every piece of electronics you add to a signal chain only adds to your distortion.
there's a reason why some hi-fi fanatics like digital sources like benchmark and wadia. they like that they can drive their amps directly with them and BYPASS preamps entirely.
B&K makes nice "entry level" gear, but there is definately better gear out there.
i can't remember the brand... but i've seen reviewers go gaga over a $320 passive preamp that sounds better than $5000 units as long as the original source has enough gain to drive the amp.
nothing = best passive = second best (provided you have enough gain to begin with)
then there's colorations that some people prefer. i've seen $2000 connrad johnson tube preamps get top ratings, but that would probably apply more towards listeners who prefer a warm sound.
passive preamps are considered to be more neutral and dry. where other preamps ADD their signature sound, passive preamps only take a little bit away.
the "best" preamp depends on YOUR preferences and what the rest of your system needs. if your system is way too brite, then the "best" preamp in the world would be wrong as you need some warmth to compensate.
If you are talking about the B&K preamp/processor it is a very well respected unit. It used to be one of the leaders in the pre/pro category, but other compainies are now making them in the sub $6,000 range. I'm not sure where they stack up.
I would not go so far as saying that a passive (or no) preamp is the best thing. It is total preference. A lot of components that have varible outputs use substandard volume controls in them and you are better off using fixed outputs. I want a pre to apply gain to a signal without changing it. There are a lot of a companies that do this well, and a lot that do not. I am a big fan of Bryston and their neutral sound. Others don't like that.
To say that a passive pre amp is the best choice (short of no pre amp) is grossly ignoring the many trade offs that passive designs (and in fact no pre amp designs) impose on the system. While I agree with the basic concept of the fewer the parts count, the better the sound; sticking a pasive pre amp or a single ended triode amplifier with their low parts count into a system without regard to the consequences of the many possible mismatches that might occur is looking only at the tree and missing the branch that is about to knock you out.
Additionally, $2,000 Conrad Johnson pre amps do not garner "best" ratings. $20,000 Conrad Johnson pre amps do garner "best" ratings.
But, please, not another attempt to paint any amplification device utilizing vacuum tubes as "warm" is unnecessary. When will you folks finally give up on the idea of describing tubes as "soft", "rolled off" or containing "pleasant sounding distortions"?
Why can't you understand as a group tubes are, for the most part, the most linear amplification devices in existence? When will you accept transistors as harmonically challenged, bright and hard?
Finally, I agree with the statement every design has different compromises.
BK makes some excellent products within the price range they compete in. They have not, to my knowledge, ever claimed they are the best. No company can honestly claim that distinction; though that won't stop the marketing division from using words to that effect. BK makes very good products for the money spent.
For a simple audio only preamp I would have to go with the Morrison Audio ELAD. At under $1,000 it is built impeccably, measures even better than a Bryston (although with less flexibility), and is totally clean and quiet. However, it is basically an audio device with no real bells and whistles.
I would say that for the current state of the art in full blown surround sound preamps the Anthem D1 has better parts and engineering than most anything out there. But it lists at about $5,000. And I am told by my local Anthem dealer that HDMI and quite probably i-link (firewire) will be added before the years end. It is upgradable anyway, as is true of much of the Anthem product line. It even has a lip sync feature to correct any delays of video/audio performance. The only major item it doesn't have is a Pioneer Elite, Denon, or Yamaha style EQ and acoustic/sound balancing feature. But with a $40 Radio Shack sound meter one should be able to do a more than creditable job balancing their speakers.
Anthem has definitely taken off and improved an already good build quality since being bought by the top drawer Canadian speaker company--Paradigm.
It depends on the rest of the system. A B&K preamp might suit one system but be totally inappropriate in another system, even if the latter had a similar configuration and was of similar value. At this price, you need to have a knowledgeable dealer who can guide you in your system building process.
I don't like any of the stuff Gregory likes. So it can't be the best. He only thinks he knows what he sees on a piece of paper makes what he likes the best.
