CD direct to amp vs active preamp


How many of you folks have ever tried running your digital source with a built in "high grade" volume control directly to your amp and compared that to the digital source feeding your active preamp and then the amp ? I am just curious as to the results and if you noticed any major differences. Obviously, we would have to add not only the preamp, but also another interconnect to make all of the connections. If you've done this "test" with a passive or buffered line section, feel free to join in. Sean
>
sean
Hi Sean,

I've read many responses that basically says digital attenuation isn't desireable because you are taking away 1 bit of resolution for every 6 db attenuated.

For now, I am going direct from Alpha dac to amp. I don't have a fantastic preamp, so this is the best method so far. Attenuation is done with a digital preamp, Meridian 518.

I am getting an ARC integrated amp. Most posts I've read claimed their Wadia suffered from lowered resolution at lower volumes. I don't feel I lose any resolution with the Meridian. I'd see if I get higher resolution using ARC's preamp secion instead of the Meridians.

Regarding the gain, I have two dacs to compare. One Sigma and one Alpha. The Sigma is 2.0v and Alpha is 3.5v. I hear no difference in volume between the two when directly connecting to amp, at least not obvisouly so. The Alpha obviously sounds better, but I doubt it has anything to do with the difference in output gain.

Regarding impedance, I don't know how to figure these things out. Before I went direct, I asked some gon members whether Cal dacs can go thru a passive preamp to my Aragon amp in regards to their impedance compatibility. They said I can't because their impedance didn't match. Well, they are working great being directly connecting.

One thing I don't understand is digital cables. I expressed my feelings to Rick at Virtual Dynamics that analog cables sound better than digital cables in my system. He then told me his digital and analog cables are one and the same. He also added digital cables are the furthest behind in terms of technology. My D-60 sounds harsh. I bought it used and burned it in for a week already.

To connect dac straight to amp, my best configuration is to use analog cables throughout; trans to pre to dac to amp.

I hope my two cents help.
there is a simple, relatively inexpensive solution to the passive approach that to my ears outperforms ANY active preamp i have heard....the Placette RVC. at $1000 list price it is within the budget of most folks and only requires one additional short (the shorter the better) interconnect to use in any system. the Placette Remote Volume Control is placed next to your amp(s) and allows any source with sufficient interconnect drive capability to be used direct into your amps without bass or dynamic limitations.

since i have 3 sources i use a custom passive switchbox that allows me to switch sources and mute from my listening chair.

i do think that the passive/active argument is very situational but that in general additional active circuts cannot add "good things" to the signal and that theoretically passive has more potential when properly executed.
I can see and understand both platforms when it comes to the active vs passive debate.

As to passive's or unity gain designs, you will still have colouration due to internal wiring, signal degradation and loss from passing through various components and contacts, be subject to loading problems, etc...

Active has all of the same problems but can increase gain and alleviate many of the loading problems. The key is to find an active unit that alters the signal as little as possible while passing on all of the benefits.

As to a unit that uses a remote control, how much noise do you think is internally generated from the drive motor that rotates the potentiometer, the infra-red or rf based sensor circuitry, the power supply to feed the motor and remote sensors, etc ???? You might as well "go active" as you've got almost as much "junk" within the box. Sean
>
Well, here I go with my 2 cents... I have a complete Cello system (Mark Levinson's last "cost no object" company that went out of business and is now being resurrected). Instead of using an active preamp, Cello or otherwise, I use a Cello passive attenuator called an "Etude". The unit has 4 selectable inputs to one output (all RCA). The attenuator (volume control) is the same hand-wound 60 position dial as found on their $20,000 Audio Palette. With the exception of the Audio Pallette, I have not heard any active preamp that I like better than the Etude, and I have tried quite a few! To my ear, active preamps always seem to put a veil over the speakers. The passive attenuator adds no coloration nor removes anything from the music. Providing you have sufficient gain comming out of your D/A (or whatever source you are using) and impediance is not an issue, passive gets my vote! Ken G.