Best Preamp and Amp combination, interesting finding!!!

can you name names and compare all 4 possible combinations?  

otherwise we have not really learned anything.  

Thank you OP for contributing with your experiment. Blind testing, spl matching, as well as adding other opinions, particularly non-audiophiles, into the test is the best way to really figure things out.

I was also in the pre amp isn't important camp for years until very recently. I've heard enough good systems that have used integrated amps or even gone direct from the source to the amplifier that made me question their value. I'd love to go back to some of those systems today and slip in a tube pre just to see what might happen.  Aside from volume control and input switching, the pre seems to shape the sound.  Tone, soundstage and imaging are greatly influenced by the pre section. With a single component switch, a system can go from sounding somewhat dull and lifeless to realistic and holographic. They can be well worth the investment.   

I have much enjoyed the reliable performance and clean open sound of my (now 30+years old) Audible Illusions Modulus II, tubed pre amp. Over the years It has been paired with PSE, Bryston, Adcom, Krell and Ayre, SS power amps and with a VAC Phi 200 and Primaluna Dialogue Premium HP, tubed power amps. Even though it revealed subtle differences between each of the power amps, it paired well and sounded very good with all of them. Of all, my favorite combination was with the VAC - a less than $500 pre amp paired with a $11,000 power amp sounded incredible.......Jim

I have enjoyed reading this post that was deemed irrelevant by some.  The debate goes on...

 Keeping the signal digital and in the digital domain into a digital power amp where it is converted to analog for your speakers will produce the best possible sound.

Wow, talk about blanket statements. 

In any case, there is really no such thing as a "digital power amp" despite the fact that some manufacturers call them that.  There are some amps that accept a digital signal that has been manipulated (distorted) to control volume but even then they just move the DAC into the box with the amplifier where they do the D to A and amplify it. 

The Pass Labs xp30 preamp opened up the world of music for my ears.

With a reference to an upgrade in resolution and soundstaging to an existing quality system, and assuming the speakers are end game, the amp has proven compatible with the speakers, the pre compatible to the amp, and the source components are commensurate with the upgrade, I would upgrade the preamp over the amplifier. 

Based on some comments that have been posted on other threads I hope my use of commas in that long winded sentence passes muster :-).

I just saw a video by Paul McGowan, owner of P.S. Audio.  He ranks the power amp a good bit higher in importance than the preamp.  His reasoning is that than allows for optimizing the amp/speaker interface...if you don't get that right, nothing before that will ever sound right.  

Both equally important in my experience.

Preamp can really taylor the sound to how you want it, especially if using DSP! But DSP isn't always necessary. I only use it for home theater.
I was a proponent of "all good amps sound the same" until I got an ultra quiet AHB2 - That really changed my mind and i'll never be able to go back now unless it's equally quiet or better.

I agree the pre amp is more influential in terms of getting a sweet sound.  In other words it can likely get in the way of the sound more than the amp.  However, Garbage In Garbage Out is real and if the amp is limiting then the pre amp is just going to reveal in better detail the sonic deficiencies of the amp.

I found spending more on the pre amp is more rewarding.  Unfortunately,  just spending more in general is also more rewarding. I have been moving up the line with the manufacturer of my pre amp and am on my 3rd model.  It lists for many multiples of what the op is using.  I could never go back-wards now and I have a bit of an itch for a higher model because I know its just going to be better.

I have no interest in changing my amps.

If, by preamp, you exclude the DAC, then:

In my experience, for systems with only digital inputs, no preamp beats having a preamp.

More money should be spent on improving the quality of the digital signal going into the DAC and into the DAC itself.

Honestly I did not pay attention what a preamp can do to the system, until I heard a Backert Rhumba, the sound stage irxploded ,it’s so big, and the whole system sounds amazing.Markr is the owner of that preamp.

So many logical answers fgit that data without fitting your conclusion. Three pop to mind:
1. Its a very good $1k amp and a so-so $3k amp2. You have impedance matching issues that one preamp solved and the other didn't3. the 1k amp solves a speaker match problem the 3k amp didn't (or vice-versa the 3k amp was less well matched, and apparently, speaker sensitive, which annoys me since it need not be so).
Just sayin'
Interesting finding though.

I always thought the same - that the amp is what makes the system sound better. After trying about 10 different preamps, ranging widely in price, I ended up loving my McIntosh C2300. With my speakers, I think it’s the part of the system that will never leave. 

A great amp will reproduce, and increase  the horrors of a crappy preamp.

Hi viethluu,

So I agree with you regarding the preamp influence..

I have been involved by high end audio equipment since the beginning of the eigthies...

At that time the worldwide market niche and audiophiles education have established listening audioexperience reports within high end reviews..

We were talking about the value of the sources as priorities...

Pioneer like audioresearch , mark levinson or conrad jonhson have achieved numerous of preamp and their upgrade to improve subjective listening performance.

I remember of night comparison between Marklevinson Ml1, audioreseach  sp 6,sp 6a, sp6c  sp8 and sp 10 vs conrad jonhson premier two premier three ...and so on.

Basically there are complementatity or not...

Audioresearch design oriented with clarity, details and focus  and C0nradjohson appecied for aeration ,sounstage and natural treeble...these philosophie for each company has been maintened since the beginning..

The experience show that a link beetween a transistor amp linked with a tube preamp may be an advantage to combine the matter and weight of the note given by the pre to the bass acuracy of the transistor amp..

As a result it prooves far more difficult to bring into focus a good preamp vs an amp...it is a definite rule well known by the worldwide specialists..

To date ,preamp culture and know how has disepear since the input stage doesnot include anymore high range Phono MC and MM..

Marketing reasons to make savings have oriented the audio company to " simplify'" the design in bypassing preamp since high end is costly...

Vintage preamp unit like Conrad jonhson  Pv 10  a PV 11, Pv12A or premier series are among the best opportunity ta acquire universal preamp including phono or not..

Keep in mind that the hierarchie in hifi system is.

Source   

Preamp 

Amp

Loudspeaker.

Regards

Raymond

I always thought that the amp has a greater impact to sound quality, but my experiment proved otherwise.

Your experiment proves nothing. The more expensive preamp, less expensive amp combination happened to be the better option given the components you used. That will not always be the case.

 You simply cannot make a blanket statement like that based on two pre- power-amp combinations.

You can not get back what is lost further up the chain so therefore the cartridge or the cd player/streamer/dac is the most important followed by the phono preamp/pre amp and then the amplifier but when you find a really good amplifier that will play any speaker that is when the magic really happens.

Bryston Bargain - I recently acquired a Bryston SP-1 for about $450 for the specific purpose of using as a two channel pre-amp. The two channel section is based on the BP-25 witch was their top of their line for decades. This one sounds awesome. Every once in a while one of these comes up for sale pretty cheap. If you need a two channel pre , might want to look for these .  

Rbstehno, I did say I was making a "general" observation. I couldn't be less interested in who or what's right or wrong here but it sounds like you just proved my point. Did you say you replaced a $6,000 "nice" integrated with $12,000+ of separates? And you did this when you upgraded to "larger bigger" speakers? Did I get that right? I'm assuming you know that components need to be properly matched in order to sound their best,  right? If you went from 8 ohm nominal load to 4 ohm nominal load speakers, it would make sense that you'd likely need an amplification source with a better current supply to drive "larger bigger" speakers. Care to elaborate more specifically on your component juggling?

@ sheridanmartinj

Interesting how that happens, right?

I remember getting the "A-1" parts from ARC in a small envelope and soldering them into the SP3's we sold.  I forget--4-6 parts, I think, but that may be wrong.  It was 1976-77 as I remember, so quite a while ago.

Anyway, that pre-amp kind of picked up what Saul Marantz had accomplished with his 7 and pushed the barriers to such an extent that I think, personally, it spawned a lot of work on pre-amps over the years.  

Today, there are many great pre-amps out there.  I cannot afford an SP3, but purchased an SP6 recently and it really made my Maggies come alive again after years of using a Luxman CL-32, which was not horrible, but ARC seems to have "the secret code" where pre-amps are concerned.

Cheers, and happy listening!

I still use an Acurus RL11 with Bryston amps with great results! Giant killer!

Yep richoop447 I own the Audio Research Sp3 bought it used 1981 used for 450.00 excellent preamp still today asking price today 3,500

Emotions without a modicum of technical understanding are not much use. A modern Dac puts out 2V RMS single ended and 4V balanced. That is the same as a spec preamp and plenty to drive any power amp. So all that’s needed is an attenuator not eating half the signal.

Conversely any vinyl output is measured in mV, i.e.smaller by a factor of at least 100x. Seems obvious that the preamp has an important role to play for SQ.

Equally, the link between pre and power amp and Dac at a minimum requires decent matching of impedance and decent connection cables..

The OP left us in the dark on either issue, hence the discussion is both all over the place and ultimately meaningless.

OP, it should now be obvious to you after this experience that you should never share anything that comes into your mind here. My own experience has by the way shown me that the preamp is truly a critical component in the system only after the room and speakers as another contributor already shared.

Hello,
I do agree the preamp is the heart and soul of the system. I tried for years using a $3500 Denon receiver as a two channel system. The one thing I found is you have to work so hard to get ok two channel sound compared to using a decent dedicated two channel preamp. It’s not the amps as much as it’s the preamp. Better interconnects and speaker cables helped, but putting on the Nordost power cable had the most impact to my surround system. Especially when you have a lot of channels. I added a better external audiophile amp to the front two channels which helped but the sound stage and decay stayed the same. So I made a mediocre sound play louder. My local Hifi store lets it customers try in your home before you decide to buy. https://holmaudio.com/
When I added an Emotiva 2 channel preamp with home theater pass through the sound out of my system improved so much I was listening to everything and anything I could. I then tried the Rouge RP5 preamp. It sounded like I spent 5x the money. Also, The phono preamp is way better sounding than the one in my $3500 Denon receiver. The sound stage was huge, the decay was insane and it definitely made the headroom better. Believe me there is music you are not hearing in your recordings. Those dead spaces or gaps are not as long as you think. I then was able to demo the $29,000 Ayre KX-R preamp. All I can say is my system will never sound that good again. pure perfection. It made my $275 AT turntable and my $149 Schitt Mani phono preamp sound like it was worth $5000. Yes, $5,000. A preamp is everything. If your system sounds week with no headroom, no soundstage,  no decay, you are just going to perfectly amplify that imperfect sound. In fact I would say the preamp is just as important as the speakers in your system. If you don’t believe me go to your local Hifi store or if you are in the Chicagoland area:
https://holmaudio.com/
and borrow a decent preamp just to hear it in your own home. After you listen a little and pick up your mouth from the floor you can go buy that new preamp so you can hear what your system can really do. 

I would say one thing missing from your report is the class of the amps. Price aside were they both class A, or A/B? Was one A and the other A/B? Was one tube? Same for preamp. Did one introduce a different set up or were they the same and one just cost more than the other with better materials used? For your experiment to work I would say these factors need to be equal or it is a moot point. Could just come down to the fact you like class A amp sound better than class A/B no matter what the preamp is. Then again I don’t have the details of what you tested.

Not taking a side on this one, but I do remember what a revelation the Audio Research SP-3 (and later the 3-A-1) was to the industry when it came out.  

We sold it for 595, then 695, then 795 pretty quickly.

Today, used ones go for many thousands--and they came out in 1977!

Cheers!

Preamp is the resolution/depth/sound stage/dynamic range tool, amp adds the SPL. So, like computers, GIGO. Garbage in, Garbage out.

oldaudiophile - your statement isn’t true for all cases. I thought the same way by owning nice integrated amps costing $6000 or more. With those systems I used more efficient a little smaller speakers. I upgraded my speakers to larger bigger speakers and the integrated amp couldn’t drive them. I ended up selling the integrated and bought separates with each component costing more than the cost of the integrated.

