Hello:
I have a friend who is much more knowledgeable than I regarding audio circuitry.
Recently, to my surprise, he stated with absolute conviction that although tube preamps exist, the only correct preamp is SS!
I was unable to understand his technical reason, but I assume he is not stupid and must have some valid point.
In fact, based on any response here, I am going to insist that he look here and submit either personally or through me, his perspective.
I have a friend who is much more knowledgeable than I regarding audio circuitry.
Recently, to my surprise, he stated with absolute conviction that although tube preamps exist, the only correct preamp is SS!
I was unable to understand his technical reason, but I assume he is not stupid and must have some valid point.
In fact, based on any response here, I am going to insist that he look here and submit either personally or through me, his perspective.
I have designed and built both tube and SS preamps over a 35 year period, and for my taste, a well done tube preamp comes out ahead of a well done SS.
But a badly done tube pre is worse than a competent but "nothing special" SS, and vice versa.
IMO and IME, it's 95% in the design, not wether tubes or SS are used.
Regards, Allen
But a badly done tube pre is worse than a competent but "nothing special" SS, and vice versa.
IMO and IME, it's 95% in the design, not wether tubes or SS are used.
Regards, Allen
There is nothing like that! Passive preamp doesn't exsist. If it is passive it doesn't amplify... it either pass unchanged signal or attenuate, so that should be "passive prestage".
BTW, Allen Wright is probably nearest to the right answer.
The output or volume control in a CD player is a preamp, well at least in the sense that it provides the necessary voltage or current or power to an amp, so is it not a preamp?
However, in response to everyone here, I will attempt to to have this friend submit his findings here before peer review-so to speak.
I really want to understand what his point is, so we'll see.
Regarding passives... I understand that they should be buffered and or impedance matching devices, no?
Regarding SS preamps, has anyone here seen this:
http://www.irdaudio.com/products/purist.htm
Last edited:
Yes they are strictly speaking, thats why I recommend no preamp, shorter signal pass.
BTW I would agree with your friend about SS, I dont like most valve amps, they introduce high levels of second harmonic distortion that make music sound very sweet and pleasant to listen to, but this doesnt mean that they are accurately reproducing the real sound for example a instrument being played.
BTW I would agree with your friend about SS, I dont like most valve amps, they introduce high levels of second harmonic distortion that make music sound very sweet and pleasant to listen to, but this doesnt mean that they are accurately reproducing the real sound for example a instrument being played.
Just a small point...
Yes, of course it exists. The emphasis in pre-amplifier is on pre.
Pre means 'before'. Therefore it is a box that sits 'before the amplifier'. It does not have to amplify in order to function. In the context of 'pre-amplifier' the word amplifier is a noun. The box sits 'before the amplifer' and is therefore a pre-amplifier.
The pre-amplifier can of course be passive. It sits passively before the amplifier. It is a passive pre-amplifier.
I completely disagree.
The emphasis should be on pre-AMP. As in amp-lifier.
What people are calling a "passive preamp" is 1/ an oxymoron and 2/ no matter how fancy it is, is just an attenuator, not an amp. It may include switching, then it should be called a attenuator/switch box, but a "preamp" it is not!
The rot really set in when many manufactures dropped the phono stage from their preamps, and then line stages started being called preamps.
Now a pot in a box is called a preamp. Bah humbug!
A "real" preamp has a internal phono stage, switching, and a line stage, IMO. Maybe even tone controls and tape loops, although I consider them optional.
Regards, Allen
There are fully differential tube preamps, and due to cancellation of distortion, they do not produce 2nd harmonic. So I would not take this statement as fact, it has everything to do with execution.
So, you see what happens, philmag, EVERY time the phrase "tube versus solidstate" introduces a topic. It INSTANTLY devolves into taking sides, making minute and gross semantic differences, and so on. And of course the argument that the best preamp is no preamp, and so on.
One man's opinion: what matters most is YOU. If it is your system, then what sounds best TO YOU is what matters. It doesn't matter that Joe Blow down the street thinks one kind is "better," or that Stereo Steve up the road prefers the other. What any one thinks is his own preference. When we are talking good quality gear, both types sound great, and the differences that you MIGHT hear are going to be subtle.
The whole notion that listening to recordings without a preamp gets you closer to the "true sound of the instrument" is to be taken with a grain of salt. Visit a recording studio and see music being made. Then watch the engineer at his large solid state mixing console, very likely digital, running the various sounds through various signal processing steps and tweaks, all designed to make it souond the way the engineer wants it to, not to make it sound "just like the instrument."
And even supposing the engineer wanted "just like the instrument," should that violin sound just like it does 10 meters away from the stage at an auditorium? Or should it sound just like it does at two meters from my table at a nice restaurant?
When someone poo-poo's certain gear because it might sound more pleasing but less like the original instrument, I have to wonder what the purpose of listening might be if not to please myself. Shall I eat my steak unseasoned because it "tastes more like steak," or should the chef add a touch of salt because it enhances the flavor?
It is scary sometimes to see pronouncements of absolutes in matters of taste.
One man's opinion: what matters most is YOU. If it is your system, then what sounds best TO YOU is what matters. It doesn't matter that Joe Blow down the street thinks one kind is "better," or that Stereo Steve up the road prefers the other. What any one thinks is his own preference. When we are talking good quality gear, both types sound great, and the differences that you MIGHT hear are going to be subtle.
The whole notion that listening to recordings without a preamp gets you closer to the "true sound of the instrument" is to be taken with a grain of salt. Visit a recording studio and see music being made. Then watch the engineer at his large solid state mixing console, very likely digital, running the various sounds through various signal processing steps and tweaks, all designed to make it souond the way the engineer wants it to, not to make it sound "just like the instrument."
And even supposing the engineer wanted "just like the instrument," should that violin sound just like it does 10 meters away from the stage at an auditorium? Or should it sound just like it does at two meters from my table at a nice restaurant?
When someone poo-poo's certain gear because it might sound more pleasing but less like the original instrument, I have to wonder what the purpose of listening might be if not to please myself. Shall I eat my steak unseasoned because it "tastes more like steak," or should the chef add a touch of salt because it enhances the flavor?
It is scary sometimes to see pronouncements of absolutes in matters of taste.
Last edited:
No wonder: there is no technical reason. A tube preamp, even without global NFB, can be made to have as low distortion and noise as can possibly make sense (<0.02% thd in mine). There is only one area where tubes are genuinely problematic - microphony and this is likely the reason why subjectively the bass from tubes is always a bit softer. From my POV in every single subjective area, apart from the bass, tube preamps trounce solid state.That is pretty much a question of musical taste and priorities.
And don't judge tubes by commercially available offerings, even if they are priced to appear "hi end". Most are poorly designed, especially in the PS/regulator sections.
As for passives, they suck in most systems.
I have found the same.
A particular part or technology does not have a particular 'signature', for there is potentially good and bad in all. It needs to be the right part for the right job in the right circuit.
Each item has electrical (and to some extent electro-mechanical) chracteristics, with attendant advantages and disadvantages, which must be understood, selected and applied by the designer.
Horses for courses!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.