Best Preamp - NO preamp... (?)


A few hours ago I decided to experiment and bypassed my highly regarded, excellent passive preamp and hooked up my PS Audio DSD DAC directly to the power amp.
There is no going back...
Every aspect of the sound has improved so dramatically that I'm simply blown away. I'm a bit shocked, playing CD after CD and I still can't believe it.
My phono stage has gain control as well, so it seems that from now on it will be disconnecting RCAs and plugging each in turn.
Since I usually do vinyl day or cd day (or week) anyway, the trouble seems totally worth it. Letting the cable settle in for a bit is not an issue.
Am I just crazy or are any of you doing the same?
Should I be concerned about damaging  the RCAs over time?
Thanks for your thoughts and experience. :-)
128x128ami
Of course none of this rant is relevant if you still spin those black things
and actually need a phono stage.
Goes for vinyl too Don.

You can still ditch the active preamp if the phono stage has and enough gain for you >(50db), and then use a good passive preamp.
Many of my customers do this, they say it’s the best they’ve heard their vinyl sound.

Cheers George

My current thoughts on this are to start with a very neutral amp that you like, class A, class D, personally I like the new purifi class D's and generally all of the new class D's but I wouldn't worry about that, it's your hobby( my suggestion), just make sure it is very, very clean and neutral and has a decent Signal to Noise ratio like the MSB, Benchmark, CH Precision products etc. Then, remove the pre-amp at all costs and buy a better dac with all the money that you save and run direct!! I can't state this loudly enough, get that pre amp out of the picture. Then use the digital filters that are available too you to create whatever sound you want, analytical, soft, warm, tubey, crisp, fast, slow, whatever,  heck you change the filters once a week, every other song, whatever you feel like and you can actually create the sound you want instead of relying on a pre amp designer to give you a sound that you get stuck with based on his ideas on negative feed back and how that creates soundstage/ or lack of, what tubes are perfect etc. etc.  When you hear it, you will know, otherwise you'll never get off the merry go round, spend your money on a better amp/dac, ditch the pre and you will be happier in the end, I surely am.

Of course none of this rant is relevant if you still spin those black things
 and actually need  a phono stage.

Don




@mountz
I have tried direct to amp with PS Audio direct stream memory transport and PS Audio DAC to various amps and was underwhelmed by the results in all situations.
That has been my experience too, and that includes using a variety of passives including autoformer passives. My final effort was DAC direct from Metrum’s Adagio DAC, which uses an elegant volume control solution by changing the reference voltage of the DAC, so no lost bits ever.
My solution was to use a very high quality solid state unity-gain buffer, which added back all the tonal color, dimension, and solidity that was missing when I was going directly from the DAC to my amps.
I guess no preamp is better, unless the preamp is really good! :-)

That has been my experience as well.

For a short while I tried my Berkeley Alpha DAC Series 2 direct into my Pass Labs amplifier (with Magico speakers) and found the sound was super detailed, clean, and dynamic.  I was very impressed. 

I then tried a SimAudio 740P preamp in my system and much preferred the overall sound with the preamp present.   I likely lost a tad bit of detail with dynamics and timbre being similar,  but the BIG difference was in the explosion of soundstage and space between the instruments and vocals.  The added front to back depth and 3d like imaging made me have no desire to save the not insignificant price of the preamp and go back to using the DAC direct. 

Using the DAC direct was like a 2d super detailed presentation, where the 740P made it sound 3d and more like the artists were physically playing in my listening room (albeit maybe not in a recording studio...).

I've heard very big differences while trying various preamps over the years and have no doubt I would prefer the sound of a great DAC like the Berkeley direct in many of these cases; but I'm also unfortunately sold on the value of a great preamp in making one's system sound its best, even when you have a single digital source like me.



I have tried direct to amp with PS Audio direct stream memory transport and PS Audio DAC to various amps and was underwhelmed by the results in all situations.  The volume control in the PS Audio added to much grain, especially at lower volumes.  Most transports offer enough power for passive/direct wiring to amps these days, but the grain from volume attenuation becomes troublesome.

My pre (Aesthetix Callisto Eclipse) lacks feedback and is dual balanced (dual volume knobs).  Add in tube rolling to tame an overly warm mono block configuration or to add liveliness to a sterile SS amp configuration, it gives me the ability to fine tune whatever configuration I find myself in, and achieve deep bass withVon Schweikert’s (21 hertz) speakers.

I also went down the rabbit hole this year and purchased/experimented with a passive pre (Tortuga) that I had professionally built (I was obsessive with getting things just right in even trying different solders at different places to achieve the most neutral presentation).  I added a tube buffer in the chain and loved the result, but in the end found that set up wonderful for near field application only.  I craved more cowbell during lively rock/country passages.  When I used 1940s NOS tubes and was amazed by the delicate warmth that was offered.  (FYI: I will be reluctantly listing the Tortuga shortly if anyone is interested).

For our moderator, may I suggest an RCA selector between source and amp, you are not going to be happy with all the wear and tear on RCA connectors down the road.  I had one made for my Tortuga that did the trick, but don’t buy a mass marketed selector, have one made to your needs that is robust enough to handle the amount of switching needed.  There are several interconnect builders that should be qualified on AudiogoN.  I use my RCA selector between stereo and mono TT in my analog chain.

Happy holidays all, and enjoy the music!
I would've completely agreed just a few months ago. Direct Stream Sr to the Pass XA60.5 sounded glorious. On a whim, I bought a Pass X0.2 preamp (figured that I could always resell it if I didn't make enough of a difference). Oh was I wrong! The X0.2 might be an older Pass, but it added space and drive to the music that I just didn't have with the DSD Sr. I guess no preamp is better, unless the preamp is really good! :-)

As you said you were comparing two preamps, you found one better than the other, as you said the Benchmark has it’s own internal preamp.

What’s discussed here, is going direct from a dac’s "output buffer" (that has no internal preamp), direct to the amp/s using the dac own digital domain volume control, andtherefore having no preamps at all in the signal path.

Basically the preamp section of the Benchmark 3 is replaced which the much more substantial Hegel preamp and the Benchmark DAC running in DAC mode improves performance aswell.
Maybe, a passive should have been tried running in DAC mode

Cheers George
I was running a Benchmark DAC3 HGC directly into 2 AVM M30 Monoblocks. Very Cost efficient as the Benchmark has the Preamp onboard. By recommendation of Benchmark I was considering to ass their HPA4. I ended up adding the Hegel P-20 instead for aesthetic reasons. 

All I can say that it improved the SQ massively. Much bigger, much deeper, more refined. Basically the preamp section of the Benchmark 3 is replaced which the much more substantial Hegel preamp and the Benchmark DAC running in DAC mode improves performance aswell.

In my case the adding of an additional component has made a significant change in the overall system, in the desired direction.

Need some help here. Have a Cary Cinema 11A that I run sound to my TV with and I am adding a Quad Artera Play + that has a great preamp and CD player. This is very important to me as sound is #1. The Artera will be arriving soon. If I run the Artera into the Cinema 11 A which acts as an AV, will that render the preamp and DAC in the Artera pointless? Will I still be getting the full effects of the DAC and preamp? Thanks
The $6K PS Audio BHK signature was the only one that came close to having no preamp at all, but still a clear second best.

Still in your own words, with the same source it came a clear second to going direct. With that $6k saving, you could throw that at the source, imagine what you’d have then ???

Cheers George
Yep @georgehifi ... No one knows, but I doubt it, as Paul McGowan is one of the rare, brutally honest, no BS guys I've had the pleasure of knowing in this business. He was not ashamed to admit in the PS Audio forums, that a $10 Chinese made Amazon HDMI cable bettered his $400 PS Audio silver I2S cable. I bought that cable, and he was right... I'm still using it today.
And we need to remember that their setup is not the same as mine.
They tested the BHK preamp driving their solid state BHK power amps.
I use a flea-power Yamamoto A08S SET tube amplifier, which might happen to be a better match for the direct output of the DSD DAC than a solid state amp. 
It could also be that my speakers, a set of $6K Zu Audio Druids Mk V, don't reveal what the $50K Infinity IRS-V do (or the other way around?).
And yet... it might be the $$$, or just him giving ultimate respect for Mr. Bascom H. King. :-)
Yes ami thousands spent on these, and owners are very afraid they are going the way of the dodo bird. Like a someone else you guys have over there.

https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.205675140.2343/flat,1000x1000,075,f.u1.jpg

Funny you mentioned PS Audio BHK signature preamp. Paul McGowan was in the staunch anti active preamp brigade, and all for going direct.
That was right up until he released info that he was bringing out the, PS Audio BHK signature preamp, don’t suppose sales and the mighty $$$$ had anything to do with his massive turnaround????

