Granny,
No doubt, many feel the same way as you, wanting to build around a good active pre-amp.
But there are clearly other ways to do it that involve no or lesser investment in the functions of a pre-amp, which nowadays is often merely to switch sources and control volume.
Granted there are many more bells and whistles possible in a pre-amp, but those are teh core things most must do. Audiophile preferences has already stripped away most of the other features of pre-amps past, like filters, tone controls, etc.
So I just wonder, for those two things, how much cost is justified? If I go with a minimal pre-amp, passive or active, what does it take to really just do those two things well? There are other parts of the system that might be integrated well and tweaked to produce the desired end sound as well, perhaps? THat is what my gut tells me anyway.
AN interesting experiment would be to undertake achieving a certain preferred sound with two unique systems concurrently for the exact same cost for comparison, one using an expensive preferred lovely sounding pre-amp, and another a less expensive minimalist, maybe even passive pre-amplifier.
Could both systems be made to achieve similar result for same or less money? Might one be able to achieve better results at the particular price point?
I have not done this experiment so I do not know, but my technical gut tells me I should be able to achieve desired results both ways, if both are done right.
I would think it possible to reduce the cost of the pre-amp in the "minimalist" pre-amp system, especially for just one or two sources, even more no volume control on pre-amp is needed for digital, and then even invest that money elsewhere for better results, if done right.
I may give it a shot someday. I have several pre-amps around the house already I could try with. I do not own any passive pre-amps. I do have Squeezebox Touch devices with built in digital volume controls that I could use without pre-amp, at least to try.
No doubt, many feel the same way as you, wanting to build around a good active pre-amp.
But there are clearly other ways to do it that involve no or lesser investment in the functions of a pre-amp, which nowadays is often merely to switch sources and control volume.
Granted there are many more bells and whistles possible in a pre-amp, but those are teh core things most must do. Audiophile preferences has already stripped away most of the other features of pre-amps past, like filters, tone controls, etc.
So I just wonder, for those two things, how much cost is justified? If I go with a minimal pre-amp, passive or active, what does it take to really just do those two things well? There are other parts of the system that might be integrated well and tweaked to produce the desired end sound as well, perhaps? THat is what my gut tells me anyway.
AN interesting experiment would be to undertake achieving a certain preferred sound with two unique systems concurrently for the exact same cost for comparison, one using an expensive preferred lovely sounding pre-amp, and another a less expensive minimalist, maybe even passive pre-amplifier.
Could both systems be made to achieve similar result for same or less money? Might one be able to achieve better results at the particular price point?
I have not done this experiment so I do not know, but my technical gut tells me I should be able to achieve desired results both ways, if both are done right.
I would think it possible to reduce the cost of the pre-amp in the "minimalist" pre-amp system, especially for just one or two sources, even more no volume control on pre-amp is needed for digital, and then even invest that money elsewhere for better results, if done right.
I may give it a shot someday. I have several pre-amps around the house already I could try with. I do not own any passive pre-amps. I do have Squeezebox Touch devices with built in digital volume controls that I could use without pre-amp, at least to try.