CD direct to amp vs active preamp

sean: a few system iterations ago, i had an accuphase dp-75, which like the 75v, has a high-quality volume control that (as i recall) operates in digital domain. after experimenting with various setups, i sold my preamp, since the dp-75 run direct was vastly better sounding than when it went through my rowland consummate. run directly, the cdp had better focus, a wider and deeper soundstage and, most importantly, sounded like a fairly thick veil had been removed from my speakers (then avalon ascents). i have several friends who own the accuphase 75v and they all run them directly into their amps of choice. -kelly

I have an evs millenium ii, I bought the option for second single ended outputs and have ultimate attenuators (hi quality volume control) It is very nice but I miss the flexibility of having multiple sources.

My Arc LS5 preamp adds body and depth to the output only setup. The music is a touch more engaging. Probably due to the large beefy power supply of the old Audio Research gear.

tom

The only reasons not to run direct are if you have other sources and don't want the hassle of switching interconnects, OR you have a source with a wimpy output stage that doesn't work well directly into your amp. For a high-quality cd-only system, direct is the way to go. The adage that the best interconnect is no interconnect is true, and it goes for preamps too. Think about it, how can another component possibly improve on the signal? It can't, it can only degrade it. I have, however, read posts by some tube-o-philes who just had to have the euphonic color of a tube preamp in the chain. So if that's what floats your boat, go for it.

I don't have much love for passive attenuators because every one I've ever tried or heard has sucked the dynamics right out of the music. I know this was probably due to less-than-stellar output sections on the source end, but it's been my experience nonetheless.