Are Preamplifier’s Relevant Today or just a Hinderance with Digital Playback ?

This topic, like many, has been spoken about, ad nauseam. But the truth is, having a preamp simply depends on 1 thing......  do you need the added gain, which is system dependent. I have not heard ( in my system ) a preamp at the 10K and above price range, but have heard, and have owned, several under 10 K preamps, that sounds less " clean ", than my top model Luminous Audio passive, being fed by my dacs, into any number of amplifiers I run. Speakers are horns,  over 100db, which makes a huge difference when needing, or not needing, additional gain.

+1,00000,000 very clearly said and to the point. clearthink .

I tend to over elaborate too much with technical reasons and it confuses some.

Always best to use as much as possible all of the sources output, for reasons of noise/hum/distortion/colorations regardless of what it is, even phono.

You don’t floor the accelerator on a super car (the source), yet keep your foot on the brake (the preamp) to get to the destination ( the power amp)

Cheers George

The existence of digital playback technology in a Music Reproduction System is not in any way, matter, or scope related to the need to a preamplifier in any meaningful, significant, or substantial way.  

@georgehifi,
we will have to disagree on that front.  my ears tell me otherwise and it isn't close.  

DAC is not accurate. DAA is proper. Dijitteral Analog Approximator. Clocking errors and jitter will forever be the distortion that, along with the irritation of odd order harmonics, keeps you forever on the merry-go-round. 
Stereo is an anti-social disaster perched on a little postage stamp in a large room because the rest is just waves and troughs. Put a Khorn in the corner run some tube gear and turntable and let the party roll, everyone gets a seat at the show even the cheap seats are good. George Harrison maintained until the day he died that you never heard Sgt. Peppers until you heard it in mono. 

it takes a heck of a DAC to have an analog section capable of robust drive and dynamics that a good preamp brings to the table-

Just about any good dac these days has an output stage equal to or even better than preamps especially tube preamps.
And you don't need anymore gain, we have more than enough in today's sources, use all the gain the source has, don't shunt it to ground, then make it back up again along with more noise and distortion added by a preamps gain stage. 
Cheers George

An active preamp any day ,because of its power supplies and gain stage keeps a constant voltage and steady soundstage 
and imaging Rick solid .A passive preamp ,or direct from dac ,
doesnot present the control and stability of the signal voltage .
I have tried them all I am referring to a high quality solid state 
or vacuum tube preamplifier section .
in my latest purchase the Coda CSIB integrated amp. It Is a true Active class A preamplifier section with a tremendous 120 amps on tap for dynamic swings .It has a top notch amp,and preamp section  much better then direct from digital by a lot !!

it takes a heck of a DAC to have an analog section capable of robust drive and dynamics that a good preamp brings to the table- if you are plugging directly into a power amp and not an integrated.  
i need a preamp because I need tubes and that is where I prefer them.  
i cannot live on solid state alone.  it really does sound lackluster,  

You can easily get by without a separate pre-amp it’s your choice. 

@oldschool1948 Your Innuos is likely helping out a lot in the streaming quality department. In my case, I do not do anything to improve my streaming pipeline until the Fibre cable then USB to DAC. So for me the difference was huge. So much so that I bought 2 OpticalRendu's for each of my DAC's.

in_shore OP
Are Preamplifier’s Relevant Today or just a Hinderance with Digital Playback ?

Everything being a good match eg: impedance matched and also the digital domain volume control is not below 70% (so it "bit strips") then direct sounds just like what the the source is giving out, if it’s good or bad. Unless you want/need to color it with a active preamp.

If you can’t use your digital volume control at 70% or above because it too loud, then use a $49 Sys passive between it and the power amp to preset the level so then you can use the digital volume at 70% or higher.

Remember what Nelson Pass says about passive preamps

Nelson Pass,
"We’ve got lots of gain in our electronics. More gain than some of us need or want. At least 10 db more.
Think of it this way: If you are running your volume control down around 9 o’clock, you are actually throwing away signal level so that a subsequent gain stage can make it back up.
Routinely DIYers opt to make themselves a “passive preamp” - just an input selector and a volume control.
What could be better? Hardly any noise or distortion added by these simple passive parts. No feedback, no worrying about what type of capacitors – just musical perfection.
And yet there are guys out there who don’t care for the result. “It sucks the life out of the music”, is a commonly heard refrain (really - I’m being serious here!). Maybe they are reacting psychologically to the need to turn the volume control up compared to an active preamp."

Cheers George

@yyzsantabarbara  My streaming path is Cardas Ethernet to an Innous Zenith MK2 via WireWorld USB cable to a Matrix X via a cheap .5 meter HDMI cable to my DAC.  I hear a clear and distinct SQ improvement using the Matrix as opposed to going direct from the Zenith with a USB cable or Ethernet cable to Bridge II.  Ethernet to Bridge II sounds the worst and it only supports up to DSD64.

I’ve procrastinated on buying an “audiophile” grade I2S cable because I like what I hear now.  Having said that, I liked the sound of a NAD M22v2 power amp until I heard the BHK250 in my system.  I’ve been looking at my options and will buy a better HDMI cable soon.  

Fiber optic is somewhat appealing to me, and I’ve researched the OpticalRendu.  I’m not sure the SQ improvement is worth the switch and I have no way of knowing unless I buy the pieces needed to find out.  I never say never, but for now I plan to stick with what I have.

Yes, a good preamp is a necessity for a good audio system. 
  Each one has a somewhat sonic sound of its own.

  Only digital I do is iPod connected to preamp via the mini jack to preamps rca.  At low volume and background tunes.

critical,listening is LP & CD. 
I learned my lesson. I now do lossless?. I think for all my iPod playback,  CDs still sound better. 

@oldschool1948 Try incorporating Fibre Optical cable to your streaming. It will make a world of difference. I use the Sonore Optical Rendu’s. Analog noise cannot travel inside Fibre Optical cable. A great equalizer in my opinion to cheaply getting noiseless streams into the DAC.

At this point in my life, I listen less to vinyl and do more streaming. My digital rig sounds really good to me, and while my vinyl rig sounds better it’s not by much. A while back, I was considering selling my Technics 1200G and Herron VTSP-2A(r02) vinyl rig, and giving my 1,200 albums to my son. And I was curious as to how my system would sound without a pre amp.

In my listening room, I’m using a PS Audio BHK pre amp, DirectStream DAC, and BHK250 power amp. Since the DSD has a volume control, I connected it directly to the BHK250 for some A/B listening. The sound was soft and unengaging. So much for that experiment.

I came to my senses and decided to keep my vinyl rig. I’ve heard some amazing streaming systems, but the best I’ve ever head was vinyl, but that system was so far out of my price range I don’t even dream of owing one. I’m just saying .....

...stopped using a preamp nearly 3 decades ago.
Haven't missed it a bit.
A digital 'switcher' handles What, a simple matrix switchbay determines How.

For me, a screen control over a digital 'switchbay' would be a nice touch.  Plug everything into The Box, poke 'n prod the program into the route dujour, and enjoy....or whatever I'm listening For....

Yes, I do listen to 'the stuff', but not to the cables or ICs'.
I already 'know' what that sounds like.  What it Is....not what it's not....;)

I had a Benchmark HPA4 preamp with a Gustard X26 Pro and the sound was fabulous. A killer pairing.

Then a few weeks ago, I moved the HPA4 to another room and had the Gustard DAC direct to amp. The music sounds a bit more lean. I also have a few semi loud pops on the speaker and also varying amounts of hiss. Turning the Gustard OFF and then ON again reset the hiss to a lower level. This did not give me me confidence on the DAC direct to amp.

Today I put in a CODA 07x preamp with Gustard. Great sound again with more body to the sound. Different from the HPA4 preamp but both are way better than DAC direct to amp on my setup, especially so at low volume. I am listening at low volume while my son goes to sleep in the next room and everything is there in the music, just at a lower volume. A digital volume cannot do low volume well, parts of the music go missing.

Hi @sns,
I haven’t heard the Coincident 845 Turbo SE but word of mouth reports are of very high praise. So I suspected its passive preamplifier section must be pretty good. Your comparison with the Coincident Statement Line Stage is informative.  The Statement is a superb component and for all the reasons you mentioned. It pairs marvelously with my Frankenstein 300b mono blocks.

I’ve also heard my amplifier paired with the Atma-Spherw MP-1 and VAC Signature MK II, both were splendid. High quality active preamplifiers are formidable.
Charles

I've been doing some experimenting with this very thing recently. Using dac's digital volume control least desirable, loss of bits means resolution losses. I also have three choices of passive volume attenuation available. Passive resistor volume control built into my Coincident Turbo 845SE, Schitt Saga (also resistor based volume control) on passive or tube buffer setting. I also have Coincident Statement MKII linestage for active pre with further upgraded Amtrans rotary selector (transformer volume control).

