Bill: thanks for sharing your experiences. My question now is why? is it because an active preamp "massages" the signal that comes out of the CDP (for example, it cleans the mids, tightens the bass) therefore making it a "better" CDP (even with top notch CDP)? or, there is something that the PRE does to the operations of the AMP itself - say it allows the amp to operate within a more efficient or "comfortable" range? I know this may sound a silly question but it would seem to me that looking at the sequence of gear in the system, a PRE improves the input signal fed to the AMP rather than magically improving the AMP. However, I often read about the PRE-AMP combo as if both were co-dependent, almost independent of the source.
Best preamp is no preamp: always true?
There seems to be a school of thought that between two well-designed (read no major flaws) CDP and AMP, the best PREAMP is NO PREAMP at all (let's assume that the AMP has a sort of minimalist volume control).
Is this a solid and robust statement? What would be situations where this is not true (still no major design flaws)?
Is this a solid and robust statement? What would be situations where this is not true (still no major design flaws)?
- ...
- 70 posts total
- 70 posts total