 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Opus, Valhalla, Siltech G5 Shootout....! posted by Bud on July 24, 2002 at 09:22:50:
unlike when we compared these cables last week in my system (link below), i only heard the Transparent Opus cables in Bud's system. so i have no reference point of what the Compass Lake or Valhalla sounded like in Bud's system. i have listened to Bud's system in the past, but not since he got his Compass Lake. with Bud's resident cable and gear setup it was not practical to quickly compare the whole signal path with all-Opus and all-Siltech.....in any case as Bud mentions above he uses G3 speaker cable (30+ feet of it), so you would not be comparing G5 Siltech anyway.Bud has a good, personal feel for the "normal" sound in his system so i totally defer to his take on the comparison of the performance of the 3 different brands of cable in his system. i must say that Bud's system has a very different sonic signature than my system. i used to have the same Levinson preamp and amps and had the Wilson WP6 speakers so i am familiar with the basic sound and presentation of his system.
so with all those considerations here is what i heard; when i first started my listening Bud played 6 or 7 cd cuts. i was hearing lots of detail and dynamics but was trying to get my bearings on exactly what i was hearing. it was so different than what i am used to hearing i was attempting to discover what was doing what. big soundstage, fast, open, detailed but maybe slightly sterile.....although not terribly so....and after my tubed based system probably a typical response. Bud asked me what i thought and i said it sounded pretty good but i hadn't really got a total feel for it yet. then he mentioned that he percieved it as good on an intellectual level but it was cold and uninvolving to him compared to what he hears with the Siltech cables.
so i suggested we maybe try the Passive Placette RVC that i had brought. my guess was that the ultra-open Opus was affected by the Levinson #32 preamp. we swaped it out and.......dramatic change......here Bud's and my take on what we heard are quite different, and i think the differences in our interpretations relect our different references. also, Bud knows his system much better than i do. in any case, what i now hear from the Placette/Opus combination was much more similar to what i hear in my room. i heard much more detail, openness, tonal color, depth and see-around transparency in the soundstage, better micro and macro dynamics.....waaay more envolving and satisfying.....night and day to my ears.
my opinion is that the Opus is the clearest possible window.....and it will expose any gear that is not quite neutral and transparent. having owned the #32 for 2 years, compared it to the passive volume pots in my Tenor amps, and put it up for sale the next week.....i think that the clarity in Bud's system is limited by the #32. i think the G5 Compass Lake has a beautiful lushness that is a clear asset in Bud's current system but is not an asset in my system.
i want to qualify my comments somewhat since i only listened to the Placette/Opus for 5 or 6 cuts.....so my perceptions might be different if i had taken more time. also, another consideration is that Bud listens to quite a bit of live classical music and may be a more perceptive listener than myself.
this has been a facinating process.....the Opus is a product that will make some systems much better......but it is not for every system.
context, context, context
mikel
Follow Ups:
Hi Mikel,
I agree with your comments. In your (great) sounding system the Opus was by far the best of the three. I also saw it's magic in my system, but I would have to work hard to re-adjust the direction of my system to eliminate the weaknesses I heard there (i.e. where are those 150 watt Tenor amps I've heard rumored????)!
Regards,
Bud
my opinion on the #32 preamp compared to the Placette RVC is really more a comment on any preamp and reflects a personal bias of mine based on my experience in my system. if i were to live with the #32 for awhile in Bud's system there may be aspects of it i would come to prefer to the Placette.in my brief experience in Bud's system i did clearly prefer the Placette.
also, Bud is a huge believer in proper phase being critical for listening satisfaction. the #32 will change phase, the Placette won't. since Bud's DAC (Levinson 30.6) will also change phase we were still able to correct for phase on each cut.
mikel
This has been a fascinating and well presented dialogue. Thank you both, Mikel and Bud. The clear emphasis on the impact of system synergies ("context" as Mikel so aptly put it) is an excellent reminder to us all. Well Done!
Mikel,
Why are so many people posting that the active Placette is so much better than the passive variant? And that going from passive to active Placette is an upgrade? If the theory of less is more is correct then I would think it should be the other way around.
Mikel:It may very well seem to be a contradiction that an active linestage could be even more transparent (distortionless) than a passive device that uses the same Vishay S102C attenuator, but in our case it's true. The reason for the so called "solid state sound" in otherwise good high end systems is, believe it or not, the volume control. Adding an output stage to the typical volume control simply insures that the volume controls distortion ("brightness") is faithfully passed on to the power amp.
But if you eliminate that controls distortion, then adding the output amplifier simply lowers the output impedance to a very low level, insuring that every last bit of musical detail actually makes it to the power amp intact. Also, the low output impedance insures quieter operation for a blacker background.
When using a simple volume pot in a passive situation, the impedance problems cause enough of a roll-off of the highs help cover up the distorion from the pot thus helping to get rid of some of the brightness. But then you also lose musical detail. Using Vishay S102C resistors with the almost purely resistive load they offer to the source enables a passive device to work much better than it has any right to work. With a fairly low impedance source, the performance is exceptional.
But adding a pair of very high quality class-a output amps fed by two huge power supplies will isolate your source from the amp load. And the low output impedance will insure that the signal that arrives at the amp is an exact image of the signal from the source with nothing added or taken away.
Guy Hammel, Placette Audio
hi Guy,i am out of town and just saw your excellent explaination. it is a treat getting the straight answers from the designer of the gear. thanks for taking the time.
i have some questions;
1. are you saying that in every case your active preamp will sound better than your passive?
2. or if the sources have sufficient output, the amplifier has sufficient gain, and the interconnect between the RVC and the amp is sufficiently short (and the impedence issues are correct)......can the passive be equal or better than the active?
i am using 3 sources that all have plenty of gain into a switchbox and then using one 23 foot xlr interconnect into the RVC and then a 1 meter xlr into my Tenor amps which have 40k input impedence. i have plenty of gain with all sources.
i don't have any of the output specs with me to share at this time. but last year when we discussed my set-up i recall that my sources had fairly low output impedences and that you felt it would be optimized with the passive RVC.
my switchbox is a custom design which is "suppose" to allow the source impedence to pass unaltered (according to it's builder).
in any case, my "arrangement" is a good deal better to my ears than any active device i have yet tried. i get the identical performance from the Placette RVC as i get from the Tenor amps used in the integrated mode. i prefer this performance to any active gain stage used with the Tenor amps in my or any other Tenor system i have heard.
if there is a better solution for my situation i would like to consider it.
best regards
mikel
Mikel:In almost every case the active will outperform the passive, enabling a slightly clearer, slightly more detailed sound and a slightly lower noise floor. This is because of the extremely low output impedance of the Active Linestage.
But your system is such an ideal application for a passive that it may be quite dificult to hear an improvemant with the active. Although I could see that the passive may equal the active in a system like yours, I could never imagine it actually outperforming the active. It's just about impossible to beat an ultra low output impedance for insuring that the signal arrives at the power amp intact and noise free.
Over the years we have offered a trade-back policy to our passive customers so they can trade up to the active. In all that time, not one passive user has preferred the passive. All have preferred the active in spite of it's much higher price.
It would not seem to make sense that by adding more to the circuit that the fidelity could actually be improved but the audio signal that comes out of the volume control can be quite fragile. Going directly into high quality output amps from the volume control seems to lock-in the shape of the signal and make it more robust so that it can get through the cables intact. I think that the reason so many solid state active linestages sound bright and so many listeners avoid them is because of the the volume control distortion. Since an active linestage will also see to it that it's volume control distortion is passed accurately to the power amp, that means brightness and irritation. But getting rid of the volume control distortion itself means that the output amps can really help in delivering the audio signal to the power amp in it's purest form, in the exact same shape it was in when it left the source. Which of, course, is also an active device.
Guy Hammel, Placette Audio
hi Bud,
answer #1. every system is differentanswer #2. i haven't heard the active Placette....it may be better than the passive. in any case i don't use the preamp....in my system i use the RVC (remote volume control) and a passive switchbox.
answer #3. it may be unfashionable to suggest that the highest resolution systems may expose limitations of active gain stages that other systems may need.....but i humbly suggest that this may be the case.
if the Placette active is better than the RVC in my system it would also have to be better than all the other preamps i and other Tenor owners have abandoned for passive including Levinson #32, Lamm L2, CJ ART II, and the BAT VK-50SE. i guess that is possible but not likely.
this past weekend i compared my Lamm LP2 Delux thru the Placette and thru the Lamm L2 preamp......to my ears the Placette allowed more detail and dynamics and seemed to remove a veil that was there with the L2 preamp.....it sounded more real thru the Placette. would most systems have caused this result?
by systems i really mean the amp and speakers as a tandum.
mikel
Mikel,
The theory you describe ("less is more" or let's throw the pre-amp out with the baby and the bathwater) has been around for quite a while and it makes good conceptual sense. But as I see it, each and every component, wire, power cord, speaker etc. in a system either adds or subtracts something to the sound. The sum of all these additions and subtractions is what we perceive in the end as music. Most people strive for "the absolute sound" i.e. what is closest to the real thing. I would say my bias is toward what sounds natural but also, to my ears, beautiful. I have heard some aweful sounding live concerts. But back to the point. If you take away a component from the chain (i.e. a pre-amp) you remove whatever sonic signature (additions or subtractions) from your system that this might have...this we agree on. But whether this has a salutary effect on the end resulting sound is debatable. For example if an entire system is "voiced" to it's best including all components in the chain (including pre-amp), removing this may well leave the sound of the upstream components unbalanced and less sonically desireable. Also, this theory of less is more assumes that whatever is upstream of the pre-amp is closer to the holy grail of sound and that it cannot be improved upon. As we both know, lot's of downstream things can improve the upstream sound (e.g. Opus speaker cables). The main thrust of my missive is that I did not like the Placette in my system. I thought the sound while gaining something, also lost something (and the latter was more important to me than the former). But given that it was only a brief listen, with unfamiliar cables, I will have another go at it with "open ears".
Cheers,
Bud
I give in. I will have to at least try it. Thanks for the perpectives.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
