|
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: Are Passive Pre-Amps Lacking at Lower-Mids Compared to Active Pre's posted by waj4all on May 14, 2011 at 19:50:37
Somehow I got this notion that it'd be a great idea to seek feedback from audiophiles here as to whether a phenomenon I've encountered (as have others) was noticed by audiophiles here, and how wide-spread this experience may have been.
In the process I've been attacked by two main antagonists, with one or two others taking pot-shots from the periphery. I've been accused of trying to impose my views on others, and of trying to promote one of my web-sites, among other things, non of which has any bearing on the truth, as may be bourne-out by the full context of the thread, as it stands.
It is truly unfortunate that such a great forum could be dominated by a few antagonistic bullies who seem to have nothing better to do than to patrol the threads, here, with a view to provoking arguments so as to manufacture excuses to hurl insults at the unwary. Time and again I've seen where, in such an atmosphere, a topic which could have been helpful to many is manipulated to the point where it degenerates into a farce, with insults being hurled from left, right, and center. Speaking from experience, in such an atmosphere, some who would want to participate and air their views, or raise interesting issues, are intimidated and, there-by, discouraged from doing so.
In addressing the accusations, I'll highlight a few segments of some of the relevant posts.
"I've learned, from what I've seen at this forum, not to try to convince anyone of anything. This is not the place for it. That'd be like walking into a shooting-gallery with a target on one's back. No thanks. I've come to realize that many audiophiles are very set in their ways, some would tend to want to string you up from the nearest tree, if you disagree with them - I really don't need that."
"In the process of participating in this thread, some of my opinions may be made apparent. But am I trying to convince people here to see things my way? Again I say - no way! I have a site where all my views on such issues can be freely accessed - not here. My focus with this thread is merely to gauge opinion and the experiences of others. Limited snippets of my own opinions may become apparent, in the process, but certainly not with a view to convince anyone here of anything." [No Link was provided}
"Re; Stereo-Mojo & The Audio Critique as several seem to be adopting similar views on the subject . The full article from which the above was exerpted (is mainly about the Audio Critique) and is at my link below. Any similar experiences, here?" [ The link given goes directly to the article itself, not to the site which was only mentioned 'bye the way' in one other post (displayed here)].
It is significant that of my many posts on this thread, that site was mentioned only once, in the process of making a relevant point. It is similarly significant that the Link provided to my article (not the site) was necessary to facilitate access to the rest of that article from which the quote was exerpted. (re; the first post on this thread).
If this is 'site-promoting', as some would claim, then string me up from a suitable tree. As to my profession, I'm not an audio-journalist, as some would seek to suggest. Those people are actually paid for writing about audio - I am not. Despite the presence of Google-ads, since I never ever did seek to promote it, no real revnue is generated from it. As a passionate audiophile, I sometimes write on the topic in my spare-time - that is; time spared from my actual money-making endeavours. Also significant is that since joining this Asylum last year, I have only fifty-odd posts, up to now. If I were seeking to promote anything, here, I'd certainly have been one of the most active of inmates. How ridiculous a suggestion is this? One indicative of the level of one or two small minds bent on mischief.
On the topic of this thread I started, I does seem to be serving its purpose after all, despite all the efforts to derail it, and despite the efforts to turn it into a market-brawl.. An advocate, in defence of passives, had this to say, "...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"
Seems a fairly accurate statement, except that, compared with the best of actives, I'd characterize the leading-edge transient-response of passives as 'better, not 'much better'. But what is much, more significant is; "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" If this is so, then this would be a debilitating handicap in the quest for realistic reproduction, one would think, as this is the area where the resonance of many instruments, and the completion of many notes, are effected. Reproduction of music compromised in this area would be also compromised in its realism, one would also think.
This I've also found, in my own experience; "A recent storm had caused me to disconnect the system for several days. Impatiently, I'd eventually reconnected without the pre-amp, that's what reminded me of what the LS3 did for the system, and inspired me to expand this segment...... Without this pre-amp the system, to me, sounds dry and analytical, the type of sound many seem to love, but with which I’ve long been dissatisfied as it lacks the afore-mentioned elements necessary for natural realism. It reminded me of how the system sounded before the LS3's arrival. Reconnecting this pre-amp returned the blossom, bloom, glow, linger & fade of appropriate notes, and also returned the all-important lower-midrange body."
To me, the premise of this thread seemed a valid basis for meaningful discussion.
I seriously wonder as to the sense of a membership, here, if the majority is exposed to the voiciferous minority whose main purpose is to intimidate. This is truly despicable!
Follow Ups:
.."Seems a fairly accurate statement, except that, compared with the best of actives, I'd characterize the leading-edge transient-response of passives as 'better, not 'much better'. But what is much, more significant is; "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" If this is so, then this would be a debilitating handicap in the quest for realistic reproduction, one would think, as this is the area where the resonance of many instruments, and the completion of many notes, are effected. Reproduction of music compromised in this area would be also compromised in its realism, one would also think."
It would be dibilitating if it were a significant difference. It was not. Noticeable when listening very closely (read anal like) but subtle none the less. I certainly never missed it. I should have been more clear.
The other thing two of us were on you about was your misunderstanding of what E-Stat was saying about the "warmth region". He was NOT talking about his desire for a warmer sound but that the region in the musical spectrum HE CALLED the "warmth region" was important because what is done there can produce either cool or warm sound..he wanted his sound to be neutral. He was simply referring to this region as the "warmth region". You kept harping on his secret desire to get warmer sound and then how he was denying it. You misunderstood what he wrote and wouldn't allow yourself to be corrected...even by the guy who wrote it! Very annoying.
is certainly not original to me. I've seen it used in print by Dick Olsher, Martin Collums, Wes Phillips, Peter Moncrief, Paul Seydor, et. al. And your interpretation is correct.
I guess our Jamaican's greatest confusion was over my comments about the change wrought by the MKIII version of my preamp (that event was 12 years ago) where it "removed a touch of thinness with the MKII flavor". Removed. Fixed. Corrected. MKII - slightly thin. MKIII - not. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, the LS3 was released one year before the MKIII. Given the modest size of ARC, that most likely meant the same team designed and voiced both of them. I happily use it for vinyl playback where the phono EQ and gain is required.
So much whining over nothing.
rw
David,I will not be drawn into another senseless, non productive argument. But just to enlighten you I''ll reiterate; His points were made in an ambiguous manner (like the bible) subject to various interpetations. Anyone of reasonable intelligence should be able to express himself more clearly than that (even after his 2nd explanation, I was still having to guess at what his aim was - and I'm no fool). So either he's an idiot (which I doubt) or this was a deliberate ploy to bait me. It is understandable that you would interpet in his favor since you seem to make a habit of rushing to people's defence on issues you're not fully aware of. You did the same in assuming you knew why I was laughing at another of your cronies when, in truth, you don't have a clue.
But returning to this issue, you also seem to have missed what your friend said about his pre-amp. And this was long before he disclosed that he hardly uses it (and I don't blame him, I'd use pre-amp less over that piece anyday). Oh, and most importantly, you also seemed to have missed, conveniently, his tongue-in-cheek insult about me likely prefering the crappy-sounding system in his garage. (Crappy; by his depiction of it's characteristics). This, after cunningly baiting me for my input.
Nevertheless, thanks for graphically illustrating my point about the minority of pathetic bullies who seek mainly to intimidate. How quickly you have returned, is this all you do all day, every day? This fool is not shaking, I'm waiting on the others so as to put them in their places before I leave.
Bye the way, if you're interested in a possible reason the difference was so minor; " the rest of the system (the amps and,especially, the speakers) play a critical role as to whether the difference is nil, barely discernable, or 'night & day'....speakers which are lacking at the lower-mids (as many are) will not reveal that much of a difference, if any.
Edits: 05/16/11 05/16/11 05/16/11
And this was long before he disclosed that he hardly uses it
For the past fourteen years, I've always used it for vinyl playback. Admittedly, the usage is about 75% digital, 25% analog based upon the choice of music played from my library.
about me likely prefering the crappy-sounding system in his garage. (Crappy; by his depiction of it's characteristics)
Crappy sounding? Please read the system description found here . Unfortunately, it has some uncorrected room modes which creates artificial warmth. I don't have the room for a forest of bass traps there like I do upstairs. :)
rw
btw: Are you aware that by clicking the letter beside an inmate's moniker (the "A"), you get more details about them? That is also where you can read descriptions of their systems and find pictures.
E-Stat,O.K. E-Stat, I was trying to avoid this , but you keep posting and re-posting with references to me, so it's impossible not to respond - you've drawn me out (I didn't get round to cancelling my membership as yet).
But since I'm not interested in continuing in a hostile environment, let me be the first offer the olive-branch , and let by-gones be by-gones.
OK, you said; "I guess our Jamaican's greatest confusion was over my comments about the change wrought by the MKIII version of my preamp (that event was 12 years ago) where it "removed a touch of thinness with the MKII flavor". Removed. Fixed. Corrected. MKII - slightly thin. MKIII - not. At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, the LS3 was released one year before the MKIII. Given the modest size of ARC, that most likely meant the same team designed and voiced both of them. I happily use it for vinyl playback where the phono EQ and gain is required."
In responding, let me reiterate the fact that I believe both your systems are great. In commenting about that one in the 'garage', I had already taken into account that those issues you had described must have been room-related. So in pointing that out you'd have been preaching to the already-converted, so far as I am concerned. Those speakers may not be cutting-edge, if not highly modified, but I'm a big fan of everything Kloss did, from A-R thru KLH to Advent (not too sure about those mini-monitor 'Ensembles' at Cambridge, though) but all these others display the prowess and articulation in the lower mids that many modern designs don't (ie with systems which can access these attributes). This does not mean I'm a fan of excessive 'warmth' or excessive anything, btw, but my own DIY speaker-system is based on a Kloss-inspired driver because of these said rare attributes. (So realistic, compared directly to 'real-time' live music, they make my formerly-state-of-the-art BC1's sound like toys)
In reference to the SP9 in your main system, you pointed out; "... the LS3 was released one year before the MKIII. Given the modest size of ARC, that most likely meant the same team designed and voiced both of them. I happily use it for vinyl playback where the phono EQ and gain is required." The SP9 is good, as are all ARC products. But perhaps I should start by also pointing out that the SP9 and the LS3 are two COMPLETELY different designs (the SP9 is hybrid, and the LS3 is purely solid-state, btw) with two completely different reputations as to their performance. For what it's worth, the LS3 is amongst Stereophile's recommended components. It's also listed with Audio Critic's world's best pre-amps, by Martin Colloms. Despite its reasonable price, I too belive it's one of the world's best, based on its performance. Nevertheless, and regardless of whether the same team may have assembled them, the SP9 and LS3 are two horses of completely different colors, by design, parts and, not least, by reputation. Let's just say, there are issues, even within the ARC community, regarding the SP9 and a couple others of said brand - all are not equal, so to speak.
.
.
EDIT, EDIT, EDIT! OK, so the proverbial 'olive-branch' has hung out there for about three days now. And since this individual has been actively seeking to bait others on other threads, there can be no doubt as to his stance here, After expressing what I thought of him, and then ignoring him, he kept posting with references to me. Why he did this is answerable only by him (Perhaps another bait?). The 'branch' is now withdrawn, and the gloves are off as I now further expose this individual for what he really is. [I've previously asserted that this is one of two main indivduals who saw fit to bait me into arguments irrelevant to the premise of this thread I introduced].
Refering to the quote above, here's what he dishonestly tried to spin, - "At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, the LS3 was released one year before the MKIII. Given the modest size of ARC, that most likely meant the same team designed and voiced both of them." - Absolutely dishonest, despicable! By this, he would like to convince everyone (not me) that his SP9 and the LS3 are similar in performance (re; voicing) and design. If, as an avid astute and well-informed audiophile, he has owned the SP9 for more than 12 years (and knows as much as which years these models were released) he WILL have known quite a lot more about his model, it's standing in the ARC line, its level of performance in relation to others in the line (including the LS3) - he WILL have known what I know (as I've outlined above, in politely rebutting his argument). This man is as trust-worthy and genuine as a $13-bill - watch out for COUNTERFEITS & FRAUDS!
I could go on in detail, but I will not. I'll just highlight a few tit-bits; "I guess our Jamaican's greatest confusion was over my comments about the change wrought by the MKIII version of my preamp (that event was 12 years ago) where it "removed a touch of thinness with the MKII flavor". Removed. Fixed. Corrected. .MKII - slightly thin. MKIII - not..." - He now stresses; "Removed. Fixed. Corrected...." but conveniently ignores the more relevant implications of "a touch of" - which I'll provide - 'a little of', 'some of', 'not all of'. This is a classic example of the two mouthed sentences with double meaning he deliberately (he's no fool) used to bait me into position for him to spew his insult and start an argument. Perhaps this is how he gets-off these days (or it could be even more sinister, as I suspect). "MKII - slightly thin. MKIII - not " is another likely lie, I'm sure, but I don't need to bother verifying this one as there is enough evidence here already.
His reference here, "I guess our Jamaican's....", could be significant, with far-reaching and sinister implications, but I'll leave that for the moment.
The other good ol' boy, his partner, employed different tactics which are no less obvious. Instead of concentrating on the premise of the thread, he was more interested in my personal opinion, what equipment I used, why would I generalize, and why would I come to such a conclusion - all with a view to finding an opening for an argument - do remember, non of this is really relevant - the premise is posed as a QUESTION. I admit, I gave him that opening when I busteded out laughing, and wrote as much (I just couldn't hold it any longer, I suppose).
All this combined with the fact that , once the argument started, there were others waiting in the wings to jump in with ridiculous accusations and efforts to get admin to take some form of action. Well I've got news - I've now decided, I AINT GOIN' NOWHERE! I've never been evicted from anywhere, but I'm willing to see this thru. Let whatever action be taken, let's see how domimant this clique of nice, decent and good ol' boys are, here at the Asylum. Let them do what they want to do. And then we'll see what gives as the manure really hits the fan! Let's see who or what the Asylum is really made of. Should be an interesting story!
Oh, and this ain't the first or 10th time I've seen or heard of this type of behaviour here. (How about you?). The question is: - WHY?
Edits: 05/17/11 05/18/11 05/18/11
This post is to no one in particular. Instead it is an observation of mine over the years of listening with both passive and active preamps.First conclusion I have is that people will state their taste more than anything else. The second point is that the system will dictate how the preamp sounds just as much as the preamp dictates how the system sounds.
After owning and listening with the ARC LS7, Golden Tube Audio Sep-1, CJ Premier 14, VAC Renaissance Signature and Promitheus TVC I can draw the following:
The ARC LS7 - is a lower rung model with good mids but limited highs
Golden Tube - I liked it till the volume control died on me. Fixed it but found better units later on. This preamp did a swell job once I changed the dual triode to a better NOS.
CJ 14 - good everything but still the golden glow.
VAC Ren - better then the previous units at everything, and still a golden glow.
TVC - best at the upper registers. Clear and uncompressed highs. Good at bass. Good at midrange. The only fault is that it didn't bloom like the CJ did nor throw an expansive soundstage like the VAC. Nor did the TVC have the mid/bass bounce and guts of the others till...
...and this is the best part. Till I got it right. Now it has very good mid bass. I just had to tweak my system and find an amp that suits those needs. I cannot go back to the actives with a fine TVC around unless I want to sacrifice detail. I lose too much (much is a relative term so take this as a relative observation) information for the sake of mid bass I now have anyway after tinkering.
Edits: 05/17/11 05/17/11 05/17/11
Say,
I am glad you brought up the TVC topic in this post. I have the Promitheus Reference C-Core and I am totally happy with the music it makes. It did take me some time to zero in on an amp to match it. But it was worth it. The only sad part is Promitheus does not seems to be well regarded in audio circles (like here, Audiogon and AudioCircle) anymore. This has to do more with the "delivery times" rather than the product itself.
So, I am completely with you in what you say Say - about system matching.
Hey Say,
Now, that's more like it! This is what we were hoping for, genuine feed-back about the issue at hand. Thanks for your input, Say, 'ppreciate it!
But what's your take on what David had to say about the trailing-edges of notes; " ...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. "
Thanks for the support of my honest and personal opinion waj4all.
Regarding trailing edges, one thing I did notice and still do is that tubes will do that better than my TVC in comparison. Not that the passive is a slouch in that department but all of my active preamps did have the trailing effect in spades. Here is the kicker, with a decent tube amp the passive will allow trailing edges to flourish. It just won't create more by itself. Thus if a solid state amp is used down goes the trailing edge too.
As for leading edges I would rate the TVC as good but not best. Mabye its the transformers that take a millisecond or too off the timing. I don't really know. Therefore speed will be sacrificed a smidgeon and, thus, sustained decay only when...the amp is poor in that one area.
We have tradeoffs with each. Its down to a matter of choice and synergy one can get with what one has. With the Apogee speakers I can get the TVC (passive) to sing and give a rather good effort in the 0-60 sweepstakes yet even the Golden Tube preamp (active) was no slouch in that department either. The Vac even better.
Say,
I hear ya bro'. Nice system, btw.
Enjoy the music!
WAJ.
Man you are one long winded bag of hot air. I couldn't even read your entire post - which by the way, I found to be true of your website as well.
The only thing I can say is this. The next time you ask for feedback and don't get the agreeable response you seek, don't go attacking and ridiculing those who politely responded.
BYE.
AbeCollins: - So you've crawled back out of the woodwork. I may be leaving, but I will not be intimidated by the likes of you. From what I've gathered, trouble-makers like you live for such encounters in an effort to fulfill empty, pathetic lives. But you're also extremely dishonest. You read the review I posted here, as I invited you to do, didn't agree with my points, and came back here with a full-frontal attack. Don't try to spin it your way. Despicable? You're the epitome of such a character. Good riddance to the likes of you.
Edits: 05/16/11
-Kurt
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: