[dizzy]

I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They are stupid
expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp I'll ever buy" maybe
justifiable? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

[Fella]

dizzy wrote:
I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They are stupid
expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp I'll ever buy" maybe
justifiable? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?


Any old $300 HT receiver which has outputs for external amps will do for
you, thank you. You can just drive your front left right channels via
these outputs to whatever horrible stereo power amp you are using. This
way you wouldn't need a preamp with an HT pass-thru and the whole setup
would sound the same as compared to just about any other setup, high end
or not, in ABX'ed DBT rituals in any case, so you are covered. Good luck.

[Sander deWaal]

dizzy said:


I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They are stupid
expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp I'll ever buy" maybe
justifiable? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?



Forget about Accuphase, get one of these:
http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html

;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[dizzy]

Sander deWaal wrote:

dizzy said:


I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They are stupid
expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp I'll ever buy" maybe
justifiable? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

Forget about Accuphase, get one of these:
http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html

;-)

Thanks, but no tone controls. 8/

[Trevor Wilson]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Sander deWaal wrote:

dizzy said:


I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They are stupid
expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp I'll ever buy" maybe
justifiable? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

Forget about Accuphase, get one of these:
http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html

;-)

Thanks, but no tone controls. 8/

**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's use
and reference material.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[dizzy]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message
.. .
Sander deWaal wrote:

dizzy said:


I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They are stupid
expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp I'll ever buy" maybe
justifiable? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

Forget about Accuphase, get one of these:
http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html

;-)

Thanks, but no tone controls. 8/

**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's use
and reference material.

Trevor, we've already been over this. For adjusting bass levels for
different recordings, tone controls are by far the best way to go,
IMO. I'm not talking about room correction, here.

I don't want to have this discussion in this thread. I know what
works for me.

[Trevor Wilson]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

"dizzy" wrote in message
. ..
Sander deWaal wrote:

dizzy said:


I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They are stupid
expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp I'll ever buy" maybe
justifiable? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

Forget about Accuphase, get one of these:
http://www.burmester.de/english/welcome.html

;-)

Thanks, but no tone controls. 8/

**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.

Trevor, we've already been over this. For adjusting bass levels for
different recordings, tone controls are by far the best way to go,
IMO. I'm not talking about room correction, here.

**OK. If you're not interested in accurate reproduction (aka: High Fidelity)
then why bother dropping a bundle on an expensive preamp?


I don't want to have this discussion in this thread. I know what
works for me.

**Good for you. Forget high fidelity then. You have no chance, unless you
use a digital EQ and have some test equipment and the knowledge to use it
correctly.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...

Trevor wrote:

**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.

Nonsense. The routine use of equalization during the recording process
dates back to no later than the early 1950s with the introduction of the
Pultec equalizer. Digital equalizers have only been in routine use since the
late 1980s. That means that for over 40 years and tens of thousands of
recordings, analog equalization has been the rule. Trevor is implicitly
dismsising the vast majority of all LPs and analog master tapes. Program
equalization during recording and production is almost always done by ear.

The real problem is that the high end audio industry has suceeded in
creating a global hysterical fear of program equalization in the minds of
most of their consumers. Audiophiles have been mis-educated to believe that
they have change out parts of their system to adjust sonic balance, rather
than use equipment that is designed to have frequency response that is
adjusted by the end-user. Certainly, this is a good strategy for getting
consumers to churn their systems and produce used but servicable equipment
that dealers and mark up heavily and sell used.

Back in the late 1960s when consumer equipment with equalizers first came
out, a number of dealers shared with me that they feared that this feature
would become popular, and that consumers would be able to make inexpensive
equipment sound better than "it should" to optimize the dealer's profits.


Trevor, we've already been over this. For adjusting bass levels for
different recordings, tone controls are by far the best way to go,
IMO.

In fact, the tone control technology of choice for bass, treble and anything
in-between is parametric equalization.

I'm not talking about room correction, here.

Room correction is best applied by acoustic means, at least until a fairly
high level of refinement has been achieved. Electronic equalization of most
room faults is usually a band-aid at best, and a figuratively a fairly
small, ineffective and dirty band-aid at that. However a dirty band-aid can
be better than nothing at all.

I don't want to have this discussion in this thread. I know what
works for me.

That seems to be the rule of Dizzy - don't bother him with the relevant
facts.

However, Trevor's idea of the facts can be a mixed bag. Sometimes he has
things right, and then there are the other times. Now that ME went out of
business and his livlihood no is no longer tied to damning power amps with
negative feedback, Trevor at least can start making some sense when he talks
about power amps and negative feedback loops.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:


**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.



Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

**Nope. Not ever.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mr.T]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .
Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

**Nope. Not ever.

Shame nearly all recordings in the past have been made using large amounts
of similar analog EQ then.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ps.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:


**Tone controls are useless. A linear phase, DIGITAL equaliser MAY be
useful, IF the user has the requisite test equipment, knowledge of it's
use
and reference material.



Tommyrot. Baxandall tone controls, while very limited, are sometimes
better than nothing at all.

Agreed.

**Nope. Not ever.

Nonsense on the same scale as the anti-loop feedback nonsense that Trevor
used to parrot around here.

[dizzy]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

The best pre is no pre.

Optical players/DACs with a nice big volume knob and low impedance
outputs directly driving a power amp are the ultimate in quality.

I can sure see that. It's somewhat surprising you don't see DAC's
with remote volume-controls. Would be perfect for the purists...

If you do need a pre, and in some situations you might, it's amazing,
or disgusting depending on your perspective, how $2-10K units are
consistently trumped by homebrew Marantz 7/ Mac C22 clones, if the
power supply is isolated and good parts are used.

That's probably not a horrible way to go, either. I'm actually
thinking of building my own (using a proven design, of course).

The ultimate
enclosure is a three-chamber die casting with RF gasketed lid that is
19" with integral rack ears that was used as part of a Quintron paging
trensmitter enclosure. From time to time these come available at ye
olde hamfeste. A junked turbine igniter box works too if you don't mind
gutting it and for best results, cutting off the HV cigarette housings
and having them welded over.

While there pick up some books published before '63 or so. Pete
Millett needs them....

[TT]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Bret Ludwig wrote:

The best pre is no pre.

Optical players/DACs with a nice big volume knob and low
impedance
outputs directly driving a power amp are the ultimate in
quality.

I can sure see that. It's somewhat surprising you don't
see DAC's
with remote volume-controls. Would be perfect for the
purists...

You mean like the one I use?

http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/dac/dx71mk2_e.html

And balanced outputs as well ;-)

Regards TT

[Stephan Gipp]

dizzy wrote:
I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They are stupid
expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp I'll ever buy" maybe
justifiable? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?


I have a McIntosh pre-amp that has both tone controls and a loudness
control. However, I run the unit almost flat (just a little boost in
treble to compensate for my aging ears) and just a touch of 'loudness'.
So, not sure if it's worth the effort.

Stephan

[dizzy]

Stephan Gipp wrote:

dizzy wrote:
I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They are stupid
expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp I'll ever buy" maybe
justifiable? I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!) and other nice features like a HT
pass-thru. The quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

Anyone have any experience, here?

I have a McIntosh pre-amp that has both tone controls and a loudness
control. However, I run the unit almost flat (just a little boost in
treble to compensate for my aging ears) and just a touch of 'loudness'.
So, not sure if it's worth the effort.

I think it depends a lot on the music you like. A lot of the older
rock recordings I like to occasionally jam-to are way light on the
bass. I won't have a system without good (+/- 10dB) tone controls.

[Powell]

"dizzy" wrote
I'm fantasizing about getting one of these bad-boys. They
are stupid expensive and over-built, but as the "last preamp
I'll ever buy" maybe justifiable?

Well, maybe. They do consistently get good reviews,
for more than 30 years. They also tend to have greater
flexibility and more features than most.


I like the fact that they have real tone controls (they
even have a "loudness" control!)

A continuously variable loudness control can be is very
nice, indeed.


... and other nice features like a HT pass-thru. The
quality should certainly be beyond reproach, at that
price level...

The quality of components, fit-and-finish, the craftsmanship
of the cabinet all add up to real pride-of-ownership as well.