Best Preamp - NO preamp... (?)

Passives of good quality are now being touted as being as good as very expensive active preamps if not better. Taking it one step further if your amp has sufficient gain, going direct can be surprisingly good but as you mentioned, you lose the ability to switch between components The best thing to do is experiment as you're doing and as suggested above, go with what sounds best to your ears

Each to their own, it depends on you ears, your pre amp. Some preamps are great others disappointing. I use a number of different ones in different systems. My Yamaha c2a is an example of a good preamp. It's fast yet has a degree of warmth and solidly .  System component matching has lots to do with results too- some good components just don't get on sonically yet others  do. Cables can be another question - just be careful handling them. 

For me... bypassing the preamp has always been my "sanity check" for what the preamp is really doing, or not doing for me.  I've never heard a preamp be MORE transparent than NO preamp.... but it often adds a little something here or there that is desirable..... but of course it's still a necessary part of the system.   So you just gotta find one that has colorations that YOU like or that work in your system.   To this day.... I still have not found an AV pre/pro that I like better than my old Anthem AVM-20 for it's analog pass-through.  I've tried 4 different $2-3k pre-pros whose analog performance was terrible..... just to convince myself that i was not crazy.... I plugged my Oppo blu-ray directly into my amp.. and it sounds GREAT...... therefore.... I know for a fact that the analog pass through of the new pre-pro sucks.  My Anthem is not perfect... but it does sound very good.

Tomcy6,
Agree! In theory "less parts" should equal better sound. In reality it doesn't always work out that way. Must be determined individually case by case.
An absolute "case closed" rarely if ever applies to audio/sound quality issues.
Charles,

It's been  that way 20 years ago for me and it's probably the same for many today. A DAC ( or CD player) directly into a power amp is the best route. People buying new DAC's today should look for the best one they can afford and make sure it has a simple gain attenuators on it and correct matching ( sensitivity) to your amplifier; case closed!

Dear ami,
Hi-Fi transparency can only be relevant to and very often at the price of tonal balance and dynamics. 

RE: What is "better"? that is something I can't argue with. If you like the specific distortion or the coloration that a component introduces, then by all means, go for it. I am on the search for "Hi-Fi" - transparency and not coloration. I am of the opinion that if you need to add a preamp to make up for your speaker's deficiencies, you should be looking for better speakers.

You can't be sure unless you compare the transparency of preamp vs. your source device directly to amp. The fact that you've chosen to use your source components directly instead of passive preamp speaks for itself that you like more active drive vs. anything else posters offered.
That's where simple math kills all the science behind.

+ 1 🖒, I am of the opinion that if you need to add a preamp to make up for your speaker's deficiencies, you should be looking for better speakers, by ami. Amen brother 😎

infection,
I typed my response that the OP should try a TVC, and then deleted it.
I would highly recommend OP to try a TVC instead of using the DAC directly. It should not be a problem because he indicates that he has enough gain in the system.
The Bespoke is a pricey TVC. He can look for something on the lines of Promitheus Reference/Signature or Audio Music AMR-S.

Thanks for all your comments!

RE: shorter path / better parts with preamp - I doubt that is the case here. The passive I was using has a $400 P&G volume pot, and the volume control of the DS DAC is a digital one AFAIK, so it introduces no additional components in the signal path.

RE: a more expensive passive or some 'magic' signal processors, I am still to be convinced that adding anything in the signal path, no matter how good, can make things better.

RE: What is "better"? that is something I can't argue with. If you like the specific distortion or the coloration that a component introduces, then by all means, go for it. I am on the search for "Hi-Fi" - transparency and not coloration. I am of the opinion that if you need to add a preamp to make up for your speaker's deficiencies, you should be looking for better speakers.

RE: PS Audio BHK, I will ask Paul in the PS audio forum again. It will be interesting to hear his answer :-)

Have a wonderful weekend all!
 

None of you have mentioned using a high quality passive pre.
Ami, you should consider this-  http://www.thebespokeaudiocompany.com/

ami, very simple to understand in terms of simple math:

usually in dedicative active preamp the volume control is substantially better also applies to the rest of sound quality or characteristics. the minimalistic units i've mentioned may even use smaller signal preamp path than your source components believe it or not. if your source components have 'direct' option bypassing volume control, than you should at least try out active preamp for the beginning found as a loaner at your local or nearest high end electronics retailer. 

The first time one does this it is all very exciting and new, but as aforesaid, there are combinations of gear where all things considered the pre in the chain is preferable. One simply has to try with each system. 

It does, indeed, depend on each person's personal preference.

I have both and use both active and passive preamps, at various times, depending upon the sound I'm seeking.

I got a Creek OBH-21 Passive Preamp, primarily to use as a remote volume control.  And found the sound to be somewhat more transparent and somewhat more detailed and clear than my Parasound JC-2, and my Audio Research Ref 3.  Though, the "somewhat more" is a fairly small difference.  

I A:B'd the OBH-21 vs the Ref 3 with my wife as the judge... and... she clearly preferred the sound of the Ref 3 - called it more real and life-like sound than from the passive preamp.  Though, the passive preamp still sounded like it was a bit more detailed and clear.   

The tubes of the Ref 3, produce a deeper, more localized soundstage / image, which has more ambience - thus, the more life-like, realistic sound.  No doubt the effects of the harmonics of the tubes - "good distortion."  

The interesting thing is... the OBH-21 cost about $250, compared to the $4000-7000 of the active preamps to which I was comparing it.  So... for the money, it's hard to justify the price premium of the active preamps, when the passive preamp sounds so good and so close to the active preamps.  And... I understand... some of the custom made passives, sound even better, for a nominal increase in cost.

One compromise... might be... to use a passive preamp and a tube buffer - which might give you the best of both passive and active preamps.  

Of course... if you must have all of the connectivity and features of a better active preamp, then most passive preamps are not an option.  

So... "to each his own."

Hi Ami.
Since I have the same DS dac you have, perhaps I can shed some light.
First I have to give a dealer alert, since I sell the Ps line.
while the DS happens to have an extremely transparent volume, and it does sound great in my system, a top preamp will enhance your sound and enjoyment.
If one has a less than stellar pre amp, then yes the DS direct might in fact be preferable. But running the DS at less than full output (or with the -20db attenuator) is a compromise.
The preamp I’m running is a $15k all tube two box unit, but there is a stellar option at almost 1/3’rd the price.
Paul at Ps has stated that their new BHK preamp sounds much better than the DS direct.
In fact Bascom king has stated that it is the best preamp he has ever designed. And his other designs are super expensive. His hybrid design actually varies the level of tube gain as well as attenuate, so it’s a novel and very transparent approach.
While I haven’t gotten one in our system yet, having the BHK 300 Mono amps in our system, I can assure you that Bascom teamed up with Ps’s value driven aesthetic means these electronics, while not cheap, represent edge of the art sound at real world prices.
If you’re serious about building a world class system, (and you have an world class source in the DS- and one that keeps getting better with each new OS release) you need an active preamp (not a passive unit)
Also going balanced will help and means that even cheap cables can work extremely well.  
If you're ever in the NYC Area I can demo the DS direct vs. Through a great preamp.  Triode picture sound.  

Some systems need help in getting the sound right . Speakers may be lacking in a department and the pre fills in the sonic virtue needed . Only way to tell is try . 

Hi Ami, congratulations on a sound decision of running a high quality digital unit directly to your amplifier,  I've been doing this since 1996!,  of course this setup is opinionated, however,  those that believe going through another circuit board such as a active pre-amp likely does not have a truly balanced,  direct point to point wiring digital unit with a high quality volume control that has wide band specifications like 10htz to 60khtz or more,  this has extraordinary clarity and realism,  musicality, no color added that all preamplifier's  add! Cheers 

Thanks for your input czarivey,
Fortunately, my power amp is so gorgeous looking with it's Japanese cherry wood finish, that I have it on the top shelf of my rack (also for better heat dissipation of course :-). Therefore, changing the IC cables is very easy and convenient. I don't even have to bend.
My DAC has only one output, and all I did is disconnect it from the preamp input, and hook it up directly to the power amp, so I was using the same active line stage in both cases.
I don't understand how adding another active component in the signal path can make things better, but i'm always open to learn and experience.
I tried a few highly regarded preamps before, and my passive outperformed them all.

I know people like to torture themselves.
Diving underneath your rack and taking off one set of plugs, hooking up the other set of plugs to switch components seems insane and unnecessary.
What you're explaining indeed is you simply got rid of passive preamp in order to use active line stage of the DAC or phonostage.  Active drive is almost always better because tonal balance is easier to achieve in almost any volume setting... So my solution would be finding inexpensive active unit such as Cary AES or McCormack RLD would bring you even to higher performance level than you having with your current source units.

I think my point for discussion is actually better phrased this way:
Instead of looking for a best (objective) match between 3 components, source-preamp-amp, perhaps we should be looking for the best direct source-amp match, eliminating the preamp altogether. Unless you need multiple sources of course.
This should be an overall easier task as way fewer combinations are possible, and the potential benefit is much higher as the signal path is significantly shorter.
For gain / impedance matching, a simple resistor divider network can do the trick instead of a full blown preamp...
I know there are decent RCA and XLR attenuators out there for sale.
If you need the gain boost that an active preamp provides, wouldn't you be better off looking for a source with higher output, or an amp with higher gain?

Thank you all for your thoughts.
I totally get it that it's always a personal preference, and depends on component output level, input gain, and impedance matching.
Some DACs don't even offer a variable gain output so for those it's not even an option.
My amp is a very low power Yamamoto A08S so I use the volume between 70-100% anyway, no 'lost' resolution issues.
Other than the need to match gain or impedance, I find it hard to imagine how having the passive preamp in the signal path can make things 'better'.
It makes the signal pass through additional connectors and IC cable, internal wiring, solder points, input selector, and volume control. The passive preamp I have is considered one of the best you can get at any price point, and removing it from the signal path had such a profound positive impact that I still can't believe it's even the same system. Active preamps should be worse in that regard, no matter how good they are, as the signal travels through many more components. 
I had a friend come over last night, who is very familiar with my system, and he too was shocked what a difference it made, He texted me this morning that he couldn't sleep last night after hearing my system, and is now thinking of selling his excellent gear, and getting the exact same setup as mine. I must be very lucky to find such a perfect match :-)
I still need to check how it works with my phono stage, but my TT is going for service this week. I honestly think that even if it doesn't work well, I will be looking for another phono stage that does work well, and will not even consider putting a preamp back in the system.
Highly recommended everybody - Give it a try! 
:-)

I understand your reaction to bypassing the passive.  It appears you are not substituting anything new but rather just eliminating one link, namely, the passive preamp.  Every signal carrying device has limitations, even if it is just the RCA connecting jacks, input selector switches, and a simple attenuator, and if you can eliminate them chances are there will be a sonic improvement.  Let's also not forget you eliminated one interconnect cable as well.

In my case, I still find a very high quality active preamp best suits my system and sonic priorities.  But I use it with a single set of hardwired RCA input jacks, i.e. no selector switch, and there was a clear improvement in sound quality when I did that.

This has been discussed before . Every audiophile worth his salt should try it . It may not better your system to your liking ... then again it might  . They are so cheap its a crime not to try it .

There’s no voodoo in this.
Many times people that try going direct and not liking what they hear, are using the digital domain volume control in the source at too low a level, and are lowering the resolution because they are "bit stripping" eg: 14bit 12 bit ect resolution and even lower.

To make sure that this "bit stripping" is not happening one must use the sources digital domain volume control at or above 75% of full output.
If this is too loud still,, then it should be left at or over 75% and a passive preamp used.

Cheers George

Ami
Hi , this topic has been covered many times on this  forum and as Erik  said,  there's no right answer.  Depends totally on the listener's preferences and numerous audio system variables.  Some people go back and forth between the two choices.  There will never be universal concensus with this matter.  Just go with what sounds best to you at a given time. 

I've tried going directly into my amps and it was no where near as good sounding. as going through the preamp.
So, to paraphrase the NRA manta, you can have my VTL TL-6.5 preamp when you pry it out of my cold wood stereo rack!

My thoughts are that there is no 1 right way.

I think it's a very good experiment to do though. :)

I have a Mytek DAC which is really kind of a mini-preamp + DAC, and I am often tempted to try that. Other living room issues have taken priority.

Erik