Tekton Double Impacts

Since I move between summer and winter homes I started ripping all music into JRiver some 4 years ago. Then the files can be copied onto a Crucial drive and taken to the next place with about 30 minutes of updating (and this is legal -- as long as you keep the original sources).
What I found out was that the CD rips, when upsampled to 192/24, sounded cleaner and more accurate. At first, this didn't make sense. How can you add quality to a pre-existing CD sample/bit rate?
But then a studio contact told me that there was a noise advantage in the downconversion of 192/24 files. Since then I have confirmed this with other engineers. Because there is less noise, the music acquires additional detail. JRiver can do this upsampling automatically for all files -- no matter what their original bit/sample rate is.
So now, all music is kept ripped on the computer in *.wav files. Since I use a studio DA converter (RME UCX) it speaks to a virtual mixer on the computer and offers tremendous options for connecting other devices to the RME (e.g., an Oppo Blu-ray player). Once this method is adopted, you can use any virtual tools for EQ or room correction. So use REW to measure your DIs in your room and then EQ it to your preference.
These virtual options are far more powerful than hardware preamps. JRiver allows you to insert virtual programs into its playback chain and any virtual room correction program can be so inserted. Someone produces a better room correction program? All you replace is one app.
And if you have a large record collection you can use the available DAWs (Reaper is inexpensive) to rip the record into *.wav format. Once the process is comfortable, it takes no more time than playing. And if you rip it at 96/24, you will not lose any fidelity. If the record sounds warm and "tubelike" then the *.wav file will sound the same.
This will be heresy to some.
Once you use a music editor such as JRiver however, you become addicted to the easy control and selection of files. Want to compare one singer's rendition with another? Happens immediately with the click of the mouse from your listening chair. Want to listen to a multi-CD musical? All CDs are all melded into a single folder in JRiver and no physical switching is necessary. The new JRiver 23, BTW, costs about $30.
So, I don't need or use a preamp for stereo music (multi-channel HT systems are another story and for that I use an Emotiva XMC-1). The computer speaks directly to a DAC and as long as the latter has a volume control, that is all needed. Again, the computer can control all stereo preamp functions with greater power and accuracy than can a hardware device. What's more, its future potential is limitless.
Again, heresy?
The question raised above was about source and preamps in relation to the DIs. This method allows a perfect marriage and is open-ended to any future improvements.

My 2 cents David fwiw: Transparency of a speaker will determine the appropriate quality of the other upstream components in a system. Sensitivity of a speaker will of course determine how much wattage is required to efficiently power them to greatest effect. Instinctively, I want to find that sweet spot if it exists. Obviously you don’t want to use insufficient power, but I wouldn’t want to enter the domain of overkill either. I’d rather invest in quality of watts than quantity. I believe system synergy relies on the interaction of these two components most dependently. Whereas, a high quality source will probably be a more universal solution to most systems.

I like the way Terry approaches system building by starting with the end points. That being a transparent, efficient pair of speakers and a high quality source. Then nailing down a preamp that has extreme amplification synergy with those speakers because of said attributes. Lastly, workout and invest in the number of, and type of quality watts required to hit the proverbial sweet spot in the pursuit of audio nirvana.

Bill M

"It just occurred to me that our discussions on this thread are heavily weighted towards amplifier pairings with the Double Impacts, and to a lesser degree the preamplifier; and specifically optimal outcomes with respect to both component types. 
There has been some discussion of source components, but in terms of a weighted average very low coverage of the front end.
I find this very interesting and am curious as to why this may be the case. Thoughts?"

I've noticed that too and was actually drawn to this thread because up until recently it did NOT go off talking about other equipment. If you are discussing the sound quality of the DIs there are too many variables to account for except for the DI/amp interface and the room interface. Knowing that the DIs play well with flea watters, SET tube, P/P tube, solid state, Class D...and what size of room they are being used in is very important to me since I'm making a buying decision.  I think we all know a good preamp, turntable, cartridge, DAC, music server, cables (let's not go there, haha) etc can make a big difference on the overall musicality of a system but not sure how that helps me determine the sound quality of the DIs. For instance, inserting a quality preamp into the chain will help all speakers not just the DIs......my 2 cents. 

@craigl59 Let me join your heresy club. I too utilize JRiver and DBPoweramp in a similar manner and have a similar signal path. The fact that there is nothing added to the recordings is what I enjoy. If there is "warmth" on the recording, I want it presented that way but not added. In fact I have an Odyssey Tube Preamp on order. I've conveyed to Klaus at Odyssey that I am not a tube sound fan but he maintains he wants me to try the Candela first and return it if I don't like it with the Kismet power amp. Just wanted you to know you aren't the only "digital" fan in the thread. But this is a long discussed preference and takes nothing away from others that love the sound from a 1 watt tube amp. It just shows the capabilities of the DIs to do many things extremely well.