The amazing SMc VRE-1C preamp/linestage, a game changer

[garylkoh]

My reference to the CAT was to make the point of game changer. IMHO, the CAT forever changed the sound of a reference preamp. It went from a cloudy day to clear skies when the CAT was first released. I owned three versions until about ten years ago and I believe the older CATs still hold their own. Not everyone liked the CAT. It was far more truthful than the CJs and Audio Research models of the time.

Peter, I think that you hit the nail on the head - a great preamp is truthful. You said that it was brutally truthful, and that is what Steve's preamp is. It was the first preamp I heard that was more truthful than the FM Acoustics I owned at the time. I think you called it "brutally honest but so listenable". It's only listenable because you have great components surrounding the VRE-1.

What is difficult to understand is that a great preamp even shows up issues with the power amp and the speaker (and if you believe it, cables). It makes design changes to the power amp and the speaker more audible - not less. Completely counter-intuitive, but that's been my experience with Steve's preamp.

Disclaimer - I often demo together with Steve's preamps ever since we first met at RMAF 2008 when a reviewer, Frederic Beudot, who reviewed my power amplifier together with Steve's preamp persuaded us that we had to show together. At both PNWAS gatherings where we showed Steve's preamp, my amps were used.

 

[DaveyF]

My reference to the CAT was to make the point of game changer. IMHO, the CAT forever changed the sound of a reference preamp. It went from a cloudy day to clear skies when the CAT was first released. I owned three versions until about ten years ago and I believe the older CATs still hold their own. Not everyone liked the CAT. It was far more truthful than the CJs and Audio Research models of the time.

That's my feeling as well. The CAT was a revelation to me upon first listen. Now, with rolled in NOS tubes, it still brings a BIG smile to my face.

 

[Bruce B]

My CAT was the best I'd ever had. It would probably better my XP-30 in some situations.

Steves pre was stellar every time I've heard it.

 

[Worldcat]

Just because something is old doesn't make it bad! I hear a lot of new stuff not that good.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Just because something is old doesn't make it bad! I hear a lot of new stuff not that good.

While I agree with your sentiments, we tend to look at things with rose colored glasses.

 

[mep]

While I agree with your sentiments, we tend to look at things with rose colored glasses.

I think sometimes the memories are better than the reality of how some old gear would fare against newer gear. That's not to say that some selected pieces wouldn't still hold their own against all comers of their type. Does anyone really think that the older CAT Signature preamps like Davey owns and I used to own would sound better than the current replacement preamp from CAT? With each generation of CAT preamps, Ken Stevens has found a way to drive more noise out of them. I think the MKII Signature I owned had 10dB less noise than its predecessor according to Ken.

 

[Andre Marc]

Peter, I think that you hit the nail on the head - a great preamp is truthful. You said that it was brutally truthful, and that is what Steve's preamp is. It was the first preamp I heard that was more truthful than the FM Acoustics I owned at the time. I think you called it "brutally honest but so listenable". It's only listenable because you have great components surrounding the VRE-1.

What is difficult to understand is that a great preamp even shows up issues with the power amp and the speaker (and if you believe it, cables). It makes design changes to the power amp and the speaker more audible - not less. Completely counter-intuitive, but that's been my experience with Steve's preamp.

Disclaimer - I often demo together with Steve's preamps ever since we first met at RMAF 2008 when a reviewer, Frederic Beudot, who reviewed my power amplifier together with Steve's preamp persuaded us that we had to show together. At both PNWAS gatherings where we showed Steve's preamp, my amps were used.

Gary, truthful to what?

Michael Fremer, in his review of the flagship TAD preamp, did extensive comparisons comparisons to the equally expensive
DartZeel and Ypsilon models. The combined cost of these three preamps $120,000.

ALL three sounded different. All purported to produce absolute neutral sound and claimed state of the art, colorless sound.

The fact was one was a bit warm, once was a bit lean, and one was right in the middle. Which was the truth?

I believe NO active preamp can possibly be totally neutral. Charles Hansen of Ayre has come to this realization.
He says attenuating the volume, then reamplfiefing the signal, which is what active preamps do, can only degrade, it, it is just a matter of how
perceptible this is.

Perhaps the only way to tell the what the "truth" is in the context one's system is to drive a power amp and speakers with a source
directly, then compare.

Mikey:

A Straight Wire with Gain?

Can any preamplifier actually be a straight wire with gain? Not really, though some come closer than others to that ideal. But some don't even try. They try to output a signal that's better than what enters, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Nonetheless, most of us probably want little more from a preamplifier than a quiet, low-distortion device that can efficiently route various sources to an amplifier while adding to and/or subtracting from the original signal as little as possible.

