| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do all preamps sound alike?
Whether all power amps sound alike is a regular topic of discussion
on this and other audio newsgroups. This post is not on that subject, and I for one would appreciate not seeing it creep into this thread, as this subject gets enough play already. I t occurred to me that in all this hubub about amplifiers somehow preamps are ignored. So the question is "Do all preamps sound alike? If the answer is something like "Yes, so long as they are competently designed", then specifying what constitutes "competent design" for a preamp would help immensely. Wylie Williams The Speaker and Stereo Store Saint Louis, Missouri |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wylie, a few months back, I wanted to hear this one for myself and
played with the couple I have here at home. Not a huge difference but some. Then went to the local guys and chatted with. Yep, huge difference and I needed to hear to believe. Came home, grabbed my main preamp and went back to the store. The set me up with a nice system using Rotel's top line preamp. All other components including the B&W 802's were much nicer/expensive. The Rotel had (to me) an artificial mid-range. Vocals were in your face and grainy. My main preamp is still the Acurus RL-11. Not one thing about it is unnatural or bloated. It's detailed, precise, and does what a preamp is supposed to do, convey the music without altering it. So, yes with my experience there is a difference. Compare before you buy or change. John "Wylie Williams" wrote in message ... Whether all power amps sound alike is a regular topic of discussion on this and other audio newsgroups. This post is not on that subject, and I for one would appreciate not seeing it creep into this thread, as this subject gets enough play already. I t occurred to me that in all this hubub about amplifiers somehow preamps are ignored. So the question is "Do all preamps sound alike? If the answer is something like "Yes, so long as they are competently designed", then specifying what constitutes "competent design" for a preamp would help immensely. Wylie Williams The Speaker and Stereo Store Saint Louis, Missouri |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 12 Oct 2004 01:36:24 GMT, Wylie Williams
wrote: Whether all power amps sound alike is a regular topic of discussion on this and other audio newsgroups. This post is not on that subject, and I for one would appreciate not seeing it creep into this thread, as this subject gets enough play already. I t occurred to me that in all this hubub about amplifiers somehow preamps are ignored. So the question is "Do all preamps sound alike? If the answer is something like "Yes, so long as they are competently designed", then specifying what constitutes "competent design" for a preamp would help immensely. How about "If the gain is set to unity, then the preamp should add no audible colouration when compared to a bypass cable". That shouldn't be very tough to set up and test, if you have a second preamp with at least two line inputs of equal sensitivity. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wylie Williams wrote in message ...
Whether all power amps sound alike is a regular topic of discussion on this and other audio newsgroups. This post is not on that subject, and I for one would appreciate not seeing it creep into this thread, as this subject gets enough play already. I t occurred to me that in all this hubub about amplifiers somehow preamps are ignored. So the question is "Do all preamps sound alike? If the answer is something like "Yes, so long as they are competently designed", then specifying what constitutes "competent design" for a preamp would help immensely. Wylie Williams The Speaker and Stereo Store Saint Louis, Missouri I consider the preamp to be the heart and soul of the audio electronics of my system; far more than the amplifier. That is, it has been my experience (discovered quite by accident less than 5 years ago) that the preamp has a far greater influence on the sonic character of the system than does the amplifier (assuming, of course, that the amplifier is adequate to handle the workload). There *can* be marked audible differences in pre amps, which is probably why you rarely see it debated. In fact, often casual listening can pick up differences that may exist. One thing I found that is that the differences can be pronounced in the frequency extremes, especially when comparing tubes and solid state pre amps. A few years ago I conducted an in-home audition of the Audible Illusions 3A and subsequently 4 other pre amps in my system. It was fairly easy to use specific passages is selected recordings to point out differences, some marked. To make a long story short the 3A simply did not fit into my system. My detailed comments can be found at: http://www.audioreview.com/Preamplifiers/Audible Illusions/PRD_118448_1591crx.aspx#reviews My "review" is dated February 27, 2000. I thought I gave the 3A a favorable review, 4 out of 5 stars. But I guess some of my comments struck a nerve and I got a couple of pieces of "hate mail". To my real surprise Audible Illusions, the manufacturer, itself sent me an Email. Their Email was professional just wanting to get to the bottom of the problem I had. After some informative exchanges, they too agreed that the 3A would not work well in my system. There were no sonic aberrations, per se, an actually it sounded good but it was clear that it was dissimilar to my previous pre amp (actually it may have sounded "better"). I have since learned that there are a lot of pre amps that are more "transparent" but not necessarily "better" than the 3A. I eventually settled on a passive pre that performed much better in my system than the 3A. Of course, sound aside, pre amps differ so greatly in features and layout those differences can be more influential in your choice. Because while the sound may differ from pre to pre it nothing like (in most cases) the sound differences in speakers. The bottom line is that, when it comes to the pre amp, there is absolutely no substitute for an in-home audition. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wylie Williams wrote:
Whether all power amps sound alike is a regular topic of discussion on this and other audio newsgroups. This post is not on that subject, and I for one would appreciate not seeing it creep into this thread, as this subject gets enough play already. I t occurred to me that in all this hubub about amplifiers somehow preamps are ignored. So the question is "Do all preamps sound alike? If the answer is something like "Yes, so long as they are competently designed", then specifying what constitutes "competent design" for a preamp would help immensely. Wylie Williams The Speaker and Stereo Store Saint Louis, Missouri Competent *line-level* preamps sound alike. Competence in a preamp means flat frequency response, low distortion and noise. In other words, close to a straight wire with gain. In addition, the volume control should provide accurate left-right tracking throughout its range. I have seen cheaper preamps that have fairly gross tracking errors that make it easy to tell them apart from others. Digital volume controls can greatly alleviate this problem. By the way, designing a competent line-level preamp is much easier than designing a competent power amp. For the consumer, features (like the number of inputs and outputs, type of tone controls, etc.) and aesthetics probably are the important differentiators in preamps. Phono-preamps are much less alike. RIAA equalization errors are often noticeable. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wylie Williams wrote in message ...
Whether all power amps sound alike is a regular topic of discussion on this and other audio newsgroups. This post is not on that subject, and I for one would appreciate not seeing it creep into this thread, as this subject gets enough play already. I t occurred to me that in all this hubub about amplifiers somehow preamps are ignored. So the question is "Do all preamps sound alike? If the answer is something like "Yes, so long as they are competently designed", then specifying what constitutes "competent design" for a preamp would help immensely. Wylie Williams The Speaker and Stereo Store Saint Louis, Missouri You could say that a competent design does not add unwanted audible artifacts, but that is subjective. Say that a competent design does not add any audible artifacts. That's getting closer, but you need some sort of reference against which to compare a design. Let's say that a design is competent if it cannot be distinguished from an independent design in a blind test. At the current state of the art, this is a practical and objective definition. I would go even further and say that a competent designer should be able to produce a competent design without any testing at all. (Except for the usual "smoke test" to find out if any of the IC's are inserted backwards). In terms of power amps vs. preamps, the distinction is somewhat arbitrary. Both amplify. Historically, a "preamp" was the circuit that managed the physical interface with an analog sensor or signal source. For instance a phono pickup required a different preamp than a microphone. In general usage, an audio preamp also contains the switches and controls, whereas a power amp often has only input and output terminals. The criteria for preamps and power amps should be the same, except that there is an additional burden on preamps. Suppose a preamp has tone controls, then it will obviously introduce an artifact when the controls are cranked. But again, two preamps that are designed to have the same control function should sound the same. Real preamps may be distinguished by how the designer has chosen to make these controls behave -- this is a way for preamps to sound different. If the two preamps were given a fair double blind test, and sounded different, one of them would probably be an incompetent design. If it's a "sighted" test, then the best explanation is the influence of expectations on perception. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nousaine wrote:
Of my current stable of preamplifiers none of them sound different from one another until I use one of the controls to alter the sound. IOW operating with a straight-thru functionnone of them changes the sound in anyway except for gain. What about active and passive pre-amps? Looking through the archives, one tends to find (subjective) stereotypical descriptions like active pre-amps -- dynamic sounding passive pre-amps -- lifeless in comparison |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 13 Oct 2004 02:42:56 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Nousaine wrote: Of my current stable of preamplifiers none of them sound different from one another until I use one of the controls to alter the sound. IOW operating with a straight-thru functionnone of them changes the sound in anyway except for gain. What about active and passive pre-amps? Looking through the archives, one tends to find (subjective) stereotypical descriptions like active pre-amps -- dynamic sounding passive pre-amps -- lifeless in comparison One does indeed find these comments, but they're fundamentally rubbish. A passive controller cannot possibly reduce dynamics, since it's basically just a switch and a volume control - as you'll find inside any active preamp. Now, if your active preamp introduces some compression, then it may *sound* more dynamic, but it ain't really so - as any radio station sound engineer can confirm. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nousaine wrote:
Tat Chan wrote: Nousaine wrote: Of my current stable of preamplifiers none of them sound different from one another until I use one of the controls to alter the sound. IOW operating with a straight-thru functionnone of them changes the sound in anyway except for gain. What about active and passive pre-amps? Looking through the archives, one tends to find (subjective) stereotypical descriptions like active pre-amps -- dynamic sounding passive pre-amps -- lifeless in comparison A "passive" pre-amplifier can be nothing more than a switch and an attenuator. Maybe they should be called a post-amplifier. "post-amplifier"??? Btw, if a passive pre-amp just contains a switch and attenuator, why do some of them cost quite a bit? Is the attenuator (volume pot?) that expensive, or is it just the profit margin? |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 13 Oct 2004 02:42:56 GMT, Tat Chan wrote: Nousaine wrote: Of my current stable of preamplifiers none of them sound different from one another until I use one of the controls to alter the sound. IOW operating with a straight-thru functionnone of them changes the sound in anyway except for gain. What about active and passive pre-amps? Looking through the archives, one tends to find (subjective) stereotypical descriptions like active pre-amps -- dynamic sounding passive pre-amps -- lifeless in comparison One does indeed find these comments, but they're fundamentally rubbish. A passive controller cannot possibly reduce dynamics, since it's basically just a switch and a volume control - as you'll find inside any active preamp. Now, if your active preamp introduces some compression, then it may *sound* more dynamic, but it ain't really so - as any radio station sound engineer can confirm. I have heard that radio transmissions are compressed to make them sound more "punchy" on cheap portable radios and boom boxes, but how does compression make the sound more dynamic? Doesn't compression just bring the peaks and troughs closer together, hence reducing the dynamic range? Btw, didn't you note before that the Audiolab 8000A and 8000S integrated amps sound different, due to the different pre-amp sections in each amp? |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tat Chan wrote in message
What about active and passive pre-amps? Looking through the archives, one tends to find (subjective) stereotypical descriptions like active pre-amps -- dynamic sounding passive pre-amps -- lifeless in comparison Your reference to "stereotypical descriptions" is right on target; especially at it applies to passive line stages. I'm glad that you raised the topic because there is a lot of misunderstanding among audiophiles about passive line stages relative to active pres. Unfortunately, many audiophiles have the perception about passives that staunchly reflects the stereotype you put forth. It's a fallacy. Such perceptions of passives are an over generalization and carelessly old fashion. There are certainly passives that help perpetuate the fallacy? But I am *positive* that they were either poorly designed, in which case they (hopefully) don't make it in the market place, or poorly matched in there respective systems or both. Some of the chief disseminators of this fallacy are high-end audio dealers who are 1) simply behind the times, 2) biased because they don't carry low profit margin passives, or 3) simply not knowledgeable. I have seen/heard a lot of talk about passives and their inherent weaknesses but I have never seen a compelling reason why a well designed, well matched passive cannot audibly perform with the very best active pres on the market. And at 20% to 30% of the cost of an active pre! But perhaps the fallacy is waning. I was thumbing through the October issue (Recommended Component Issue) of Stereophile and to my surprise I see a Placette Passive is rated as a Class A component. I'm not suprised that it is highly rated. Sonically, it certainly deserves it. What is surprising is that this $1000 product is rated Class A. While there may be notable exceptions, it is my perception that a line stage no matter how good it may sound will be lucky to get a C let alone a B rating if it costs "only" $1000. But there the Placette is lumped together with products costing $5000, $10,000, $20,000, $25,000, etc. The average cost of the 23 pre amps in the Class A group is a whopping $13,600! But there the Placette stands going toe-to-toe with arguably the very best. Not bad for a component that is sold direct and with a limited ad budget. I have seen Placette ads in some audio magazines (I don't remember which ones). I don't recall if they advertise in Stereophile. Robert C. Lang |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Oct 2004 03:24:51 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:
Tat Chan wrote: Nousaine wrote: Btw, if a passive pre-amp just contains a switch and attenuator, why do some of them cost quite a bit? Is the attenuator (volume pot?) that expensive, or is it just the profit margin? As far as I can tell it is just margin. It depends. The parts for my own passive controller cost more than $800, being a Penny&Giles studio pot and a bunch of Pickering Ruthenium-tipped relays, with Neutrik gold-clad XLR connectors and a very smooth power supply (for the relays). OTOH, I can't see where the sales price comes from when it's just a box with an Elma Switch and an Alps pot, total parts cost not exceeding $100, more like $50 in OEM quantity. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 14 Oct 2004 00:35:10 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 13 Oct 2004 02:42:56 GMT, Tat Chan wrote: Nousaine wrote: Of my current stable of preamplifiers none of them sound different from one another until I use one of the controls to alter the sound. IOW operating with a straight-thru functionnone of them changes the sound in anyway except for gain. What about active and passive pre-amps? Looking through the archives, one tends to find (subjective) stereotypical descriptions like active pre-amps -- dynamic sounding passive pre-amps -- lifeless in comparison One does indeed find these comments, but they're fundamentally rubbish. A passive controller cannot possibly reduce dynamics, since it's basically just a switch and a volume control - as you'll find inside any active preamp. Now, if your active preamp introduces some compression, then it may *sound* more dynamic, but it ain't really so - as any radio station sound engineer can confirm. I have heard that radio transmissions are compressed to make them sound more "punchy" on cheap portable radios and boom boxes, but how does compression make the sound more dynamic? Doesn't compression just bring the peaks and troughs closer together, hence reducing the dynamic range? This does however make the transmission sound louder, and you can hear more 'low level' detail - because of course it's *not* low-level any more! Just like a vinyl cutting master, in fact........ Btw, didn't you note before that the Audiolab 8000A and 8000S integrated amps sound different, due to the different pre-amp sections in each amp? Yes, but I don't know why that is. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... Tat Chan wrote: Nousaine wrote: Tat Chan wrote: Nousaine wrote: Of my current stable of preamplifiers none of them sound different from one another until I use one of the controls to alter the sound. IOW operating with a straight-thru functionnone of them changes the sound in anyway except for gain. What about active and passive pre-amps? Looking through the archives, one tends to find (subjective) stereotypical descriptions like active pre-amps -- dynamic sounding passive pre-amps -- lifeless in comparison A "passive" pre-amplifier can be nothing more than a switch and an attenuator. Maybe they should be called a post-amplifier. "post-amplifier"??? Btw, if a passive pre-amp just contains a switch and attenuator, why do some of them cost quite a bit? Is the attenuator (volume pot?) that expensive, or is it just the profit margin? As far as I can tell it is just margin. Afterall what IS the FUNCTION of a preamplifer other than switching, balancing of input levels and certain equalization functions (tone controls and phono-eq; tone controls, fader and balance and input loops)? What does a passive preamplifier offer? Only switching and attenuation or passive-level eq (the latter of which always includes attenuation)? Because it has no gain it cannot match input levels or perform any function other than input switching without loss. But it can use hundreds of expensive Vishay 1% tolerance resistors in doing so, as well as very expensive capacitors and pots, and it can be hand-built in small quantities. These things do add cost...keep in mind that your auto dealer probably now charges over $50 per hour for work on your car. Apply that to hand work on a preamp plus parts cost with a 5X markup (to retail, standard manufacturing practice) and the charges add up pretty quickly. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
Tat Chan wrote: Nousaine wrote: Of my current stable of preamplifiers none of them sound different from one another until I use one of the controls to alter the sound. IOW operating with a straight-thru functionnone of them changes the sound in anyway except for gain. What about active and passive pre-amps? Looking through the archives, one tends to find (subjective) stereotypical descriptions like active pre-amps -- dynamic sounding passive pre-amps -- lifeless in comparison A "passive" pre-amplifier can be nothing more than a switch and an attenuator. Maybe they should be called a post-amplifier. Yes, by very definition a preamplifier is an electronic circuit or device. I usually steer clear of referring to a "preamp" when referring to it's passive "cousin" calling it instead a "passive line stage" as I steadfastly did in my first post to this thread. But then, of course, "passive line stage" can and does cause confusion in a discussion among audiophiles (although not to the degree it did, say, 5 years ago before people began learning more about the concept). With that said, an oxymoron, though it may be, the referring to a passive line stage as a "passive preamp" is probably part and parcel to our English language. There are literally dozens of words in the English language that, when examined, make no sense, but are, nonetheless, clearly understood as to meaning. Some common misnomers, "American Indian" (talk about a major historical and linguistic blunder), "Brazilian grass" (it won't even grow in Brazil and it's not grass), "cat gut" comes from sheep, "rice paper" (not made from rice), "Panda Bear" (no genetic connection to bears), whalebone (not even close to bone), etc., etc. While I believe it is *very* important to understand the differences between "pre amp" and "passive line stage" to have an intelligent discussion on the topic, the two will probably evermore be used interchangeably. That is, the use of "passive" before "preamp", will probably be sufficient to distinguish one from the other. Robert C. Lang |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tat Chan wrote in message ...
Btw, if a passive pre-amp just contains a switch and attenuator, why do some of them cost quite a bit? Is the attenuator (volume pot?) that expensive, or is it just the profit margin? It's probably a combination of things including, materials, limited distribution and sales compared to active pres, profit margins, design, whether it employs RCA or balanced connecters, etc. But certainly materials cost is important. Resistor based passive designs have inherent issues that must be tamed to bring the passive closer to the music. The primary problem with typical high end resistors, including many of the lower cost Vishay resistors is brightness (high frequency distortion). At least one manufacturer I know of claims that their passives get around these problems by using nothing top-of-the-line Vishay S102 resistors in a stepped volume control. They claim that the absolutely resistive load they offer to the source means instant rise time that protects dynamics and high frequency accuracy without adding audible brightness. I don't know what is considered expensive when it comes to parts in audio equipment. But from whay I understand from comments made over the past few years is that a resistor based passive is no better than the resistor that it employs. Further, that Vishay resistors are, in general, more expensive than most and that the top-of-the-line Vishay 102s, in particular, are the best they produce. Also, one passive may employ a lot more of a specific quality resistor than a competitor (in this case the more the better). A poorly designed passive, with cheap materials, will probably have more of an audible negative impact that a poorly designed active pre with cheap materials, because there is less to hide behind. Robert C. Lang |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tat Chan wrote in message ...
I have heard that radio transmissions are compressed to make them sound more "punchy" on cheap portable radios and boom boxes, but how does compression make the sound more dynamic? Doesn't compression just bring the peaks and troughs closer together, hence reducing the dynamic range? It's not so much that compression makes things "more" dynamic as it simply changes the dynamics...and as you point out, more often it does so by reducing the peak to average ratio, which is really making things "less" dynamic! However, savvy engineers will delay the onset of the compressor's action, allowing the natural peak transient to occur unmodified before gain reduction kicks in. This makes the music sound more "punchy" because it changes the envelope of each transient; it emphasizes the attack disproportionately. Then once they've skewed the original dynamics with a compressor to get it more "punchy", they run the whole thing through a limiter to prevent overshoot. Smart engineers will adjust the attack & release parameters of the limiter so it's not simply undoing what the compressor did. (The operative word being "Smart".) |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 00:35:10 GMT, Tat Chan wrote: I have heard that radio transmissions are compressed to make them sound more "punchy" on cheap portable radios and boom boxes, but how does compression make the sound more dynamic? Doesn't compression just bring the peaks and troughs closer together, hence reducing the dynamic range? This does however make the transmission sound louder, and you can hear more 'low level' detail - because of course it's *not* low-level any more! Just like a vinyl cutting master, in fact........ Sorry, I have no experience with vinyl. Btw, didn't you note before that the Audiolab 8000A and 8000S integrated amps sound different, due to the different pre-amp sections in each amp? Yes, but I don't know why that is. So one of the pre-amps is incompetent then? Btw, I thought you would have worked out why ... to use an Americanism, "it ain't rocket science!"  |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 15 Oct 2004 03:30:16 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 14 Oct 2004 00:35:10 GMT, Tat Chan wrote: Btw, didn't you note before that the Audiolab 8000A and 8000S integrated amps sound different, due to the different pre-amp sections in each amp? Yes, but I don't know why that is. So one of the pre-amps is incompetent then? By definition, yes, the 8000A has a problem. Btw, I thought you would have worked out why ... to use an Americanism, "it ain't rocket science!" I didn't care why at the time - I was making a purchasing decision, not investigating a problem. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 15 Oct 2004 03:30:40 GMT, B&D wrote:
I have a question - given the dynamic range of live music (I have no idea what that might be) - is it possible to record it faithfully on CD or other media without at least some compression? Yes. There is no known master tape with a dynamic range of greater than 80-85 dB, so the 93dB of CD is more than adequate to encompass the dynamic range of live music, as heard from the front stalls of a concert hall. In fact, most live performances will have a dynamic range of about 60-70dB, as the noise floor in a concert hall will never be lower than 40dB or so. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert C. Lang wrote:
Tat Chan wrote in message ... Btw, if a passive pre-amp just contains a switch and attenuator, why do some of them cost quite a bit? Is the attenuator (volume pot?) that expensive, or is it just the profit margin? It's probably a combination of things including, materials, limited distribution and sales compared to active pres, profit margins, design, whether it employs RCA or balanced connecters, etc. But certainly materials cost is important. Resistor based passive designs have inherent issues that must be tamed to bring the passive closer to the music. Why would resistor based passive designs have inherent issues? What are the other passive designs based on? Potentiometers? How does one bring the passive closer to the music? The primary problem with typical high end resistors, including many of the lower cost Vishay resistors is brightness (high frequency distortion). Why would resistors cause high frequency distortion? These resistors are commonly used at radio frequencies, so why would audio be a problem? I have used resistors in designing ultra-low distortion instruments, and I have never found common metal-film resistors to cause non-linear distortion at audio frequencies. Unless you blow them up, of course. At least one manufacturer I know of claims that their passives get around these problems by using nothing top-of-the-line Vishay S102 resistors in a stepped volume control. They claim that the absolutely resistive load they offer to the source means instant rise time that protects dynamics and high frequency accuracy without adding audible brightness. And you don't question their claim? I don't know what is considered expensive when it comes to parts in audio equipment. But from whay I understand from comments made over the past few years is that a resistor based passive is no better than the resistor that it employs. Further, that Vishay resistors are, in general, more expensive than most and that the top-of-the-line Vishay 102s, in particular, are the best they produce. What separates the "best" resistors from good resistors, besides tolerance? You can certainly get 1% metal film resistors from Vishay and other suppliers at low prices. Also, one passive may employ a lot more of a specific quality resistor than a competitor (in this case the more the better). A poorly designed passive, with cheap materials, will probably have more of an audible negative impact that a poorly designed active pre with cheap materials, because there is less to hide behind. By definition, a poorly designed active preamp *will* have great negative impact. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"B&D" wrote in message
... On 10/14/04 7:45 PM, in article , "Harry Lavo" wrote: Apply that to hand work on a preamp plus parts cost with a 5X markup (to retail, standard manufacturing practice) and the charges add up pretty quickly. That markup certainly applies to our hobby - but high volume consumer gear and other high volume products such as computers do not have such markups - it is closer to 2-3x and sometimes as low as 1.5x or less! Sorry, it ain't so but may be we are referring to different things. I referenced retail, not manufactuere's selling price. Generally audio companies try to give a retailers a 40% margin from "list"...then there is usually a distributor or a wholesaler in there who takes 15% or so of what remains (15% x 60% = 9-10% of retail). That leaves the manufacturer with a selling price of about 1/2 of retail. Of that amount, generally his cost of sale has to average no higher than 50-60% to allow him to cover G&A and selling expense and any profit. So his total cost is 50-60% x 50% of retail, or 25-30% of retail. This cost in turn is divided when all the cost accounting is completed, into labor and cost of components. Depending on the type of business one will generally be higher than the other. But in a low volume operation component costs will usually be less than labor, and in a high volume operation, more than labor. So lets split the two and say 50% of total cost is component cost. That's 50% of 25-30% of retail, or 12.5-15% of retail. Thats a 6x-8x markup to retail. Only the higher volume, more established manufactures are likely to get it to 5x. For example, in high volume consumer goods such as groceries and sundries (toothpaste, etc.) 20% of retail for component cost (5x markup) would be a good average although retail margins tend to be lower in those industries, so if the retail margin were more like audio it would be a lesser percentage and a higher markup. BTW I've worked in those industries as well as in audio manufacturing (briefly) for a well known manufacturer. I'm not guessing at the general parameters. You can argue specifics of any one number, but you can't get too far from these ratios in the end. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 15 Oct 2004 03:30:40 GMT, B&D wrote:
I have a question - given the dynamic range of live music (I have no idea what that might be) - is it possible to record it faithfully on CD or other media without at least some compression? Yes, without any problem! I measured this myself some time back and came up with the follwing (see the usenet thread "16 bits is enough, som facts to prove it", use http://groups.google.se/groups if you would like to read the thread): "Analyzed CDs: 1. The Kroumata Percussion Ensemble, track 4 Hierophonie by Y. Taira BIS CD-232, recorded 1983 by Micahel Bergek. 2. The Rite of Spring by Stravinsky, Redwood Symphony, track 1 Introduction. Clarity Recordings, recorded 1993 by Bob Porter. Both recordings has subjectively a very low background noise from the recording venue, and show signs of good care in the recording and mastering process. My playback equipment have problems playing these CD:s at the volume required to hear the background noise over the room noise, because of its limited max SPL (speakers are QUAD ESL-63). Result: 1. Background noise 65dB, tutti -1dB 2. Background noise 63dB, tutti -1dB This is about 11 bits, well within the 16 bits that the CD is capable of. There are still 5 bits (30 dB) left for listening to 'microdynamincs' or 'hearing things in the noise', as some fellow posters say they do." It still stands. 11 bits will do, but a few more doesn't hurt, i.e. 16 would be a nice number! Note: both recordings are all digital (yes son, they had that in 1983!) and have not been compressed in any way. Per |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 15 Oct 2004 03:30:16 GMT, Tat Chan wrote: Btw, I thought you would have worked out why ... to use an Americanism, "it ain't rocket science!" I didn't care why at the time - I was making a purchasing decision, not investigating a problem. I wasn't having a dig at your technical abilities. There was a winkly emoticon in my original post ...  |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert C. Lang wrote:
Tat Chan wrote in message What about active and passive pre-amps? Looking through the archives, one tends to find (subjective) stereotypical descriptions like active pre-amps -- dynamic sounding passive pre-amps -- lifeless in comparison Your reference to "stereotypical descriptions" is right on target; especially at it applies to passive line stages. I'm glad that you raised the topic because there is a lot of misunderstanding among audiophiles about passive line stages relative to active pres. Unfortunately, many audiophiles have the perception about passives that staunchly reflects the stereotype you put forth. It's a fallacy. Like you said, it is a stereotype. snip Some of the chief disseminators of this fallacy are high-end audio dealers who are 1) simply behind the times, 2) biased because they don't carry low profit margin passives, or 3) simply not knowledgeable. I would say (2) and (3). I have seen/heard a lot of talk about passives and their inherent weaknesses but I have never seen a compelling reason why a well designed, well matched passive cannot audibly perform with the very best active pres on the market. And at 20% to 30% of the cost of an active pre! Agreed, But perhaps the fallacy is waning. I was thumbing through the October issue (Recommended Component Issue) of Stereophile and to my surprise I see a Placette Passive is rated as a Class A component. I'm not suprised that it is highly rated. Sonically, it certainly deserves it. What is surprising is that this $1000 product is rated Class A. While there may be notable exceptions, it is my perception that a line stage no matter how good it may sound will be lucky to get a C let alone a B rating if it costs "only" $1000. But there the Placette is lumped together with products costing $5000, $10,000, $20,000, $25,000, etc. Well, a line stage (or passive pre) shouldn't have any sound, as it should just be a source selector and volume control. Btw, for $1000, I hope it comes with a remote! The average cost of the 23 pre amps in the Class A group is a whopping $13,600! One has to wonder what sort of audiophile buys a pre-amp worth 5 figures! |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 