As I stated previously, dac direct to amp has always been least desirable going through many amp and dac combinations over the years. Passive with either the Schitt or Coincident Turbo third best. Schitt on tube buffer setting second best, adds some meat on the bone. Statement active best, none of the others can match the micro and macro dynamics provided by acitve. These added dynamics provide a much greater sense of real live performers in room. Other added sq improvements, just on a lesser scale.

Still, apples to oranges here, over 6k active vs. $400 plus nice 6sn7 tube in Schitt or questionable cost of passive built into Turbo. The marginal gains here make all the difference for me.

Convincing yourself that a preamp does not help does save you some money.
I tried a couple of passive preamps.  They were much worse sounding than the same companies' active ones, and suspect that these non-preamp people are missing out on something

indeed knowlege of your preferences is self awareness 

@duckworp as do i, on both digital and high speed tape....couple Bryston monoblocks in the rack and some Bryston Middle T...for monitors, Stax for the close in work

Let the chorale pick the ribbons...

chasing another ounce of detail out of Aja....is chasing your own tail...but a lot of fun

having recorded a piece and so in theory has something to compare the recording to, is not really close to knowing - unless you are playing back the recording in the same room as it was recorded you get the massive variable of the Room. A recording studio and your listening room will make instruments sound very different.

I have a number of recordings done in several venues including our studio. This helps vastly reduce that issue!

If you listen to live instruments many of them are sharp sounding. Many audiophiles like smoother sounding. I dropped the ideal of true to life sound when i admitted to myself that i have preferences.

You don’t know what the "colorations" are. You’re getting into what Floyd Toole called the circle of confusion. Take the mic, room, equipment, speakers etc.. used to record and these Recordings are as different as night and day from each other and whatever you’re using to playback with. There’s no way to recreate the thousands of different combinations to get what the final mixers heard. It’s a waste of time trying to tune your system to a live event or certain recordings the best you can do IMO is reproduce what’s on the media as neutral as possible, use as transparent gear as you can possibly get.

I agree. There are too many variables to ever know how close Your system recreates the sound that was recorded. Even @atmasphere , having recorded a piece and so in theory has something to compare the recording to, is not really close to knowing - unless you are playing back the recording in the same room as it was recorded you get the massive variable of the Room. A recording studio and your listening room will make instruments sound very different.

I've found a tube preamp with digital source and solid state amp to be most helpful.  Takes away the digititus.  

My take is that using a tube preamplifier serves digital sources very well. The amount and distribution of gain in the system does become an issue.

Hey Ralph, by "ducks in a row" you mean electrical parameters and compatibility between digital source and amplifiers?

Yes.

You don't know what the "colorations" are. You're getting into what Floyd Toole called the circle of confusion. Take the mic, room, equipment, speakers etc.. used to record and these Recordings are as different as night and day from each other and whatever you're using to playback with.

I have recordings on LP that I recorded. I know what the live performance sounded like. I know the microphones (U67s) really well. So when I play the LP I know immediately what is going on with the system I'm hearing. It helps to have the masters!

Lacking that your point is profoundly important. It is for this reason that I recommend anyone to get good mics and a decent recording system and see if they can sort things out. Do some on location recordings. Acoustic spaces that you know are good places to see if you can do this. This will really help you sort out what works and what doesn't.

Some like black coffee.  Some prefer sugar and/or cream.

Hi Luis,
It’s is perfectly logical to use live music listening experiences as a template . How can someone reasonably identify the sound of instruments as authentic if you have never heard it in a live setting? If for example you had never heard a baritone saxophone in person how could judge its sound when listening to a recording of one?

This doesn’t mean you expect your system to sound exactly like the live performance. But you could decide which audio components more closely mimics live instruments/vocals relative to competing components. Your ears would allow you to recognise or distinguish what you believe "sounds more real". Based on actual live exposure.

The listening and judging process will be subjective (By default).as people hearing the same live performance will interpret and describe the experience differently. @djones51 summed it up well, essentially choose which ever approach works best for you and leads to enjoyment listening to music. Agree 100%.
Charles

Thanks for answering my inquiry, I agree but I just see a conflicting statement for me.
If it is a circle of confusion how do I know I am reproducing the media "as neutral as possible"? it looks like a chicken and egg riddle

You don't know what the "colorations" are. You're getting into what Floyd Toole called the circle of confusion. Take the mic, room, equipment,  speakers etc.. used to record and these Recordings are as different as night and day from each other and whatever you're using to playback with. There's no way to recreate the thousands of different combinations to get what the final mixers heard. It's a waste of time trying to tune your system to a live event or certain recordings the best you can do IMO is reproduce what's on the media as neutral as possible, use as transparent gear as you can possibly get. That's simply what I do. There is no right or wrong way,  take whatever approach gives you the sound you enjoy with what you can afford. 

Now on the colorations, the only reference I get is live events, when I used to attend more than 1 year ago live events, tonality and sound of instruments were my reference, so that is what I use on a daily basis to reference "neutral", but then you have the recordings, which are usually made in the studio, live events on churches and cathedrals have the "room" added into the equation. Studio aside from the mastering engineer don't.This is the part I still don't quite get, not directly related to this discussion but indirectly.
How would you know (and Ralph is the ideal person to answer this as he is kind of a hands on mastering / recording engineer PLUS musician too, real renaissance man) what colorations are when listening to your system.

The life event reference could be actually divergent from this.

@brewmasterdon

I simply feel that my current main rig sounds better without a pre-amp and that they generally hamper detail and resolution

That is all that matters

I do like the way in which the forum members on this thread have conducted themselves, good honest discussions are a health thing and frankly this sport could use more of it,

Agreed, for a moment I thought you will follow the standard lashing out of others ... glad you didn't, as I said about Charles, you have my utter respect

One must always be careful to not construe personal anecdote as absolute
That's fair, for me, increasing the SNR by simplifying my system has made the blacks, blacker, which has(in my opinion) increased spatial cues and placed musical instruments more precisely in space and hence has provided me with a greater sense of realism which has made my limited listening sessions more enjoyable. Full disclosure, i do have another system which uses tube mono-blocs and a dac/pre which i also enjoy, I simply feel that my current main rig sounds better without a pre-amp and that they generally hamper detail and resolution.
I do like the way in which the forum members on this thread have conducted themselves, good honest discussions are a health thing and frankly this sport could use more of it,

Enjoy your tunes,

Don

@brewmasterdon

So you are saying that running through a bunch of resistors, transformers and caps, to say nothing of connectors and extra sets of wire/wire's doesn't colour the sound by comparison to running direct??

Hi Don, I know you are talking to Charles but just allow me to briefly comment, while what you are saying is "logical" and BTW I agree on that statement with you, I have personally run direct from several digital sources to several amplifiers and these digital sources as you wisely mentioned have transformers (in some cases), resistors and caps as well. IME if the electrical parameters impedance, output / input voltages and such are not compatible, the sound will suffer, even with the direct connection. Of course I'm not trying to convince you as I respect your position, I don't consider myself a golden ears subject, just providing my opinion on which I agree with Charles mostly.
Now I know certain devices (May DAC with output buffer) are supposedly a very good match "direct" with amplifiers, I would love to hear it as I don't own a May DAC but I'm sure the results could be potentially outstanding, but again we are talking about a DAC with kind of an active output stage (preamp).
I'm not disregarding what you are saying it is just I haven't found a scenario yet that I empirically have tested that works this way, my testings have been limited to a few dacs and amplifiers only, none of the DACs with active output stages.

@charles1dad

You trust your ears and I trust mine, as a result we've reached different conclusions. You find your preferred approach presumably more sonically accurate. I find my approach more sonically realistic. We're both happy and neither of us has to settle for the others choice. It works out fine.

I agree on that Charles, it is all about personal opinions.

@atmasphere

As I pointed out, if you get all your ducks in a row they can work quite well

Hey Ralph, by "ducks in a row" you mean electrical parameters and compatibility between digital source and amplifiers?

One must always be careful to not construe personal anecdote as absolute

Right, agreed

So you are saying that running through a bunch of resistors, transformers and caps, to say nothing of connectors and extra sets of wire/wire's doesn't colour the sound by comparison to running direct?? I mean really??

Yes. There is such a thing as being too simple, and passives are that. As I pointed out, if you get all your ducks in a row they can work quite well. One must always be careful to not construe personal anecdote as absolute. If you plan to go for the extra resolution available by running shorter speaker cables (this is particularly true if you are running tube amplifiers due to their higher output impedance)the passive/active thing becomes even more important. IOW we're talking about the coloration of the interconnect cables themselves; if you've ever auditioned cables and heard a difference you know what I'm talking about.

Hi Don,
You trust your ears and I trust mine, as a result we've reached different conclusions. You find your  preferred approach presumably more sonically accurate.  I find my approach more sonically realistic. We're  both happy and neither of us has to settle for the others choice. It works out fine.
Charles 

So you are saying that running through a bunch of resistors, transformers and caps, to say nothing of connectors and extra sets of wire/wire's doesn't colour the sound by comparison to running direct?? I mean really?? I get it if you need multiple outs, and only run analog, but if your all digital, i'd run direct 100% of the time. All pre-amps colour the sound to some extent however pleasant you may find them. That said, it's anyone's prerogative in this sport do buy whatever they want to satisfy their own ears, but I would be careful to claim(not that anyone has) that pre-amps are in anyway more accurate, because to my ears they simply are not and i've owned many. 
Atmasphere
I would only run balanced, for me on my journey, i've simply found them better, and my system always seemed less cable dependent than single ended, the problem of course is that a fully balanced design, for both amps & pre's costs more, at least that's been my experience. Currently though, fibre optic into my integrated, speaker cables to my speakers, simple as could be, sounds better than ever.

Sorry for the long wind, back to your scheduled program,

Don

@in_shore,
Last look other members were lining up taking shots at him some suggested what he was actually hearing was nothing more then colorations he just discovered... I just went back to the topic and see every comment and reaction to his post was erased.

Yep, the dreaded "colorations" again. Told ya 😆😆.
Charles

One fellow that I personally admire as I believe him to be quite forward in thought is Bruno Putzey's

Bruno is quite brilliant.

The thing is that cables can cause colorations due to capacitance, interactions with the output impedance of a source, the input impedance of an amp, EMI issues and the like. Plus you can get noise from grounding issues (ground loop) even if a hum isn't evident. In a single-ended connection, the shield is often carrying the signal (in order to complete the circuit).


A lot of that is why the balanced line system was developed- when running balanced (if the balanced line standards are being observed) even though ground loops are present they can't get amplified, the shield of the cable isn't used as part of the audio signal path and so on. So colorations from the interconnect can be vastly reduced.

If your cables are kept short and you are careful with how your sources interact with the passive control and the amplifier, the results can be quite good. But if you are using speakers and are keeping the amps by them so as to minimize colorations from the speaker cables, you might have to run fairly long interconnect cables. If this is the case then the balanced line system is the way to go; you simply won't be easily able to do this with a single-ended connection without coloration.

Great thread OP!

Certainly, I think this is somewhat system dependent. Overall though, I like preamps much.  

I have the ability to use my DAC's volume control or run it direct to the preamp.  I prefer using a preamp with it for the same reasons others (who do as well) stated above. 

I personally like to run direct, and prefer that sound, from the source, direct. One fellow that I personally admire as I believe him to be quite forward in thought is Bruno Putzey's, in this interview with Darko he talks about pre-amps ~ the 12-13min mark but I think the entire video is worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcMsfSvgYEo

Ralph thanks for chiming , I had a mild interest following a topic on another audio site where a member commented he had purchased a new preamplifier or connected up a preamplifier and found he very much preferred the preamplifier over the build in volume of his dac . Last look other members were lining up taking shots at him some suggested what he was actually hearing was nothing more then colorations he just discovered... I just went back to the topic and see every comment and reaction to his post was erased , LOL 

I find attitudes toward preamplifiers in general within some computer audio communities heavily one sided against preamplifiers

This is because invariably the DAC is right next to the amp using a very short cable in most cases, and there being several means of controlling the volume. You might also want to keep in mind that such systems don't tend to be high performance. Lacking resolution, this reaction is to be expected. Don't sweat it :)

well Charlie ( Ayre ) RIP and Ralph are in agreement

Charles1dad haha yup,.

@yoby,
Agree with you, but remember the anti-active preamplifier adherents view many (All?) of the positive attributes you listed (Per bigkidz) as colorations. Particularly if "flesh on the bone" or "fuller body/tone" are cited.
Charles

+1 yoby.

If you're basically using a computer as a source to headphone amp/dac I can see why it would be heavily against a preamp. Why add extra components?