In the real world, though, while most preamplifiers get right the impedance/attenuation/gain/distortion/noise side, most fail, to varying degrees, at not adding to or subtracting from the original signal, notwithstanding claims to the contrary. As we all know, everything affects the final sound—so injecting the signal into anything, be it a complex device such as the C600 or a passive attenuator, will affect the sound.


Is there such a thing as a preamplifier that's "a straight wire with gain"? Based on the three state-of-the-art models I listened to for this review, I'd have to say, "No way." Each sounded very different from the other two.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/tad-c600-line-preamplifier

 

[puroagave]

Gary, truthful to what?

Michael Fremer, in his review of the flagship TAD preamp, did extensive comparisons comparisons to the equally expensive
DartZeel and Ypsilon models. The combined cost of these three preamps $120,000.

ALL three sounded different. All purported to produce absolute neutral sound and claimed state of the art, colorless sound.

The fact was one was a bit warm, once was a bit lean, and one was right in the middle. Which was the truth?

I believe NO active preamp can possibly be totally neutral. Charles Hansen of Ayre has come to this realization.
He says attenuating the volume, then reamplfiefing the signal, which is what active preamps do, can only degrade, it, it is just a matter of how
perceptible this is...

if you asked Steve McCormack, he'd probably tell you passive line stages do impart their own 'signature.' SM, the man who is arguably the father of the passive line stage - at least in the high-end realm - over the years went from totally passive to partially active to fully active and then something in between with the VRE-1. SM would prob also say a passive stage can impart a sound of their own, coupled with mismatched i/o impedances of source and amplifier, capacitive cables, long cable runs etc. with a passive stage you can end up with a big tone control dependant on the volume setting, etc. with a far more deleterious effect on the 'sound' than a properly implemented active/buffered line stage.

 

[Andre Marc]

if you asked Steve McCormack, he'd probably tell you passive line stages do impart their own 'signature.' SM, the man who is arguably the father of the passive line stage - at least in the high-end realm - over the years went from totally passive to partially active to fully active and then something in between with the VRE-1. SM would prob also say a passive stage can impart a sound of their own, coupled with mismatched i/o impedances of source and amplifier, capacitive cables, long cable runs etc. with a passive stage you can end up with a big tone control dependant on the volume setting, etc. with a far more deleterious effect on the 'sound' than a properly implemented active/buffered line stage.

You bring up an interesting point. A "passive" linestage can certainly impart its own sound. But in theory, it has a better
chance of being "neutral", what ever that is.

The other paradigm is driving your amp with your digital source. Many components are no being designed with excellent 32 bit digital volume controls,
or transformer based volume controls built in with no additional gain stage. Steve Nugent of Empircal does that on his flagship DAC. Or something close to it.

 

[egidius]

Silver Rock..

You bring up an interesting point. A "passive" linestage can certainly impart its own sound. But in theory, it has a better
chance of being "neutral", what ever that is.

The other paradigm is driving your amp with your digital source. Many components are no being designed with excellent 32 bit digital volume controls,
or transformer based volume controls built in with no additional gain stage. Steve Nugent of Empircal does that on his flagship DAC. Or something close to it.

My personal best pre-amp experience is My Wadia S7 in combination with my no frills Audio Consulting Silver Rock TVC; the SR just serves as a means to be always at the top 5% of the Wadias volume control, usually 100%, I cannot hear the SR making it worse.

e

 

[garylkoh]

When I first got the VRE-1 to try out before the first show I did with Steve, I was very, very skeptical that a transformer-coupled preamp could be transparent. Even more so when I realized that he had an input transformer AND an output transformer. At that time I had the FM Acoustics preamp. I also had a couple of devices that claim that it was better to use them without a preamp -- the Berkeley Alpha DAC, the Weiss Minerva and the Esoteric P-05/D-05. This was 2008.

However, when I ran any of the DACs directly to drive the power amplifier without the FM 255 preamp, there was a loss of soundstage spaciousness, fine dynamic detail (I know that many on this forum don't believe that there is such thing as 'micro-dynamics'), and resolution.

And this is how I test for "truth". I plug TWO balanced interconnects together in series between the DACs and the power amp. Get a signal, and test voltage at the speaker terminals for a value. Insert a preamp and level-match at the test voltage. Then, it is easy to listen with the preamp in the chain, and out of the chain.

Based on that test, I accepted to use Steve's VRE-1 for RMAF 2008 as "transparent but beneficial". It did not add a sound in that the tonal balance was not changed. It made the system neither richer nor warmer nor "golden" or any of the subjective terms one could use to describe a euphonic coloration.

What it added was soundstage spaciousness - like there was more air around the instruments instead of the instruments all blending together. It did not artificially widen soundstage, as in choirs would blend together as they should. It increased resolution, but that first version did not improve the fine dynamic detail that the FM 255 did.

At first, Steve did not believe that there was such a thing as microdynamic detail either. So, I sent him my FM 255 to listen to and he finally understood. About a year after that, he asked me if I wanted to listen to his VRE-1B - and he did manage to get some of the microdynamic detail that I craved. Much later, he came to Seattle with the VRE-1C where he demo'ed it to the PNWAS meeting - it was one of the largest turnouts we had!! I put up my FM 255 for sale the next day.

Congratulations to Steve for being conferred the Product of the Year by Peter Brueninger of AVShowrooms.com

 

[Andre Marc]

When I first got the VRE-1 to try out before the first show I did with Steve, I was very, very skeptical that a transformer-coupled preamp could be transparent. Even more so when I realized that he had an input transformer AND an output transformer. At that time I had the FM Acoustics preamp. I also had a couple of devices that claim that it was better to use them without a preamp -- the Berkeley Alpha DAC, the Weiss Minerva and the Esoteric P-05/D-05. This was 2008.

However, when I ran any of the DACs directly to drive the power amplifier without the FM 255 preamp, there was a loss of soundstage spaciousness, fine dynamic detail (I know that many on this forum don't believe that there is such thing as 'micro-dynamics'), and resolution.

And this is how I test for "truth". I plug TWO balanced interconnects together in series between the DACs and the power amp. Get a signal, and test voltage at the speaker terminals for a value. Insert a preamp and level-match at the test voltage. Then, it is easy to listen with the preamp in the chain, and out of the chain.

Based on that test, I accepted to use Steve's VRE-1 for RMAF 2008 as "transparent but beneficial". It did not add a sound in that the tonal balance was not changed. It made the system neither richer nor warmer nor "golden" or any of the subjective terms one could use to describe a euphonic coloration.

What it added was soundstage spaciousness - like there was more air around the instruments instead of the instruments all blending together. It did not artificially widen soundstage, as in choirs would blend together as they should. It increased resolution, but that first version did not improve the fine dynamic detail that the FM 255 did.

At first, Steve did not believe that there was such a thing as microdynamic detail either. So, I sent him my FM 255 to listen to and he finally understood. About a year after that, he asked me if I wanted to listen to his VRE-1B - and he did manage to get some of the microdynamic detail that I craved. Much later, he came to Seattle with the VRE-1C where he demo'ed it to the PNWAS meeting - it was one of the largest turnouts we had!! I put up my FM 255 for sale the next day.

Congratulations to Steve for being conferred the Product of the Year by Peter Brueninger of AVShowrooms.com

View attachment 12413

Hi Gary:

Thanks for the detailed and informative response. I do believe in "micro-dynamics", for the record.

But you still did not answer the main query, and that is "truth" to what? The source component?

Your test reminds me of the classic paradigm of having a bunch of PERFECTLY measuring speakers, that
all sound DIFFERENT.

BTW, I think Steve's preamp design is rather amazing.

 

[Andre Marc]

When I first got the VRE-1 to try out before the first show I did with Steve, I was very, very skeptical that a transformer-coupled preamp could be transparent. Even more so when I realized that he had an input transformer AND an output transformer. At that time I had the FM Acoustics preamp. I also had a couple of devices that claim that it was better to use them without a preamp -- the Berkeley Alpha DAC, the Weiss Minerva and the Esoteric P-05/D-05. This was 2008.

However, when I ran any of the DACs directly to drive the power amplifier without the FM 255 preamp, there was a loss of soundstage spaciousness, fine dynamic detail (I know that many on this forum don't believe that there is such thing as 'micro-dynamics'), and resolution.

And this is how I test for "truth". I plug TWO balanced interconnects together in series between the DACs and the power amp. Get a signal, and test voltage at the speaker terminals for a value. Insert a preamp and level-match at the test voltage. Then, it is easy to listen with the preamp in the chain, and out of the chain.

Based on that test, I accepted to use Steve's VRE-1 for RMAF 2008 as "transparent but beneficial". It did not add a sound in that the tonal balance was not changed. It made the system neither richer nor warmer nor "golden" or any of the subjective terms one could use to describe a euphonic coloration.

What it added was soundstage spaciousness - like there was more air around the instruments instead of the instruments all blending together. It did not artificially widen soundstage, as in choirs would blend together as they should. It increased resolution, but that first version did not improve the fine dynamic detail that the FM 255 did.

At first, Steve did not believe that there was such a thing as microdynamic detail either. So, I sent him my FM 255 to listen to and he finally understood. About a year after that, he asked me if I wanted to listen to his VRE-1B - and he did manage to get some of the microdynamic detail that I craved. Much later, he came to Seattle with the VRE-1C where he demo'ed it to the PNWAS meeting - it was one of the largest turnouts we had!! I put up my FM 255 for sale the next day.

Congratulations to Steve for being conferred the Product of the Year by Peter Brueninger of AVShowrooms.com

View attachment 12413

BTW, here is an interesting quote from Charles Hansen of Ayre:

"Hansen explains, most active preamplifiers work by applying to the input signal a certain amount of voltage gain, so the signal can effectively drive a power amplifier. But in order for there to be a reasonable volume range—and to simply keep the playback level from being too loud—the voltage-gain stage is preceded by a potentiometer, which attenuates the signal. The drawback of this is that such a preamp will exhibit its maximal signal/noise ratio only at its maximal (unattenuated) volume. As Hansen puts it, "Since most preamps are used anywhere between –10dB and –40dB for an average listening level, this means the S/N ratio in actual use will be 10–40dB worse than on the spec sheet."

 

[garylkoh]

Hi Gary:

Thanks for the detailed and informative response. I do believe in "micro-dynamics", for the record.

But you still did not answer the main query, and that is "truth" to what? The source component?

Your test reminds me of the classic paradigm of having a bunch of PERFECTLY measuring speakers, that
all sound DIFFERENT.

BTW, I think Steve's preamp design is rather amazing.

Andre,

For me, "truth" is always an honest re-telling, fidelity to the original. For a preamp, what goes in does not get embellished or subtracted from. Hence, truth is to BOTH the signal that it gets from the source component and the signal it gives to the power amp (or recorder in the case of someone using the VRE-1C as a buffer to a tape deck).

 

[Andre Marc]

Andre,

For me, "truth" is always an honest re-telling, fidelity to the original. For a preamp, what goes in does not get embellished or subtracted from. Hence, truth is to BOTH the signal that it gets from the source component and the signal it gives to the power amp (or recorder in the case of someone using the VRE-1C as a buffer to a tape deck).

Gary, very elegant explanation.

I would submit that most preamps add or subtract either at input or output, and the bad ones at both ends.

I would also submit, as Mikey said, you have to pick the version of the "truth" you like the best. Sort of like religion.

 

[DaveyF]

I think sometimes the memories are better than the reality of how some old gear would fare against newer gear. That's not to say that some selected pieces wouldn't still hold their own against all comers of their type. Does anyone really think that the older CAT Signature preamps like Davey owns and I used to own would sound better than the current replacement preamp from CAT? With each generation of CAT preamps, Ken Stevens has found a way to drive more noise out of them. I think the MKII Signature I owned had 10dB less noise than its predecessor according to Ken.

Mep, while no one is arguing that the newer itineration of Ken's preamps sound better than his earlier designs; I am stating that my particular preamp is not as stock and therefore sounds different to the one that you used to own.I have changed out the tubes for NOS and the top plate and connecting hardware has been modified ( which has resulted in a far better sounding preamp than what I started out with). Since you have not heard my particular preamp, I am absolutely certain that you have no clue as to what it sounds like. Furthermore, I suspect that at the time that you owned the CAT, you were probably not doing it justice with your ancillary gear and therefore there is a good (great) chance that you NEVER heard what it could do. Your memory may not be favorable, however, since I listen to my CAT all the time, I do NOT need to rely on my memory.

 

[Worldcat]

I use to be one of those guys that it had to be so transparent to source, sometimes you listen to something and it just sounds BAD. I have changed now if my head isn't bobbing or my foot tapping, then i don't want the product. Sure accuracy is important, but to me musicality has to be the main focus. If you can intertwine both of them, then wow thats magic and awesome sounding. Just my 2 cents, but thats the fun of the hobby and nobody is right or wrong. Maybe one day i will go back to that maybe not.

 

[garylkoh]

I use to be one of those guys that it had to be so transparent to source, sometimes you listen to something and it just sounds BAD. I have changed now if my head isn't bobbing or my foot tapping, then i don't want the product. Sure accuracy is important, but to me musicality has to be the main focus. If you can intertwine both of them, then wow thats magic and awesome sounding. Just my 2 cents, but thats the fun of the hobby and nobody is right or wrong. Maybe one day i will go back to that maybe not.

The fundamental requirement for me is musicality. Afterall, we are using the system to listen to music, not listen to test tones. I think that the VRE-1C is supremely musical - even more so than some highly-rated preamps that are euphonic but that coloration is excused because they are musical.

 

[Worldcat]

If you can get both, it would be amazing. I heard a pre not that long ago, so transparent but WOW no musicality.

 

[garylkoh]

If you can get both, it would be amazing. I heard a pre not that long ago, so transparent but WOW no musicality.

Try to get a listen to the VRE-1C. I think you would be amazed. I was with FM Acoustics (first 266 then 255) for nearly 20 years because it was extremely musical and also transparent. The VRE-1C was the only thing I've found to be better.