14 Oct 2004 03:24:51 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Tat Chan wrote: Nousaine wrote: Btw, if a passive pre-amp just contains a switch and attenuator, why do some of them cost quite a bit? Is the attenuator (volume pot?) that expensive, or is it just the profit margin? As far as I can tell it is just margin. It depends. The parts for my own passive controller cost more than $800, being a Penny&Giles studio pot and a bunch of Pickering Ruthenium-tipped relays, with Neutrik gold-clad XLR connectors and a very smooth power supply (for the relays). OTOH, I can't see where the sales price comes from when it's just a box with an Elma Switch and an Alps pot, total parts cost not exceeding $100, more like $50 in OEM quantity. Cough! Cough! $800? I hope it comes with a remote control for that amount of money ... |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 16 Oct 2004 15:08:55 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Robert C. Lang wrote: The average cost of the 23 pre amps in the Class A group is a whopping $13,600! One has to wonder what sort of audiophile buys a pre-amp worth 5 figures! I can't resist a good feed line! One whose IQ is worth only two figures? :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 16 Oct 2004 15:09:20 GMT, Tat Chan
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 14 Oct 2004 03:24:51 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Tat Chan wrote: Nousaine wrote: Btw, if a passive pre-amp just contains a switch and attenuator, why do some of them cost quite a bit? Is the attenuator (volume pot?) that expensive, or is it just the profit margin? As far as I can tell it is just margin. It depends. The parts for my own passive controller cost more than $800, being a Penny&Giles studio pot and a bunch of Pickering Ruthenium-tipped relays, with Neutrik gold-clad XLR connectors and a very smooth power supply (for the relays). OTOH, I can't see where the sales price comes from when it's just a box with an Elma Switch and an Alps pot, total parts cost not exceeding $100, more like $50 in OEM quantity. Cough! Cough! $800? If I changed my name to Mark Levinson, I could no doubt charge $8,000 for it............. I hope it comes with a remote control for that amount of money ... Of course it does! Voice controlled, even: "Anne, turn the volume up a bit"...................... I also have a magic washing basket - you throw in dirty clothes, and they reappear a few days later in your clothes drawers, washed and pressed! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 10/16/04 11:09 AM, in article , "Tat Chan"
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 14 Oct 2004 03:24:51 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote: Tat Chan wrote: Nousaine wrote: Btw, if a passive pre-amp just contains a switch and attenuator, why do some of them cost quite a bit? Is the attenuator (volume pot?) that expensive, or is it just the profit margin? As far as I can tell it is just margin. It depends. The parts for my own passive controller cost more than $800, being a Penny&Giles studio pot and a bunch of Pickering Ruthenium-tipped relays, with Neutrik gold-clad XLR connectors and a very smooth power supply (for the relays). OTOH, I can't see where the sales price comes from when it's just a box with an Elma Switch and an Alps pot, total parts cost not exceeding $100, more like $50 in OEM quantity. Cough! Cough! $800? I hope it comes with a remote control for that amount of money ... From his post, it *sounds* like he built it himself? Stewart? |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Oct 2004 15:09:20 GMT, Tat Chan wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: It depends. The parts for my own passive controller cost more than $800, being a Penny&Giles studio pot and a bunch of Pickering Ruthenium-tipped relays, with Neutrik gold-clad XLR connectors and a very smooth power supply (for the relays). OTOH, I can't see where the sales price comes from when it's just a box with an Elma Switch and an Alps pot, total parts cost not exceeding $100, more like $50 in OEM quantity. Cough! Cough! $800? If I changed my name to Mark Levinson, I could no doubt charge $8,000 for it............. is that with or without a tube output stage? I hope it comes with a remote control for that amount of money ... Of course it does! Voice controlled, even: "Anne, turn the volume up a bit"...................... Oh great, voice recognition software built in as well ... Does it ever go "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that?" I also have a magic washing basket - you throw in dirty clothes, and they reappear a few days later in your clothes drawers, washed and pressed! Ah, so you got one of those Wash Iron Food Etc (WIFE) contraptions then? Do they come with a 3 year warranty and 30 day money back gurantee? |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 16 Oct 2004 23:49:04 GMT, B&D wrote:
On 10/16/04 11:09 AM, in article , "Tat Chan" wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: The parts for my own passive controller cost more than $800, being a Penny&Giles studio pot and a bunch of Pickering Ruthenium-tipped relays, with Neutrik gold-clad XLR connectors and a very smooth power supply (for the relays). OTOH, I can't see where the sales price comes from when it's just a box with an Elma Switch and an Alps pot, total parts cost not exceeding $100, more like $50 in OEM quantity. Cough! Cough! $800? I hope it comes with a remote control for that amount of money ... From his post, it *sounds* like he built it himself? Stewart? Yes, it's a homebrew. I've also built the Elma/Alps version for my TV sound system, fronting an Audiolab 8000P rather than the Krell in the main system. As you'd expect from any of my gear, they sound identical, i.e. just like the input signal. :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good questions all. Stewart raised very similar questions about my
statements. Please see my reply to his post. Robert C. Lang Chung wrote in message ... Robert C. Lang wrote: Tat Chan wrote in message ... Btw, if a passive pre-amp just contains a switch and attenuator, why do some of them cost quite a bit? Is the attenuator (volume pot?) that expensive, or is it just the profit margin? It's probably a combination of things including, materials, limited distribution and sales compared to active pres, profit margins, design, whether it employs RCA or balanced connecters, etc. But certainly materials cost is important. Resistor based passive designs have inherent issues that must be tamed to bring the passive closer to the music. Why would resistor based passive designs have inherent issues? What are the other passive designs based on? Potentiometers? How does one bring the passive closer to the music? The primary problem with typical high end resistors, including many of the lower cost Vishay resistors is brightness (high frequency distortion). Why would resistors cause high frequency distortion? These resistors are commonly used at radio frequencies, so why would audio be a problem? I have used resistors in designing ultra-low distortion instruments, and I have never found common metal-film resistors to cause non-linear distortion at audio frequencies. Unless you blow them up, of course. At least one manufacturer I know of claims that their passives get around these problems by using nothing top-of-the-line Vishay S102 resistors in a stepped volume control. They claim that the absolutely resistive load they offer to the source means instant rise time that protects dynamics and high frequency accuracy without adding audible brightness. And you don't question their claim? I don't know what is considered expensive when it comes to parts in audio equipment. But from whay I understand from comments made over the past few years is that a resistor based passive is no better than the resistor that it employs. Further, that Vishay resistors are, in general, more expensive than most and that the top-of-the-line Vishay 102s, in particular, are the best they produce. What separates the "best" resistors from good resistors, besides tolerance? You can certainly get 1% metal film resistors from Vishay and other suppliers at low prices. Also, one passive may employ a lot more of a specific quality resistor than a competitor (in this case the more the better). A poorly designed passive, with cheap materials, will probably have more of an audible negative impact that a poorly designed active pre with cheap materials, because there is less to hide behind. By definition, a poorly designed active preamp *will* have great negative impact. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
On 14 Oct 2004 23:47:08 GMT, (Robert C. Lang) wrote: Resistor based passive designs have inherent issues that must be tamed to bring the passive closer to the music. The primary problem with typical high end resistors, including many of the lower cost Vishay resistors is brightness (high frequency distortion). Excuse me? Do you have *any* evidence for this extraordinary claim? I have run sweeps on many resistors, and I find no evidence whatsoever of *any* distortion products on any of the better types (wirewound, metal-film or bulk metal), below 100kHz and down to -140dB below a 10 volt rms drive signal. Aside from some parasitic inductance and capacitance, which of course does not introduce nonlinear distortion, merely frequency response effects, modern resistors simply don't cause problems IME - and I was looking for linearity and frequency response *way* beyond what you'd need for domestic audio! I will defer to your empirical conclusions based on your tests. I should have clarified my response so as to not elevate it to a claim. My information came directly from two (not one) respected pre amp designers, both whom could clearly be biased toward materials they use for their products. I will, however, talk to one of the designers about *his* claim and report back to the group. But your conclusions raises more questions (for me) they answer. If there are no practical or measurable quality differences among resistors what makes some passive sound better than others (and that indeed has been my experience)? I realize that there is much more to a passive (such as design implementation) than merely its resistors. Also, what parts *can* and *do* make a measurable/audible difference? You mentioned that your passive had $800 worth of parts. Why does your passive sound superior to others that you have heard? Could the designer have gotten away with parts that cost substanially less with out an audible penalty? I guess what I am asking is if key parts such as resistors don't make a difference (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth) then what is the point of using anything but the cheapest? That's certainly true, and can make some switched attenuators very expensive indeed. But will they sound better? Robert C. Lang |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote in message ...
On 15 Oct 2004 03:30:40 GMT, B&D wrote: I have a question - given the dynamic range of live music (I have no idea what that might be) - is it possible to record it faithfully on CD or other media without at least some compression? Yes. There is no known master tape with a dynamic range of greater than 80-85 dB But the question wasn't whether a CD could capture the dynamic range of an extant master tape, but whether it could capture the dynamic range of a live performance. In fact, most live performances will have a dynamic range of about 60-70dB, as the noise floor in a concert hall will never be lower than 40dB or so. You've never heard music beneath the noise floor in a recording? Or beneath the noise floor in a concert hall? Yes, given the dynamic range of MOST live music, 16 bit/44.1k PCM is an adequate recording medium. And those very few exceptions would probably be pointless to attempt to store in any medium that exceeds redbook CD's dynamic range because they would tax the limitations of the playback equipment...or of the listener's ears. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The Art of Bose Bashing and Amar's Supposed Descent into Mediocrity | General | |||
| Steely Dan The Absolute Sound | High End Audio | |||
| Jazz Bass Pickups & their sound | Pro Audio | |||
| Mic Questions | Pro Audio | |||
| Sound, Music, Balance | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
