Review: Ryan Sound Labs RSL Pre-Amp
- Thread starter YNWOAN
- Start date
rontoolsie
pfm Member
The Chord has the sartorial elegance of MC Hammer. High on the bling factor but not for every day use. Unfortunately it's chops are way below the nifty moves of Hammer and it is perfectly capable of wrecking an otherwise fine system. BTW I use some 275WPC class A mono block tube amps that idle at 1kW of power and heat. The very same amps that decimated my NAP 500 over a decade ago but now sporting new tubes. The RSL preamp LOVES tube amps it appears with a nice cushion of space around the pinpoint placement that it allows. ..it has almost as much front to back depth as it does width. ..something that isn't found on Naim preamp below a 52.
YNWOAN
100% Analogue
You know, reading your account has rather helped me put into focus the reason I had difficulty pinning down the RSL pre-amp.
I'm not sure this will make a lot of sense, so please bear with me if not (sorry), but whilst I encounter quite a lot* of equipment and modifications they tend to all be of a certain 'sonic idiom'. Rarely do people (friends) send me stuff to asses/try that is not already thought to be within my particular comfort/experience/expertise zone. Anyway, beside the rambling, what I'm trying to say is that when I compared the RSL pre-amp I was already comparing it to highly customised versions of the same, AA to AAB (sort of) rather than the equivelant of AA to Z, as the RSL pre to Chord could be thought - this being more the kind of comparison a real reviewer may experience.
* I'm really very lucky in this regard, and I truly appreciate it, as I love both the music and the mechanics of reproduction.
I'm not sure this will make a lot of sense, so please bear with me if not (sorry), but whilst I encounter quite a lot* of equipment and modifications they tend to all be of a certain 'sonic idiom'. Rarely do people (friends) send me stuff to asses/try that is not already thought to be within my particular comfort/experience/expertise zone. Anyway, beside the rambling, what I'm trying to say is that when I compared the RSL pre-amp I was already comparing it to highly customised versions of the same, AA to AAB (sort of) rather than the equivelant of AA to Z, as the RSL pre to Chord could be thought - this being more the kind of comparison a real reviewer may experience.
* I'm really very lucky in this regard, and I truly appreciate it, as I love both the music and the mechanics of reproduction.
rontoolsie
pfm Member
What I have discovered from this is that it's not 'source first' or 'speakers first', which are the two extremes of the dogma. Rather it's the 'weakest link'. Sandwiched between my CD player (which would cost $20,000 after its extensive mods) and the $30,000 power amps and the $30,000 pair of speakers was this CPA-2200 preamp, that essentially dumbed down the impeccable front/back ends into something that was more ennui than enviable.
Right now I am listening to a 128 kbs stream on the $300 SqueezeBox Touch, now that the RSL pre has done most of its warm up. And it is far, far in advance than anything my hot-rod CD player could do into the Chord preamp.
A few minutes ago, my 81-year old mother walked in and listened, and said....'is it just me...or does this sound so much better than before?'
No, its not just her. This RSL preamp is fully in the same league as the ancillary equipment that I am using it with. And still there are a few tweaks that I could do to it, to elevate it standard even higher. But for now, I am happy just to listen to music, once again with a shit-eating grin. And try putting a price on THAT!
Right now I am listening to a 128 kbs stream on the $300 SqueezeBox Touch, now that the RSL pre has done most of its warm up. And it is far, far in advance than anything my hot-rod CD player could do into the Chord preamp.
A few minutes ago, my 81-year old mother walked in and listened, and said....'is it just me...or does this sound so much better than before?'
No, its not just her. This RSL preamp is fully in the same league as the ancillary equipment that I am using it with. And still there are a few tweaks that I could do to it, to elevate it standard even higher. But for now, I am happy just to listen to music, once again with a shit-eating grin. And try putting a price on THAT!
yuckyamson
pfm Member
Ron, based on your findings, I'd ask you to change the cable to the supplied flashback cable and tell me your thoughts as an A/B.
rontoolsie
pfm Member
Yes, I will try that out tomorrow. Right now, I'm just basking in the sound.
rontoolsie
pfm Member
Well James, I was smitten by its looks and I simply had to have it ;-)
Actually, I did not actually purchase the Chord...it has been on long term loan until I can get a matching tube preamplifier built to match my custom power amps. The owner of the Chord bought it with its matching power amp in an attempt to upgrade from the Naim 112/150. Which it wasn't as the Chord preamp was not a match for even the low-hanging fruit of the 112. I remember plugging in the Audio Research LS25mk2 preamp in place of the Chord one, also into the Chord power amp and was taken by how much more the AR pre had to offer over the Chord in terms of extension, dynamics and projection.
