Opinions on the role of the preamp in a modern single source system

[microstrip]

How could this technically be possible, what could cause this? Is it possible the filtration/coloration is giving the perception of transparency? Like wilson speakers with their mid-bass hump are giving the perception of life music? I am sure the 089 can adequately drive such a high impedance load.

Just interested in how this could be explained.

AudioExplorations,

I have owned several models of Wilson loudspeakers and I can assure you that their capability of what you call giving the perception of life music is not due to the mid-bass hump. It is a combination of many factors that creates this perception, including the whole system (also the preamplifier )

IMHO, technically characterizing these many factors is still a dream. We know what can make a bad sounding system but we do not know what makes a top system sounding exceptional. It is why these forums are really interesting. Although we must accept that most owners are biased, we read from their empirical experience and learn about their system qualities. I always ask about the full system people are using, including cables and power enhancers, because otherwise the information is useless for me.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

You have a source, impedance matched with and sufficiently powerful to deliver the line level signal that the amp requires. You have wire. You have the appropriately matched and powered signal passing through that wire, reaching the amplifier.

Or you have a boxful of resistors, capacitors, switches, jacks, amplifiers, transformers..... in the middle between the signal and the amp.

One does not need to unravel the mysteries or interpret the dream to understand that the boxful of parts cannot add transparency (detail, resolution, dynamics...) to the signal. Unless there are filters in the box, there is no difficulty, no mystery required to understand that it is not subtracting noise or distortion, resulting in greater transparency (detail, resolution, dynamics...). It can either facilitate (boost) the transfer of an inadequate signal or it can get in the way of an adequate one. It can only add something that was not in the original signal. Its purpose, is to add strength, and the premise of this entire discussion is based on using a source with sufficient signal strength of its own.

No? How? My technical knowledge is limited. I'd like to understand any flaws in my view.

Tim

 

[AudioExplorations]

A preamp can either facilitate (boost) the transfer of an inadequate signal or it can get in the way of an adequate one.

Nicely said, probably the simplest way I have seen it written.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Originally Posted by Phelonious Ponk
A preamp can either facilitate (boost) the transfer of an inadequate signal or it can get in the way of an adequate one.

Care to tell us what comparison (s) you have actually carried out and with what sources rather than sitting there in your chair and hypothesizing as usual.


Please share with us what top end preamplifier you have compared to what passive devices other than your computer system.

 

[AudioExplorations]

Tim or myself?

I have tried going power amp direct with a Weiss DAC2, DAC202, Medea, Medea+, Wavelength cosecant, crimson, and a Meridian CDP feeding Primare, McIntosh, Bryston, Modwright and Burmester amplifiers. Preamps have included Primare PRE30, McIntosh C2300, and Bryston BP26 and a Modwright LS 100. Not quite as impressive (and "top end") as the list I posted by the other member earlier but the results were consistent non the less.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Tim or myself?

I have tried going power amp direct with a Weiss DAC2, DAC202, Medea, Medea+, Wavelength cosecant, crimson, and a Meridian CDP feeding Primare, McIntosh, Bryston, Modwright and Burmester amplifiers. Preamps have included Primare PRE30, McIntosh C2300, and Bryston BP26 and a Modwright LS 100. Not quite as impressive (and "top end") as the list I posted by the other member earlier but the results were consistent non the less.

Sorry for the confusion; the question was directed at Tim.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Thought you had me on ignore, Myles .

No I don't care to share because it is absolutely irrelevant unless you can tell me how a preamp - any preamp - can improve the quality of a signal that is already of sufficient strength to properly drive the input of the amplifier. Not change the signal, but improve its fidelity. Once we have gotten past that hurdle it may be worth investigating the relative strengths of various pres in performing this as of yet unidentified function, but until the function is defined, a Best Buy house brand reciever is as good as a Lamm to a deaf horse. So, back to my original question:

It can either facilitate (boost) the transfer of an inadequate signal or it can get in the way of an adequate one. It can only add something that was not in the original signal. Its purpose, is to add strength, and the premise of this entire discussion is based on using a source with sufficient signal strength of its own.

No? How?

Help me. How does that box full of parts, inserted in the wire carrying the signal, make the signal more faithful to itself?

Tim

 

[ack]

So Myles has you on ignore, and so do you of him, yet you manage to communicate with each other through others' responses, despite the obvious impedance mismatch between the two of you. So those intermediary "messengers" that get you to talk act like a transparent preamp, bridging the impedance mismatch, while not artificially improving the "sounds" that you both make. Excellent!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

So Myles has you on ignore, and so do you of him, yet you manage to communicate with each other through others' responses, despite the obvious impedance mismatch between the two of you. So those intermediary "messengers" that get you to talk act like a transparent preamp, bridging the impedance mismatch, while not artificially improving the "sounds" that you both make. Excellent!

Yeah, something like that. Ever had anyone on ignore? You can still open their individual posts when its obvious they have responded to you or, in this case challenged you "show your stuff" when the stuff in question is not relevant to the question at hand. You just get to easily pass over the noise that's not distorting your personal signal . Loved your tortured preamp analogy, though.

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

Tim,

It's not only the interjection of a box of parts in the wire carrying the signal. It is also the addition of another piece of wire, two more interfaces (sometimes imperfect RCA, sometimes XLR)..... more solder joints (or very rarely crimped), etc.

I don't think you are going to find the answer here..... not from me anyway. I'm not that smart. I posted because this is an opinion thread, not a technical thread. If it were a technical thread, and since I don't know, I would have refrained from posting.

I don't know why. I'm not trying to be obtuse or opaque (opposite of transparent), but whenever I have evaluated a DAC for a show that has a "well implemented output stage and volume control", the designers and manufacturer always tell me that it will sound better going directly into the power amplifier and leave the preamp at home. So far, I've always turned up at the show with a preamp because to me, it sounds better.

Even to eliminate the possible action of the additional interconnects, I've gone to the extent of level matching to within 0.5dB or as far as the gain control was possible in the source component, and unplugging the two interconnects from each other and plugging them together (easy to do when it's XLR). In the four preamps I've demo'ed with (and used extensively daily in my work) in the last 4 years, I thought adding them sounded better than having just the source component driving the power amp directly.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

It's not only the interjection of a box of parts in the wire carrying the signal. It is also the addition of another piece of wire, two more interfaces (sometimes imperfect RCA, sometimes XLR)..... more solder joints (or very rarely crimped), etc.

Yeah, I know. Trying to keep it simple -- box of parts, etc.

I don't think you are going to find the answer here..... not from me anyway. I'm not that smart. I posted because this is an opinion thread, not a technical thread. If it were a technical thread, and since I don't know, I would have refrained from posting.

It would have been a shame if you hadn't posted, because I think you did find the answer...

I don't know why. I'm not trying to be obtuse or opaque (opposite of transparent), but whenever I have evaluated a DAC for a show that has a "well implemented output stage and volume control", the designers and manufacturer always tell me that it will sound better going directly into the power amplifier and leave the preamp at home. So far, I've always turned up at the show with a preamp because to me, it sounds better.

To you, it sounds better. That requires no explanation. But you've got a wire carrying a nice, strong signal to the amplifier; you put a bunch of stuff -- passive, active, messy, distorting, noise-inducing, signal-alterning stuff -- in that signal's path. More faithful to the signal? Higher fidelity? More resolving? More revealing? More detailed? More dynamic? More natural? That requires some explanation.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

You have a source, impedance matched with and sufficiently powerful to deliver the line level signal that the amp requires. You have wire. You have the appropriately matched and powered signal passing through that wire, reaching the amplifier.

Or you have a boxful of resistors, capacitors, switches, jacks, amplifiers, transformers..... in the middle between the signal and the amp.

One does not need to unravel the mysteries or interpret the dream to understand that the boxful of parts cannot add transparency (detail, resolution, dynamics...) to the signal. Unless there are filters in the box, there is no difficulty, no mystery required to understand that it is not subtracting noise or distortion, resulting in greater transparency (detail, resolution, dynamics...). It can either facilitate (boost) the transfer of an inadequate signal or it can get in the way of an adequate one. It can only add something that was not in the original signal. Its purpose, is to add strength, and the premise of this entire discussion is based on using a source with sufficient signal strength of its own.

No? How? My technical knowledge is limited. I'd like to understand any flaws in my view.

Tim

Tim,

IMHO, the main flaw of your view starts when you do not try to understand what Gary means by transparency and replace it by your definition - (detail, resolution, dynamics...) . . The answer is in the three little dots. We had debates on transparency and we disagreed on this one long ago - I do not expect that any one can explain anything if we have to accept your scholar view on transparency.

My view is accepting that the recording process is not perfect, and a preamplfier can make me ignore some of its flaws, enhancing its good capabilities. Surely it manipulates the signal. May be it is a statistical process - I can accept that some recordings can sound better without the preamplfier. But in my humble experience, those I listen to sound better with the preamplfier.

BTW, I have tried more than once a stupid experience- connecting two preamplfiers in series - and I can assure it did not sound better than any one of them used alone. Should we rule that preamplfier points are not cumulative?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Quoting microstrips earlier message:


IMHO, technically characterizing these many factors is still a dream. We know what can make a bad sounding system but we do not know what makes a top system sounding exceptional

i dont agree , i suspect microstrip you know it also having so much expirience.

Does anyone know what the zandens 7000 volumecontrol consists off by the way , is the there a preamp circuit built inside or just a " potmeter"?
It does sound very good also without the pre in between, i even listen to cds

 

[audioarcher]

Thought you had me on ignore, Myles .

No I don't care to share because it is absolutely irrelevant unless you can tell me how a preamp - any preamp - can improve the quality of a signal that is already of sufficient strength to properly drive the input of the amplifier. Not change the signal, but improve its fidelity. Once we have gotten past that hurdle it may be worth investigating the relative strengths of various pres in performing this as of yet unidentified function, but until the function is defined, a Best Buy house brand reciever is as good as a Lamm to a deaf horse. So, back to my original question:



Help me. How does that box full of parts, inserted in the wire carrying the signal, make the signal more faithful to itself?

Tim

Tim, It seems you really don't care for subjectivity at all. You want an objective answer to a subjective question. I think you are going to bang you head on this forever because there is no objective answer. Maybe there is someone on this site with enough technical knowledge to satisfy your question but I think it unlikely.

If you prefer not to use your ears to answer your question and need logic and measurements then perhaps you need to do your own research just using those. I'm not sure how much value they would have to people that enjoy good sound though.

Another thought is maybe you really don't care what the answer is? You just want to stir the sh*t.

Sean

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

IMHO, the main flaw of your view starts when you do not try to understand what Gary means by transparency and replace it by your definition - (detail, resolution, dynamics...) . . The answer is in the three little dots. We had debates on transparency and we disagreed on this one long ago - I do not expect that any one can explain anything if we have to accept your scholar view on transparency.

Interesting. I'm unaware of having a personal definition of transparency. I'm fine with the standard definition; the quality or state of being transparent. I understand the term usually applies to visuals, not audio, but I didn't think there was a whole lot of controversy over the view that the the ideally transparent component would be the one that could be inserted in the signal chain with no noticable effect; it would be the component that would, in theory, "disappear." A component that alters or colors the signal would by definition be less transparent.

My view is accepting that the recording process is not perfect, and a preamplfier can make me ignore some of its flaws, enhancing its good capabilities.

I accept the first part, and the second, but I'm confused by the third. Recordings are imperfect, and inconsistent. My original digital master of Van Morrison's "It's Too Late To Stop Now" is just a bit on the bright side, but it has a wonderful illusion of space and room ambience. The re-master has a bit more midrange and feels fuller overall, but is also more compressed and as a result not only loses some dynamic range, but some of that sense of venue as well. How would your preamp know which one I was listening to and what good capabilities to enhance?

BTW, I have tried more than once a stupid experience- connecting two preamplfiers in series - and I can assure it did not sound better than any one of them used alone. Should we rule that preamplfier points are not cumulative?

According to a certain Japanese Audiophile mentioned earlier in this thread, you merely stopped too soon. You needed four more preamps.

I get your point, Micro. You like the sound better with the preamp. Enjoy.

Tim

 

[garylkoh]

More faithful to the signal?

That's why we are doing the event tonight in Seattle. We are going to listen "live" and then listen to the recording. May be it will answer my question to myself. What is the preamp doing to the signal to make me prefer having a preamp in the chain? It's something I'll definitely be doing when I get the recording back to my own system.

In the meantime, I'll accept that I prefer the sound with the preamp, and I can not satisfy Tim's requirement to say that it is better.

 

[garylkoh]

BTW, I have tried more than once a stupid experience- connecting two preamplfiers in series - and I can assure it did not sound better than any one of them used alone. Should we rule that preamplfier points are not cumulative?

Not stupid! The two preamps will sound different depending on the order in which you put them. It gives you a good chance to get a handle on the sound of the preamp. But in my experience, two never sounds better than just the better one alone.

 

[audioarcher]

That's why we are doing the event tonight in Seattle. We are going to listen "live" and then listen to the recording. May be it will answer my question to myself. What is the preamp doing to the signal to make me prefer having a preamp in the chain? It's something I'll definitely be doing when I get the recording back to my own system.

In the meantime, I'll accept that I prefer the sound with the preamp, and I can not satisfy Tim's requirement to say that it is better.

I will be there as well and look forward to doing the same tests in my system. I am as curious as Gary about this. I have not had a recording of a performance that I attended before.

Even with these tests I don't think it would satisfy Tim's query because we are still using our ears to make a judgement.

Sean

 

[Mike Lavigne]

for 5 years i used a Placette passive RVC instead of an active preamp. the Placette replaced/bettered a Mark Levinson #32 Reference preamp; which is certainly a highly respected preamp. over those 5 years i tried many high performance expensive preamps until i tried the darTZeel NHB-18NS preamp which clearly surpassed the Placette passive.

i don't think you can generalize anything on this subject. passives do out-perform actives until they don't. the Placette pasive was only $1000 retail....a remarkable value.

at the top of the food chain an active preamp does outdo a passive. i've compared direct from a source to thru the dart preamp and there is no difference when i use my headphone amps.

of course; the dart pre is battery powered and lists for 30,000 Swiss Francs. (about $33,000).

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, It seems you really don't care for subjectivity at all. You want an objective answer to a subjective question.

I'm a musician. It's all subjective. But you've misunderstood my question -- I want to know what's different, on the other side of the pre, other than the gain. That is not a subjective question. The subjective question is do you like it better? That answer, of course, will be highly variable from pre to pre and listener to listener.

I think you are going to bang you head on this forever because there is no objective answer. Maybe there is someone on this site with enough technical knowledge to satisfy your question but I think it unlikely.

I suspect there are a few.

If you prefer not to use your ears to answer your question.

You've misunderstood my question. See above.

Another thought is maybe you really don't care what the answer is? You just want to stir the sh*t.

It's a discussion board. If we avoid the challenging questions we won't have much to talk about.

Tim