Best Preamp = No Preamp?

Direct sounds thinner with less body, weight and texture. This had been my experience with trying the LSA Attenuator three times, Placette, several DAC's direct, and several CD players direct. To some it sounds cleaner or more resolving, but I feel this is either mistaken for "transparency" or some folks like that lighter than real sound. Ha! I know that sounds negative, but we do all have preferences.

To each his or her own. Just enjoy!

Most SS sources (excluding tube ones) have an output stages that can equal and sometimes better many preamp output stages, especially tube ones.
So the myth that a preamp can drive the interconnects to the amp better is a "furphy", and started by preamp manufactures, and "Ohms Law" will prove that time and time again.
The only time you may like a preamp in the way is if you prefer it's colouration it gives, at a cost of transparency.

Just remember the Nelson Pass quote:
"We’ve got lots of gain in our electronics. More gain than some of us need or want. At least 10 db more.
Think of it this way: If you are running your volume control down around 9 o’clock, you are actually throwing away signal level so that a subsequent gain stage can make it back up.
Routinely DIYers opt to make themselves a “passive preamp” - just an input selector and a volume control.
What could be better? Hardly any noise or distortion added by these simple passive parts. No feedback, no worrying about what type of capacitors – just musical perfection.
And yet there are guys out there who don’t care for the result. “It sucks the life out of the music”, is a commonly heard refrain (really - I’m being serious here!). Maybe they are reacting psychologically to the need to turn the volume control up compared to an active preamp."

Cheers George

Direct sounds thinner with less body, weight and texture. This had been my experience with trying the LSA Attenuator three times, Placette, several DAC's direct, and several CD players direct. To some it sounds cleaner or more resolving, but I feel this is either mistaken for "transparency" or some folks like that lighter than real sound. Ha! I know that sounds negative, but we do all have preferences.

To each his or her own. Just enjoy!

"To each their own [fortune]" may also apply to those who've struck upon a winning DAC-direct combination instead of being simply in the camp of preferring a faux sonic imprinting; in fact I believe it's an old relic of a presumption believing the DAC-direct route generally devoid of body, weight etc., and not in keeping with the results currently possible here - especially since the OP originally posed his question. My latest and successful DAC-direct encounter is with the SOtM sDP-1000 (just entered my setup on a permanent basis), which sports a dedicated preamp section with volume attenuation in the analogue realm (digital "actuated"). Should people want for more body, weight and texture here I'd say it's a preference that goes contrary to what sounds natural to my ears though my setup. It sounds wonderful, plain and simple, and not in the slightest anemic or whatever. Actually I'd say the trend is reversing towards the DAC-direct route getting the upper sonic hand compared to separate preamp solutions, with the advancements being made via integrated components. Having a sole digital source makes it even more compelling.

Phusis:

"To each their own [fortune]"[quote]
Couldn't agree more!

[quote]instead of being simply in the camp of preferring a faux sonic imprinting

Those two statements are completely contradictory. Were you being intentionally ironic?

Swampwalker --

It seems you take things a bit out of context here, and misunderstand what I mean.

My "gripe" in a sense with poster Grannyring was that I found he tended to label the DAC-direct defenders to adhere to a "non-real" sound:

To some it sounds cleaner or more resolving, but I feel this is either mistaken for "transparency" or some folks like that lighter than real sound. Ha! I know that sounds negative, but we do all have preferences.

To each their own would then be like saying: the ones who prefer the "real" sound, and those (the DAC-direct people) who embrace a "faux" imprinting. On the surface it's a benign statement saying "to each their own," but in the context of what he wrote I found it got a slight knowing-it-better tone.

My comment ""To each their own [fortune]" may also apply to those who've struck upon a winning DAC-direct combination instead of being simply in the camp of preferring a faux sonic imprinting" was trying to communicate that those in favor of a DAC-direct solution wasn't necessarily defenders of a "faux" sound, but could as well achieve a winning combination with "real" sonics.