Come on, Greg. You really think you can determine what is "best"? You don't even think stuff sounds different. You don't have a clue what the original poster's needs are or how the pre amp will be used. But, you want to inject some name no one else has ever heard of as the "best"? How did you come up with that answer from "are B&K pre amps the best ever made"?
I just wanted to let everyone know I'm sending an email to all the reviewing magazines and as many retail outlets as I can find. It will be brief and to the point.
"Gregory Stern has authorized the recognition of the Morrison Audio ELAD as the best pre amp. Period! He says it measures better than the Bryston. So there! He also gives a nod to the Anthem products. He doesn't mention how they measure, so you still have some future left in measuring this product."
"Everyone can now cease their current operations and continue on with these two products as references. No other products need to be reviewed or sold. Thank you for your attention to this matter."
I suggest you all copy and paste this message into a personal email to any magazine or retail outlet you know of. Surely with the deluge of messages from all three of us, these people will see the error of their previous ways.
May I clarify and append to my original post? I'd like to add this statement to my original question: "...for accurate, detail and neutral sounding speakers?"
Thanks in advance.
nout
Unregistered guest
Posted on
@Jan Vigne
Alhough Gregory doesn't use the obvious words "I think" or "in my opinion", I never get the impression, reading his post, that he likes us to think he knows what's best for us...oh well
Thank you. As I wrote--"I would have to go with..."--I thought it was obvious "I" (myself, me, etc.) was making a personal choice. If I was making a decision for other people I would say-"YOU would have to go with.."
I don't think the Morrison ELAD sounds any better, or for that matter, any different from the vast majority of well-made preamps. I just think the engineering/performance/price ratio is great. And for those that want a simple audio preamp where the listener wants as true to the original signal, it may be nigh impossible to beat at any price. If one wants a "flavored" sound, then obviously one should look elsewhere.
Nout - I guess I just missed the part of the original post where it asked for an opinion of what is the best pre amp. I've read the question several times and on my computer that doesn't appear anywhere in the original post. Nor, do I find any wording that would help anyone make a recommendation of what they think is best for any particular situation. I find it extremely difficult to assess "best" even when I know what the criteria will be, let alone just out of the blue. Gregory's response seemed more like name dropping than answering the original question. Oh, well. That's Gregory.
Lone Star
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Man oh man does this Gregory guy get up Mr Vigne's nose. What'ya do Greg, steal his girlfriend or something?
To be fair to passive preamps and to active preamps all are not created equally,Ive heard terrible verions of both designs as I have for other types of gear,the end result is the sound,all manufactures claim to be the holy grail in some kind of word phrasing.As for the B&Ks they are ok, a little to the warm side which should be fine for some dead neutral speakers if they trully are the preamp you have now can make you think that,but that is how important the preamp is,but for $6000 you can do better for a preamp.
When did you become the owner and operator of Ecoustics? And recently you tried to get us to follow some BS rules that you wanted. Maybe you should start your own forum where you sit around all day long and answer questions about home audio. You are the be all end all as to audio knowledge, so why not cut out the middlemen here? You wouldn't have to worry about anyone saying or doing something you didn't like, because you could just belittle them all day long, or you could delete what ever parts you didn't like.
You bash Paul about how he is so caught up in his own opinions and won't listen to anyone else, yet you do the same. If I were to count all of the sarcastic comments you've made and the ones where you bashed other people for not having an opinion that doesn't fit into your ideology, I'd bet a great sum of money that you have at least doubled his idiotic posts.
I guess no one can state any opinions anymore without you attacking them. Now someone has posted their opinion, and you make up some BS that you are going to send this e-mail to every magazine, etc. Do you really have nothing better to do? I guess that if I posted the NAD makes the best $600 pre-amp you would do the same to me.
I don't know how you missed the "I would have to go with..." part of Gregory's post. Interestingly enough, Budget Minded said "the best preamp is no preamp." He didn't state or imply any sort of opinion. He said it very matter of factly. Why didn't you bash him? Was it because you agree to some extent with his opinion, even though you felt it very necessary to discredit what he said as well?
Instead of trying to run the show, belittle people, and so on, maybe you should focus that energy into something a little more productive. Remember what the intent of the forum is.
I thought that the pre doesn't apply gain to the signal. The amp does.
I don't quite understand when you wrote "A lot of components that have varible outputs use substandard volume controls in them and you are better off using fixed outputs." What variable or fixed outputs are they and why volume control has something to do with them?
SP - What pill did we forget to take today? Don't get yourself all worked up over the email to the magazines and stores. They all returned my message saying they had already been informed of GS's decision. So, if you don't want to send anyone an email, that's cool.
I guess I'm going to have to get my computer serviced. I did read GS's "I would have to go with..." part of his post. Like I said, I just didn't see where the request for a specific recommendation was made in Dexter's original post. And, I don't know how anyone can make a recommendation of any product when they know nothing about the particulars of the system it will go into. If someone can explain that, I'll listen. Gregory says the one pre amp doesn't sound any better (or different) than anything else and the other pre amp can be upgraded - from what he hears.
SO?
I said I didn't like the stuff Gregory suggested. If not everyone agrees it is the best, how can it be the best? If Gregory didn't say it was the best, I still said I didn't like it.
SO?
In a lot of cases on this forum, I would have to suggest going with a good hemorrhoid cream. But that wouldn't be appropriate either; would it?
SO?
Not many people have responded in a manner that tells Dexter why his question can't really be answered. Gregory's post certainly didn't do that.
But, you know, I'm really confused when you say I didn't "bash" the passive pre amp design - but, I did "discredit" the concept. Why don't we just say I "discredited" Greg's post? There, now we're all happy again. (Put a BIG smiley face right here.)
OK?
As to my trying to get anyone to follow some rules; they were simple rules. No name calling and stay on track. If someone didn't like the suggestions, they didn't have to particpate in the thread. I certainly didn't force anyone to join in. A lot of people have ignored the thread. But, there's been no name calling and the thread has stayed on track after the initial outcries of my unjust behaviour. I notice you're not particpating on that thread, SP. That leads me to ask; so what's your beef? I wanted to have a thread that wasn't just spouting off names of products to buy. I'm satisfied with the result. Everyone is invited to join in, if you want to do some thinking and not just name dropping. If, instead, you want to say the NAD pre amp is the best, there are plenty of threads that ask for a suggestion. This thread did not!
SP, we've been on plenty of threads together. I'm sure you've seen me suggest to people that they should not read my posts, if they find them bothersome. My name is at the front/top of all my posts. Just pass it by, if you don't like what I say or how I say it. I've learned to do that quite a bit when I realize someone has nothing intelligent to say. I do stumble and find myself reading some people's posts that I really should ignore, however.
I'm not sure why everyone is so upset about what I posted about Gregory's response. Gregory and I have discussed things before. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands on issues. You might even say we're ol' buds! If he wants to rebutt what I've posted, I know he can do fine by himself. Otherwise, go back and read my response. You'll find I did nothing more than "discredit" Greg's post.
I have no particular gripes with anyone on the forum (OK, Paul - he has nothing intelligent to say and continually says it); and I figure you'll only make yourself miserable if you have a gripe with me and you keep on reading my posts.
Preamps work on a line level. Amps convert line level to speaker level. I ma be simplifing it a bit there.
Many devices, such as CD players have fixed and variable outputs. If your device has variable outputs, it can be connected directly to an aplifier. I was saying that, unless you hane a high quality variable output stage, you are better off using a preamp.
Jan - "What pill did we forget to take today?" It's been a little rough at work the past few days. I almost always post at work. One of those jobs where if I'm sitting around and doing nothing it's a good thing.
As for the "rules" - I understand what you were trying to do and agree with most of it. But I also think this is a forum where people can do or say what ever they want and approach it any manner they feel appropriate. This however doesn't give them the right to insult others, name call, etc. I didn't get involved in the thread because by the time I saw it, my opinions were expressed many times over, and it would have been redundant.
Like you, I have no personal gripes or vandettas against anyone here, Paul included. He keeps things interesting and makes me laugh. I'm not sure if I'm laughing with him or at him most of the time, but laughing none the less. You and I have been in quite a few threads together, and I agree with the majority of what you say. You have helped me on a few occasions, and you probably have more technical knowledge than anyone else here.
My disapponitment came from the way you treated Gregory. You were very condescending and belittled him. I know he can take care of himself or at least should be able to. If he can't, he shouldn't be here. If someone can't justify or rationalize what they are saying, they should keep thier mouth shut.
I don't want to get into a symantic agruement about bashing and discrediting. For the sake or agruement, I used bashing as a personal attack, and discrediting as a friendly counterpoint. It seemed like a double standard between Budget and Gregory. You went after Gregory's opinion with threats, and calmly countered Budget's claims. I would understand (not condone) if it was the other way around.
My main point is that you have been increasingly condescending and belittling of people who have differing opinions, and I feel like at times you think you own the forum. I didn't know if you were aware of this and wanted to call it to your attention, so to speak.
Again, I have no persoanl grudge with you. If I did, I wouldn't acknowledge your presence. I haven't talked to any of the Anon clowns or refered to any of their posts, as funny and entertaining as they may be.
Threats? Surely you didn't take me seriously when I said I was going to email all the magazines and stores? I mean ... good grief! How long would that take? You want threats; go back and look at what Tawaun posted towards me not that long ago. If anyone took my posts on this thread as a threat ... well, good grief!
Here's my opinion on this matter. I made the remarks concerning the passive pre amp because I thought it wise to suggest passive pre amps may not be the best solution in all cases. That seems to be where people have a hard time with my posts. They post something that is partially accurate (sometimes far less accurate than they would like to think) and when I try to clarify the situation, they get offended as if I have attacked them. That's not my intention. I try to point out that each side of a proposition has two sides and you might want to consider both before spending money or possibly doing damage to your system. People's egos do get bruised when they are asked to consider they might not have all the facts to a position they hold dear. If it comes across as sarcastic or demeaning, that is partially the limitation of reading a response and putting your own inflections and meaning to my words. I have my sarcastic comments; and, as in life, they are used on occasion when I feel the moment calls for sarcasm. As in the idea I would email all the magazines and stores.
If anyone would care to point out where I am wrong, I think, if you look back, I will give reason to any civil discussion. But, I always try to back up what I post with the facts as I know them. I respect anyone who will do the same whether I agree with them or not. Someone like Paul, who says nothing insightful and intends to demean everyone with virtually every post doesn't have my respect.
As to Gregory, I've stated my reasons for why I posted as I did. Greg has been on this forum for a long time and he and I have had several "discussions". We agree on virtually nothing when it comes to audio. That is not the reason I posted my reply to him. He is smart enough about audio to have made a more complete answer to the original question. Look at the thread and find how many people have told Dexter what he should be hearing. Only a few have said what should be said so Dexter can move from this point to that point in understanding audio. Suggesting products that someone else would buy is futile in this situation. Particularly when those products probably are not something Dexter can find easily. So, there are my reasons for posting as I did - once again.
If you are going to help someone who doesn't understand why their question can't be answered, don't just drop names. However, name dropping and suggesting products that any one individual prefers seems to be the way this forum prefers to operate. That is my pet peeve. Explain why something might or might not work for a particular instance. Name dropping is easy; thinking about why or how it works is difficult. You generally learn very little from what is easy. You have learned something when you can make thinking about the situation look easy. (Try making a really good pie crust.)
Though I don't own the forum, and I have said repeatedly I do not know everything there is to know about audio (far from it), I will continue to push for thoughtful, reasoned responses. If anyone finds that disagreeable, my name is at the top of all my posts.
SP, you posted this, " ... maybe you should focus that energy into something a little more productive. Remember what the intent of the forum is."
In my estimation and from the vantage point where I operate on this forum, the intent of the forum is to share ideas and knowledge so everyone can advance their understanding of audio and how it works to bring us all more satisfaction in what we own and purchase. Name dropping doesn't do that very well. Look at all the threads were someone asks for a recommendation. Dozens and dozens of answers that all amount to "buy what I like". Only a few people will explain why they make the suggestion they do. Those people who take the time to go beyond "buy this" operate in the "intent" of the forum, in my opinion. You probably know I seldom make recommendations because I see it as a futile endeavour (for many reasons) and there are plenty of others who will gladly answer the call.
You can see from the threads where I spend the most time, I prefer to get involved in threads where some thought is put forth. Discussing which speaker is "best" is pretty boring to me; most especially when the speakers I use are over thirty years old and still held as a benchmark for other designs. (No brag; just fact.) Discussing what are the advantages and disadvantages to a particular design choice is interesting to me; as you can see in the "Do you think" thread. If doing some thinking and trying to discuss what I think with others is focusing my energy into something more productive than yet another recommendation of an NAD receiver, then that's what I prefer to do. I assume there is room on the forum for everyone.
I don't think Greg's comments were off base from the question. Ultimately you have to take anything that anybody says here with a grain of salt.
Maybe if you have B&K amps, a B&K pre is the best way to go. Maybe Anthem is the best. Maybe no pre is best. The best thing it to try and listen to some and then decide.
Just to be didactic; I hope everyone looks at the original question again.
"Thread: Is B & K preamp the best ever made...
... for all preamp under $6000?"
The question is not, "what do you like"; "what would be the best for my system"; or, "what should I listen to".
The question is, "Is B & K preamp the best ever made...
... for all preamp(s) under $6000?"
Best? Ever? All? Thanks for qualifying it to just those under $6,000!
That is not a question about what is out there currently or recently, though everything in current or recent production would, of course, be included. The question stretches back to over fifty years of audio pre amps and covers every product that has ever been made in the Western, Eastern, Southern and Nothern hemispheres. French, Italian, Chinese, Hungarian, Chilean, etc., etc., etc.
Someone out there really thinks that from all those products, with all the variations of systems those products could be placed within, there can be any suggestion that one preamp, or even two, can be appointed best ever made. Wouldn't that, at least, imply someone has heard all those pre amps even in just one system? And, though it may be wonderful, a $1,000 pre amp with minimal functions qualifies for that honor? (I do like minimal functions, that is not the issue here.)
Please, someone explain how that can happen.
I'm sure the folks at McIntosh, Marantz, Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, and hundreds of other companies around the globe would like to hear that answer.
nout
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Please, someone explain how that can happen
I can't, but I think you take it all too seriously. It's just another topic that likes people to name their favorite pre-amp...I seriously don't think the topic starter was counting on a real answer on his question, a question that is impossible to answer, although your "no" would be the best one, I think.
I, like the rest of you, can only guess at what Dexter's intentions were in starting this thread. From the amendment he made to his question, I would assume he does expect an real answer. I hope by now he realizes that cannot happen under the terms of his original post, amended or not.
Then shall we simply ask Dexter to rephrase his question? And possibly place it under "Pre amps" where it belongs. Possibly even provide a model number for this terrific BK pre amp he asks about? And tell us what he considers "accurate, detail and neutral sounding speakers?" What speakers would that be, Dexter? Or, possibly tell us the system the pre amp will go into or his intentions and desires for the final result. If, however, the answer would be "for accurate, detail and neutral sound", there is no need for another post. That is as vague as the original question.
So are we going back to this again Jan?,I already apologized to you more than once,and anyway this is nothing more but a thread to thrash what someone has it was never meant to get a proper answer.It wasnt really called for for to bring that up just because he said you threatened him if he cant see that you didnt he isnt very bright to begin with,he probably came on here to pick a argument with you anyway. You dont have anything to prove to him let him take it how he wants to,you cant hold everyones hand,if he is that sensitive what can you do?If he feels like that so what he is a grown man im assuming anyway, he can make his own rational desisions,you dont have to hold his hand and give him a rattle he started the thread for a bash fest to begin with.Jan I have had a better time getting along with you and exchanging imformation with you on this since we dropped that subject,dont let that bottomfeeder get us back on that hateful track again
"Maybe Anthem is the best". Is that true? for neutral sounding-neither bright nor warm speakers? How is the clarity and soundstage of the Anthem in comparing to the B&K ref. series? Does the Anthem bring out all detail in music with lesser noise than the B&K (not to mean that B&K is noisy-just want to have an idea as to how quiet the Anthem can be).
