The future of preamps

Atmasphere --

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.

Thanks for your response. I would add that not all DAC's are equally created either, and that the analog output stages here used vary (to include some that are good matches for a direct poweramp coupling) with regard to their abilities to properly drive a poweramp - something you know, of course, but a factor that needs more visibility in discussing this subject, as I see it. I'm not necessarily after simplicity per se - as in, it cannot simply overrule sonic impressions as a general principle - but I like keeping it as a mind(out-)set , even as a counterweight to conventional "wisdom" in developing a setup. Had my impressions of the DAC-direct approach, in the combinations I have tried, been less than favorable I would surely have gone back to using a hardware preamp(models from Electrocompaniet, Classé and Cary being the last ones - the latter indeed with tubes..).

Charles1dad --

Thanks for your reply. I am perfectly fine with some of us having to agree to disagree amongst a variety of taste and opinions, so this is not my dispute. I was after the subtle, back-handed notions - insofar they were directed at me, let alone that they existed at all - that I was lacking the sole experience of actually listening before forming an opinion on the related matter, a seeming prejudice against digital volume controls (speaking of actually having the experience), and that a scent of "we, the lovers of active preamps, know the sonic truth; you don't" persisted. I may have overblown the existence of all this, but truth be told there's a rather overwhelming preference for the use of an active preamp (something that can have other reasons than SQ alone), and I guess some, if not most of these haven't made extensive experiments with a DAC-direct approach; the inertia, or convention of using an active preamp is very likely a factor.

Marqmike --

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Your reference to having a history of "exposure" to live music makes for an interesting, and highly relevant backdrop with regard to "having an ear" for evaluating reproduced music, and how this relates to a more strict understanding of the term "hifi." I do not intend the walk down the absolutism-path with this (nor do I read your reply in such a way), but it is a valuable piece of information about knowing what real, live acoustic music sounds like, in a living room no less, and how this could ground some of the subjective views that "all is just as good," insofar we're actually interested in what live acoustic music sounds like, and that having the goal, or simply a natural inclination towards seeing it reproduced most faithfully has any meaning. Myself I have attended quite a lot of classical concerts, mostly symphonic scale, and more intimate jazz/club concerts as well, and through the last years has been very keen on how to recognize the signature or "pattern" of live music in optimizing my own setup - not an easy task, and one that takes some perceptive tricks to achieve, to me at least.

I think if one has an active one would probably need to do more than drop a passive in to compare. I think you really need to pick your components for a passive system to optimize it. Just like you would do with changing any component. I say that (as many here say that the pre amp has a considerable effect and change on a sound system)because I think going from a active to a passive is one of the bigger changes one would make to a system.

This is exactly one of the main points in discussing this subject. Well said.

Asa --

I know, this is hardly dispositive in an empiric sense, but I know of a guy who streams only digital into class D amps - talks a lot, doesn't listen much, cognitively chatters like a monkey - and who says that his is the most "transparent" way, it just has to be, its so, um, logical.

My response? You can't describe the color purple to a blind man...

Who're you referring to?

If you can hear differences between interconnect cables then the source is not controlling the cable.

This has been understood for the last 60 years. The history of balanced line operation goes back to the phone company, and its success was immediately taken up by the recording and broadcast industry and resulted in what was called 'hifi'.

I wish more people would get this. The 600 ohm standard eliminates cable artifacts. It is that simple. Unfortunately high end audio embraces single ended designs much more so than true balanced differential designs that support the 600 ohm standard. As a result we have cables that in some ways can act as tone controls and as a further result we have cable manufacturers who add who knows what to their cable designs to propagate this further, while taking the opportunity to charge a premium for their tone controls.

My experience with single ended designs has taught me to use very short interconnects with low capacitance to eliminate artifacts, but the sources have to be up to the task as well. Much more complicated than my balanced system that supports the 600 ohm standard, thanks to Ralph's help.

When I started this thread, I wasn't thinking about the relative merits of passive and active preamps. I was thinking more about digital sources with volume control, integrated amps, and amps with digital inputs, all as ways of eliminating the preamp box entirely. However, all the discussion on active versus passive has certainly been interesting.

I use a tube preamp going directly to a digital signal processor. So there are extra a-d and d-a conversion steps in the processor. When I remove the analogue preamp, resolution and transparency go up slightly, but the sound becomes thin and uninvolving.

I've read Atmasphere's comments in the past regarding control of interconnect cables. Although I clearly hear differences in my system made by different balanced cables, I suppose that this could be due to the inability of my front end components to adequately control the cables. It seems to me that this could be true. Mind-boggling, to think that the entire high end interconnect industry could be based on this!

Hello Phusis,
It seems you and I are actually in agreement, we both use live acoustical music as a very useful template. We both adhere to the concept of simply trusting our ears when decisions are made regarding preferred audio components. Of course we may very well reach different conclusions even if we both were listening to the same identical components/systems.
Thats perfectly fine as individual taste and a particular bias for a certain sound that is deemed right will surely vary amongst individuals. I believe both of us are confident and secure with our paths toward audio-musical satisfaction. Take care.
Charles,

In his post dated 3-22-13 in this thread Ralph provided what I consider to be both a uniquely excellent explanation and an extremely persuasive proof of his contention that a balanced interface MEETING CERTAIN DESIGN CRITERIA (which unfortunately are not met by most audiophile-oriented components) can completely eliminate interconnect cable artifacts. See also his post dated 3-28-13 in that thread, which responded to some questions I had on the issue.

Which is not to say, however, that I take an ideological position against passive preamps, or against having no preamp. As I see it, in audio there are usually multiple ways to do you know what to a feline and achieve good results, to express in a different way a point that Charles, for one, has made many times.

In my own case, fwiw, the question is moot, as I require a full function preamp. Some of the reasons for that being: I want it to be able to drive multiple outputs (both volume controlled and not volume controlled), as well as select among multiple inputs; I want to be able to mute the speakers while listening to headphones, without having to turn off the power amp; my power amp is located too far from the preamp for a passive preamp, or direct drive from many source components, to be suitable; and the output levels of some of my source components would probably be marginal without some added gain. I'd expect those kinds of practical requirements, that a goodly number of people undoubtedly still have, to be among the reasons that preamps are unlikely to go away anytime soon.

Regards,
-- Al