Listening a bit more to the RSL preamp today after about 7 hours of warm up shows it to be further improving to a point that even 128kps streams are very satisfying to listen to as its compression artifacts seem less offensive than those of the Chord.
Here's an amusing anecdote....before the Chord preamp was borrowed, I had a cheap (maybe $200) Sony AV receiver hooked up between the NAT01 tuner, the CDS3 and the very large speakers I use. And it sounded warm, inviting and quite musical and I spent hours a week listening to 'Performance Today' etc on the tuner.
But when the Chord preamp arrived, I sold off the Sony on eBay within a week, just knowing that this blingy preamp coupled with my NAP500-beater power amps (and yes, I did compare these two side by side) simply HAD to be better than an entry level Jap receiver. Except it wasn't. The Sony receiver was actually more fun and more musical to listen to!. So I changed the tubes on the power amps....nope...still wasn't as good as the Sony. Got some Chord Anthem interconnects-that actually were significantly better than the Cobra ones I had been using. But still it could not match the Sony.
As YWOAN said above, the RSL to the Chord was more an A to Z comparison. Except that the price was more a Z to A-the Chord cost $5,000 back in 1999!!!!
But the reviews at the time were very favorablehttp://www.stereotimes.com/amp110599.shtml
So is this a glowing testimonial of the RSL preamp, or an excoriation of the Chord...well, its both actually. In absolute terms the RSL ticks all of the right buttons and gets very deeply into the music, allowing it to flow without the impediment. I look forward to spending the next couple of weeks getting to know it better before it heads off to the Lone Star State.
I wonder if the next home demo-er will notice if he got a Chord preamp instead?
Actually, I did not actually purchase the Chord...it has been on long term loan until I can get a matching tube preamplifier built to match my custom power amps. The owner of the Chord bought it with its matching power amp in an attempt to upgrade from the Naim 112/150. Which it wasn't as the Chord preamp was not a match for even the low-hanging fruit of the 112. I remember plugging in the Audio Research LS25mk2 preamp in place of the Chord one, also into the Chord power amp and was taken by how much more the AR pre had to offer over the Chord in terms of extension, dynamics and projection.
Listening a bit more to the RSL preamp today after about 7 hours of warm up shows it to be further improving to a point that even 128kps streams are very satisfying to listen to as its compression artifacts seem less offensive than those of the Chord.
Here's an amusing anecdote....before the Chord preamp was borrowed, I had a cheap (maybe $200) Sony AV receiver hooked up between the NAT01 tuner, the CDS3 and the very large speakers I use. And it sounded warm, inviting and quite musical and I spent hours a week listening to 'Performance Today' etc on the tuner.
But when the Chord preamp arrived, I sold off the Sony on eBay within a week, just knowing that this blingy preamp coupled with my NAP500-beater power amps (and yes, I did compare these two side by side) simply HAD to be better than an entry level Jap receiver. Except it wasn't. The Sony receiver was actually more fun and more musical to listen to!. So I changed the tubes on the power amps....nope...still wasn't as good as the Sony. Got some Chord Anthem interconnects-that actually were significantly better than the Cobra ones I had been using. But still it could not match the Sony.
As YWOAN said above, the RSL to the Chord was more an A to Z comparison. Except that the price was more a Z to A-the Chord cost $5,000 back in 1999!!!!
But the reviews at the time were very favorablehttp://www.stereotimes.com/amp110599.shtml
So is this a glowing testimonial of the RSL preamp, or an excoriation of the Chord...well, its both actually. In absolute terms the RSL ticks all of the right buttons and gets very deeply into the music, allowing it to flow without the impediment. I look forward to spending the next couple of weeks getting to know it better before it heads off to the Lone Star State.
I wonder if the next home demo-er will notice if he got a Chord preamp instead?
rontoolsie
pfm Member
So, I put those two different Snaics through the test today. My gray Snaic is probably circa 1997 and cost around $110 USD at the time. It was left over from when I upgraded all the grays to black Snaics (which sound indisputably better than the gray).
Compared to the black Snaic they gray one is dark and lacking in pace and crispness on the top end as well as being more pedestrian at the lower end.
But comparing the gray snaic to the Flashback one shows the latter to be brighter in a peaky sort of way and adding a slight glare to the midrange that sounds so right with the gray Snaic. It also is less extended subjectively at the lower end. My speakers BTW are flat to around 18Hz, so very slight LF changes are quite apparent.
Unfortunately, the only black Snaic I have in my collection of 5 is a DIN4, which does not work in this application.
This of course begs the question...how much improvement will the RSL preamp show with a Naim black Snaic (or something much better even) as compared to the Flashback one? Well Arun has already done that test and shows that there is considerable room for improvement over the Flashback Snaic (as well over the latest Black Naim Snaics even....until they have been given a blast of deep cryo-but that is another story).
So, think of the Flashback Snaic as a module in this preamp-one which can be upgraded with time, finances and inclination allows. You certainly can expect very fine sound even with the Flashback Snaic, but the additional improvements by going to a better one would be considered good VFM by most people.
I spent some time this morning listening to tracks i have played hundreds of times using the same gear, but with the 552 instead. Bear in mind this is in a different room and without the balanced power that I had been using in the distant past. The very deepest portion of the plucked bass in the Holly Cole 'Temptation' album, when played on the CDS3 seemed to have lost a little extension resinous tone and transient snap then it had with the 552 in place. At this point, this is the only minor shortcoming I have heard-one that I expect will be largely addressed with a more deserving Snaic. This would also be rather less apparent on speaker systems that do not plummet to the balrogs like mine do. The midrange remains glorious and very seductive-a trait I have already mentioned that does not appear in the Naim preamps until the 52. The HF sound ever so lightly dark...which I know is largely due to the gray Snaic.
I would love to hear how a WitchHat Snaic would fare in this application. I already know that the Chord Tuned Aray Snaics are massively better than the Naim ones, and massively more expensive too (800-plus UKP for the Signature TA Snaic for instance).
I will post my final vedict in a week or so, prior to shipping it off to the next user.
Compared to the black Snaic they gray one is dark and lacking in pace and crispness on the top end as well as being more pedestrian at the lower end.
But comparing the gray snaic to the Flashback one shows the latter to be brighter in a peaky sort of way and adding a slight glare to the midrange that sounds so right with the gray Snaic. It also is less extended subjectively at the lower end. My speakers BTW are flat to around 18Hz, so very slight LF changes are quite apparent.
Unfortunately, the only black Snaic I have in my collection of 5 is a DIN4, which does not work in this application.
This of course begs the question...how much improvement will the RSL preamp show with a Naim black Snaic (or something much better even) as compared to the Flashback one? Well Arun has already done that test and shows that there is considerable room for improvement over the Flashback Snaic (as well over the latest Black Naim Snaics even....until they have been given a blast of deep cryo-but that is another story).
So, think of the Flashback Snaic as a module in this preamp-one which can be upgraded with time, finances and inclination allows. You certainly can expect very fine sound even with the Flashback Snaic, but the additional improvements by going to a better one would be considered good VFM by most people.
I spent some time this morning listening to tracks i have played hundreds of times using the same gear, but with the 552 instead. Bear in mind this is in a different room and without the balanced power that I had been using in the distant past. The very deepest portion of the plucked bass in the Holly Cole 'Temptation' album, when played on the CDS3 seemed to have lost a little extension resinous tone and transient snap then it had with the 552 in place. At this point, this is the only minor shortcoming I have heard-one that I expect will be largely addressed with a more deserving Snaic. This would also be rather less apparent on speaker systems that do not plummet to the balrogs like mine do. The midrange remains glorious and very seductive-a trait I have already mentioned that does not appear in the Naim preamps until the 52. The HF sound ever so lightly dark...which I know is largely due to the gray Snaic.
I would love to hear how a WitchHat Snaic would fare in this application. I already know that the Chord Tuned Aray Snaics are massively better than the Naim ones, and massively more expensive too (800-plus UKP for the Signature TA Snaic for instance).
I will post my final vedict in a week or so, prior to shipping it off to the next user.
rontoolsie
pfm Member
So, yesterday I unplugged the RSL preamp and shipped it off to the next person on the demo list. Which of course left me with the Chord preamp in its place. It is quite instructive to return to the original state after trying something new out for a while, to see if your impressions were accurate or just alternative facts.
Here are my impressions of the Chord pre vs the RSL, and am using one review from Stereo Times as a comparison.
Looks/aesthetics
RSL-adequate, intuitive. Can slip in easily within a domestic setting. The 'shoebox' look should fit in nicely next to your Naim gear, although it would be a closer fit if the blue LED was replaced with green ones.
Chord-tacky, blingy. Very non-intuitive. For instance having separate listen and record out options masquerade as different inputs on the front panel.
Stereo Times opinion- These products possess an unusual elegance and European feel.
Sound
RSL-clear, warm, seductive, open, organic, dynamic, spacious, involving. Upper bass very in-tune with clear pitch. The very lowest bass sounds just a smidgen rolled off, which beats the bloat endemic in most other preamps. This was really only apparent in recordings that have gut wrenching bass-for instance the Blue Monday EP, which can give you a punch you in your gut when reproduced at realistic volumes.
Chord-place the word 'not' infront of each of the above. The heart and the soul of the music was eviscerated leaving behind a bleached shell.
Stereo Times- relishes reproducing the softer details and is sensitive to the subtle microdynamics that are such a great part of the live listening event. Occasionally, music sounded so startlingly convincing I became instantly confidant that this dynamic duo was releasing 100% of what was on the disc. As for resolution of detail, there's plenty o'dat in dees here hills! Ummmmm...no
Verdict: There is lots to like about the RSL preamp. While the RSL won't win any prizes in industrial design, or find there way nestled next to the B&O at the V&A, it is a case of form following function. It is certainly not out of place when used with really top tier components. I would have to say that it is more relaxed sounding than typically found in Naim preamps-in a more neutral, but not less dynamic fashion. I was a little surprised to find that 128k streams through the SBT and into the RSL sounded quite a bit better than the CDS3 through the Chord 2200-the 'source first' dogma does not uniformly apply. The supplied Snaic is adequate, but can be readily bettered. Early reports from elsewhere suggest that the Witch Hat snaics are very formidable and should be considered as (relatively) inexpensive upgrades to an already exceptional performance. This may also be the first evaluation of the RSL preamp using tube power amps-and it was certainly very synergistic.
Here are my impressions of the Chord pre vs the RSL, and am using one review from Stereo Times as a comparison.
Looks/aesthetics
RSL-adequate, intuitive. Can slip in easily within a domestic setting. The 'shoebox' look should fit in nicely next to your Naim gear, although it would be a closer fit if the blue LED was replaced with green ones.
Chord-tacky, blingy. Very non-intuitive. For instance having separate listen and record out options masquerade as different inputs on the front panel.
Stereo Times opinion- These products possess an unusual elegance and European feel.
Sound
RSL-clear, warm, seductive, open, organic, dynamic, spacious, involving. Upper bass very in-tune with clear pitch. The very lowest bass sounds just a smidgen rolled off, which beats the bloat endemic in most other preamps. This was really only apparent in recordings that have gut wrenching bass-for instance the Blue Monday EP, which can give you a punch you in your gut when reproduced at realistic volumes.
Chord-place the word 'not' infront of each of the above. The heart and the soul of the music was eviscerated leaving behind a bleached shell.
Stereo Times- relishes reproducing the softer details and is sensitive to the subtle microdynamics that are such a great part of the live listening event. Occasionally, music sounded so startlingly convincing I became instantly confidant that this dynamic duo was releasing 100% of what was on the disc. As for resolution of detail, there's plenty o'dat in dees here hills! Ummmmm...no
Verdict: There is lots to like about the RSL preamp. While the RSL won't win any prizes in industrial design, or find there way nestled next to the B&O at the V&A, it is a case of form following function. It is certainly not out of place when used with really top tier components. I would have to say that it is more relaxed sounding than typically found in Naim preamps-in a more neutral, but not less dynamic fashion. I was a little surprised to find that 128k streams through the SBT and into the RSL sounded quite a bit better than the CDS3 through the Chord 2200-the 'source first' dogma does not uniformly apply. The supplied Snaic is adequate, but can be readily bettered. Early reports from elsewhere suggest that the Witch Hat snaics are very formidable and should be considered as (relatively) inexpensive upgrades to an already exceptional performance. This may also be the first evaluation of the RSL preamp using tube power amps-and it was certainly very synergistic.
Tarzan
pfm Member
l have the Ryan Audio Labs phono stage in my grubby little paws at the moment...got it late as it was sitting at the Post Office for a few days and upon opening the unit up it was pretty darn cold, any hoo, got it home, the packaging was superb as was the build quality, so plumbed it in and left it to warm through for an hour or so, l have few phono stages here at Tarzan Towers from budget to not quite so budget, both valve and SS so had a pre conceived idea of how it would roughly sound.
This phono stage is good, very, very, good, warm, clean musical and with razor sharp imaging and great depth to the soundstage, all this lack of colouration would of course be in vain if it did not play a 'tune' and by thunder it does that in spades, it is super quiet too think Tom Evans 'The Groove' and this to me sounds like a that but more forgiving and warmer- oh and tonal colours are vivid and natural.
This is a GREAT phono stage by any stretch of the imagination.
NB; In my room from hell and in my system.
Front end used,
Michell Gyrodec SE/HR PSU/Audonote Arm1v2 (not for much longer waiting for an Arm 3 to be fitted) True Point pylons tweak/Hana SL.
This phono stage is good, very, very, good, warm, clean musical and with razor sharp imaging and great depth to the soundstage, all this lack of colouration would of course be in vain if it did not play a 'tune' and by thunder it does that in spades, it is super quiet too think Tom Evans 'The Groove' and this to me sounds like a that but more forgiving and warmer- oh and tonal colours are vivid and natural.
This is a GREAT phono stage by any stretch of the imagination.
NB; In my room from hell and in my system.
Front end used,
Michell Gyrodec SE/HR PSU/Audonote Arm1v2 (not for much longer waiting for an Arm 3 to be fitted
) True Point pylons tweak/Hana SL.
Tim Jones
pfm Member
Three points:
1. It's always good to hear Ron's thoughts.
2. Having had the RSL MC phono stage on home dem for a few weeks, my better half has just committed to buying me one for my 50th birthday.
3. As an 82/HCDR pre owner, this is an extremely interesting looking RSL preamp.
1. It's always good to hear Ron's thoughts.
2. Having had the RSL MC phono stage on home dem for a few weeks, my better half has just committed to buying me one for my 50th birthday.
3. As an 82/HCDR pre owner, this is an extremely interesting looking RSL preamp.
RyanSoundLab
Trade: Ryan Sound Lab
Just to clear things a bit. Note that Ron's comments are from 3 years ago describing an RSL Preamp which I called the Mini-Pre. I stopped selling that one since I developed one I like better but which I have not put on the market because there are only so many hours in the day. Sorry to disappoint anyone out there.
The recent comments by Tarzan, Mark and Tim refer to the RSL Phono-Stage, a current model, stand-alone MC or MM pre-preamp for phono only. Still needs the normal preamp with controls for a full system. I probably should start naming things to make them easier to identify like "Phono-Blaster 100" (haha).
The recent comments by Tarzan, Mark and Tim refer to the RSL Phono-Stage, a current model, stand-alone MC or MM pre-preamp for phono only. Still needs the normal preamp with controls for a full system. I probably should start naming things to make them easier to identify like "Phono-Blaster 100" (haha).
YNWOAN
100% Analogue
I’m glad you posted that Kit because I was just thinking that people seem to be mixing up your older pre-amp with your current phonostage . In fact I’ve just read my own review that is at the start of this thread and realised I had completely forgotten that I had written it! In retrospect, this was an outstanding pre-amp but I wonder if it really offered sufficiently more than an RSL equipped Nac72 (though certainly much better than a standard Nac72).
In further news, and for those prepared to wait, Kit has agreed to send me his phonostage loaner unit and I will be reporting on it in due course.
. In fact I’ve just read my own review that is at the start of this thread and realised I had completely forgotten that I had written it! In retrospect, this was an outstanding pre-amp but I wonder if it really offered sufficiently more than an RSL equipped Nac72 (though certainly much better than a standard Nac72). In further news, and for those prepared to wait, Kit has agreed to send me his phonostage loaner unit and I will be reporting on it in due course
.
Tim Jones
pfm Member
I’m glad you posted that Kit because I was just thinking that people seem to be mixing up your older pre-amp with your current phonostage
In further news, and for those prepared to wait, Kit has agreed to send me his phonostage loaner unit and I will be reporting on it in due course
Ugh, sorry if I added to any confusion and I note now that Ron's comments on the pre are two years old.
Would be very interested in a similar preamp Kit.
Hi Tim,
I also use the RSL preamp (that Kit no longer has on his site) and wrote the review in the link below in January 2017, which was before his phono preamp existed.
If Kit has developed a better version of this preamp then I hope that he can find more hours in his day so that he bring it to market.
https://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum...d-labs-rsl-pre-amp.194345/page-2#post-3009518
Best regards,
Mark Dunn
I also use the RSL preamp (that Kit no longer has on his site) and wrote the review in the link below in January 2017, which was before his phono preamp existed.
If Kit has developed a better version of this preamp then I hope that he can find more hours in his day so that he bring it to market.
https://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum...d-labs-rsl-pre-amp.194345/page-2#post-3009518
Best regards,
Mark Dunn
RyanSoundLab
Trade: Ryan Sound Lab
I guess I could stop sleeping (it's a waste of time anyway)! Seriously, Mark D, if time permits, I'll try to put one together for you to try out.