Benchmark sent along a DAC3 B (footnote 2), which I connected to the Balanced 1 inputs of the LA4. I connected the front L/R outputs of my exaSound e38 Mk.III DAC to the Balanced 2 inputs. Independent AudioQuest Coffee USB cables from the outputs of my Baetis Prodigy X server fed both DACs. Monoblocked Benchmark AHB2s were connected to the balanced outputs.
Listening to the LA4
As soon as everything powered up, there was a big smile on my face. With the LA4 in control of the system, everything sounded right, and subtle differences among recordings, amplifiers, and speakers were clear. I have omitted DACs from that listing because, after trimming the gain on the Benchmark and exaSound DACs to match within 0.5dB (the limit of my control resolution), they were indistinguishable in non-blind A/B comparisons. Was the LA4 masking any difference?
Recently, two Stereophile writers have been discussing a listening comparison of two excellent power amplifiers. The two agreed on their perceptions of the audible difference, but not on its likely basis. One suggested that it could be due to one amp doing something to reveal more low-level recorded detail. The other, who heard the same difference, insisted it is due to the other amp removing something. In the absence of any objective reference or evidence, we can only regard these as expressions of philosophical differences. However, with the LA4, I had an objective reference.
By physically connecting the input XLR cables directly to the output XLR cables, I could compare the sound of the LA4 at unity gain to that of a bypass with the DACs connected directly to the power amps—ie, it was the LA4 vs nada. I failed to hear any change in balance, tonality, dynamics, details, or soundstage. The LA4 seemed to neither add nor subtract anything. On the other hand, compared to the other preamps on hand, the LA4 was consistently quieter, more open, and more revealing of detail. What the LA4 offers over the bypass is the convenience of control and switching of the LA4 and a bit less noise. Yes, insertion of the LA4 actually resulted in less noise, although the difference could be appreciated only within 1"–2" of the speaker. I suspect this has to do with the ability of the LA4's potent output stage and low output impedance to drive the amps through my 30' balanced interconnect cables. As for the relay clicking that originally bothered me, I quickly adapted to it and now find it trivial when the music is playing.
I will decline to list specific details about individual recordings where the LA4 improved what I heard, because I believe that it would really be a list of what other components fail to do. Instead, and somewhat gratuitously, I offer two new recordings that I particularly enjoyed with the LA4. The first is a refreshing performance of Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition by pianist Natasha Paremski (CD, Steinway & Sons STN 30093). Her adjustments and phrasing, generally subtle and always appropriate, seem to restore the colors of this familiar art tour. Her technique is formidable and is also demonstrated in Fred Hersch's delightful Variations on a Theme by Tchaikovsky, which I found a suitable companion piece. But listen to the body and presence of the pianos—a Hamburg Steinway in Pictures and a New York Steinway in the Variations, recorded in different halls with different teams—and see if you can appreciate those differences, made apparent to me via the LA4.
When I listened to the various formats of the Beatles' Abbey Road Super Deluxe 4 Disc Edition (Y4CDBE003), the experience benefitted from using the LA4 (at times, three of them). I almost do not hear the sound of the original much anymore because, having lived with Abbey Road since its original release, it really lives mostly in my mind. Playing it now via the LA4, and with focused attention, I renewed my appreciation of the art, effort, and intent. I found the new stereo remix to be strikingly clearer, more open, and with much better bass definition, but it doesn't taste the same. Only time will tell if the new stereo mix, even via the LA4, even in 24/96, can win me over. The new 5.1 mix is another story, since the new spatial cues clash with and distract me from my embedded memories. That said, the sound of the original and the new mix both delighted with the LA4.
Conclusion
The LA4 is probably the most transparent and revealing audio component I've ever used. It does not seem to leave any fingerprints on the sound. It has a useful array of inputs, outputs, and functions, and the use of sealed relays for volume and input selection assures a long and noise-free life. Benchmark might improve on the display and remote control, but I do not have any criticism of the LA4's sonic performance.
Footnote 2: The DAC3 B is offered as a companion to the LA4 line amplifier and HA4 headphone amplifier because it eliminates functions from the HGC and L versions of the DAC3 that would be redundant when used with those devices: The DAC3B has no volume control, analog inputs, mute/polarity controls, or headphone amplifier. It is said to be equal in DAC performance to the HGC but priced lower, at $1699.
As soon as everything powered up, there was a big smile on my face. With the LA4 in control of the system, everything sounded right, and subtle differences among recordings, amplifiers, and speakers were clear. I have omitted DACs from that listing because, after trimming the gain on the Benchmark and exaSound DACs to match within 0.5dB (the limit of my control resolution), they were indistinguishable in non-blind A/B comparisons. Was the LA4 masking any difference?
Recently, two Stereophile writers have been discussing a listening comparison of two excellent power amplifiers. The two agreed on their perceptions of the audible difference, but not on its likely basis. One suggested that it could be due to one amp doing something to reveal more low-level recorded detail. The other, who heard the same difference, insisted it is due to the other amp removing something. In the absence of any objective reference or evidence, we can only regard these as expressions of philosophical differences. However, with the LA4, I had an objective reference.
By physically connecting the input XLR cables directly to the output XLR cables, I could compare the sound of the LA4 at unity gain to that of a bypass with the DACs connected directly to the power amps—ie, it was the LA4 vs nada. I failed to hear any change in balance, tonality, dynamics, details, or soundstage. The LA4 seemed to neither add nor subtract anything. On the other hand, compared to the other preamps on hand, the LA4 was consistently quieter, more open, and more revealing of detail. What the LA4 offers over the bypass is the convenience of control and switching of the LA4 and a bit less noise. Yes, insertion of the LA4 actually resulted in less noise, although the difference could be appreciated only within 1"–2" of the speaker. I suspect this has to do with the ability of the LA4's potent output stage and low output impedance to drive the amps through my 30' balanced interconnect cables. As for the relay clicking that originally bothered me, I quickly adapted to it and now find it trivial when the music is playing.
When I listened to the various formats of the Beatles' Abbey Road Super Deluxe 4 Disc Edition (Y4CDBE003), the experience benefitted from using the LA4 (at times, three of them). I almost do not hear the sound of the original much anymore because, having lived with Abbey Road since its original release, it really lives mostly in my mind. Playing it now via the LA4, and with focused attention, I renewed my appreciation of the art, effort, and intent. I found the new stereo remix to be strikingly clearer, more open, and with much better bass definition, but it doesn't taste the same. Only time will tell if the new stereo mix, even via the LA4, even in 24/96, can win me over. The new 5.1 mix is another story, since the new spatial cues clash with and distract me from my embedded memories. That said, the sound of the original and the new mix both delighted with the LA4.
ConclusionThe LA4 is probably the most transparent and revealing audio component I've ever used. It does not seem to leave any fingerprints on the sound. It has a useful array of inputs, outputs, and functions, and the use of sealed relays for volume and input selection assures a long and noise-free life. Benchmark might improve on the display and remote control, but I do not have any criticism of the LA4's sonic performance.
Footnote 2: The DAC3 B is offered as a companion to the LA4 line amplifier and HA4 headphone amplifier because it eliminates functions from the HGC and L versions of the DAC3 that would be redundant when used with those devices: The DAC3B has no volume control, analog inputs, mute/polarity controls, or headphone amplifier. It is said to be equal in DAC performance to the HGC but priced lower, at $1699.
