The future of preamps

Hi all,

I find this thread so interesting, especially amongst such exalted company, that I would humbly chime in with my two cents.
I guess the proof is always in the pudding, and of course, in this hobby, listening. I have always thought that running a digital source direct to amp should give the highest level of transparency and sonic quality. With my player having a 32-bit digital volume control, even running it at sub-max volume, a truncation of bits would not degrade the sound much as there is indeed too much headroom from 32 to say, a 24 bit digital volume level.
But, I am just curious after following many forum threads that espouse the use of an analog preamp to the betterment of overall sound quality. So when I had an opportunity to audition a high-end analog preamp at home, I was flabbergasted to find how much, much more I had been missing in the past sans analog preamp.
So, whatever the math, the ears have the final say - Aye, my analog preamp is staying for good.
Cheers!
Jon.

Jon,
Good post and you're just another example of why we have to actually listen and decide. I on general principle prefer the simpler path when it involves audio. In this regard I should strongly lean toward a direct source-amplifier approach or use a passive line stage- volume control. There's one problem however, when I listen it's undeniable that the high quality active line stages(certainly not all preamps can do this) sound better and provide more realism. They have the ability to apparently preserve more musical information, tone and nuance that's missing when these components are absent in the system. They IMO present a far more developed and "complete" sound. Leaner and thinner sound character doesn't= detail and transparency, just an inadequate ability to convey all of the audio signal intact.

I'm a bit confounded why it would be implicitly, and quite arrogantly assumed I'm not using my ears when stating the above; I most certainly base my findings on actual listening impressions, and there's nothing in the slightest anemic/thin/lean/unemotional or what else that robs my sonic experience from an organic, coherent, and effortless presentation through my setup without a hardware preamp. I have heard MANY setups, some of them extremely expensive (>$100,000), using hardware preamps (both solid state and tubes), and through a not insignificant number of these what has struck was: a malnourished, too soft presentation that furthermore lacked coherency and dynamic impact. I'm guessing this has less to do with the fact that hardware preamps were used here than the speakers used, and other combined factors. What I'm actually saying is also that the oftentimes prejudiced stance that 24-bit digital volume controls are marred by truncation effects is blown out of proportion, and that ACTUAL LISTENING has told me and my ears something very different. Perhaps there's much more in store for me with the addition of a hardware preamp, but until such (listening-)experience would tell me so I'm trusting my ears damn well enough to know that it sounds great without one.

I'm a bit confounded why it would be implicitly, and quite arrogantly assumed I'm not using my ears when stating the above; I most certainly base my findings on actual listening impressions

Phusis, I would guess that the reason is you have had a spat of bad luck, as your experience is one of the minority. A lot does depend on the preamp though and they are not all created equal! Some simply act as filters in the system. If you have been working with such preamps I would not doubt that you reasonably arrived at your conclusion.

Phusis,
I make the assumption we (or most) rely on what's heard to form an impression. As we are all different there'll be varying conclusions and choices made. My experience happened to be very similar to what Jon had written and I wanted to respond. You have your own experiences to share and certainly others can relate to you and your outcomes as well.

What I described has absolutely nothing to do with you preferences and the converse is true, they're completely independent of one another. We are just two people who happened to have different views. What I wrote about
the sound of passive-direct compared to good actives is simply what I
heard. I have no problem at all with your listening encounters/ comparisons
(how could I?), we both were expressing our opinions on an open forum. There's no rule that says we must agree with each other. You've recognized what sounds preferable to your ears and I've done the same. The ultimate result is we're happy with our individual choices.
Charles,