Thank in advance.
nout
Unregistered guest
Posted on
I wrote: I seriously don't think the topic starter was counting on a real answer to his question
Let's use common sense. When asking that question, I didn't intent to obtain the answer as the result of the comparision of all preamp ever made since the birth of the preamp. I know this is not possible since the probability of having a person who knows all the preamp is extremely low let alone that person involves in this forum.
I would be happy if someone who is knowledgeble and has listened to enough to confidently justify it as a yes or no and why so. The more answers, the better. Again, that maybe someone opinion but that is the respectable opinion since it comes from the reliable source (I can pick out the fraud from the real most of the time; just so someone wouldn't jumb in and attack this statement) and I very likely agree with that if I have a chance to listen to the majority of what that person has listened to. We don't live in a perfect world so you don't have to take it literally. When someone says "everybody does it", would you expect every single person in this planet does it including his mommy?
I wouldn't continue asking about the Anthem if I am happy with the answer I have so far. The reason I continue to ask because Gregory and Ben mentioned it and I think they have the knowledge of those preamp or at least know better than I do in that respect. If someone also has experience on those preamp and like to share, that's great. I'm listening. Anyone wants to throw in the Rotel and Arcam is also welcome.
of course every piece of gear built has different compromises. tube gear sounds so pleasing to many because it doesn't generate odd numbered harmonics like solid state does, but the one or two times i've heard a tube amp, i was totally unimpressed.
i wasn't saying that $2000 CJ preamps are "the best made", but they are among the highest rated at THAT PRICE POINT. (class b i think)
of course passive preamps have their own set of compromises. i've always seen their faults as being subtractive (lower power output and some SLIGHT tonal alterration) but they don't add any new distortions.
they are a TERRIBLE choice for any source that doesn't have a high enough output to drive an amp on their own. powered preamps compensate for this.
no preamp IS the best way to go as far as i'm concerned. i hate adding ANYTHING to the original sound that wasn't there to begin with. if you're buying gear with lousy outputs... then THAT is the fault and no preamp in the world can fix it (unless the problem is low output that needs boosting).
if you have a good enough source (bencmark & wadia DA converters etc.) that allow volume controlling at the source, ANY preamp no matter what design is used will only degrade the sound one way or another.
if i had to vote for a "best" preamp... i'd probably vote for FM acoustics with their insane sound to noise ratios and "neutral" sound, but their stuff gets super expensive eg. $18k for JUST a phono preamp.
i like simplicity. the more links you add to a chain... the more chances it has to fail.
i'd love to own a $1000 bechmark DA converter and a pair of nice monoblocks.
Jan makes good points here. When entering the realms of higher end product, the type of dealer you use tends to be more of a specialist who helps you choose the best combination of kit that will suit your taste. At the same time he will give you the benefit of some years experience in the product ranges he has on offer. Of course, he has a vested interest, but it will still be tempered by his experience of what works well.
Given the potential of spending $6000 on a preamp, your dealer will be very interested in your custom, and your return custom! If your current system is not of similar quality he may suggest that you listen to some <i>systems</I. which may or may not include preamps up to that price bracket. This would allow you to understand what is achievable with the preamps and how their performance changes depending on what partnering equipment is in the system. The performance can change quite dramatically, and he will want you to have a clear idea of what constitutes a balanced system as well as what upgrade path your system can take.
It is unusual, or counter to recommended practice, to buy 'the best preamp under $6000' without first auditioning it to see if and how it would fit into your environment. It is more usual for customers to go to a specialist dealer for the best advice. Also, it is unusual for expensive equipment of this nature to be available online, or if it is, then it is usually available online only.
1. It's not a purely theoretical question. I plan to buy a new preamp under $6000-more realistically, around the $3500. The reason I threw in 6000 number because if I can get some preamp around $3000 that sounds just as good as the $6000, then I can tell myself and my WIFE that it is a "wise" purchase.