As for preamp or no preamp, I sold a newer $5k McIntosh preamp and went directly from dac to amp. Paul early on promoted going directly from his DS dac to the amp until they built a preamp and now he promotes using a preamp. I can’t say if his preamp does make it better sounding, I haven’t heard the combo,  I do know what I’ve experienced using another quality preamp vs not using 1

Just a general two cents, based upon my research of about 4 years ago. Things may have changed since then but I doubt it.  Unless you are wiling to shell out, at least, $8,000 to $10,000 on separates, you are not going to achieve an appreciable improvement in audio quality over a quality integrated amp in the $5,000 to $6,000 range.

Unless you are dealing with analog input such as a tape or vinyl the best preamp is no preamp.  Keeping the signal digital and in the digital domain into a digital power amp where it is converted to analog for your speakers will produce the best possible sound.

All of this ignores the elephant in the room where thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars are spent on equipment while ignoring the biggest factor and that is the quality of the recording.  The producer/engineer at the sound board (when recording in studio) can destroy the result by mike placement, quality of mikes, how the signals are mixed and amplitude and tone controls of each channel mixed.  Very few engineers go for the simple but acoustically more accurate binaural recording.  They can't resist panning or boosting what they like and burying what they don't like.  Add to that problem the fact that most are listening to monitors that tend to be bass heavy or light and that influences what they hear and how they adjust the recording and you get a lot of crap and then audiophiles interpret what they are hearing without knowing how it was recorded.

I was friends with the owner of a high end usia store in Miami when I lived there in the 80s and he used to also be a recording engineer.  The work he would undertake to properly record a symphony orchestra (The New. World Symphony) to recreate the environment and the sense of having the best seat in the house was astounding.  Mikes were suspended on wires just above the best seats in the place and care was taken to preserve the sense of space and location of instruments with their natural timbre intact and to capture as wide a dynamic range as possible.  The difference between those recordings and ones where mikes are placed throughout the orchestra and mixed was night an day.

You may have noticed in listening to many modern recordings, especially noticeable in recording of symphonies where you know the instruments locations, I find it very annoying that during part of the recording the violins are on the left (usual location) and other parts, especially if it is a video recording, as the camera pans and moves the location of the instruments move.  For me it destroys the illusion of capturing a live performance.  

My son was a recording artist and I have gone into studio to observe recording sessions and seen first hand how the engineer can dramatically alter the recording as they think it is their job to put their artistic signature on the recording rather than capturing the best possible rendition of what is being played. 

There is a good YouTube video from PS Audio online. And he admits that he has no technical or science based explanation why pre-amps can improve the sound. Of course everything crappy made part of the chain can mess up the sound. But this is the same for every part in the chain.

But for improvements there is no other explanation than that preamps add a coloration to the sound. They add something to the original sound signal and we get tricked because we like the more colorful better than the perfect neutral signal.

This is the same what speakers do. They add a color profile to the sound. There is no single speaker out there who is reproducing the neutral signal. 

Hifi manufactures are creating a sound signature a put some flavor to it. Basically they trick us. And sometimes it’s cheating in the best possible and welcome way.  

Seems to me the only easy way you could make the amp have the greater effect would be to use a passive pre with all candidates. At least that's what I would do, unless of course I already owned my unconditional, forever pre, in which case the only job would be finding the best match for this "lifetime" component when playing the sorts of music I happen to prefer. 

Maybe too simplistic, but nothing above makes me suppose otherwise.

The proposition in this post contains too many variables to be worth discussing.
1.  The choice of amplifiers is based solely on retail cost.
2.  It cannot be assumed that cost is the only or even a main determinant of sound quality.
3.  The conclusion allows nothing for listeners' taste in sound, although it is noted that a nearly all listeners came to the same conclusion.
4.  The fact they did suggests that the choice of amplifiers was not optimal.
5.  We are not told if the power amplifiers used have the same output rating.  If they do not, this could affect how the loudspeakers are driven.  A $1000 amp is very likely to output less power than a $3000 amp from the same manufacturer as this is the way a range of products is built up.  How sensitive were the speakers used?  If they were underdriven this will certainly alone explain the finding.

Some 30+ years ago I and a friend conducted an experiment with amplifiers using Audio Research and Krell products.  We created a number of systems where the pre-amp was solid state and the power amp valve driven and vice-versa.  We universally found we liked the rigs with valve pre-amps a lot better.  Since that time my two systems have always been run that way.

Similarly, until I heard the van den Hul 'The Grail SB' I had always preferred the sound of valve phono amps, a series of Audio Research.
Looking for a big upgrade I found The Grail a lot better than the AR Reference and the other high end pieces I tried in my system.  Go figure!

+1 jumia! From one experiment comes a blanket generalization!

This is the kind of thing that makes the hobby so interesting and disturbing all at once

I went from a great Tron amplifier... Smaller bespoke UK maker into SS power amp... Was going to get a great Radford power amp... But changed my mind and got a Luxman integrated. I tried the tron into this using Luxman as power amp only and then also using the Luxman as a pre only into the ATC P1 power amp....
They were different and not necessarily worse... The tron Luxman might have had the slight edge but in light of removing boxes (phono/pre/power) and having a nice symbiosis between the luxman pre/power in one box I chose that solution.

But on a further note I now have boxes in the form of seperate power supplies for CD transport and streamer so nearly back to square one.... 

Hello,
My best combinaison for me is
Mikrolampizator preamp (lampizator lukazs fikus)
Sony Ta-f7b power amp (V-fet transistors).
I prefer the V-fet sony sound than the V-fet yamaha.

Yeah, lots of variables here obviously, but one of my biggest “aha” moments in audio was discovering just how important a preamp is to the sound of a system — in my system it’s third behind the room and speakers.  This is a good public service announcement to those who still think a preamp is just an input switcher and volume control.

+1 soix

@stringreen   


     Yes, sometimes yes, and sometimes no. 
   Brought home a McCormack LD-2 and matches better with the McCormack amps than 3 previous preamps.


   Onkyo-P308 matches with everything, as it’s voiced a bit n the warmer sound, the only preamp I’ve owned to match with almost every amp I have hooked her up too. 
The Sanders preamp (at first) was lacking bass, 100+ hours, totally opened up like a thick blanket was removed from the speakers.

  

If legit this is a good analysis and, as the OP states, he has taken brand out of the equation. However, I've known this since I sold high end audio equipment in the '80s, that a preamp is always more important than the amp IF the amp is compatible, power-wise, with the speakers.  

I have found that amp and preamp from the same manufacturer gives the best results

I have had some that I liked a great deal from Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, B.A.T., and others....but my kick start was the Yamaha B-2 and C-2....not the best, but they gave me a serious start to this wonderful obsession....and yes, the Yamaha units were driving a pair of DQ-10. 

Pre-amp is usually the heart of the audio system, every component is connected to it except the speaker. This usually can make or break a setup if not done correctly. The pre-amp will drive the amp correctly if it matches well.

As far as electronics go, I completely concur. I also State not unlike the other fellow earlier on in this thread that the preamp is truly the heart of your stereo system.

And that the attenuator in the preamp is critical. 

In my system my preamp is about 2/3's the cost of my monoblicks.

Why do you need a preamp? I eliminated my analog setup so I use my PSA DS sr dac straight to my amp. I think the amp is more important than a preamp: some of the speakers I have owned required a more powerful amp to get the best sound out of the speakers. You won’t find a quality amp for $1000. If an amp can’t power your speakers adequately, then it really doesn’t matter how a preamp sounds

And all this is why the hifi world is doomed.  No one understands nothin.  

Yes and no, assuming the amps output the same amount then I would agree the more expensive preamp matters more. I’ve done a similar thing with McIntosh gear, Rotel Preamps and Emotiva amps. 
On La Scalas the Mac c47 preamp + Emotiva XPA2 amp sounded better then a Rotel Preamp with a MC275. The same was true with B&W 683s. The interesting thing is that the Rotel preamp with the XPA2 sounded better then the c47 + MC275 combo since those power hungry speakers needed a lot more power to come alive.