfectly happy with my own system - more than any I can think of. Go ahead and search - you certainly wouldn't find any thread with me complaining about my components, or the sound (and then turning around to pretend I wasn't - just to impress onlookers). So why would you want to make such an offer.
However, if you'll get back to me, I tell you exactly what you can do with it.
Have a nice day!
I'll respond to your statement again:
that you are serious about getting more 'warmth' from your (main?) system, in particular.
No, I don't want *more* warmth. I took considerable pains to get audibly and measurably flat response and that is where I want the sound to stay. Don't need exaggerated response!
And does your concept of 'neutrality' preclude the presence of 'warmth', as you call it?
Not at all. Some electronics and systems sound thin in the warmth region. Some systems sound overblown in that region. I prefer neutrality to either extreme. Not thin. Not warm. Got it?
rw
...as evidenced by his response to you as you attempt to provide your input which he asked us to do.
He's done the same to me. I provided my input backed with examples and all he wants to do is cite some online rag and convince you that you're wrong. And when he can't, he resorts to being rude.
with a characteristic that is highly system dependent.
My system is similar to Mike's in its "attenuator friendly" nature: GamuT CDP with both low impedance (75 ohms) and high output (4 volts) combined with a first cousin to the amp both of you have - the VTL MB450 - which also has high input impedance (137k ohms) and high sensitivity (1.5 volts). I also use short, low cap ICs.
There's nothing to fix. Sheesh!
rw
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: