MBL Pre-amp De-Thrones Benchmark?

[MattHooper]

Here's another:

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

Good for Jason. Looks like he gets a real kick out of whistling.

My Dad, a Jazz musician/band leader and music teacher, was a superb whistler. It wasn't as hobby or entertainment, just something he'd do occasionally, and I'd often stop and listen; it was so musical. One of the many things I miss about my Dad...

 

[anmpr1]

Jason, a man who obviously knows the intricacies of music, falls victim to a common fallacy--that of ascribing to an external material artifact what is essentially an internal immaterial mental process. We know this difference as the difference between the sensible and the intelligible.

Music is a mental process. What I mean is that written notes on paper along with the actual sound are physical, material, but the recognition of the sound as music is a mental act. One does not 'perceive' music. One perceives sound. The integration of sound into understandable patterns (music) is a mental intuition. It is akin to speech/semantics in language. The former is material, the latter an internal thing.

In their reviews, Jason and others like him engage in a species or type of reification. Their mental faculty 'constructs' a musical understanding which can vary depending upon how one happens to interpret the physical notes/sounds at any particular 'listening'. If they happen to be using a new (especially an expensive) preamp (or DAC or whatever) they then erroneously attribute their 'new' musical insights to the external thing that is reproducing the sound (preamp, amp, DAC), when in fact it is their own internal mental process that is offering them the 'new' musical insights.

You can tell this by descriptions in their reviews. They usually do not talk about physical (measurable) things like distortion and frequency response aberrations--things that could actually cause a perceived change in the physical sound, but rather talk in an almost mystical way about their inner response to the music.

One can demonstrate this to oneself by thinking about how one frequently 'hears' music 'in new ways' using the same gear. This 'new way' is not perceptual but internal--depending upon how one listens and integrates the sound. In other words, it does not derive within and from the gear itself.

 

[SIY]

Jason, a man who obviously knows the intricacies of music, falls victim to a common fallacy--that of ascribing to an external material artifact what is essentially an internal immaterial mental process. We know this difference as the difference between the sensible and the intelligible.

Music is a mental process. What I mean is that written notes on paper along with the actual sound are physical, material, but the recognition of the sound as music is a mental act. One does not 'perceive' music. One perceives sound. The integration of sound into understandable patterns (music) is a mental intuition. It is akin to speech/semantics in language. The former is material, the latter an internal thing.

In their reviews, Jason and others like him engage in a species or type of reification. Their mental faculty 'constructs' a musical understanding which can vary depending upon how one happens to interpret the physical notes/sounds at any particular 'listening'. If they happen to be using a new (especially an expensive) preamp (or DAC or whatever) they then erroneously attribute their 'new' musical insights to the external thing that is reproducing the sound (preamp, amp, DAC), when in fact it is their own internal mental process that is offering them the 'new' musical insights.

You can tell this by descriptions in their reviews. They usually do not talk about physical (measurable) things like distortion and frequency response aberrations--things that could actually cause a perceived change in the physical sound, but rather talk in an almost mystical way about their inner response to the music.

One can demonstrate this to oneself by thinking about how one frequently 'hears' music 'in new ways' using the same gear. This 'new way' is not perceptual but internal--depending upon how one listens and integrates the sound. In other words, it does not derive within and from the gear itself.

Shorter version: Jason is both deluded and unhindered by any particular understanding of the technologies he writes about.

I think that's the kindest conclusion.

 

[anmpr1]

Shorter version: Jason is both deluded and unhindered by any particular understanding of the technologies he writes about. I think that's the kindest conclusion.

Well, SIY, you're not just whistling in the wind!

 

[Tks]

Umm, what's the point of pre-amps anymore considering DAC's these days easily suffice?

 

[MattHooper]

Umm, what's the point of pre-amps anymore considering DAC's these days easily suffice?

Er....switching between sources?

(That's what I do with mine).

 

[Tks]

Er....switching between sources?

(That's what I do with mine).

Most DACs have usually three or more inputs though? How many sources does one need? Or are you talking about some professional application?

 

[MattHooper]

Most DACs have usually three or more inputs though? How many sources does one need? Or are you talking about some professional application?

Oh, well yes you could buy a DAC that has switching capabilities for multiple inputs. Though that's generally by converting everything to digital.
I'm switching sources between my digital source (DAC) and my analog source (vinyl/turntable set up). I prefer to keep my digital source digital/analog source analog. My pre-amp let's me do that. Plus...I like tube amplification, so it satisfies my desire to have a tube preamp.

So the answer to "what's the point of pre-amps anymore?" will depend on the goals and desires of the user of course.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Most DACs have usually three or more inputs though? How many sources does one need? Or are you talking about some professional application?

In my case, which is unusual since it is multichannel, none of the DACs have multiple inputs unless one includes ethernet as accepting more than one source. OTOH, I need a device to support more than one multichannel DAC. Any thoughts?

 

[Tks]

In my case, which is unusual since it is multichannel, none of the DACs have multiple inputs unless one includes ethernet as accepting more than one source. OTOH, I need a device to support more than one multichannel DAC. Any thoughts?

A device to support a multichannel DAC. I'm just not understanding I suppose. Like if you have something like an Okto DAC.. What do you mean when you say you need "a device" that supports multiple input DACs? Why would the inputs ordeal differ if it was multi-channel or not? I understand you can say there aren't many multi-channel DACs, sure, but the topic was amount of inputs?

 

[beefkabob]

If no one has seen his performance of While My Guitar Gently Weeps, it’s impressive:

Maybe technically. I see technique over emotion.

 

[anmpr1]

Umm, what's the point of pre-amps anymore considering DAC's these days easily suffice?

I miss full function preamplification. If everything is digits it's not a problem since you can control it all via software. But for analog sources it's different. I use a DAC3hgc which has preamp features, however I miss: balance control, tone control, high pass (subsonic) filtering, mono/A/B/reverse switching. All those are important for analog sources.

PS: I checked the MBL site for some info, and it didn't appear that this high-end wunderkind has any traditional preamp features like the ones I mentioned above. Maybe it does, buried in an on screen menu tree, but the documentation was sparse and didn't mention them. If it doesn't have them then this is a poor excuse for a stand alone preamplifier IMO.

 

[q3cpma]

Jason, a man who obviously knows the intricacies of music, falls victim to a common fallacy--that of ascribing to an external material artifact what is essentially an internal immaterial mental process. We know this difference as the difference between the sensible and the intelligible.

Music is a mental process. What I mean is that written notes on paper along with the actual sound are physical, material, but the recognition of the sound as music is a mental act. One does not 'perceive' music. One perceives sound. The integration of sound into understandable patterns (music) is a mental intuition. It is akin to speech/semantics in language. The former is material, the latter an internal thing.

In their reviews, Jason and others like him engage in a species or type of reification. Their mental faculty 'constructs' a musical understanding which can vary depending upon how one happens to interpret the physical notes/sounds at any particular 'listening'. If they happen to be using a new (especially an expensive) preamp (or DAC or whatever) they then erroneously attribute their 'new' musical insights to the external thing that is reproducing the sound (preamp, amp, DAC), when in fact it is their own internal mental process that is offering them the 'new' musical insights.

You can tell this by descriptions in their reviews. They usually do not talk about physical (measurable) things like distortion and frequency response aberrations--things that could actually cause a perceived change in the physical sound, but rather talk in an almost mystical way about their inner response to the music.

One can demonstrate this to oneself by thinking about how one frequently 'hears' music 'in new ways' using the same gear. This 'new way' is not perceptual but internal--depending upon how one listens and integrates the sound. In other words, it does not derive within and from the gear itself.

As a quite wise man said, "they muddy the waters to make it seem deep".

 

[Kal Rubinson]

A device to support a multichannel DAC. I'm just not understanding I suppose. Like if you have something like an Okto DAC.. What do you mean when you say you need "a device" that supports multiple input DACs? Why would the inputs ordeal differ if it was multi-channel or not? I understand you can say there aren't many multi-channel DACs, sure, but the topic was amount of inputs?

I have more than one multichannel DAC. I am dealing with the clumsiness of connecting/changing their analog outputs.

 

[Tks]

I have more than one multichannel DAC. I am dealing with the clumsiness of connecting/changing their analog outputs.

Wait so, these multi channel DACs you have, they don't allow switching of outputs? Bah this is just confusion, how would you even connect (or why would you) connect multiple DACs within a system together? Do they not offer enough channels or something?

I miss full function preamplification. If everything is digits it's not a problem since you can control it all via software. But for analog sources it's different. I use a DAC3hgc which has preamp features, however I miss: balance control, tone control, high pass (subsonic) filtering, mono/A/B/reverse switching. All those are important for analog sources.

PS: I checked the MBL site for some info, and it didn't appear that this high-end wunderkind has any traditional preamp features like the ones I mentioned above. Maybe it does, buried in an on screen menu tree, but the documentation was sparse and didn't mention them. If it doesn't have them then this is a poor excuse for a stand alone preamplifier IMO.

Yeah analogue sources are just a bit alien to me. The only analogue sources I've ever used in life is cassette (so nothing vinyl or anything like reel tape). So I suppose that would require pre-amps with those functions, and thus things make more sense to me now.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Wait so, these multi channel DACs you have, they don't allow switching of outputs?

Why would they? Do stereo DACs switch outputs?

Bah this is just confusion, how would you even connect (or why would you) connect multiple DACs within a system together? Do they not offer enough channels or something?

Additional channels is one possible reason but, for me, it is the ability to use different DACs for testing, comparison and curiosity.
I have one of these but I need 8 channels (not 6) and it is, unfortunately, too noisy.

 

[Tks]

Why would they? Do stereo DACs switch outputs?

Additional channels is one possible reason but, for me, it is the ability to use different DACs for testing, comparison and curiosity.

Uhh, Topping, and RME for example kinda do? Maybe I'm misunderstanding, were you refering to switching outputs, or specifically controlling which analogue outs are being specifically used? On the RME I can use either the 3.5mm, or the quarter-inch, or the analogue line-out's on the back, or have them all outputting at the same time. Likewise with something like a DX3 Pro or DX7 Pro from Topping. Though if you mean "can you control exactly which channel is outputting" then yeah, can't do that.

As for the other thing you said. You're saying that you're connecting multiple DACs to a pre-amp to test DACs or something? Wouldn't that just make the outputs of the DACs worse (unless they're something like pass-through's through the pre-amp box itself that you can switch to one or the other on the fly with no active circuitry?). So pre-amp in the case you're talking about is simply a convenience of switching between DAC's without having to unplug connections to your amp in order to switch between one DAC or the other.

If I got this wrong, then I am completely at a loss.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, were you refering to switching outputs, or specifically controlling which analogue outs are being specifically used?

The latter.

.........................(unless they're something like pass-through's through the pre-amp box itself that you can switch to one or the other on the fly with no active circuitry?).

If possible, yes.

So pre-amp in the case you're talking about is simply a convenience of switching between DAC's without having to unplug connections to your amp in order to switch between one DAC or the other.
If I got this wrong, then I am completely at a loss.

You got it.

 

[restorer-john]

I just don't get it. HiFi is becoming a joke. $14k for a 0dB, unity gain buffer stage with a 8dB (really 10dB) 'gain' option. It doesn't even have a phono preamplifier in it, no tone stages, no filters, no, you know, actual real preamplifier functions. Tell me it does and I just missed it?

Tested with all the other 6 inputs and 5 outputs shut down to get the best test result figures. Has this been done before? Does JA short all the unused inputs on every amplifier and preamplifier before he tests them? No. Why should MBL get special treatment?

Some "features"

• A motorized volume pot. State of the art there. So, they used a stepper so you can return to a setting. So what? It's been done for decades with optical encoders, steppers, timers or another resistance track to preset volume.
• "intelligently managed inputs". So, you select the input and it works- clever. What will they think of next.
• Maximum volume on turn-on can be limited. Wow. I'm impressed. I just turn the knob down. Or the gain pots on the power amp. As for kids, let them blast themselves by accident- they'll only do it once and then they'll LEAVE DADDY's HiFi ALONE!
• Two line outputs. That's a new feature- not. How about a second inverted output, like many real preamps had, so you can bridge your power amps?
• A 5" TFT display and 6 smart keys. Yawn. Just stick a $10 digital photo frame LCD in it with some cheap graphics and call it done. I want at least 100 smart keys for $14k, not 6 measly buttons and a really ugly knob.
• MBL data status exchange. For what? What does a basic preamp need to tell anything else?
• Intelligent remote control. If I hear "intelligent" or "smart" again, I will scream. A remote is hardly intelligent- even the bi-directional, status indicating, learning, RF ones that worked through walls back in the 1980s. Tell me, what is intelligent about it? Does it tell you where it's hiding like one of those beeping key-finders? Or does it tell you when its batteries are leaking- that would be actually clever. Or does it just tell you it's going flat every second day and needs a charge?
• SD card for updates? You're kidding me. Shipping a product this basic that may need updates means it's unfinished in the first place and shouldn't have seen the light of day. Updates on a line stage preamp. I shake my head- again.
• And best of all, they made it in their own factory. Like that's a feature. Funny world we live in.

 

[Jukebox]

I have a good sounding room, with a nice combo of live and damped surfaces. The 121s sounded superb, and the imaging was just about as precise as any good speaker I've owned, but with more realistic dimensionality. With most speakers sonic images of voices and instruments tend to have a sort of flattened quality - they can appear in distinct spots in the soundstage, with differences in distance among them, but it's sort of like the depth stops behind the sonic image, like they are pasted on a background. With the omni-MBLs, there was an added sense of air/dimension that extended behind the images, making them seem more round, more dimensional. I have a recording of me playing my acoustic guitar recorded in a room in my house. When I'd play it on the MBLs the sonic impression of that guitar just appearing "in the room" playing was almost uncanny.

As well, the way their omni-design energized a room made them sound more "live" from outside the room too. I'd play a recording I made of my son practicing saxophone and on the MBLs from outside the room it just sounded real. I fooled a few people using that recording that my son was practicing sax in that room

What have you replace them with? I am contemplating for a pair of the newer bookshelf MBL 126 in the living / stereo room; love the sound and is so different from my current setup in the home cinema room; This way i will have two rooms with total different but equally good sound.
But the price so far has stopped me from this purchase...still debating