kren0006,
You have reasonable challenges to my "pronouncements." A few points can be discussed to see whether your challenges have merit. First, the role of theory and principles. Second, and more mundane, do expensive preamps change the findings that DAC direct reveals more music than adding a preamp?
The second is easier. I didn't yet listen to the latest video with the Christine preamp, but I compared the recent videos with and without the Christine. It certainly is a great preamp, by my definition of "great" because it is very transparent and alters the signal little. But it was still slightly inferior in clarity to going direct. I would expect my cheap Rane without its EQ engaged to be inferior in clarity to the Christine. So my point is that regardless of expense, a preamp will alter the sound to a greater or lesser degree, so going direct will be best for purity and clarity in nearly all cases. The only way I would be incorrect on this, would be if there is a quirky impedance mismatch by going direct, and a better impedance match by using a preamp as an intermediary. This is like making a ramp for an elderly person who can't get up stairs. For the fit young people, the ramp slows them down, but for handicapped persons, the stairs are a non-starter and the ramp is the only way to get around.
On to the tougher question about the role of theory and principles. A scientist uses inductive reasoning to first make observations, in this case, intelligent listening to a variety of live and recorded music, speakers, electronics, cables. I have done all of this. Then the scientist realizes that all his listening generates common conclusions, and he forms a theory. The theory can be used to predict observations about equipment he has never heard and compared in his familiar reference system. Nobody can hear everything, so the theory is useful to narrow down the fruitful possibilities of equipment to audition properly. After the theory has been confirmed with even more listening, it is ready to be promoted to the level of principle.
Coming down to earth, I found it interesting to compare the 13A and the 20.7. One of my theories is that electrostatic transducers are more accurate than planar magnetic ribbon transducers, because of the construction and tighter control of the diaphragm by the electrostatic field. Another of my theories is that convex curved electrostatic panels are inferior to straight panels. Then how could I predict whether the 20.7 would be better than the 13A, or the opposite? One theory predicted that the 20.7 is better, but the other theory predicted that the 13A is better. To find out the truth, WE DO THE LISTENING. We both agree that the 20.7 is our preference over the 13A, and we both agree that listening is the final arbiter. I just find it helpful to formulate theories based on listening experience, to help understand the observed differences.
In case you still object to this whole post by saying that I emphasize clarity to the exclusion of everything else, I wrote this AM that clarity encompasses most of the things that WC values, with the exception of macrodynamics and bass slam. So I still say that if macrodynamics and bass slam are very important to someone, they would lean towards having an additional preamp circuit in the chain. If the preamp were super transparent so that the extra gain comes in handy, then even I might want to have that super preamp around for very dynamic music, mainly if the power amp had very low gain. But for most music I listen to, I would take out that preamp in order to gain the greatest amount of clarity.
You have reasonable challenges to my "pronouncements." A few points can be discussed to see whether your challenges have merit. First, the role of theory and principles. Second, and more mundane, do expensive preamps change the findings that DAC direct reveals more music than adding a preamp?
The second is easier. I didn't yet listen to the latest video with the Christine preamp, but I compared the recent videos with and without the Christine. It certainly is a great preamp, by my definition of "great" because it is very transparent and alters the signal little. But it was still slightly inferior in clarity to going direct. I would expect my cheap Rane without its EQ engaged to be inferior in clarity to the Christine. So my point is that regardless of expense, a preamp will alter the sound to a greater or lesser degree, so going direct will be best for purity and clarity in nearly all cases. The only way I would be incorrect on this, would be if there is a quirky impedance mismatch by going direct, and a better impedance match by using a preamp as an intermediary. This is like making a ramp for an elderly person who can't get up stairs. For the fit young people, the ramp slows them down, but for handicapped persons, the stairs are a non-starter and the ramp is the only way to get around.
On to the tougher question about the role of theory and principles. A scientist uses inductive reasoning to first make observations, in this case, intelligent listening to a variety of live and recorded music, speakers, electronics, cables. I have done all of this. Then the scientist realizes that all his listening generates common conclusions, and he forms a theory. The theory can be used to predict observations about equipment he has never heard and compared in his familiar reference system. Nobody can hear everything, so the theory is useful to narrow down the fruitful possibilities of equipment to audition properly. After the theory has been confirmed with even more listening, it is ready to be promoted to the level of principle.
Coming down to earth, I found it interesting to compare the 13A and the 20.7. One of my theories is that electrostatic transducers are more accurate than planar magnetic ribbon transducers, because of the construction and tighter control of the diaphragm by the electrostatic field. Another of my theories is that convex curved electrostatic panels are inferior to straight panels. Then how could I predict whether the 20.7 would be better than the 13A, or the opposite? One theory predicted that the 20.7 is better, but the other theory predicted that the 13A is better. To find out the truth, WE DO THE LISTENING. We both agree that the 20.7 is our preference over the 13A, and we both agree that listening is the final arbiter. I just find it helpful to formulate theories based on listening experience, to help understand the observed differences.
In case you still object to this whole post by saying that I emphasize clarity to the exclusion of everything else, I wrote this AM that clarity encompasses most of the things that WC values, with the exception of macrodynamics and bass slam. So I still say that if macrodynamics and bass slam are very important to someone, they would lean towards having an additional preamp circuit in the chain. If the preamp were super transparent so that the extra gain comes in handy, then even I might want to have that super preamp around for very dynamic music, mainly if the power amp had very low gain. But for most music I listen to, I would take out that preamp in order to gain the greatest amount of clarity.
