|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.100.51.35
After using SS preamps for the last 30 years or so, on a whim I borrowed an SP-16 last weekend. I had always steered clear of tubes because of the usual cliches: rolled off highs, tubby bass, euphonic colorations, etc., which I wanted no part of. I have to say that the SP-16 blew all of those preconceived nontions right of the water. Highs were crisp, bass was better than the SS unit I was using, and the imaging was amazing. So I guess I am a convert. Considering that this is their cheapest unit, I am amazed.However, there is one puzzle: running my Benchmark DAC through the SP-16 sounds better than running it directly to the amp, which is completely illogical. In theory, the SP-16 (or any device)can only add colorations in comparison to a direct feed from the DAC. Obviously, I am missing something. Any theories?
Follow Ups:
I used to a "true" believer, so I run my all SS system without preamp. It sound great indeed. Then after about 8 years, I got the "itch", and starting to looking for tube preamp, I just want to know the difference. After I bought a ARC SP8 MKII, there is no turning back. Now I run my system with either ARC LS5 MKII and SP8 MKII preamp.
Now, I am a "beauty" believer. You listen to music with your ears not your head. Yes, the tube preamp did add "distortion" in the system, but the "true direct" is just like a woman without cosmetic make up, and the "beauty tube preamp" is same woman after make up.
There is a beauty contest, but no true contest!
One more thing, go for a good tube preamp, not ss preamp.
What “improvements” are you experiencing running direct vs through an additional preamp? Many (including John Siau of benchmark) feel the cleanest path is to run direct, while others (including a few reviews) feel running through an external preamp was better.IMS, the benchmark running direct does it thing with no additions or euphonics. It yields a very transparent and detailed, yet somewhat cold, analytical presentation. Bypassing the internal volume control with a better external passive volume control slightly reduces the transparency, but doesn’t have the slight loss of data I hear with the internal volume controls engaged. Furthermore, going through an active tube stage can increase the soundstage width / depth and midrange fullness / organics, but depending upon the quality will add some degree of veiling.
FWIW, I've tried running with (active, passive preamps) as well without (built-ins, preampless) and still find the “preamplifier” a conundrum. The purist in me believes nothing is or can be as neutral or invisible as one less link in the chain, but eliminating the preamp is as difficult as adding one. Go with what works best for you.
Believe what your ears say - not hearsay.
Search on passive vs active debates in the archives.I too find active stages better sounding.
There are some theories about impedence matching, and long ICs also impacting this.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: