Mep, disagree. DAC's made by very clever designers allow the voltage of the output stage to be adjusted and matched to the gain of the amplifier and sensitivity of the speakers so that realistic listening levels are achieved running 'fully open' with no volume control of any kind applied. Properly dithered 32bit digital volume control inside the DAC chip can be applied which allows for huge amounts of volume attenuation before even a single bit containing audio information is touched. ZERO mucking about with the signal in a power amp direct setup.
Opinions on the role of the preamp in a modern single source system
- Thread starter AudioExplorations
- Start date
Mep, disagree. DAC's made by very clever designers allow the voltage of the output stage to be adjusted and matched to the gain of the amplifier and sensitivity of the speakers so that realistic listening levels are achieved running 'fully open' with no volume control of any kind applied. Properly dithered 32bit digital volume control inside the DAC chip can be applied which allows for huge amounts of volume attenuation before even a single bit containing audio information is touched. ZERO mucking about with the signal in a power amp direct setup.
And, by the way, none of this conversation has been about sources without volume controls.
Tim
So how do you adjust the sound? Is this a set it once and forget it type thing and you always have the same volume except every CD is mastered at a different level and your playback level will constantly be jumping up and down unless you change the output voltage?
Exactly my point. If you have a volume control, you are adding something to the signal chain. Depending on what is feeding the volume control, it could be a whole lot of things.
If anyone can envision greater transparency after a component than before it, yes, we evidently need to define transparency. Perhaps I should avoid the word altogether. Can the signal from the source have less distortion, less noise, less coloration after it passes through a component (regardless of its quality), than it did before it passed through the component?
Tim
Is this the hifi version of the tree falling in the forest argument?
If there is no audiophile in the room when the preamp is turned on, does it make a sound?
Is this the hifi version of the tree falling in the forest argument?
Yes.
And is a passive device truly a passive device?
Guys, who can we involve in this discussion that will be able to shine some light on this conundrum?
Can anyone recommend WBF members or otherwise who could be invited to join in? The discussion has stagnated and there is a lot of repetition going on (the 6 people in the anti-preamp camp are giving clear logic to backup their standpoint, and the 13 people in the pro-preamp camp are clearly expressing sonic preference but cannot explain why).
How can we get to the bottom of this? We need to be careful who we invite as there could be serious bias with those professionally involved in the industry of selling/reviewing equipment.
Can anyone recommend WBF members or otherwise who could be invited to join in? The discussion has stagnated and there is a lot of repetition going on (the 6 people in the anti-preamp camp are giving clear logic to backup their standpoint, and the 13 people in the pro-preamp camp are clearly expressing sonic preference but cannot explain why).
How can we get to the bottom of this? We need to be careful who we invite as there could be serious bias with those professionally involved in the industry of selling/reviewing equipment.
No it's that one side wants to quote facts and figures and rarely listen vs. those who have listened and pretty much to a tee, uniformly hear issues with dynamics. So maybe there's something else involved?
Oh and I heard the Placette and thought it was drier than the Gobi desert and more bleached than a Clairol blonde.
Myles, I respect your opinion, but this is probably one of the least intelligible things I have read on here.
If you don't have an answer you could consider thinking of someone who might and inviting them along, this would be far more helpful then speculating whether or not peoples standpoints are backed up by actual listening impressions.
Ah, fidelity for fidelity's sake. No thanks man. To me that's worse than expectation bias, that's downright masochism. I'd rather keep my eye on the prize not the constraints.
Supposing adding the right kind of noise actually increases resolution? That would turn the entire argument on its head wouldn't it?
I have a theory that deals with three very closely interrelated aspects: SNR, Dynamic Range and Resolution. We know that in the digital realm adding the right kind of noise increases the usefulness of some of the data making it more intelligible (increases resolution) best leave that part to Amir. In analog (LP) land we know that stylus profile and the resultant friction/heat change in the vinyl elasticity produces noise akin to digital noise shaping. In tube land we know that thermionic noise, again similar to tape hiss and groove echo aids in accomplishing the same thing.
So the question is, is all noise bad? Apparently not if intelligibility is the concern. Now why wouldn't or shouldn't it be? You have to hear pick something out even before you decide you like it or not. I went looking around on the web and found many topics on improving SNR by adding averaged noise applied from everything from hearing aids to optics. Like Amir said before when I asked about adding noise to increase resolution, he said that it did seem counterintuitive and it sure as heck is!
Proof is in the pudding. Why is it that even if we leave preamps out of it altogether, one unit with volume control capability may present more information than another? Answer that question first before even going to why adding a preamp actually can allow you to hear more at the same average SPL calibration.
In my mind it isn't a "to preamp or not to preamp" issue. It's a what allows me to hear more of what's in the recording issue. Run direct not only did I get signal compression but spatial compression which can cause a whole lot of masking. This is a big deal for me because I listen to large orchestral works most of the time.
Bottom line is, in which configuration can you as a listener more easily identify and discern musical events. I already shared my findings. Would it be different with the Weiss Medea Plus? Maybe, maybe not. I don't really care. I am not a one source guy.
No, it would answer the question. If someone could point to some analog equivalent of dither in preamps - noise that actually improves the SQ, there would be no argument, we would completely understand why folks seem to hear better fidelity on the other side of a pre than they do without that boxful of resistance in the signal chain. Fidelity for fidelity's sake? You should know better, Jack. I love my music and its reproduction as much as the next guy here, but if I'm going to build another single-source system, I'm not going to put a preamp in there if all it's adding is color and gain and I don't need the gain. I get my color, with control, from digital eq. YMMV, but it's really that simple. A LOT of people seem to think a preamp is an essential component that adds fidelity, resolution, detail...whatever. This thread asks that very question. "Yes it is" may be good enough for you. I don't trust Audiophile ears, and I have no intention of going through a half dozen expensive pres finding out if I can trust my own. I'd rather ask the next question: "How?" Because if there's an answer, there is a way to screen pres and narrow the consideration set. Then there's just plain intellectual curiosity. If this is happening, like dither, it defies logic. Wouldn't you like to understand it?
So far I do not have an answer, I just have a lot of dismissal of the question. Same as it ever was.
Tim
PS: And before anybody goes there, if I was confident I had the answer, and had absolutely no respect for audiophile opinions, I wouldn't have even asked the question. Maybe you guys are on to something. If so, I want to know what it is so I can find it in its simplest and most efficient form. Or maybe you're just hearing what you want to hear. It could happen.
Last edited:
But I did give examples Tim. The problem is while a quick google will yield numerous academic studies regarding analog counterparts none are as of yet conclusive and that is what's being demanded. Contrary to what at least one guy on this forum says, no, everything hasn't been figured out yet mainly because the human perception component is still under study. While we've come a long way with the hearing mechanisms, there's a ways to go with cognition. Remember the height thread? That's just a small part. In this thread there's a heavy implication of timbre.
I also mentioned spatial compression. This is something hardly everybody talks about but we've all experienced. In a nutshell, that's what you get when say a pair of speakers are placed too close together and the sound is perceived as a messy ball of sound. Space them and elements begin to spread out and become easy to isolate. Thing is different components tend to do the same given speakers set up in a controlled manner e.g. Set up the same way. Again the suspect is SNR. The types of noise added by both medium and components suggest there is a relationship with the perception of space and placement which has a direct impact on intelligibility.
I also mentioned spatial compression. This is something hardly everybody talks about but we've all experienced. In a nutshell, that's what you get when say a pair of speakers are placed too close together and the sound is perceived as a messy ball of sound. Space them and elements begin to spread out and become easy to isolate. Thing is different components tend to do the same given speakers set up in a controlled manner e.g. Set up the same way. Again the suspect is SNR. The types of noise added by both medium and components suggest there is a relationship with the perception of space and placement which has a direct impact on intelligibility.
Last edited:
And I don't trust human capacity for auditory memory, which is unavoidable in the case of AB-ing with and without preamps.
I think in most cases the preamps used by folks here are transparent enough to result in no real significant audible difference, however differences are perceived because they are expected.
I have been listening to the zanden now for about 8 hours in the last few days and i can probably predict it has only a potmeter inside .
I very much would like to be satisfied with the amp alone and selling the CAT , and spend the money on something else, the Decca MI cartridge has enough output to go direct into the 7000 .
But listening to cd s on the zanden(yes i do try to like them ) with and without the pre i can tell it sounds much better with the CAT .
More dynamic and a more solid presentation also more bassextension and more refined , it sounds complete in every way no wishes left .
The cat might also add some gain i dont know exactly
I got on offer to trade the krells in for a very young CAT legend , i might do it
Audioexplorations youre always welcome for a listen to hear what a very good pre can do , you can bring your player for a cd direct try if you want
I very much would like to be satisfied with the amp alone and selling the CAT , and spend the money on something else, the Decca MI cartridge has enough output to go direct into the 7000 .
But listening to cd s on the zanden(yes i do try to like them ) with and without the pre i can tell it sounds much better with the CAT .
More dynamic and a more solid presentation also more bassextension and more refined , it sounds complete in every way no wishes left .
The cat might also add some gain i dont know exactly
I got on offer to trade the krells in for a very young CAT legend , i might do it
Audioexplorations youre always welcome for a listen to hear what a very good pre can do , you can bring your player for a cd direct try if you want
Last edited:
These?
Let's skip the fact that these don't relate to preamps for a moment. We know that the change in groove elasticity/tape hiss adds a noise akin to digital noise shaping, or we know it works like digital noise shaping to reduce distortion? They're two very different things.
And the answer is no, but I've seen no evidence of good analog noise other than the aforementioned thermionic noise in tubes. Analog audio has been around for many decades. Surely someone can point to/name/measure this "analog dither" if it exists. If it has the affect of increasing fidelity and it hasn't been codified and controlled by now, shame on the industry.
That question has been answered for decades, and the answer has been a founding audio design principle for as many decades -- one component presents more information than the next because it has lower noise, lower distortion. Because it obscures less information. This has been the goal of quality audio, and its founding premise for many, many years. The ideal? "A wire with gain." I've read a hundred variations on that concept repeated in studies, reviews, product literature, over and over again. I can't ever recall hearing anyone talk about a noise inherent in, or deliberately added to analog components to increase their fidelity.
Is this just a personal theory?
Tim
HI
I haven't read all the replies so if this has been covered please forgive
... I am of the same opinion intellectually. My experience , informal and non-scientific with a top notch Preamp and DAC suggest the contrary. The Top notch DAC was the Burmester 980 SRC and it is/was as good as they get and had a volume control and was essentially a full preamp ... My auditions were not level matched and not blind. I knew when I switched the Burmester 011 preamp (a superb, superlative preamp still to this day, if the 077 is better then it is in a class of its own) in the loop the reproduction acquired more of everything.
The effect was similar to what we, headphones aficionados observe with a headphone amplifier. The sound became richer not a matter of simple dynamics and spl.. It becomes for the lack of a better word, denser more realistic. Went from descriptive to being able to suggest and imitate a real performance. At first I didn't want to accept that the effect would be so profound ... I don't intellectually find the idea of adding more circuits and almost $20K for the sonic gain very palatable but the sonic gains were to me then very real ...
We need to look more into this and I am certain the manufacturers are fully capable of offering DAC and CDP capable of driving amps as well as a good preamp . The question is IMHO one of basics economics .. High End manufacturers are facing a dwindling market and only price increase will keep them in business so ... the more boxes they sell the better ... same with the dealers but it is however a case where the differences are to me, IME, real and repeatable... So I am remaining on the fence trying to be neutral leaning toward a preamp in my next system
Similar threads
- Sticky
Members online
- buraq
- John T
- amsco15
- Apex_speed
- tony22
- Rico25
- sbo6
- Jeffy
- dminches
- Hear Here
- Sampajanna
- MarkusBarkus
- Darth Mystery
- Newtonma
- kasin
- prefabrikator
- orrman
- Foxbat
- MortenB
- lamechops
- Geardaddie
- Dezy
- nonesup
- dan31
- simorag
- KeithR
- o-MJ-o
- octaviars
- sigbergaudio
- J007B
- jadis
- tedwoods
- Kingsrule
- Bobofei86
- unboxed
- Rensselaer
- buzzlulu
- Dentdog
- brad225
- matthias
- jsokol
- bonzo75
- Raypok
- Salectric
- PYP
- Richard449
- Dylan
- MacF
- static14
- WildPhydeaux
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |