Before we get going here, let me say right off that there are two things that really upset me when I read reviews of stereo equipment. First, is the fact that we never, ever, see a review by an owner that says, in essence “the last piece of gear I had is actually better than the piece I’m using now.” Second, we have been reading reviews of audio gear for decades which are ripe with incremental descriptors such as “the bass is far more articulated and tighter…the highs are much more transparent and clear…one can hear the space between instruments much better” etc., than our previous references. We read these reviews monthly, so naturally one would think that after reading such remarks after 30 years, we must be talking about the cumulative differences that surely must make the older gear look like “two Dixie cups and string” compared to having live performers in one’s listening room with the modern equivalent. Yet as we know, that is hardly the case.
Sure, equipment has improved incrementally and even by relatively big leaps at times. Still, one gets the idea that after reading about these “astonishing” improvements in sound with almost every new review, something must be terribly wrong since the gap between "live" and "reproduced" is always obvious and a no-brainer. It is, in effect, like saying that one’s objective is to exit a room by leaving through a doorway, yet what we really mean in audio -review speak is that we hope to exit a room by marching 50% towards the door with each step. Shouldn’t we realize the foolishness and futility of using language in reviewing audio gear that culminates in a rave or suggests “being blown away” by our new equipment compared to the old gear each and every time we make the comparison? Yet we do it over and over again. And we have been doing it not only for years, but for decades. In order to make sense of this, I suppose we should just say that we simply exaggerate very minor differences in sound equipment and blow them out of proportion in the prose and parlance of audio reviewing. Nothing you can say in reviewing the different sonic attributes of say a Marantz Model 9 of yesteryear and say, a VTL Siegfried, a modern day marvel, is going to make it as though the New York Philharmonic really appeared in your listening room with one device but was totally absent with the other. So let’s set the record straight. Audio reviewers generally reference small sonic differences that look huge under a microscope, but are in reality far less dramatic or intensely different when they appear in the real world of the home listening environment in comparison to the real thing. With that in mind, I’d like to describe my recent experience with the VTL 7.5MkII preamp.
It was less than year ago that I upgraded preamps from the Audio Research Ref 3 to the Ref 5. If you would have told me that within that time, I would feel any need whatsoever to change preamplifiers again, or to even think there would be any merit whatsoever in doing so, I would have said you were nuts. After all, I just went from a darn good preamp to a slightly better preamp so what was there to gain by changing preamps yet again? As one who for decades has always operated on the principal that one should target and upgrade the weakest link in one’s system, surely I could have spent my money more wisely elsewhere? But in May something totally delightful and unanticipated occurred. I happen to be in the South Florida area for a medical meeting, and is my custom, I often visit hi-end audio stores to see and hear stuff that I ordinarily don’t have access to in my hometown (DFW). So it was that I stopped by David Zuker’s Sound Experience in Boca Raton. Part of the “delightful and unanticipated” part was discovering that David is the rarest of breeds- an audio dealer that knows what the hell he is doing. (It’s like a good massage. After you suffer through a lot of bad ones, the good ones become obvious). Ok, so David is cool. But in fact, I generally do these sorts of visits and never really plan buying anything (big groan from the dealers out there, I’m sure), since most of the time I leave unimpressed. But this time was different. David is of those dealers who takes pride in just letting you hear a system that he thinks is the cats’ meow. So we went into the inner sanctum sanctorum (i.e. the back room) to take advantage of his generosity and started listening. And what I heard was good. In fact, damn good. Boulder memory player, VTL 7.5 Mk II preamp, Siegfried amp, Scaena loudspeakers, Transparent cabling. But what I was wrestling with was trying to understand why the sound was not just good, but uncannily good. After all, I had Pipedreams (the cognescenti will know the Scaena’s similarities to Pipedreams) and have heard Scaenas at the shows. I therefore knew that it and the Siegfrieds were probably not the reasons I was so highly impressed. I also had some show experience with the Boulder (I have a Meitner CDSA) and knew the Transparents (I use Valhalla interconnects and Kubala Elation speaker cables), so I didn’t think those were the culprits. What it came down to then, was the pre-amp. Could that have been the reason I was so impressed? Well, if you were good at taking standardized tests in school, then you know that has to be the right answer or why else would I be writing this article? Still, it made no sense to me. But I know what I heard. To cut to the chase, I bought the VTL 7.5 II shortly after my visit.
I’ve been living with this beautiful piece of gear for several weeks and think that I can now take a reasonable stab at its character. But first, another digression. Everybody knows that its pretty easy to tell the difference between a photograph and a live image, right? Everybody understands that a photograph is only a facsimile that can never, ever, be mistaken for the real thing. Why? Well, for one thing, when you look at a photograph you are looking at silver grains on paper, or the modern day equivalent in color dye paper processing. My point is that there is a grain that is present in a photograph that is not present in live images and it is the perception of this “grain” by the human eye that in large part makes the distinction between a live and reproduced images obvious. By analogy, I think it’s pretty clear that we can usually tell the difference between live music and reproduced music. When you walk down the street and hear a live instrument coming from a second story apartment window, it’s generally very clear that the sound is not one of reproduced music. I propose that one of the qualities that allows for this instant assessment is that live music is devoid of “silver particles” if you will, or perhaps better stated, a “grain” that is present in all reproduced music. There is simply something about the texture of the live sound, devoid of spatial queues, and information contained in amplitude, bandwidth and, distortion of the sound that tells our brains when we are hearing live vs reproduced sound. It has nothing to do with mono vs stereo, or the quality of the equipment being used for reproduction. Rather, it is something about the density of sound without “grain” that is essential in the texture of live sound that allows us not to confuse it with recorded sound. In a way, the issue of “live” in acoustics is sort of a sonic “density” issue whereas in vision it’s an light “density” issue. I am always drawn back to those old carpet ads I used to see on TV where the narrator pushes is fingers in the plush substance and asks “have you ever seen so much carpet in a carpet”? Ah, density. It's all about density.
Well, you now know all you need to know about they key characteristic of the VTL 7.5II that impressed me the most. It is very simply, an electronic device that allows a higher “density” of sound to emerge on the other side of it, than I've heard in any other preamplifier I have ever used. It is, in essence, an acoustic answer to the question “have you ever seen much carpet in a carpet”? The answer, returning to the acoustic metaphor is, I don’t know, but I’ve never heard more sonic density reproduced by any other preamplifier. Everyone has read or experienced stories where reviewers have said that they turned their head suddenly at the speaker when certain sounds are reproduced because they appeared eerily real, right? Well, folks, get used to that with the 7.5 II. Some piano recordings (try Murray Perahia’s recordings on Sony), or burnished brass instruments (any number of Nelson Riddle’s Sinatra charts; Basie Big band material on Pablo; Marty Paich charts of Mel Torme or Sammy Davis Jr) or vocals (too many to name) occasionally give that same eerie effect that results in a turned head looking for the real thing.
The concept of sonic density is not one that I have read about previously in review articles. I was actually introduced to it by the esteemed Mike Grellman, when he described the sound differences among two heavy weight SOA tube amplifiers. He described one as having a more “expansive” sound stage, whereas the other one had more “density”; or "more carpet in a carpet", if you will! He preferred the sound of the latter because it seemed more real to him. The concept then stuck with me but I’ve never had occasion to use it as a descriptor to apply to any audio gear- until now. The VTL 7.5II lets one hear a higher sonic density than the other preamplifier I was using, which was the ARC Ref 5.
Okay. Time for another digression. Has anybody else noticed that it’s been a year since the Ref 5 came out, and we have yet to see any major reviews? What’s up with that? Could it be the king has no clothes? Sure, Valin raved about it at the outset but then again, he raves about most everything. Yet, where is the formal review? My own take is that it is indeed an excellent preamplifier. Its main strength over the Ref 3, which it replaced, is that it was about 3 dB quieter. But, and I say this very hesitatingly because I did not do the proper control experiments, my sense was that the Ref 3 had slightly better deep bass (under 40 Hz) than the Ref 5. Call me crazy, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. But why hasn’t it wowed other usual suspect reviewers in a formal review? Hmmm…..
Anyway, back to the 7.5II. Aside from its main fantastic attribute of passing along information with high sonic density, what else has it got going for it? Well, frankly a lot. The bass is unquestionably better than the Ref 5. I should point out that I am driving a crossover 25 ft away. Could it be that it’s solid state output can drive longer cable lengths than the Ref 5 with less degradation? Don’t know and don’t care. The bass is superb and better than the Ref 5 in every way. Next up, dynamics. Yup, that too, Better macro dynamics and better microdynamics. Here’s something that always bothered me about the Ref 5: it had a sweet spot on the volume control, and that sweet spot is at about 75-90% of max volume. If one turns down the volume on the Ref 5, one loses a good deal of music’s “life”, which I attribute to compromised dynamics. The 7.5II on the other hand, is a far more linear device with superior dynamics whereby the character of the sound does not change over a wide range of gain. The “life” it imparts to the music is uniform at low volume or high volume. Is it due to a better power supply in the 7.5II? Don’t know and don’t care. But it’s real nonetheless. Sonically, those are the attributes that impress me most readily in comparison to the Ref 5; greater sonic density, outstanding and better bass performance, and much improved and linear dynamic performance over its gain range. That does not mean that the benefits of increased sonic density don’t extend to the midrange and top end. It does, hence the “startle effect” which results in one occasionally “looking” for instruments in the room.
Some minor observations: I love the fact that there are only 2 tubes to replace. It makes tube rolling easy. The unit comes with French 12AU7s that are good. But for maximum performance, a good matched pair of Telefunkens (my current choice) takes the unit to another level. It is said that Amperex Bugle boys are equally impressive and perhaps have better dynamics than the Telefunkens. I recently obtained a pair but have not had the opportunity to test them. Similarly I purchased what might be the ultimate 12AU7 varietal which is the revered 802S from Telefunken. It too awaits listening. Frankly I’m either just not motivated, or just too lazy to change a damn thing at the moment since the garden variety Tele 12AU7s I’m currently using just knock me out.
A word or two about the logistics and two chassis arrangement is in order. The VTL folks did their homework here and Luke and Bea are to be congratulated for the ergonomics and efficiency of the design. The unit is quiet as hell. The inputs can be configured many different ways (single ended, balanced, and assignable). A bypass mode exists. The unit imparts variable turn on delay for the power amps, which can be connected by a 12V switch (amplifier permitting). The remote is a thing of beauty in it's layout and design. (The ARC Ref 5 remote on the other hand is a nightmare. If I had a dollar for every time I wanted to adjust the volume but ended up adjusting the balance, I’d be have quite a collection of George Washington pictures.). There are a lot of other features of the 7.5 II that I haven’t described because frankly, they aren’t important to me. But if there is a more flexible and user-friendly device out there at this level, I’d like to know about it.
Time to circle back to the review issues mentioned at the beginning of this essay. If we take a hard look, can we say that this unit is so grossly different in performance from the finest preamps of two decades ago that it makes a difference in whether one’s system is “two Dixie cups and a string” versus having the musicians present in your room? This may come as a surprise to some but the answer is obviously “no”. However, the world of high end audio is generally one in which incremental improvement is achieved over time that allows for performance enhancements that are or can be of great value to those who are able to afford them and which were not attainable previously. The VTL 7.5 II is indeed such an instrument. It is, in a word, a masterpiece. But it does not come cheaply. In the world of iPods and an ever-increasing supply of outstanding equipment that is modestly priced and getting cheaper and better every day, one can argue whether paying this amount for a preamplifier is obscene. In fact, it might be. But if the goal of our hobby, which commands the attention and interest of a relatively small number of audiophiles, is to aspire to own and appreciate equipment that is capable of extraordinary performance that is at the leading edge of what can presently be accomplished by a simple gain and switching device called a preamplifier, then you have to take your hat off to the VTL 7.5 Mk II.
Sure, equipment has improved incrementally and even by relatively big leaps at times. Still, one gets the idea that after reading about these “astonishing” improvements in sound with almost every new review, something must be terribly wrong since the gap between "live" and "reproduced" is always obvious and a no-brainer. It is, in effect, like saying that one’s objective is to exit a room by leaving through a doorway, yet what we really mean in audio -review speak is that we hope to exit a room by marching 50% towards the door with each step. Shouldn’t we realize the foolishness and futility of using language in reviewing audio gear that culminates in a rave or suggests “being blown away” by our new equipment compared to the old gear each and every time we make the comparison? Yet we do it over and over again. And we have been doing it not only for years, but for decades. In order to make sense of this, I suppose we should just say that we simply exaggerate very minor differences in sound equipment and blow them out of proportion in the prose and parlance of audio reviewing. Nothing you can say in reviewing the different sonic attributes of say a Marantz Model 9 of yesteryear and say, a VTL Siegfried, a modern day marvel, is going to make it as though the New York Philharmonic really appeared in your listening room with one device but was totally absent with the other. So let’s set the record straight. Audio reviewers generally reference small sonic differences that look huge under a microscope, but are in reality far less dramatic or intensely different when they appear in the real world of the home listening environment in comparison to the real thing. With that in mind, I’d like to describe my recent experience with the VTL 7.5MkII preamp.
It was less than year ago that I upgraded preamps from the Audio Research Ref 3 to the Ref 5. If you would have told me that within that time, I would feel any need whatsoever to change preamplifiers again, or to even think there would be any merit whatsoever in doing so, I would have said you were nuts. After all, I just went from a darn good preamp to a slightly better preamp so what was there to gain by changing preamps yet again? As one who for decades has always operated on the principal that one should target and upgrade the weakest link in one’s system, surely I could have spent my money more wisely elsewhere? But in May something totally delightful and unanticipated occurred. I happen to be in the South Florida area for a medical meeting, and is my custom, I often visit hi-end audio stores to see and hear stuff that I ordinarily don’t have access to in my hometown (DFW). So it was that I stopped by David Zuker’s Sound Experience in Boca Raton. Part of the “delightful and unanticipated” part was discovering that David is the rarest of breeds- an audio dealer that knows what the hell he is doing. (It’s like a good massage. After you suffer through a lot of bad ones, the good ones become obvious). Ok, so David is cool. But in fact, I generally do these sorts of visits and never really plan buying anything (big groan from the dealers out there, I’m sure), since most of the time I leave unimpressed. But this time was different. David is of those dealers who takes pride in just letting you hear a system that he thinks is the cats’ meow. So we went into the inner sanctum sanctorum (i.e. the back room) to take advantage of his generosity and started listening. And what I heard was good. In fact, damn good. Boulder memory player, VTL 7.5 Mk II preamp, Siegfried amp, Scaena loudspeakers, Transparent cabling. But what I was wrestling with was trying to understand why the sound was not just good, but uncannily good. After all, I had Pipedreams (the cognescenti will know the Scaena’s similarities to Pipedreams) and have heard Scaenas at the shows. I therefore knew that it and the Siegfrieds were probably not the reasons I was so highly impressed. I also had some show experience with the Boulder (I have a Meitner CDSA) and knew the Transparents (I use Valhalla interconnects and Kubala Elation speaker cables), so I didn’t think those were the culprits. What it came down to then, was the pre-amp. Could that have been the reason I was so impressed? Well, if you were good at taking standardized tests in school, then you know that has to be the right answer or why else would I be writing this article? Still, it made no sense to me. But I know what I heard. To cut to the chase, I bought the VTL 7.5 II shortly after my visit.
