The best preamp without a doubt..in my experience


I have always had a thing for preamplifiers. I tried many of the best brands—just to name a few: Shindo (several), Spectral, Klyne Arts, deHavilland, Berning, Placette, Marantz. I thought I had gotten close to the top as far as preamplification goes...until I got lucky enough to find an EAR G88, which is what deParavicini himself defines his masterpiece. Well, I am dumbfounded. The music flows more naturally, more realistically than ever before. You feel like being in closer touch with the instruments or the voices. The sound is just real, and for the first time I felt like I heard a real bass in my system. It’s an old product. It was produced in the early nineties, and only in 25 exemplars. But if you’re lucky enough to find one...don’t let it go.
ggavetti
The best preamp IMHO should have ALL possible functions for the best preamp. Everything should be adjustable such as Line gain, Phono gain, Input sensitivity, Balance, multiple outputs, doubled inputs RCA/XLR, Phono input impedance, capacitance adjustability, Adjustable headphone output, Digital inputs(DAC) and Digital outputs (ADC).
Haven't found the best one yet tho...
^^ getting a preamp to jump through all those hoops would be a trick. Balanced and single-ended are inherently incompatible for starters.

to continue:

Adjusting the phono input impedance is something only needed if the phono circuit is unstable with RFI. So a better preamp really does not need adjusting input impedance as 47K is sufficient at least as far as LOMC cartridges are concerned.

The more geegaws you add, the less likely the unit will deliver the bacon...
But Ralph, I had a contrary experience. Properly adjusted gain provides the best resolution per desirable loudness. Each and every album you're listening to may have different recording levels and adjustable gain can give you advantage to compensate lack or excess of such

The more geegaws you add, the less likely the unit will deliver the bacon...

I believe that more 'geegaws' simply add-on to the manufacturing cost more than delivering or not delivering bacon.
Ralph, your statement that balanced and single-ended are incompatible reminds me that there is something I've been wondering: Not that you should necessarily be familiar with the designs of your competitors, but you often do seem to be! In the ARC Reference line stages, both RCA and XLR jacks fill the back panel. Unlike EAR products which also have both but provide balanced outputs via a transformer at the back end of a circuit, ARC claims to offer fully-balanced operation via the circuit itself, obviously on the XLR jacks only. Where, then, does the single-ended output come from?
The best preamp, to my ears, has been a dedicated ditto integrated into the DAC; that is to say, no separate hardware preamp in the traditional sense. With the power amp used (Belles SA-30) the matching to the DAC/preamp (SOtM sDP-1000) is very successful, and with not a flicker of the "anemic and drained/non-dynamic" sonic imprinting the DAC-direct solution has often been reported having. Matching obviously is paramount, but newer solutions of dedicated DAC/preamps have come a long way making named issue equal zilch, and thus matching is less of a problem. Volume controls also have come a long way via digital implementations these last years, though the one used in my SOtM DAC/preamp is in the analogue domain (digitally "actuated").

Much of the controversy/debate over whether to use a separate hardware preamp (when we disregard its necessity with turntable setups) or not (i.e. as integrated solutions with only a digital source) seem not to take fully into account how systems can be build from ground up via either one or the other; in my case I've intended the latter from the beginning as an outset that would then come to fruition, and as such the inclusion of separate preamps often tip the balance in my setup where very often a lack of transparency and oddly "flavored" signature sneaks into the sound. Very expensive preamps have sometime blurred which solution to choose, but where this has occurred my thought has always been that the expense would be better invested elsewhere.

Conversely where separate hardware preamps have been used as an outset in ones setup(s), it's easy to imagine how its negation could induce sonic alterations that stem from the balance of the setup as a whole, and thus might call for rigorous tweaking to come near ones preferred sonic balance sans preamp.