One thing is the legal dimension, another thing is the moral one. About the latter one can be of different minds. I found publication of the email in the first place shameful. If it and the whole debate that followed once it had unfolded should have been allowed to stay online is a different matter.
Preamps... nothing is perfect.
- Thread starter MadFloyd
- Start date
One thing is the legal dimension, another thing is the moral one. About the latter one can be of different minds. I found publication of the email in the first place shameful. If it and the whole debate that followed once it had unfolded should have been allowed to stay online is a different matter.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
Perhaps we could get this thread back on topic and not dwell on the deleted email
I understand that there are two sides to every story and understand both view points. Having said that I believe strongly that personal emails of this sort serve no purpose except to divide and alienate members. A former administrator here always went down that path only to have things end in acrimony and closed threads and we became an angry and divided forum until things such as this were carefully scrutinized and became verboten unless there was a consent by the other party to allow the email to be posted.
Further there was no doubt in my mind that the general consensus of those posting were in agreement with my decision. So if you want to blame someone, blame me.
Bang on Steve and agree 100%. Half of the attraction on this forum is we seem to be an intelligent and knowledgable group of audio fans (who have real world ownership of top gear or heard said gear) and who know how to behave, respect each other and keep some standards.
Veddy veddy interesting....!
The preamps have a very different presentation. It's been a bit of a rollercoaster ride while the GAT broke in (teflon caps) but now it's a very natural sounding preamp. The midrange is to die for. Best sounding violin I've ever heard. Much more body than the dart. In a comparison last Saturday my guests thought the darTZeel sounded broken. Indeed it was like something was wrong as it sounded like plastic, so I have to revisit it and see what's going on there. In the meantime I'm just using the GAT.
Even though it only has 2 tubes and is considered a hybrid preamp, it's definitely on the tube side of things. It was initially dark with way too much bass but now it's practically the opposite. It is known for being very grain free in the treble and I mostly agree with that. It still sounds 'loud' at much lower volumes than the dart and I'm not sure if that's a tonal balance or distortion issue.
I'm not getting any depth to the soundstage - it's pushed up front. My CAT preamp was like that for a while then eventually gave me a lot of depth and that's another thing I have to look into.
So the comparison is not finished but I'm enjoying the process very much.
Cool- thanks for the detailed thoughts. Look forward to the rest of your process!
Yes, the dart was deeper. I don't listen to sopranos much at all, however recently I listened to an Arlene Auger CD that Al M recommended. Sounded very clean to me. Inspired me to listen to the famous RCA Leontyne Price 'blue' album that I thought sounded great - certainly the best I've heard it (although it's been a long time and I haven't heard it on the dart).
What kind of source were you using on these comparisons? I am not surprised that you dislike the NH18 on tubes - I am not an enthusiast of such pairing. IMHO people should listen to DartZeel with DartZeel.
The GAT never gave me the kind of layered depth of an Audio Research Anniversary (REF40), but is more forgiving of matching and extremely fluid.
What kind of source were you using on these comparisons? I am not surprised that you dislike the NH18 on tubes - I am not an enthusiast of such pairing. IMHO people should listen to DartZeel with DartZeel.
The GAT never gave me the kind of layered depth of an Audio Research Anniversary (REF40), but is more forgiving of matching and extremely fluid.
I am using vinyl and CD as sources.
Disappointing to hear that the GAT didn't provide depth for you. I guess it might not for me either - time will tell I suppose.
I'm guessing that dartZeel on dartZeel would be way to bright and solid state for my taste.
Without knowing your specific tastes, "bright" is not an adjective I'd expect anyone to use when describing Dartzeel. It's extended, it has clarity and resolve, but it's definitely not bright. It doesn't sound like typical solid state to me; neither does it sound tubey. It does sound extremely fluid, effortless, and lifelike. Maybe it's in a category of it's own.
Without knowing your specific tastes, "bright" is not an adjective I'd expect anyone to use when describing Dartzeel. It's extended, it has clarity and resolve, but it's definitely not bright. It doesn't sound like typical solid state to me; neither does it sound tubey. It does sound extremely fluid, effortless, and lifelike. Maybe it's in a category of it's own.
Ian, do you find there is a bigger difference between your two preamps or between your tonearms? Can you juggle to get the right combination? What is the effect of power cords and cables on these preamps?
No, it provides depth. But I am comparing it with my top reference in my system this aspect. And I am addressing mainly the layering aspect of depth.
I have no experience with your digital, but from what I have read and expect I do not think it will sound good on DartZeel. Dart on Dart is not bright, I can assure you. But it is not "magic" tube.
Without knowing your specific tastes, "bright" is not an adjective I'd expect anyone to use when describing Dartzeel. It's extended, it has clarity and resolve, but it's definitely not bright. It doesn't sound like typical solid state to me; neither does it sound tubey. It does sound extremely fluid, effortless, and lifelike. Maybe it's in a category of it's own.
I agree that it's extended. I recently heard the new 18NS with a 108NHB driving Evolution Acoustics speakers and the presentation lacked warmth (and bass for that matter) and was extremely fatiguing. Perhaps I have drawn an unfavorable impression of a presentation that isn't the norm.
The gain these two preamps provide is very different. Not sure but I think the dartzeel is +6db and the gat is around +16 dB. This is usually as they are designed to be paired with their amp from the same brand. My Nagra PL-L has a lot of gain and I reduce that quite a bit pairing it with a SS amp for my 2 channel HT system.
Preamps - without a doubt.
Power cords make a difference on other components, but I have not experimented with them on preamps:
1) the dart is battery powered; nothing to be gained in theory.
2)the GAT stock cable is supposed to be pretty good. At some point I will experiment though.
I don't have additional cables to try so can't answer that one.
I suppose this difference is even larger when the ARC is used balanced. Did the GAT match the ARC bass?
It's not a warm sound. It's a natural sound. Fatiguing is a matter of opinion or preference and one that I don't share. I also don't think it lacks bass, but does lack bass overhang which can take some getting used to if coming from tubes or even Class A electronics with accentuated bass slam. EDIT: actually I'll take it back just a bit... I can see the lack of bass perspective. I don't have much music that extends in to the 20s, but on a few tracks I can notice it a bit. I would also wonder if it's all the amp's doing or if the preamp might be contributing. As with my passive AVC, bass is quite good. In the same rig, the XA30.8 Pass Labs bass was completely overdone. Everything slammed hard and lacked finesse. It was like that amp was all about bass and everything else was an after-thought. Class A can do that in an otherwise transparent system...
Last edited: