hi
i have an opportunity to go for orpheus lab amplifiers to replace my m205 amps.
what do you think about using the cascade pre with the orpheus amplifiers?
the orpheus preamp is expensive.
thank you
1 Like
I question what the preamp (any preamp) would add. It certainly cannot make the output from the Cascade DAC more pure or transparent. In my experience separate linestage preamps apply in one of two use cases. One, you have analog sources and need the extra gain for your amp/speaker/room combination. Two, you can’t handle the truth of what your recordings sound like and wish to sugar coat every single one of them. Nothing wrong with that approach since the experience of listening to music is subjective.
A linestage has four functions…signal amplification, volume control, source switching, and impedance matching. The Cascade can provide the volume control, signal amplification, and source switching (within some limits) but likely not impedance matching. I think if you have MSB amplification the impedance matching wouldn’t be required. With other amplification, impedance matching of separate linestage may provide benefits.
The output impedance of the Cascade is very low. Even low input impedance power amp’s aren’t a problem. Moreover, the Cascade, Sentinel, Select and Reference DACs have constant impedance at all volume levels. As for analog sources, some vacuum tube phono preamps with unusually high output impedance may run into issues of high frequency roll off but that is true with most modern solid state preamps on the market. A well designed solid state phono preamp will likely already have a very low output impedance. Other than acting as a one size fits all tone control, I am not sure what a separate preamp can add to the pure output of the MSB DAC modules or a well designed phono preamp, assuming sufficient gain of the latter with one’s choice of cartridge and amplifier/speaker/room.
I won’t argue the technical elegance of the MSB products — their engineering, signal purity, impedance matching, and overall execution are exceptional. I love what MSB does.
That said, theoretical technical perfection is not necessarily the end goal. The ultimate objective for most of us is achieving sound that is emotionally convincing and personally engaging in our own systems and rooms.
Well-designed, properly matched preamplifiers can absolutely contribute to that outcome. One can dismiss them as “tone controls” if desired, but disregarding them entirely seems unnecessarily rigid.
My experience with the Premier, as well as another DAC employing analog volume control, has been that high-quality preamps do not simply alter tonal balance. Rather, they can materially change spatial presentation and perceived perspective within the venue.
Running the DAC directly into the amplifiers tends to place me in the front rows — more immediate, more explicit, more forward. Introducing a high-quality preamp shifts the presentation farther back into the hall, creating a more relaxed and immersive sense of space.
Neither presentation is inherently right or wrong. They are simply different interpretations of the musical event, and personal preference will determine which feels more convincing to a given listener
5 Likes
@crwilli 100% agree.
The Premier volume control is not equivalent to that in the Reference, Select, Cascade and Sentinel.
If a preamp changes the sound of the pure output of the MSB DAC modules then that is a distortion or colouration. If one likes that added to every single recording then no one can argue with the subjective experience.
1 Like
So assured of yourself. Live long and prosper.
Yes, the Sentinel preamp is the best, followed by the Cascade, then the Select and Reference. These are all purely passive, constant impedance relay based preamps. The Select and Reference are “gen 1” the Cascade is “gen 2” and the Sentinel is the best I could design. The Premier and Discrete are totally different, they are digital based. The best digital I know how to do which is much better than that done by any computer, but digital nonetheless.
5 Likes
I think reasons for independent preamp mostly fall into three categories: functional, performance, and aesthetic.
Functional reasons include analog input (if you have vinyl) and multiple outputs (if you have both speaker and headphone). These are hard ones for Discrete/Premier. Cascade eliminates the first but not second (it still has only 1 analog output). Sentinel seems to have eliminated both.
Performance reasons include desire for pure analog volume control, impedance matching. These, again, apply to Discrete/Premier. But generally they do not quite apply to Cascade or Sentinel as it has pure passive analog volume control and very low output impedance.
Aesthetic reasons are largely your personal preference. Some preamp, like Accuphase, can add a touch of their house sound, timbre, or soundstage features. These are your call.
2 Likes
I tried to drive my M500 directly with Select II. I like the SQ better after inserting a Vitus preamp in the chain.
1 Like
100% agree, My friends and I have also done many similar comparisons.If we have higher aspirations, it seems there’s no way to save money on the pre - amplifier.
thank you for your comments.
i will listen with the cascade pre first and decide later if i need external preamp
I ran the Cascade as my preamplifier for roughly a year after acquiring it. The MSB passive pre is exceptionally transparent, and in my experience with both the Reference DAC & the Cascade DAC, external preamplifiers had only subtracted from the performance — they either sounded identical to the passive stage or, more commonly, throttled the fidelity in ways that were immediately audible. I had concluded, not unreasonably, that the MSB passive pre could not be bettered for digital playback.
If I ran a digital-only system, I’m not sure I would have added a preamplifier at all. Even with Soulution amplification, the MSB passive stage pre has proven itself — repeatedly — to be the cleaner path for digital sources. I tried several well-regarded preamplifiers in this system, and every one of them either matched the passive stage at best or degraded the digital performance at worst. The conclusion I drew was reasonable: the MSB pre could not be bettered for digital.
But I don’t run a digital-only system. Vinyl and tape are in the chain, and analog sources are a different conversation; they benefit from active gain in ways that digital in the MSB ecosystem does not require.
Establishing the Reference: Tape
I own the Sonorus ATR10 MKII and a library of over 100 master tape dubs — 50+ SHI titles and 50+ from other labels. Reel-to-reel playback, to my ears and in my system, remains the purest and most realistic musical experience I have encountered in this hobby. It is the format against which everything else is measured. Among the tapes I own, the Sonorus SHI releases are in a class of their own — they are my absolute reference, the ceiling against which digital and vinyl compete.
This context matters for what follows.
Since I was already running Soulution amplification, the 727 was the logical thing to try, with the analog side as the primary motivation and the digital side as an afterthought.
I was entirely unprepared for what happened to the digital front end.
The improvement to vinyl and tape was expected and welcome. The improvement to digital was, frankly, shocking — a step change that I would not have predicted and cannot fully explain. I’ve since developed three working hypotheses:
-
Soulution ecosystem synergy: The 727 pre driving Soulution power amplifiers may simply represent a circuit-level and gain-structure match that the MSB passive stage, feeding those same amplifiers, cannot replicate.
-
Resource liberation: Running the Cascade in DAC-only mode — freed from simultaneously managing the passive preamplifier function — may allow the digital conversion hardware to operate in a more focused, unencumbered state.
-
Impedance incompatibility: The Cascade passive stage and the Soulution amplifiers may have presented an impedance relationship that was subtly non-optimal. The 727’s active stage would resolve that interaction cleanly.
Which hypothesis is correct? I honestly don’t know. What I know is the result: in my system, the Soulution 727 is not optional — it is mandatory. And with it installed, digital playback crossed a threshold I hadn’t expected to reach.
Then Came the Firmware Update
Wholly heck. As a former sailor, my natural vocabulary runs considerably more colorful — but this is a respectable forum, so that’s the cleaned-up version, and it’ll have to do.
The clarity is at a level I’m finding hard to put into words — and not because it’s subtle. Sailors are not exactly known for their eloquence. We operate on a compact, relatable vocabulary that serves us well enough on deck but falls well short of the superlative-laden prose the audiophile community has rightly made its own. I find myself wishing I had more of those words right now. It’s like a scrim got pulled off the soundstage. The air between performers and instruments isn’t just better — it’s physical, three-dimensional. Studio ambience, room signatures, the acoustic signature of a live venue — these things aren’t being suggested anymore, they’re just there. The holographic depth and solidity of the image is something I previously only heard from the best tape playback.
For the first time, digital not only equaled vinyl — and for the first time, tape’s long-held position as the unassailable benchmark was no longer beyond challenge.
Let that sink in, because it matters: the MSB Cascade, the Soulution 727, and this firmware together are going toe-to-toe with my R2R reference. I cannot imagine how the Sentinel DAC plays against these components.
And what keeps striking me, the more time I spend with the Cascade, is that this isn’t a static product. The MSB team has an uncommon gift for finding new ways to extract sonic fidelity from digital data — through hardware design, through system optimization, through cable recommendations (AOC), and now through firmware that somehow moves the performance needle yet again. That kind of sustained commitment to improvement after the sale is rare. Most manufacturers are already focused on the next product.
MSB seems genuinely focused on making this one better.
The MSB Cascade is the most significant component I’ve ever added to my system — meaning it changed what I believed was possible from a digital source more than anything else in 40+ years of this hobby.
7 Likes
Those SHI (Sonorus Holographic Imaging) sound so good because they apply all sorts of hocus pocus magic to them. They are not representative of the master source. That said they are absolutely wonderful to listen to.
I posted previously that whatever the MSB guys did with the new code it’s the closest thing I’ve ever heard to the SHI treatment without the SHI treatment. The imagining is really incredible. Best digital experience ever IMHO.
Theoretically there should be no difference running the Cascade in DAC only mode vs 100 on the volume. I’d like to understand from @Jonathan_Gullman or @Dustin_Symanski their thoughts on this.
I currently have the Cascade running directly into a Solution 717 and it’s a magical combination. Which amp are you running?
1 Like
I am running two 511s as monos with plans to upgrade either to a single 717 in stereo mode this year or possible grabbing two to run in mono mode. I have Wilson Sasha V speakers which presents a difficult load below a 100hz. I do think at moderate listening levels, a single 717 could handle these speakers.
Are you running one or two 717s?
I have one driving a pair of Rockport Lynx for now. It has no issues driving them to ear splitting volumes. Power is not a weakness of this amp.
1 Like
The Rockport Lyras are on my short list for future speaker upgrade. The pairing with Soulution at Axpona this year demonstrated a very compelling synergy. If you get the opportunity to demo the 727, I believe it will significantly enhance what the 717s can bring out of your system. I was not prepared for the immediate improvement I heard on the digital side, as I eluded above.
1 Like
Me too. It’s either Rockport Lyras or Stenheim Reference Ultime Twos, then I am done for a long time. I’ll be saving my nickels for the Sentinel DAC. 
1 Like
Thank you for the feedback. I love to hear that my hard research work is paying dividends in the real world. The Palisades, Cascade and Sentinel are my dream toolkits for digital conversion that I wished I had years ago. They have enormous capability and nearly zero inherent limitations (other than different numbers of DAC modules, and clocks, which does create a persistent quality differential between the DACs) which allow me to try every wild idea I have for improving conversion quality. With these DACs I’m never fighting system problems (ground loops, conducted noise infiltration, processing noise, EMI, etc…) so that I can actually evaluate each change easily. I can see constant, but perhaps decreasing, improvements to all of these platforms for years to come. I know that I haven’t fully plumbed the depths of performance of the Palisades, Cascade and Sentinel yet.
9 Likes