What makes a preamp "better"?

Posted by: bec143 on 09 July 2003

Maybe there is an old thread to be directed to, but...

I have heard the differences between different preamps, and they are not subtle. What i don't understand is why this is the case when the role of the [reamp is just to get the source signal to the power amp and add volume and balance controls. Besides the obvious things like multiple inputs, why does a 252 best a 112, and what accounts for the vastly different expense?

Bruce
Posted on: 19 July 2003 by garyi
Having joined camp Toy and been forceably removed from the Mana Forum I too will soon be embarking soon on a journy of self discovery (which all of you -of course- are welcome too come)

I may even start to insert as many complicated words into my extravagantly long posts as possible to ingratiate myself in the Marco camp and make it a sweet threesome. (With only the one of course brown nosing it so hard you can only see his shoes now.)

I look forward to it.
Posted on: 19 July 2003 by Steve Toy
In answer to the question: What makes a preamp "better?"

quote:
nor do we.


I care little for the technical aspects, (although the ten-figure price may make me want to know what I'm getting for my money) the proof of the pudding prevails. The 552 is better because it sounds better - that is all that matters.



Regards,

Steve.
Posted on: 19 July 2003 by garyi
Damn tooting Mr Toy and this brings us back to your point perhaps.

The 552 sounds better than a 102 because it does.

Job done.
Posted on: 20 July 2003 by Steve Toy
A 52 sounds better than a 102 too.

At the end of the this thread (including the subthread) Garyi gets the coconut.

I just thought that the question, "What makes a preamp "better"? was one of those profound "philosophical" questions, especially when Naim have a hierarchy of preamps numbering no less than 5.

The top-flight 552 pre would be meaningless without the others in the range with which we can compare/nullify.



Regards,

Steve.