Herb, several times during my passive experimentation days, I too heard greater transparency when using a passive unit or going direct to amp. I am familiar with this feeling. The key is will this feeling last? I've found that after a period of time listening to this newly found transparency, when switching back to an active preamp, I rediscover the weight, body and soul of the music which had been lost during the switch, and was not initially realized during my enthusiasm for the gained transparency.
Overall, not just with preamps, I've learned that musicality is more important to me than transparency. If tonal accuracy is not true, I do not care how clean the signal is. This is the same reason I've given up on Nordost cables. Their transparency and revealing qualities can be very enticing in the beginning, but I've found, over time, that they cause me to listen less often and for shorter periods of time as listening fatigue sets in sooner and sooner. I still say that Nordost cables are great for demos, they will impress your friends, but I just don't care to live with them over the long haul.
Obviously, others will have different goals, but my days of chasing after the ultimate in resolution are over. I'm more about listening to what sounds musical or natural to me these days. My system is not as resolving as it was years ago, but it's much more enjoyable to listen to. I wouldn't say that you are imagining the increased transparency, I would just say be cautious, as this new sound may turn on you down the road.
Cheers,
John |
Hi John,
Very nice post concerning your individual encounters with various system
configurations. My experiences parallel yours but I disagree on one point
you made.You aren't hearing more transparency with direct or passive
alternatives, just leaner and diluted sound that lacking vital music
information. The full body and tone you realize was missing is abundantly
present with live music. Listen to a live cello, saxaphone, piano, trumpet
etc. The colors, harmonics, richness and vibrancy of tone is crucial to
music. Any audio component that strips way those natural characteristics
is doing a disservice to the complete musical true. A tenor sax heard live is
so rich and full you could can its tone "fat"(I just heard one 3
days ago in a club, he was unmiked, pure and natural). IMO this so called
transparency you mentioned is fake. You'll never hear this from live
acoustic instruments. They possess big tone, fullness and dramatic
dynamic energy. In the past 3 months I've attended 14 live jazz
performances and these essential qualities are clearly evident and make for
a devine and emotional experience every time. John your active preamp
does a superior job of "retaining" those realistic cues although it still won't
match the live sound. It will get you closer than if you eliminate it from your
system.
Charles, |
There is a good argument for passive when the control itself is built into the amplifier, as in an integrated amp.
But when the control is in an external box, the problem is that you are totally subject to the whims of the interconnect cables.
One very common buggaboo is that a passive control will sound fine at full volume, but as you decrease the volume control the bass and overall impact will diminish. You will get better results with shorted cables. So a lot depends on setup.
Because of the lower output impedance of many active preamps, they tend to reduce the artifact of the interconnect cables. In fact this is one of the functions that an active preamp should do- ideally, eliminate the cable artifact entirely.
If the active preamp is good in this department and is also lacking coloration, the result is that it will sound better than a passive setup.
Now if you happen to use balanced lines, the whole idea behind the balanced system is to eliminate cable artifact. It is quite successful at this; without it the Golden Age of Stereo (1954 to 1963) would not have occurred. Not all high end balanced preamps and passive controls support the balanced standard (in fact, no passive control does and only a handful of actives do) so you do still read about people hearing differences between balanced cables. That isn't actually supposed to happen, if it does its a sign that the preamp you are playing does not support the standard. |
I am currently breakin in the new PS Audio Direct Stream Dac and I am running it straight into my Pass Labs X350.5 Amp.
First listen was pretty rough, but today, 100 hours later, I am really liking the sound. Quite impressive.
This weekend after I have more than 200 hours on the Dac I will connect up my Preamp and compare. |
When I first connected my CD player direct to amps, I though I discovered transparancy and detail. I didn't. I liked it until I realized I was lacking everything that made music musical. I think the preamp is the heart and the back bone. |
An audio-friend of mine has always found it better not to use a separate hardware preamp in his setups, especially since his latest DAC/preamp (the Danish developed/manufactored Blue Cheese Audio Roquefort http://www.studiosound.dk/cddac/roquefort/) sports a dedicated preamp section with digital volume attenuation. The separate preamps he's tested against it have all failed to deliver equally overall, until a very expensive preamp entered the setup in the form of a Belles LA-01 (driving his Belles SA-100 poweramp). While the inclusion of this hardware preamp to his ears doesn't necessarily translate into a win-win sonic scenario in all respects compared to the stand-alone BCA DAC, he's smitten especially by the added sense of "drive, dynamics and transient abilities - as if the existing components are harnessed into a fuller, better controlled potential in many respects," as he'd more or less put it. This is an intesting observation to me, also insofar it would take such an expensive preamp to finally turn it into (again, in some respects) an even more satisfying sonic experience. This example - among others, actually - tells me that separate hardware preamps are a potential blessing in some vital respects, but are at same time an added component in the audio chain where many variables combine to make it a challenge for it not to impose too much of a character of its own (read: the challenge of transparency, if you will). I guess for some the above mentioned traits coming in the wake of a hardware preamp overshadow an added layer of coloring/character, where it might be more pronounced, whereas others (like me, for instance) would find it a nuisance - depending of course not only on taste, but also and not least the setup where these evaluations are made. The motivation behind above mentioned friend trying out a hardware preamp in his setup was essentially due to the planned investment of a turntable, one might add. To me, with a digital source only and a very successful mating of DAC and poweramp direct-coupling, the inclusion of a hardware preamp would have to be so utterly convincing (not least in light of its expected severe cost for it to make a real difference) to have me forget the other areas where the same or less amount of money could make a difference. I've heard many preamp-based setups, and most of them to my ears truly lack the coherency, truth of tone, and snap and power found through my own setup - using no separate hardware preamp. A hardware preamp is not necessarily a sonic blessing in and by itself, and a preamp-less setup is not necessarily marred by what is so generally found in above postings. Just saying.. |
Hi Phusis, a well written self analysis of what you believe is happening, well done. As for the BCA Roquefort using the word preamp, this is a bit of a misnomer, as it does the volume control in the digital domain before the digital to analogue conversion (dac) stage, and has also in the same section a switch ability for various digital inputs. "with 2 pcs. AES / EBU, 2 pcs. S / PDIF, 1. coaxial, 1. Toslink and 1. USB" This can be very loosely called a "digital domain preamp" but shouldn't. The word preamp is to pre-amplify in the analogue domain, and there is no preamplifing done there, and I don't believe this unit has switchable analogue inputs without seeing the back, as then there would be no control over the volume, as that's done up river in the digital domain. It should just be called a digital domain volume control with digital input switching, like many others do, Wadia, ML, etc. After the dac it seems it has the normal I/V (current to voltage) conversion stage, post dac filtering and output buffers. No analogue domain volume controled gain stages or analogue input switching. https://translate.google.com.au/translate?sl=da&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.studiosound.dk%2Fcddac%2Froquefort%2F&edit-text=Cheers George |
Hi George Thank you for your comments and corrective remarks on my use of the term 'preamp.' Not to appear too apologetic I'm guessing I intended to use the term as a means to address the effort made with the analog output stage of the BCA Roquefort, and that this in a sense pointed to its deliberate use as a "preamp" (where none is) simply by virtue of having a volume control in the digital domain and a collection of digital in- and analog outputs. If it makes any difference, here's the link to a Danish review of the Roquefort (albeit a prototype) with a picture of the left backside: http://nerds.dk/review/?rid=155 |
I do it all the time when reviewing various pieces; results vary widely. If you can do so, try it. But there is no universal acceptance, nor performance guarantee when doing it. |
Hi Phusis, Iike your analysis.
Yesterday I returned my Fosgate Phono amp to my VTL 5.5 preamp, and immediately noticed a lost in dynamics and transparency. Needless to say I switched back to the direct connection of my phono amp to my Audio Mirror power amp. The Audio Mirrors have pots.
I realize these results maybe due to "total" system synergy, which is why I am not throwing out my preamp just yet.
I have two other source components (Marantz SACD, and a solid state battery operated option PATHOS Phono amp), which I plan to test tonight.
Herb |
My experience equals others in this thread. I would not say I have given up on "resolution", but for me also, "musicality" is even more central. Last year, I tested the Aesthetix Io phono stage direct and through preamps so much that I started to hate it. Why? Because the direct connection is indeed excellent, has outstanding clarity, and so on! It was only after awhile that I starting missing something. Gradually I learned what to listen for. Like a bit washed out sound. Big dynamics, but not timing. A friend summed it up: your speaker drivers aren't controlled in the right way. I recently managed to get a used Einstein The Tube Mk2 preamp for a fair price (here in Europe). It gives me much of what I was missing. Indeed, since it came into my system, I have not bothered with more of the tiresome with/without preamp testing. It just feels right. |
For the same reason Phusis, that's why I called my product the "Lightspeed Attenuator", as it's a passive attenuator, as there is no preamplifying going on inside it.
Cheers George |
Mapman -- 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. My thoughts as well. I'd wager most active preamps are inherently limited by a lack of transparency, or certainly an added sense of character, an issue that is revealed the more obviously when compared to a successful poweramp to DAC direct-coupling or a similarly well-integrated passive preamp, and of course also relative to the active preamp used. Moreover, where the synergy of a setup is "dialed in" around the use of an active preamp and its negation results in the overall sound falling by the wayside, so to speak, this is not necessarily indicative of the preamp's merits but could as well point to its colorations and/or a less than ideal in-/output impedance match in its stead. To those considering skipping both an active and passive preamp, and go DAC/poweramp-direct: Digital volume controls in the 24-bit domain (or higher), preferably dithered and where the source is PC-based, are a brilliant solution. In practicality their use, even down to some -40dB attenuation, seem not to impede in any way noticable to my ear (going by JRiver MC19's volume control), and with the typical poweramp gain level and speaker sensitivity most would likely use digital volume leveling in the -10 to -25dB range, which is more or less inside the (theoretically) safe confines before bit stripping/truncation is said to occur. However, even outside this spectrum (i.e.: above ~-25dB ) I can't to the best of my hearing abilities hear any signal degradation with "normal" listening levels, or even lower, which in my case is typically an average ~65-75dB (measured via iPhone SPLnFFT v4.4 noise meter. Put more faith in thy ears than mere numbers and theoretical deductions.. |
For a while I had the Promitheus Audio Reference Dual Box C-Core TVC in my system driving the Spectron mono-blocks. This was a fantastic unit. Totally transparent and free of artifacts. I have also tried the Benchmark DAC1 and the DAC2 HGC feeding the Spectron mono-blocks as well.
None of these units are a true contender to the Joule Electra LA-300 ME tube preamp. The 300 ME brings in perfect pitch definition and the correct weight to each instrument. I'm used to listening to live classical music, and these two qualities in audio playback is something that's missing in both, the Promitheus and the Benchmark units. Both of these units will sound amazing as far as hi-fi sound is concerned, but when you compare them to live music, they do fall short of making me believe that the musical performance is happening in front of me.
I recently just listened to the Benchmark DAC2 HGC going directly into the mono-blocks for a few weeks. This unit gets closer to my analog playback. Anything you would want in audio reproduction is there, except that it lacks the same pitch definition and weight that the Joule Electra brings in.
If I didn't have the Joule Electra, I could definitely live very happy with either the Promitheus or the Benchmark units. In the end, one decides to live with things we appreciate the most, and to me the accurate reproduction of live music is essential in audio playback. |
After more than a decade of testing my system, I have now eliminated my de Havilland Mercury 2 preamp. My CD player - Audio Aero Capitole Ref SE seem to do a better job direct to my power amps. It is more natural, fluid, organic and delicate. The preamp added more liveliness, speed and scale but also made it more mechanical. |
Herb --
Thanks for your comments. Your findings on by-passing the VTL preamp are interesting, and overall are impressions I share with the direct-route in my own, albeit different setup. It goes to show there are sonically very worthwhile combinations without a preamp, and that neither dynamics nor the sense of body and vitality are necessarily sacrificed - or so I find myself. Nonetheless keeping your VTL seems like a good idea.
With regard to the synergy mentioned I believe in getting it in place, as an outset, via as few components as possible. My speakers are 2-way (w/2 units per side) with a very simple cross-over (6/12dB); my Class-A poweramp (sporting a relatively simple topology) is non-balanced and built with few by very high quality components; I use no powerstrip but instead connects my DIY power cables conductor-direct via screw terminals (though not on the component side); no connectors are used on the speaker cables (solid-core silver/gold round wire and copper foils in single-wire parallel), etc. To reiterate: simplicity not for the sake of simplicity, but as an outset and maintained where it is sonically superior or at least the equal.
How is the testing with named components proceeding? |
Hello Phusis.
Interesting synergy comments. I have not looked any further into simplifying my system other than the direct to amp configuration. I use two power conditioners mostly because I had experienced some low level hum, which has all but vanished with them in place. My mono amps are point-to-point wiring, and my speakers are a 3 way design. My speakers could, at 89db be more efficient for the low 20 watt Monoblocks, but I don't play my system at high volumes, so it all works.
The direct to amp did not work so well with my SS phono amp. I suspect the mono cartridge used in this configuration is the blame. It has always had very low level and tolerable hum. A condition common to the design according to the Japanese designer. But with the direct-to-amp setup the hum was remarkable. My preamp evidently helps control the noise level.
I did not try the SACD player because as you well know, digital signals will always need to be tamed. I figure the VTL preamp can only help in that setup. |
