As hard as it might be for you to accept, YES, that is exactly the case! If they use the same parts, and equivalent support circuitry, they will sound the same. As I stated before, audio is not immune to the laws of physics and engineering.

In order for there to be differences, the topology of the two units would have to be dis-similar, such as solid state verses tube.



[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited April 09, 2003).]

Bias: An inclination of temperament or outlook. A personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.

I don't believe that such a thing as an unbiased review actually exists. For that matter, I don't believe that an unbiased review is even the most useful kind of review.

Really, in reading a review, I suppose I'm actually trying to discern how my bias compares with the reviewer's bias. If comparable, then I probably tend to assign more weight to the reviewer's comments. If contrasting, then I may tend to assign less weight to the reviewer's comments. And in some cases, the reviewer's bias may actually help me to appreciate an aspect of this hobby that I had previously overlooked.

Case in point: Bossobass is clearly biased against assigning much value to the analog two-channel performance of a pre/pro. In his view, the newer, high-resolution multi-channel formats are the only way to go. On the other hand, I DO care about this aspect of a pre/pro's performance because I've heard regular CDs sound really amazing in various incarnations of my setup. As a result, I'd probably pay more attention to opinions from SH and KCB when it comes to the 950's two-channel chops. Interestingly, SH and others do use a separate, high-quality analog pre in conjunction with the 950 for CD listening.

Getting back to Ricky and JohnTompkins, I think their inclinations are fairly obvious. In general, they acknowledge that the 950 is a good performer at its price point, but they feel that it's a big stretch to say that the 950 competes with (let alone outperforms) the other more-costly units. In general, I regard this as a pretty reasonable opinion.

However, what really, really bugs me is to see them assert, over and over again, that the majority of people on this forum don't believe that there are better sounding pre-pros available. Can we please get past this? I've looked over a good bit of this forum, and I see lots of 950 owners who've owned and tried lots of other gear. In general, the thing that hooked them with the 950 was its VALUE. In other words, the things the 950 doesn't do are relatively minor compared to all the great things that it does do for the money. Even the print reviews on the 950 seem to agree on this point, so it's just beyond me why this debate rages on.

Lastly, the review of the 950 in The Perfect Vision did note that the 950 sounded better when mated to the 770. I'm curious to know if others have had similar experiences and if anyone knows why a 770 would sound better with the 950 than a high-dollar BAT multi-channel amp.

Soundhound,

How does the specs on your vacuum tube pre-amp stack up to digital pre-amps ? probably not so good, but I guess since you own it you must "prefer" the sound. I havent did my homework and you have ?..Ive actually demoed the equipment with my EARS and to me thats the only thing that counts. How can you be so sure by specs alone that you would prefer the 950 over anything else just because the specs are close. Whether your engineer traights tell you their are no differnces, the sound from every pre-pro is a bit different..for whatever reason..

If I were to go by specs alone I wouldnt even consider a tube-pre or a turntable either..I just dont go by that philoshpy..but I dont have a problem with somebody who makes decisions based on specs alone..Ive did my homework in a way that is important to me

PS. I CAN be objective in my a/b-ing,,I always want the less expensive unit to sound better as to save a buck when I can.If it does it does and if it doesnt..I will pony up and spend the cash

John:

I wouldn't expect a different response from you - you believe what you want.

You misrepresented what I said. I do not rely on specifications alone in my equipment purchases - if there are sonic differences, I want to know the reasons for them from an engineering standpoint, so that I know my ears are not playing tricks on me, or I am being influenced by external conditions. Using a sonic preference alone can lead to the purchase of equipment that is unacceptably colored.

As for the vacuum tube preamp - well, I built it myself, and the noise is at about -90db below .775 v. Not what I would call "noisy". The distortion is similarly low. The "tube character" is not evident by design. It was designed to be transparent above all. I use this preamp because I have two signal paths in my setup. One being DVDs and CDs, the other beign a direct feed from my studio mixing console and workstation. I do have equipment, tubed and solid state, that is intentionally "colored". This equipment is used in a variety of situaions, such as "softening" an overly harsh digital recording.

My "home theater" is really a "mixing and mastering" suite where I edit, mix and master the music that is used in motion picture soundtracks. I have also done a few restorations to the soundtracks of some very high profile films. I purchase equipment based on only one requirement - that is be transparent, and allow me to hear what is on the master recordings, unaltered. If you have any DVDs, at least a few of them have music that has passed through my equipment, including the 950. I can purchase any equipment I want, regardless of cost. Annually, I purchase thousands of dollars worth of equipment in order to stay ahead of the technology curve, and therefore remain competitive in the market. Do you actually think that I would purchase the 950 if it didn't pass muster with me?

So believe what you want - but please, don't condesend to owners of the 950 with statements like "it's good for the price". If you can't actually back up your statements with something more than personal opinions, and are unwilling to do the necessary research, please don't judge the equipment choices of those who have bothered to do so.


PS: I'm still waiting for an answer to my question - if a component is absolutely transparent and doesn't add or subtract anything sonically, how much more "perfect" does it need to be?


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited April 09, 2003).]

First, well stated Pleary. I do agree about "the no such thing as a unbiased review." I was just trying to say that the bias here is larger than in most cases. I'm just as guilty as being biased myself. But then again, I don't post negative reviews.



Thank you for proving my point.

Ok Soundhound,

I guess your only one here qualified to give a review based on your extensive experience and your background..and I hear differences only because I want to and am fooling myself. That everything comes down to specs and that theres not even a need to demo equipment with your ears..That will save everybody who actually goes through the trouble of demoing time and energy (no need for that anymore), and if I dont hear what I like ,I guess all I will have to do is look at the specs to assure myself that they are the same...Yea, that'll work, thanks!

By the way, Im just curious as to why somebody would even go through the trouble of building a tube-pre if they dont want the "tube characteristics"..seems like it would be alot easier to go out and get one of those "they all sound the same" digital stereo pre's..

Sorry, I never told you what to purchase. I never "reviewed" your choice of preamp. I just take exception to unfounded trouncing of other's equipment choices, especially from those who are unwilling and unable to back up those opinions with hard facts, instead of personal opinion and hype. You and Ricky (Minime?) started this whole topic by your insistance on the inferiority of the 950. I don't insist that anybody go by my word alone. I have done a lot of listening, and hear master material as a routine part of my work. I hear live orchestras during scoring sessions as part of my work. I am a musician myself. My idea of an A/B comparison? - how about walking 20 feet from the scoring stage where the musicians are, into the control room. I don't presume to try to hype one product over another, but if someone wishes to take into account my experience, and my equipment choices, then that's their choice.

I use tubes simply because I like them. They can be implemented to impart a "tube character" or not, depending on what is desired. Solid state will always sound like, well, solid state.

Why don't you respond to the last quesion from my last post? Surely you have some opinion! if a component is absolutely transparent and doesn't add or subtract anything sonically, how much more "perfect" does it need to be?


[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited April 09, 2003).]

Respect now a days is so hard to come by.

Mr. JT, what are your qualifications for reviewing audio equipment? You can state your views all you want but what background do you have to back them up? The ears of a trained musician and sound engineer are a lot different than somebody who is not in the audio industry. You seem to place a lot of emphasis on hearing ability so learn to respect the ability of some very highly trained ears.

This forum is a great place, or was before this topic, because it is inhabited by people who happen to be anything from just plain users to highly qualified engineers and technicians. You can learn a lot from repecting a person's position.

[This message has been edited by Jason J (edited April 09, 2003).]

Shouldnt I be a "gunslinger" by now ?..How many posts before I get rid of this "deputy" status..

Wow, it just changed on this post I believe..thats pretty wild




[This message has been edited by JohnTompkins (edited April 09, 2003).]

Sarcasm aside, I do think that SH is a real asset to this forum. In my estimation, and just based on his experience with master material, I think he offers (generously) a perspective that is worth considering.