Please help: Do I need a preamp?

Macallan,

Why is a good pre-amp "Always a good asset in any system"? I have run my system CD direct for several years now, using several different CD players that have variable output. I think it sounds fantastic.

Last weekend I took my Quad 99 CD-P over to a friends house. My friend has a very high resolution system that list for over $25,000. When we played the system using the Quad CD-direct, bypassing his $4000 pre-amp, it was much better than when the pre-amp was in the system. BTW, it is a very highly regarded pre-amp.

There is certainly a place for a good pre-amp, but it is not necessary for all systems. Plus, the big bucks saved on the cost of a pre-amp can be used somewhere else. I'm a huge fan of CD-direct! For my single source system and the type of music I prefer, I like the simplicity and transparency of running CD direct.

Enjoy,

TIC

I would be willing to bet your problem is the lack of a preamp. I tried a passive pre and had the exact problem you are describing. The passive I tried was a pretty cheap - I don't recall the brand. I agree with Elizabeth.

Most source components will sound better (more linear freq response, wider dynamic range) through a high quality pre-amp. Sometimes a source component will mate beautifully with an amp, most of the time the impedances vary with frequency, and not just one stated imedance, and the match isn't what the spec's would suggest.

But with any system, it's a "system", so use what works best.

I agree with Reubent, using a preamp is not always an asset. In fact, sometimes it is a downgrade.

Jjmali, the poster is not using a passive preamp. The preamp in the ML 39 is based on the ML 380 active preamp. Wes Phillips (who's opinions I respect) had this to say in his review of the ML 39 CD player:

"You think your preamp is transparent? You're probably wrong. I knew this, of course, but I've never heard a CD player's variable output that wasn't more colored or coarse than a good preamp. Not even the best of 'em. So I was stunned by how good the '39 sounded going straight in. It was fast and clean—and more. More depth, more dynamics, more detail, more air... "

So we can rule the preamp out as the culprit, with a fairly high degree of certainty. There are other more likely causes, as I outlined in my previous post.

Since a couple of other posters questioned the cable choices, that appears to be a good place to start...

Norbert,
I owned a ML 39, upgraded to 390S, and connected directly to a ML 332 amp driving a pair of Martin Logan Odyssey.
The sound was like yours: lacking of dynamics and body, eventhough very detailed and transparent.
Therefore I decided to buy a preamp and, after an unsatisfactory trial with a ML 380S, I purchased an Arc Reference 2 mk2, getting everything was lacking previously.
Some times later, once I heard of all the troubles with the Mark Levinson factory closing, I decide to sell my 390S and purchased an Audio Aero Capitole mk 2 here in Italy where I live.
All I can tell you now is that I am not yet able to decide if I prefer the sound of this fantastic cd player through a very good preamp like the Arc or directly connected to the amp: the result in both ways is really good!
So, my suggestion is: buy a very good preamp (possibly a tube one) and connect your 39 to it, or swap this with a Capitole connecting it directly to your Bat amp.
Hope this helps
Ciao
Vito