Topping Pre90 Review (preamplifier)

[dagfinn]

I'm not responsible for the name the maker of The Truth chose. As a rational person, I'd have thought you'd know this! You have irrationally conflated your version of absurd, golden ears, and amplification types with my telling of my experience of my SYSTEM. As @raif71 notes, a likely culprit might be an impedance mismatch. But you (and other dogmatic theologians of science), have a need to cast aspersions, that's irrational! ;-) Try not to confuse science with truth, especially if you are not taking a systems perspective. This is because we do not live in a causally linear universe. Relativity anyone? Wave particle duality? quantum mechanics? I could go on... Try not to be a bigot a la Richard Dawkins.

Here is the truth:

The Truth Pre Amp Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of The Truth Pre Amp (its real name). It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US $1,050. There are other options which increase the cost. The version sent to me is an earlier one I am told with dual inputs (labels are wrong by the way)...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[phoenixsong]

Here is the truth:

The Truth Pre Amp Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of The Truth Pre Amp (its real name). It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US $1,050. There are other options which increase the cost. The version sent to me is an earlier one I am told with dual inputs (labels are wrong by the way)...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Gotta see if it's the same version, though the apple shouldn't have fallen far from the tree

 

[gebeege1]

I’ll take the conflagration of my position with that of Dawkins as a badge of honor. I share his frustration of the willfully irrational.

BoH? definitely rational!

Have you read The God Delusion? Dawkins does not apply his own definition of rational (the scientific method) to his enquiry. The God Delusion is not science (given his definition), rather he cherry picks "wickeness".

 

[gebeege1]

Here is the truth:

The Truth Pre Amp Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of The Truth Pre Amp (its real name). It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US $1,050. There are other options which increase the cost. The version sent to me is an earlier one I am told with dual inputs (labels are wrong by the way)...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Yes, I linked that in my original post. It is why I posted in this forum.

 

[NicS]

BoH? definitely rational!

Have you read The God Delusion? Darkins does not apply his own definition of rational (the scientific method) to his enquiry. The God Delusion is not science (given his definition), rather he cherry picks "wickeness".

I doubt this is the forum for this flavor of discussion.

I will say I read the review of “The Truth” pre amp with some delight. Not exactly glowing was it? Talking of delusion.

 

[gebeege1]

I doubt this is the forum for this flavor of discussion.

I will say I read the review of “The Truth” pre amp with some delight. Not exactly glowing was it? Talking of delusion.

And that's why I bought the Pre90; rational, you'd agree? (I had The Truth before ASR looked at it.) But, and it's a big but, in my system the Pre90 sounds veiled in comparison. Why do you have so much difficulty with this?

 

[Beave]

And that's why I bought the Pre90; rational, you'd agree? (I had The Truth before ASR looked at it.) But, and it's a big but, in my system the Pre90 sounds veiled in comparison. Why do you have so much difficulty with this?

Because your comparison methodology was flawed. That's why.

 

[gebeege1]

Because your comparison methodology was flawed. That's why.

I'm not an engineer; sue me! On the basis of this argument, why do you believe in Dawkins? His method is flawed...

Do you really expect most audiophiles to have the equipment and know how to do a double blind experiment? Professional experimenters sometimes get it wrong! (Have you heard of the replication crisis in science?)

 

[Beave]

I haven't written a single thing about Dawkins. You must have me confused with the other poster.

No, I don't expect most audiophiles to have the equipment and know how to do double blind listening comparisons. That's one of the reasons why I give practically no credence to the claims they make.

 

[gebeege1]

I haven't written a single thing about Dawkins. You must have me confused with the other poster.

No, I don't expect most audiophiles to have the equipment and know how to do double blind listening comparisons. That's one of the reasons why I give practically no credence to the claims they make.

Woops, sorry @Beave, I've been bating @NicS.

Given the "problem" of methodolgy, why then enter the fray?

 

[MaxwellsEq]

If it doesn't match the ratio than the sound would be distorted hence could sound veiled

"would be" is going too far as an assertion. If, as Pavel calculated it, the input impedance is about 2k, most line level devices driving that will NOT generate distortion through current limiting (2k is not 47k, but it's hardly a short). Stereophile, and now Amir test devices into 600 Ohms and most are fine.

Similarly, most devices will not have an audible difference in frequency response.

The most likely outcome is a drop in voltage compared to a 47k load. Given what we know about the absolute criticality in level matching when comparing electronic devices, I'd hazard a strong guess that this lower level is what @gebeege1 heard and didn't like.

 

[misterdog]

If noise and distortion = transperancy, I'd agree with you.

How about the crosstalk, with 'The Truth' musicians on the right of the stage are also playing on the left.
Not my idea of transparency but if it suits you then that's fine.

Conclusions
Let's get the obvious out of the way: The Truth Amp does not speaker the truth! It adds its own noise and distortion. It is definitely not competitive with squeaky clean design we have access to today that have considerably less noise and distortion while costing less. That would normally lead to a "headless panther" rating but I felt generous and gave it one step higher because it is not broken like some other designs are. That, and the fact that the headless panther was helping with weeding in the garden today and wasn't in a mood to be in the picture. So I left him alone so he could search for his head....

Needless to say, I cannot recommend the The Truth Pre Amp.

 

[raif71]

"would be" is going too far as an assertion. If, as Pavel calculated it, the input impedance is about 2k, most line level devices driving that will NOT generate distortion through current limiting (2k is not 47k, but it's hardly a short). Stereophile, and now Amir test devices into 600 Ohms and most are fine.

Similarly, most devices will not have an audible difference in frequency response.

The most likely outcome is a drop in voltage compared to a 47k load. Given what we know about the absolute criticality in level matching when comparing electronic devices, I'd hazard a strong guess that this lower level is what @gebeege1 heard and didn't like.

I agree... likely a drop in voltage as pointed by the link in my earlier post

 

[Jimbob54]

Woops, sorry @Beave, I've been bating @NicS.

Given the "problem" of methodolgy, why then enter the fray?

We don't do "bating' here . So don't.

Consider this a first and final warning

 

[Jimbob54]

This a bit like losing a friend to Jesus.

What on earth is “The Truth”? As soon as I start hearing languages like this, my immediate reaction is to try and figure out where the big lie is.

The beauty of ASR as a concept and a community is that it bypasses the absurd voices that have for decades extolled the virtues of exotic interconnects (previously called audio cables), or speaker cable lifts, or exotic contact cleaners, or multi-thousand dollar power conditioners, or one of the myriad of faith-based audio woo-woo nonsense. Instead, it relies on measurements of equipment to help us make decisions about what to consider using in our audio systems. It’s helped me enormously.

I do find it amusing when the “golden ear” brigade, seemingly unaware of the concepts of confirmation bias, start with the abstract language to describe the indescribable and likely fictitious nuances of expensive equipment that makes outrageous claims to quality, yet empirically underperform against a modestly priced, Chinese manufactured piece of equipment. They talk as if we are apostates in their sacred space of knowledge.

If you prefer tube noise, bless your cotton socks. If you like a healthy dose of warm distortion poured over your Led Zeppelin, you go for it. Whatever floats your boat and makes you happy. Which begs the question:

What the hell are you doing here, among the rational?

Dial it back a bit please .

 

[Jimbob54]

Don't feed the trolls please folks.

 

[NicS]

This thread includes a curious form of science denialism. Though in the current political climate we should expect more of this kind of thinking.

I come to this forum to read science based evaluations of audio equipment. I support the transparency and honesty of the methodology, and admire how it runs counter to the traditional subjective, “faith” and the great-expense-as-a-sign-of-effectiveness based evaluations we have traditionally consumed.

Of course personal preference remains precisely that. I have no issue with a preference for specific sound signatures. In the tube driven guitar amplifiers I own this is 100% the point of the design: to produce a sound with a pleasing level of distortion and sonic aberration for specific musical tastes. In the home audio world, tube amplification fills the same role. Certain levels of distortion might sound pleasing to some. I have zero issue with this.

I think for most coming to this forum, we follow very simple principles: if a piece of equipment when scientifically tested reveals a level performance in excess of what we might expect for the price, our interest is aroused. Because we are bargain hunters. We are not the types to be buying $20,000 interconnnects on the basis of abstracted, florid assessments from those thrilled to impress us with their ability to hear is a way so nuanced as to render us virtually deaf. I really have no more time for this thinking.

Today’s review was typical of why I return. It pleases me greatly that an experienced audio engineer can evaluate an ugly plastic box and determine that, for the money it perform incredibly well. And as a consequence wholeheartedly recommend it.

It’s why I kept coming back.

 

[gebeege1]

We don't do "bating' here . So don't.

Consider this a first and final warning

to "bat" - two people having an exchange. (e.g., tennis)

 

[gebeege1]

This thread includes a curious form of science denialism. Though in the current political climate we should expect more of this kind of thinking.

I come to this forum to read science based evaluations of audio equipment. I support the transparency and honesty of the methodology, and admire how it runs counter to the traditional subjective, “faith” and the great-expense-as-a-sign-of-effectiveness based evaluations we have traditionally consumed.

Of course personal preference remains precisely that. I have no issue with a preference for specific sound signatures. In the tube driven guitar amplifiers I own this is 100% the point of the design: to produce a sound with a pleasing level of distortion and sonic aberration for specific musical tastes. In the home audio world, tube amplification fills the same role. Certain levels of distortion might sound pleasing to some. I have zero issue with this.

I think for most coming to this forum, we follow very simple principles: if a piece of equipment when scientifically tested reveals a level performance in excess of what we might expect for the price, our interest is aroused. Because we are bargain hunters. We are not the types to be buying $20,000 interconnnects on the basis of abstracted, florid assessments from those thrilled to impress us with their ability to hear is a way so nuanced as to render us virtually deaf. I really have no more time for this thinking.

Today’s review was typical of why I return. It pleases me greatly that an experienced audio engineer can evaluate an ugly plastic box and determine that, for the money it perform incredibly well. And as a consequence wholeheartedly recommend it.

It’s why I kept coming back.

Science denialism? I'm a PhD. I bring a subtlety to questions of science that may escape you?

 

[raif71]

People who want to explore input impedance issue of Pre90 can go to this thread https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-ares-ii-topping-pre90-impedance-issue.34939/