2. I probably have access to hearing the NAD, Marantz, Sunfire, B & K and probably Rotel. I can't find any Anthem, Arcam and Parasound dealer in my local area so that's why I'd like to have some opinion on them.
3. I do intend to audition this preamp even if I have to drive 30 miles (in case it's the Anthem, Arcam or Parasound and it's within the said mileage.
4. I have Ascend Acoustics speakers in 7.1 setup with Harman Kardon 31 as source. I did buy the B & K amp a few weeks ago. The reason is that this amp has both balance and unbalance inputs and I can SWITCH between them on the fly by pressing the button in the back panel (I assume so). I now preout the Harman Kardon 630 receiver to that amp via RCA interconnects.
My statement about "attack" was a general statement. It wasn't meant for you so I'm sorry if it offended you.
I'm totally unclear as to why the ability to switch between balanced and unbalanced operation is important to you. What other components do you have that are balanced line in/out and do you think you need to switch back and forth on a regular basis? Normally a system is set up to be either/or and which it is depends on what components are being placed together. Converting from unbalanced to balanced does not necessarily insure better operation.
They are for comparision. In the future, I may have 2 different processors/receivers connected to the same amp so that I can listen to them side by side to determine if I should upgrade?! or my friend should keep what they bought. It's a fun thing to do and I will have a chance to listening to different gears because of this feature.
Also, this is not going to be a feature which you will use many times, just very occasionally. WADR, would it not make more sense to choose the product on the basis of how it actually performs with the features you will use 95% of the time? I'm thinking of things like how it sounds, whether it can do HDMI or component switching and stuff like that.
The said feature is on the amplifier so I am free to select any preamp/receiver. You are right about the sound quality. I think the B&K amp sounds decent enough plus it has the switching feature. Now all I need to do is to select the preamp whether it has HDMI is not that important since my rack only has 1 source and my display does not have HDMI interface.
Will you notice a significant different from balanced and unbalanced input? I know that unbalanced can give you more noise but I have never experienced balanced connection (preamp to amp).
How the switch from unbalanced to balanced is achieved will determine much of the quality when this function is required. The most significant advantage of balanced operation to the home audio user is the 6dB lower noise floor available when the signal, nuetral and ground are all maintained as separate lines. Depending on the skill of the designers, one input may sound better than the other or maybe not.
Balanced operation is designed to resist noise when long runs of wire are required, such as in a studio. Some designers will tell you that in the short interconnect cable runs of the typical domestic hifi system (1 metre typically), there isn't any noise to get generated so Balanced operation should not have significant benefits.
However, this doesn't take into consideration the implementation of the interfaces. A preamp or amp that has balanced operation built into it as well as single-ended may be designed with one or the other in favour, and this is usually the balanced option. If so, you may well get a better result through balanced operation just because that interface takes pride of place. My amp has both options and balanced operation is far better than single-ended, no matter what interconnects I use.
I didn't mention the advantage balanced lines have when the interconnect cables extend over two meters because they are generally not applicable in a home environment. Even unbalanced lines can carry a signal with minimal degradation and signal loss if the output impedance is sufficiently low (normally no more than 600 Ohms). Any longer cables should be balanced operation. That is a definite consideration of balanced vs. unbalanced lines.
However, the major reason a balanced line has the ability to run longer lengths of cable with less degradation is due to the fact a balanced line is set as hot, nuetral (or return) and ground as three separate paths. Unlike a single ended (unbalanced) line, the ground and return path do not share the same conductor. Instead they are separated by insulation and a balanced line will always require at least a three pin connector and three conductor cable. By not sharing the same path between the two lines, balanced operation will provide (technically) a 6dB increase in signal to noise ratio no matter how long the cable length is or whether we are simply referring to the signal as it travels through a piece of electronics gear.
Again there are many ways to accomplish balanced to unbalanced and back again operation. The argument can be made that any piece of equipment that tries to do both may compromise the quality of both.
one thing i don't think anyone mentioned yet is synergy.
the "best sounding preamp in the world" on one system might be the worst on another system.
if you have alot of bright sounding gear, then a bright preamp will only further exaggerate that trait and vice versus. if your system has a weakness in any sound category... then try to find a preamp with a reputation for the opposite sound traits to compensate.
in that regard, a preamp can actually improve your sound quality. very often i've seen reviews where the reviewer likes to use a tube preamp to "tame" digital DAC nasties and solid state amp sterility.
then, another factor is YOUR personal musical priorities. that's why there are so many "camps" in hi-fi. my personal leanings are towards "just the facts ma'am" sound. dynamics freaks like horn speakers. bass freaks like ported speakers and so on.
the "best" preamp is the one that pleases your ears the most in your system in the end.
We have been talking about synergy and synchronicity. We can't make these decision for anyone. Even with identical systems, two listeners may find their pleasure in entirely different aspects of the system's performance. I've worked with enough salespeople and sold enough systems to know that while most people can agree what is decent and what is trash, none of us agreed on what we chose to own for ourself. Two listeners can hear the exact same system with the exact same music and both will comment on something different the system does or does not accomplish.
I would have to strongly disagree with the idea of finding components that "do the opposite". Do not seek to "tame" anything in your system. Particularly in the price range you are likely to spend, placing BandAids on the "booboos" of other components is only going to send you off on a merry go round of upgrades.
Build on the strengths of each component with the other pieces in the system. That is what synchronicity is all about. Patching what goes wrong is merely sticking your finger in the dyke. Sooner or later, you're going to notice a weakness in another area.
If you do not know what you prefer in a system's performance (and I'm going to assume you don't or you wouldn't have written your initial post in the manner you did), go find a reputable dealer and allow them to educate you so you can make an intelligent decision based on what you hear and not what someone on a forum tells you.
May I ask if you have any reference for what you like in music reproduction?
Do you own other components that are decent quality?
Most importantly, do you listen to live music when you get the opportunity?
Finally, how will you decide, "this is what I want to own"?
Those are all things I would strongly suggest you have answered before you hand over money to anyone.
From what I've digested, I think my choice are now down to Sunfire, B&K, and NAD since I don't have access to listening to Arcam and Anthem. Ben and Jan kind of make me lean toward the B&K so that maybe my final preamp. I still like to wait until NAD comes out with the new preamp so I can listen to them all to get my mind off everything else once the final purchase is made.
In the mean time, whether you consider Harman Kardon 630 a decent quality preamp, I'm listening to it through the B&K amp.
well, i guess my experiences with synergy are extreme then. after i outgrew my 1st pair of speakers... JBL 6 1/2" 2ways, i upgraded to NHT superzeros and an NAD reciever. the sound was adequate, but i grew tired of the overly polite treble. to my ears... NAD amplification sounds like a wet blanket over my superzeros. i'm a treble freak. if ANYTHING gets rolled off, i want it to be bass. i don't want to strain to hear triangles etc.
to compensate for the overly muffled sound of NAD amplification, i went with an onkyo surround reciever based in huge part because of it's 100KHz treble extension. it made a HUGE improvement in my system. despite everyones "it's too bright" anti-onkyo rants, it breathed life into my zeros and helped them image much better. if ANYTHING. i'd like an even brighter amp as i really like B&W effortless treble to infinity.
on the other hand... when i bought a pair of mission M71s because they were reported to be bright "reference quality" speakers and i wanted more treble extension, (be careful what you wish for!)found that mission/onkyo is a painful match that is extremely piercing and fatiguing. the M71s have more treble detail, speed and extension than zeros, but it's too much on my onkyo. i'd love the midrange and bass neutrality of my zeros but with the treble speed and extension of the missions.
i'd DEFINATELY go with the NAD to tame the mission's excessive treble and keep the onkyo to liven my overly polite zeros. you can get "too much of a good thing" easily.
the missions work much better as low voume PC speakers driven by a yamaha boombox amp than full volume with onkyo amplification, but i'd LOVE to get more top octave info out of my zeros STILL.