I’ve been living with this beautiful piece of gear for several weeks and think that I can now take a reasonable stab at its character. But first, another digression. Everybody knows that its pretty easy to tell the difference between a photograph and a live image, right? Everybody understands that a photograph is only a facsimile that can never, ever, be mistaken for the real thing. Why? Well, for one thing, when you look at a photograph you are looking at silver grains on paper, or the modern day equivalent in color dye paper processing. My point is that there is a grain that is present in a photograph that is not present in live images and it is the perception of this “grain” by the human eye that in large part makes the distinction between a live and reproduced images obvious. By analogy, I think it’s pretty clear that we can usually tell the difference between live music and reproduced music. When you walk down the street and hear a live instrument coming from a second story apartment window, it’s generally very clear that the sound is not one of reproduced music. I propose that one of the qualities that allows for this instant assessment is that live music is devoid of “silver particles” if you will, or perhaps better stated, a “grain” that is present in all reproduced music. There is simply something about the texture of the live sound, devoid of spatial queues, and information contained in amplitude, bandwidth and, distortion of the sound that tells our brains when we are hearing live vs reproduced sound. It has nothing to do with mono vs stereo, or the quality of the equipment being used for reproduction. Rather, it is something about the density of sound without “grain” that is essential in the texture of live sound that allows us not to confuse it with recorded sound. In a way, the issue of “live” in acoustics is sort of a sonic “density” issue whereas in vision it’s an light “density” issue. I am always drawn back to those old carpet ads I used to see on TV where the narrator pushes is fingers in the plush substance and asks “have you ever seen so much carpet in a carpet”? Ah, density. It's all about density.
Well, you now know all you need to know about they key characteristic of the VTL 7.5II that impressed me the most. It is very simply, an electronic device that allows a higher “density” of sound to emerge on the other side of it, than I've heard in any other preamplifier I have ever used. It is, in essence, an acoustic answer to the question “have you ever seen much carpet in a carpet”? The answer, returning to the acoustic metaphor is, I don’t know, but I’ve never heard more sonic density reproduced by any other preamplifier. Everyone has read or experienced stories where reviewers have said that they turned their head suddenly at the speaker when certain sounds are reproduced because they appeared eerily real, right? Well, folks, get used to that with the 7.5 II. Some piano recordings (try Murray Perahia’s recordings on Sony), or burnished brass instruments (any number of Nelson Riddle’s Sinatra charts; Basie Big band material on Pablo; Marty Paich charts of Mel Torme or Sammy Davis Jr) or vocals (too many to name) occasionally give that same eerie effect that results in a turned head looking for the real thing.
The concept of sonic density is not one that I have read about previously in review articles. I was actually introduced to it by the esteemed Mike Grellman, when he described the sound differences among two heavy weight SOA tube amplifiers. He described one as having a more “expansive” sound stage, whereas the other one had more “density”; or "more carpet in a carpet", if you will! He preferred the sound of the latter because it seemed more real to him. The concept then stuck with me but I’ve never had occasion to use it as a descriptor to apply to any audio gear- until now. The VTL 7.5II lets one hear a higher sonic density than the other preamplifier I was using, which was the ARC Ref 5.
Okay. Time for another digression. Has anybody else noticed that it’s been a year since the Ref 5 came out, and we have yet to see any major reviews? What’s up with that? Could it be the king has no clothes? Sure, Valin raved about it at the outset but then again, he raves about most everything. Yet, where is the formal review? My own take is that it is indeed an excellent preamplifier. Its main strength over the Ref 3, which it replaced, is that it was about 3 dB quieter. But, and I say this very hesitatingly because I did not do the proper control experiments, my sense was that the Ref 3 had slightly better deep bass (under 40 Hz) than the Ref 5. Call me crazy, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it. But why hasn’t it wowed other usual suspect reviewers in a formal review? Hmmm…..
Anyway, back to the 7.5II. Aside from its main fantastic attribute of passing along information with high sonic density, what else has it got going for it? Well, frankly a lot. The bass is unquestionably better than the Ref 5. I should point out that I am driving a crossover 25 ft away. Could it be that it’s solid state output can drive longer cable lengths than the Ref 5 with less degradation? Don’t know and don’t care. The bass is superb and better than the Ref 5 in every way. Next up, dynamics. Yup, that too, Better macro dynamics and better microdynamics. Here’s something that always bothered me about the Ref 5: it had a sweet spot on the volume control, and that sweet spot is at about 75-90% of max volume. If one turns down the volume on the Ref 5, one loses a good deal of music’s “life”, which I attribute to compromised dynamics. The 7.5II on the other hand, is a far more linear device with superior dynamics whereby the character of the sound does not change over a wide range of gain. The “life” it imparts to the music is uniform at low volume or high volume. Is it due to a better power supply in the 7.5II? Don’t know and don’t care. But it’s real nonetheless. Sonically, those are the attributes that impress me most readily in comparison to the Ref 5; greater sonic density, outstanding and better bass performance, and much improved and linear dynamic performance over its gain range. That does not mean that the benefits of increased sonic density don’t extend to the midrange and top end. It does, hence the “startle effect” which results in one occasionally “looking” for instruments in the room.
Some minor observations: I love the fact that there are only 2 tubes to replace. It makes tube rolling easy. The unit comes with French 12AU7s that are good. But for maximum performance, a good matched pair of Telefunkens (my current choice) takes the unit to another level. It is said that Amperex Bugle boys are equally impressive and perhaps have better dynamics than the Telefunkens. I recently obtained a pair but have not had the opportunity to test them. Similarly I purchased what might be the ultimate 12AU7 varietal which is the revered 802S from Telefunken. It too awaits listening. Frankly I’m either just not motivated, or just too lazy to change a damn thing at the moment since the garden variety Tele 12AU7s I’m currently using just knock me out.
A word or two about the logistics and two chassis arrangement is in order. The VTL folks did their homework here and Luke and Bea are to be congratulated for the ergonomics and efficiency of the design. The unit is quiet as hell. The inputs can be configured many different ways (single ended, balanced, and assignable). A bypass mode exists. The unit imparts variable turn on delay for the power amps, which can be connected by a 12V switch (amplifier permitting). The remote is a thing of beauty in it's layout and design. (The ARC Ref 5 remote on the other hand is a nightmare. If I had a dollar for every time I wanted to adjust the volume but ended up adjusting the balance, I’d be have quite a collection of George Washington pictures.). There are a lot of other features of the 7.5 II that I haven’t described because frankly, they aren’t important to me. But if there is a more flexible and user-friendly device out there at this level, I’d like to know about it.
Time to circle back to the review issues mentioned at the beginning of this essay. If we take a hard look, can we say that this unit is so grossly different in performance from the finest preamps of two decades ago that it makes a difference in whether one’s system is “two Dixie cups and a string” versus having the musicians present in your room? This may come as a surprise to some but the answer is obviously “no”. However, the world of high end audio is generally one in which incremental improvement is achieved over time that allows for performance enhancements that are or can be of great value to those who are able to afford them and which were not attainable previously. The VTL 7.5 II is indeed such an instrument. It is, in a word, a masterpiece. But it does not come cheaply. In the world of iPods and an ever-increasing supply of outstanding equipment that is modestly priced and getting cheaper and better every day, one can argue whether paying this amount for a preamplifier is obscene. In fact, it might be. But if the goal of our hobby, which commands the attention and interest of a relatively small number of audiophiles, is to aspire to own and appreciate equipment that is capable of extraordinary performance that is at the leading edge of what can presently be accomplished by a simple gain and switching device called a preamplifier, then you have to take your hat off to the VTL 7.5 Mk II.
Last edited:
