Blind Review with Specs

[rolyasm]

Here are two pres, one I will probably buy. I am curious if I post specs, if someone could point out which pre should be better. I know there is more to equipment than just specs, but I think it would be interesting and maybe teach me some stuff. here goes. I wish I knew how to put them side to side to make it easier, so I really appreciate those of you who take on this challenge.
Pre A:


Audio
Performance
Frequency Response
20 Hz – 20 kHz, +/- 0.1 dB
20 Hz – 35 kHz, +/- 0.5 dB
Interchannel Crosstalk
-105 dB
Total Harmonic Distortion
Digital Inputs 0.005%
Analog Inputs 0.005%
S/N Ratio, A-weighted
Digital Inputs 105 dB
Analog Inputs 100 dB
7.1 channel Analog Input 103 dB
Maximum Analog Input Level
2 Volts RMS
Input Impedance
Coaxial Digital Inputs 75 O
Analog Inputs 12k O
Maximum Analog Output Level
Main Outputs 8 Volts RMS
Record Output 1 Volt RMS
Fixed Zone Output 1 Volt RMS
Output Impedance
Analog Outputs 120 O
Record Output 120 O
Video Performance
Bandwidth
Component Video 100 MHz, - 3 dB
S-Video 8 MHz, - 3 dB
Composite Video 8 MHz, - 3 dB
Signal-to-Noise Ratio
Component Video 80 dB
S-Video 70 dB
Composite Video 70 dB
Input Impedance
All Video Inputs 75 O
General Information
Dimensions
171/4” Wide
16” Deep
57/8” High with feet, 51/4” panel only (150 mm)
437 x 406 x 150 mm, 133 mm panel only
Power Requirements
90 V to 260 V AC, 50-60 Hz, 65 watts
Net Weight
18 lb. (8.2 kg)
Shipping Weight
26 lb. (11.8 kg)
THX Ultra2

Pre B

Audio Characteristics
Frequency Response
Digital Inputs 20 Hz – 42 kHz
Analog Inputs 20 Hz – 22 kHz
7.1-Channel Input 5 Hz – 200 kHz, -3 dB
20 Hz – 20 kHz, - 0.5 dB
Total Harmonic Distortion
Digital Inputs < 0.002%
Analog Inputs < 0.002%
7.1-Channel Inputs < 0.002%
Signal-to-Noise Ratio
Digital Inputs >102 dB
Analog Inputs > 98 dB
7.1-Channel Input >107 dB
Input Impedance
Coaxial Digital Inputs 75 Ω
Unbalanced Analog Inputs 17 kΩ
7.1-Channel Input 17 kΩ
Balanced Analog Inputs 25 kΩ per leg
Output Impedance
Coaxial Digital Output 75 Ω
7.1-Channel Outputs 50 Ω
Balanced Analog Outputs 50 Ω per leg
Programmable Outputs 50 Ω
Zone Output 50 Ω
Rec/Out, Record Outputs 470 Ω
Input Sensitivity for THX Reference Level
Digital Inputs 0 dBFS
Analog Inputs 2 V rms
Maximum Input Levels
Unbalanced Analog Inputs 3.6 V rms
7.1-Channel Input 8 V rms
Balanced Analog Inputs 35 V rms
Maximum Output Levels
7.1-Channel Outputs 8 V rms
Balanced Outputs 16 V rms
Programmable Outputs 8 V rms
Zone Output same as input
Rec/Out, Record Outputs same as input
Video Characteristics
Bandwidth
Component Video 300 MHz
Composite, S-video 30 MHz, no OSD
8 MHz, OSD
Input Impedance
Component Video Inputs 75 Ω
S-video Inputs 75 Ω
Composite Video Inputs 75 Ω
Output Impedance
Component Video Outputs 75 Ω
S-video Outputs 75 Ω
Composite Video Outputs 75 Ω
General Information
Dimensions
Width: 17 1⁄4" (437 mm)
Panel Height: 5 1⁄4" (133 mm)
Total Height, with feet: 5 7⁄8" (150 mm)
Depth: 16" (406 mm)
Power Requirements
90 V to 260 V AC, 50-60 Hz, 65 watts
Net Weight
18 lb.
Shipping Weight
32 lb.
THX Ultra 2

 

[mulester7]

.....Rolyasm, I view the two pre-amps pretty much the same, with possibly a nod going to A, but I would not purchase until I had heard what both of them would produce audio-wise....the considerations of video switching would not enter in....the video has a way of taking care of itself, I've noticed....simple, the ears would decide with same source, amping, and speakering.....

 

[rolyasm]

Hey Mulester,
Glad to know you are still surfing. I still love the BBQ sauce. Thanks again. Any specifics as to why you think A might be a bit better? Pre A does upconvert video, Pre B doesn't. But as you say, video tends to take care of itself... Also, I really don't have any way to audition either of these units. Nobody in the area carries them.
Roly

 

[rynberg]

The specs are pretty much meaningless. Most quality pre-amps aren't really going to sound that much different. If you are just picking a pre-amp without auditioning it, I would spend a lot of time going over the owner's manuals and seeing which one would be more ergonomic to use. Features and appearance certainly should play a large role at that point also.

 

[rolyasm]

So Rynberg,
Do you think you can tell a "quality Pre-amp" by looking at specs? Would you consider these specs to be from quality pre-amps? That is part of my problem. I have very few places around here to audition much. Either is is receivers, or it is 5-10k pieces. Not much in the middle. So basically I kind of have to look at some specs, look at the manual like you said, and make a decision. Tough to do. Thanks for the reply.
Roly

 

[Nick250]

If they are competently designed and manufactured I would think they should sound pretty much the same. FYI they those on this board who think the Yamaha RVX 2600 makes as good a pre pro as higher priced dedicated pre pros.

Nick

 

[rynberg]

So Rynberg,
Do you think you can tell a "quality Pre-amp" by looking at specs? Would you consider these specs to be from quality pre-amps? That is part of my problem. I have very few places around here to audition much. Either is is receivers, or it is 5-10k pieces. Not much in the middle. So basically I kind of have to look at some specs, look at the manual like you said, and make a decision. Tough to do. Thanks for the reply.
Roly

No, that's the point, you can't tell anything by looking at specs. There are several companies out there that have a good reputation for making quality equipment. Start there. What is your budget?

Honestly, if you can't audition, what does it matter? A pre-amp from any reputable manufacturer is going to sound "good". If you aren't directly comparing it to another piece (pretty difficult to do), then what difference does it make?

 

[mtrycrafts]

So Rynberg,
Do you think you can tell a "quality Pre-amp" by looking at specs? Would you consider these specs to be from quality pre-amps? That is part of my problem. I have very few places around here to audition much. Either is is receivers, or it is 5-10k pieces. Not much in the middle. So basically I kind of have to look at some specs, look at the manual like you said, and make a decision. Tough to do. Thanks for the reply.
Roly

Yes, those specs look like quality preamps and they are equals. If the specs are reliable which I suspect would be close if tested in a similar manner, the differences are below JND thresholds to differentiate.
As rolyasm indicated, make sure the one you pick will meet your needs and is flexible to perhaps meet it to the near future as well.

 

[rolyasm]

Thanks for the replies. I kind of have been leaning towards rynberg's philosophy that if I can't audition a bunch, what does it matter. I probably will be happy with almost any good pre, which seems to be all of them, ha. That is where it gets tricky. They all have their following, they all have their wish-lists and complaints. Then there are those like Nick who even open up the whole "using a receiver as a pre" argument. I guess I will flip a coin. I'll let you know.
Roly

 

[Nick250]

Good luck on your search. It seems to me, given the options you are considering, it's hard to go wrong. Just to reiterate what Marty mentioned, and that is making sure you have the all features that you need now or may need down the road a bit.

Nick

 

[mulester7]

.....Guys, for whatever it's worth, probably not a whole lot....two weeks ago, I switched back from an Earthquake 5 channel on the front mains and surrounds back to vintage McIntosh two channel amps I had in storage....that would be an MC2200, and an MC2105....what came from the speakers with Mc back on them was "live", and may I say I've been on a long pilgrimage concering amps and pre-amps....I then ordered a Placette passive linestage pre-amp for $1700 just to try it....upon swapping out the pre's, the Placette sounded like the singer's mic was the only one on....I switched back to my Mac C-26 pre-amp, and suddenly there were ambiance mics all over the house, now there it is....I am convinced McIntosh vintage solid-state pre's and amps is the way I want to go, and may try a tubed vintage pre one day....I mailed the Placette to Morro Bay Bob, and he is sending me another pair of front mains to use as rears....I ordered yesterday an MC126 multi-channel Mac amp, and an MC2120 stereo Mac amp....I now have 12 channels of Mac amps, and am tickled....I will use the MC126 multi-channel as four channels instead of six, and have two channels 275 at 8, and two channels 80 at 8, and we all know McIntosh amps are under-rated on watts, don't we?....Gentlemen, this vintage McIntosh stuff don't cost that much....if I were considering a receiver to use in one of your displays, Rolyasm, I would look at JVC digital receivers....no transformer, kinda' like fuel injection, and Morro Bay Bob has such a receiver along with his other expensive stuff, and raves about it....I'll stick with McIntosh vintage used, and the Earthquake on the bass seperates I have....it does a wonderful job there.....

 

[tdeluce]

.....Guys, for whatever it's worth, probably not a whole lot....two weeks ago, I switched back from an Earthquake 5 channel on the front mains and surrounds back to vintage McIntosh two channel amps I had in storage....that would be an MC2200, and an MC2105....what came from the speakers with Mc back on them was "live", and may I say I've been on a long pilgrimage concering amps and pre-amps....I then ordered a Placette passive linestage pre-amp for $1700 just to try it....upon swapping out the pre's, the Placette sounded like the singer's mic was the only one on....I switched back to my Mac C-26 pre-amp, and suddenly there were ambiance mics all over the house, now there it is....I am convinced McIntosh vintage solid-state pre's and amps is the way I want to go, and may try a tubed vintage pre one day....I mailed the Placette to Morro Bay Bob, and he is sending me another pair of front mains to use as rears....I ordered yesterday an MC126 multi-channel Mac amp, and an MC2120 stereo Mac amp....I now have 12 channels of Mac amps, and am tickled....I will use the MC126 multi-channel as four channels instead of six, and have two channels 275 at 8, and two channels 80 at 8, and we all know McIntosh amps are under-rated on watts, don't we?....Gentlemen, this vintage McIntosh stuff don't cost that much....if I were considering a receiver to use in one of your displays, Rolyasm, I would look at JVC digital receivers....no transformer, kinda' like fuel injection, and Morro Bay Bob has such a receiver along with his other expensive stuff, and raves about it....I'll stick with McIntosh vintage used, and the Earthquake on the bass seperates I have....it does a wonderful job there.....

Check out the specs on the McIntosh amps you have - your probably not the
only one who prefers distortion

 

[mulester7]

Check out the specs on the McIntosh amps you have - your probably not the
only one who prefers distortion

.....TDeluce, my friend, specs come second....and, I prefer, "live sound quality", not distortion....if McIntosh means distortion according to the specs, did I mention specs come in second with a red ribbon?.........

 

[rolyasm]

Thanks for the replies. In case you are interested, amp A is the Parasound classic 7100, amp is the Parasound Halo C2, which is the higher priced amp. I got lucky and found a dealer who has the 7100 in his house. Unfortunately it is several hours away, but worth the drive. It would be nice if I totally hated it, just to make my decision easier, hehe. I am sure it will be nice. My other real option is the Sherwood P-965. I have listened to it and liked it fine. The two pre's are on totally different systems, so not sure how much this audition will help me, but at least I can look at it and maybe play with the knobs a bit. This dealer uses Triads for his LCR, Triad dipole for surrounds. The other system using Sherwood was a 5.1 all on direct radiating mains. I'll let you know.
Roly

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thanks for the replies. In case you are interested, amp A is the Parasound classic 7100, amp is the Parasound Halo C2, which is the higher priced amp. I got lucky and found a dealer who has the 7100 in his house. Unfortunately it is several hours away, but worth the drive. It would be nice if I totally hated it, just to make my decision easier, hehe.

What you will hear is his speakers, the recording quality, and his acoustic space, not the components, unless he has some poor tubed gear.

b] My other real option is the Sherwood P-965. I have listened to it and liked it fine. The two pre's are on totally different systems, so not sure how much this audition will help me, but at least I can look at it and maybe play with the knobs a bit. Roly[/b]

The two systems with different speakers, rooms and time lapse in memory will not give you a fair chance at comparisons. Forget it. But, playing with the components are important.

 

[mulester7]

The two systems with different speakers, rooms and time lapse in memory will not give you a fair chance at comparisons

.....most probably quite true....you need to be able to pull one pre-amp out, and stick the other in with the same system with as little delay as possible....that way, you should have no trouble making a comparison of the "presence" of the two pre-amps.....