Al, you can guess how frustrating it was to demo the Koda K10 w it's totally stellar SQ in every way, and reject it for it's inability to fine tune volume in my preferred range. Hence my launching this thread re a preamp w theoretically even less user adjustability.
Thoughts on total number of steps and dB range per step in preamp volume controls.
- Thread starter spiritofmusic
- Start date
So for a different perspective. I have 24 steps on my 10Y and have absolutely no desire for any further granularity - just not needed for me. Obviously I also ditched remote. I was somewhat worried when I first went this route but realised that if anything it removes any audiophile anxiety.
Well Bill, I see my Nat preamp has 100+ steps. I tend to stick to 15-18 for my vinyl, occas just past 20. 10-12 on my cdp, occas 15-18. That means I'm not using anything from just over 20 all the way up to 100.
If I go to a preamp that only goes to 23 instead of 100, how does that compare?
If I go to a preamp that only goes to 23 instead of 100, how does that compare?
Yes, extremely frustrating. I don't dare even think what would have happened if my Octave preamp would have had only a stepped option.
I don't like stepped volume controls. My C200 is non stepped...you might search for a preamp that has a non stepped volume control.
TVC is still going to be sensitive to different systems because of gain/input voltage of the amp (just not interconnect length, etc). You might search out a vintage Luxman TVC on ebay and go in that direction - Phil has this and its excellent (with silver trannies even), but no remote unfortunately.
Remote is critical for me - I tried without it on a Django TVC for 2 months while the MF was on order and absolutely hated it.
Last edited:
Sure Keith. I guess I'm struggling to get my head around potentially going from a 100-step preamp to one of 25-steps. But since I don't ever use the uppermost 75-steps on my preamp, maybe a 25-steps preamp makes more sense than it seems.
My instinct on the Emia would be to go for the 47-steps 1.25 dB per step Elmaformer.
Lack of remote control is not a deal breaker for me.
My instinct on the Emia would be to go for the 47-steps 1.25 dB per step Elmaformer.
Lack of remote control is not a deal breaker for me.
Last edited:
Marc, a couple of points from another MFA owner, who has experimented with a number of active preamps in the past. IMHO, it is an exaggeration to state that the difference between every step is 'huge'. It certainly doesn't interefere with my enjoyment of my system. Regarding dynamics, appropriate impedance matching is key. Get that right and there is no issue at all IMO. If I recall correctly, my ARC REF 75SE has an input impedance of 300 ohms and it reproduces music brilliantly with the MFA Baby Ref V2.
Pallen, I'm only relaying my experience in that the Koda frustrated the Hell out of me, and even my Nat pre w 100 steps, ideally matched to my Nat monos STILL proves finicky on some v dynamic cds.
No, it doesn't. The volume control on the Ref DAC is a $6k option. About the same price as your preamp. And I preferred the VC on the MSB Ref (though you did prefer your passive MF).
Better resolution/transparency and transient attack.
But overall, I thought the MF was a good preamp, and compared favorably with the $6k built-in preamp in the MSB. I've certainly heard much worse at similar price points, so I thought the MF did quite well.
I just don't "get" why Keith went for a passive preamp, when he's such a dynamics junkie. Dynamics is one of the desirable traits that an active preamp is supposed to add to a system.
But overall, I thought the MF was a good preamp, and compared favorably with the $6k built-in preamp in the MSB. I've certainly heard much worse at similar price points, so I thought the MF did quite well.
I just don't "get" why Keith went for a passive preamp, when he's such a dynamics junkie. Dynamics is one of the desirable traits that an active preamp is supposed to add to a system.
Last edited:
The MSB sounds more like a typical resistor-based passive preamp that while has more resolution, suffers from providing the body, harmonics, and whole note of musical flow. Note, I (and Ron) preferred the ARC Ref 10 to the MSB Reference internal preamp as well in Alex's mega room.
While we agree on many things, Alex focuses much more on detail than I do. I actually found the MF and ARC sounding bolder than the MSB. But if you want sharper, more detailed sound the MSB passive is the way to go.
Thanks, Alex and Keith, for the informative replies. I guess I can be happy with my active external preamp as it checks all the boxes.
We should, but it's elusive. Funny how after all the previous expenses in my system, only with the new preamp things really fell into place, at once.
Similar threads
Members online
- Downtheline
- jazzdude99
- moby2004
- Blake
- alecm
- Filipposm
- Pallen
- Jpowell
- cdka
- thekong
- GroovySauce
- russtafarian
- UncleE
- jadedavid
- ticktock
- RnRmf
- Danager
- emoonie
- quest4audio
- rau
- Robh3606
- Nsxturbo
- hopkins
- MattSPL
- R Johnson
- mainelotus
- bcwsrt
- dennis h
- oldmustang
- sbnx
- RickS
- Catcher10
- Prn78
- dgraves
- miyama kawasemi
- JRW1971
- donnedonne
- John T
- No Regrets
- Sarge
- ozy
- TooCool4
- rodecki
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |