Any thoughts on removing a preamp from your system

YEs, but the question is, why?

I can see how the proper eletronic mating might be trickier with a passive, but I cant see a disadvantage if done right, other than that various active pres might provide more flavors of sound to please more people. Not everyone likes vanilla best.

There is no right or wrong answer. Each case will be different. PErsonally I would strive to minimize the role of the pre-amp. IT is needed for source switching if more than one source and volume control only for the most part these days. Everything else can be addressed elsewhere case by case if needed.

I have several older pre-amps around that I continue to use because they are there and they work well. Were I starting from scratch today, I would probably consider building around a high quality passive pre-amp with volume control and enough inputs and outputs to suit my needs. That's pretty much it. I would expect top notch results possible with this approach for lower cost if done right.

It is something I want to try as well sometime.

1) I like the simplicity of the solution for the task at hand
2) I am curious how things might sound if done right
3) I like the small size and low price

For now, I have 4 decent quality pre-amps to tinker with as needed and I have seen that all have been capable performers to meet my needs. They are all a tight fit in my enclosed audio cabinet however, a minor inconvenience when it comes time to dabble mostly.

Good is good.....however one gets there.

It may be that active preamps often sound better.

The next question would be: why?

Synergy is always a consietation. Why would a good passive mated well be any lesser than with an active pre? Easier to mate correctly perhaps due to voltage and impedance matching? If that is done right, what secret ingredient is still missing?

There is usually a reason why some things work better than others.

Of course if a sub 1k passive can compete with the best active pres as some claim, that would be a significant thing.

"I admire Al's technical knowledge as well but what do you expect him to say? "

A purely technical analysis/comparison as only a good EE might concoct.

Understanding the technology is always the key to making good decisions. Of course, you never know for sure how it will sound until you hear it in your situation, but I always like to go in as technically informed as possible.

My own assessment is that if the mating from a volt and impedance perspective looks good on paper, a simple high quality circuit behind it is all that is needed for optimal results. The there is the technology behind the volume control, a different and perhaps more complex story, but not Rocket science still.

Of course optimal results technically does not assure a winner soundwise in the end, given all the other things that factor into any good sound, but its a darn good place to start.

"Trust your own ears."

No doubt that is the main key, but I also find that most things that really matter in good sound can be explained at least in theory. WHether the theory is then supported by the facts during listening or not is another story.

That's how science works without in fact ever 100% proving anything. Without theory or hypotheses at a minimum, there can be no roadmap for making informed decisions. Chaos would rule. Chaos is not a very efficient mechanism for getting anywhere. :^)

I need Almarg to chirp in and offer up his usual well informed and no nonsense assessment this time about good passive versus good active pre-amps!

Tortuga is one line that has caught my eye recently. LEt's use that as a test case for comparison perhaps.

Almarg, where are you?

In my second system (the one in the vertical cabinets in my system photos), I have 6 sources:

1) phono
2) Squeezebox Touch
3) DVD
4) tuner
5) VHS tape
6) cable box

The last 4 feed into an old Radio Shack/Realistic unpowered "passive" 4 source switching box gadget I have had for years. This was a $20-$30 gadget as I recall many years back.

Then the "passive" source switching device runs into tape in on an old NAD 7020 receiver that I use for pre-amp only that feeds the TAD Hibachi monoblocks that drive my smaller OHM speakers and my Stax phones.

SB Touch runs direct into the NADs aux input and phono to NAD phono input.

This works quite well. None of the sources I am feeding into the passive Realistic box are SOTA certainly, but the performance is quite suitable. I have heard these devices running directly as well in the past, and if there is a difference, it does not seem to matter much.

That makes me think a true good quality passive pre-amp with a good quality volume control might work quite well. Definitely something worth considering if needed.

AL, thanks for that.

Yes, I suppose I'm back to my original post. Passive appears an attractive option for cost, small size, and simplicity, inc cases where those things matter, like mine, and perhaps other reasons, but you never know or sure what will work best until you try.

I'll probably stick with the various pre-amp options at my disposal already for now, in that these are working out quite well already, but I am thinking this is something I would like to give a go someday when the time is right, like if my trusty old NAD decides to finally give it up. OR maybe just something to toy with in comparison to the ARC sp16 in my main rig just for kicks, if I get a few extra bucks I don't know what to do with (ha!).

Good stuff!