Cheers George
@georgehifi  +1
Since I opened this thread almost 2 years ago, I have had the chance to audition a few other preamps in the loop, just to amuse my audiophile friends who insisted 'But you haven't heard XYZ preamp yet... it will take your system to another league...'
These included the PS Audio BHK signature preamp, and top-of-the-line ARC and CJ, among a few less known brands, mostly >$10K units, all with rave reviews by leading magazines, and in this forum...
The $6K PS Audio BHK signature was the only one that came close to having no preamp at all, but still a clear second best.
All but 2 (one who uses only an analog source, and one who will never admit to be wrong) of these skeptics, that brought their 'holy grail' preamps for audition, ended up selling them shortly thereafter, and getting the PS Audio DSD DAC with Bridge II, and the DMP transport as a digital source... ;-) 
@geoffkait in the beginning, god created 2. Then the devil spiced things up by creating the ménage à trois. 
lancelock
My new preamp has has improved the sound of my amp by leaps and bounds. No question that using a preamp in this case is an improvement.

Fair enough, your new pre sounds better than your old preamp, goes to prove no two pre’s sound the same, just like none can sound like the fabled "strait piece of wire"

But direct source to power amp is, and will sound like a "strait piece of wire", because guess what? that’s what it is!!
If you don’t like it that way, many don’t, it’s because you DON"T like the sound of your source!!.
Better change it and save $4,450, instead of putting a band-aids on it with different sounding preamps.
Put the $4.5k towards a better front end source with built in volume control ability, then revel in the dynamic transparency direct source to poweramp can give you, once you’ve heard it this way with a source you like, there’s no going back to an active preamp.

And that’s why we have this thread called,
" Best Preamp - NO preamp... (?) "

Remember your hifi system all starts with the source.
"To quote a famous saying. It all starts with the source, get that right and your 1/3rd the way there, if not, it's a never ending battle to get the truth."

   
Cheers George

My new preamp has has improved the sound of my amp by leaps and bounds. No question that using a preamp in this case is an improvement.

https://www.lineartubeaudio.com/#home

I almost always have two preamps in the signal chain
(opposite of what the op wants, instead of none, I add a second one)


https://youtu.be/RmyucZa6wD0?t=4
Post removed 
I'm currently auditioning the new Benchmark HPA4 preamp/linestage/headphone amp and my DAC2 HGC against a Dangerous Audio Convert 2 Pro DAC.  I'm very sad to say the HPA4 Preamp does rob me of some upper frequency sparkle and transient response.  I've run through putting the hpa4 in and taking it out several times and running each DAC direct to either my Nord Monoblocks or my Art Audio Diavolo SET Tube 300b Amplifier to my Tekton Design Encores speakers and regardless of the DAC or amps I'm using I can hear clearly a noticeable drop in resolution, upper midrange clarity, and transient response. Plucks of guitars seem a little lifeless now. The overall sound is more homogeneous sounding and more 2 dimensional sounding.  It's a warmer less neutral sound, but almost like a film coating painted on everything I hear.  This is really disappointing because this preamp was supposed to take my system to the next level, but unfortunately it's a step backwards for me. I'm returning it to Benchmark, but I really feel bad about it all the same. 

As an aside I love the Benchmark DAC2 HGC, and will be upgrading to the DAC3 HGC.  For what its worth the Dangerous convert 2 dac I was auditioning sounded well nigh identical to the Benchmark once the gain level was matched, but it lacks the remote, multiple outputs, and because I'm returning the preamp won't work in my system. It's definitely a competent piece and those level meters provide some sexy eye candy that I will miss over the boring utilitarian looks of the Benchmark DAC2 HGC. 








Yes... the AR Ref preamps look like they're among the very best available.  I've got the Ref 3 and Ref 5se... and... they are incredible - though, as I noted above, I am surprised at how good the Creek Passive Preamp sounds in comparison for a pittance in price.  

I did note in Collums ratings of preamps in HIFI Critic that he rated the AR Ref 5se at 225, compared to the highest rated Townshend Allegri at 230 (an autotransformer passive preamp).

Presumably, the AR Ref 6 and Ref 40, would be somewhat better - as most who have had both the 5se and either of the others report - though, at significant price premiums to the 5se, and of course, to the Allegri.  

At $2300 the Allegri looks like a "real bargain"... if... you can live without the conveniences of switching, balanced connections, and the remote.  Though, those conveniences come at very hefty premiums.  

And... I guess you could consider the AR Ref 3 as almost as grand a bargain at it's current price in the used market.  Most who have had both the Ref 3 and Ref 5 - 40 report that the Ref 3 is by far the "sweet spot" of the AR line.  So... perhaps... the price premium for those conveniences and great sound of the AR units is only about 2x the price of the Allegri.

Though you still have the cost of maintaining the AR tubed preamps - which the Allegri avoids.

  
Thanks, George. You’re forgiven, and I think I’m healed for now.   What were those three temptations? Miracle, bread, and power….sounds like a devilish AR Ref 6 (lots of my bread.) Get thee behind me…but geez, it must be wonderful. One day at a time.
I think i always worried the direct-to-amp would be too raw and "un-prepped."
Sorry electroslacker forgive me.

Raw?? Unprepped?? This is something the voodoo'ist have instilled into you.

The source, is the start in a system and it's signal should go via the purest path to the speakers, anything in-between that changes it, is not pure and just adding distortion and or colourations.
 
As for your impedance match, you couldn't ask for anything better, low impedance solid state output of the Benchmark, into the high input impedance of a tube amp, as perfect as an impedance match gets.

Cheers George
Wester17, I purchased the Benchmark DAC2 HGC because I wasn't sure if future plans would have it feeding an integrated (current), a preamp, or a power amp, and the HGC could be configured for either.  I had that audiophile yen for an exotic large box linestage, but could never quite understand what all that money was doing other than creating some preferred flavor, which is fine if it's preferred.  I think i always worried the direct-to-amp would be too raw and "un-prepped." But this discussion thread has given me the confidence to go balanced from the very clean Benchmark HGC, directly to the tube amp I want, knowing I can get a good impedance match.  Yes, the HGC has powered gain control, but I think that's all the "pre" I need.  I'm not contributing much, but showing gratitude for others.
@ alfa 100
Hi alfa, just letting others know that with the Wadia 521 you can change the gain setting ratio inside with switches or links, so then you can use it’s volume control above 65 with no "bit stripping". As "bit stripping" happens with any dacs digital domain volume control if their not used above 75% of full.
All sources with digital domain volume should have this feature, but sadly they don’t, that’s when a good passive pre is needed for the next possible best sound.

Quote from Wadia
We strongly recommend that you use your Wadia 521 Decoding Computer connected directly to your power amplifier. Even if you purchased your Wadia 521 Decoding Computer with the intention of connecting it to your preamplifier, we suggest that you try direct connection to your amplifier. Many listeners are surprised by the improvement in performance over even the most expensive preamplifiers.
Optimizing the Output Level Best performance is obtained when operating the Wadia Volume Control near the top of its range. If needed, the maximum output level of your Wadia 521 Decoding Computer can be adjusted to match the overall sensitivity of your system so that the critical listening will take place with the volume control operating in near the top of its range.
The maximum output level of the Wadia 521 Decoding Computer is adjustable by means of a set of internal switches. The Wadia 521 Decoding Computer is factory set to accommodate the most common range of system sensitivity. If you find that your typical volume level during critical listening is below 65 on the volume display, it will be advantageous to use a different setting. To change the output level, consult your dealer.

Wadia do know what their talking about, being the fathers of high end dacs and cdp's.
Cheers George

At the advice of my most experienced audiophile friend, I bypassed the preamp about a month ago, and I'm going directly into a power amp from my Benchmark DAC2.  It's sounding wonderful, and I don't know why I'd want to add anything else to the chain. I'm not even going to buy the preamp that goes with the amp, even though I can get a good price on it. 
I prefer no preamp. MSB Analog DAC direct to Pass Labs amp. Previously i had Wadia 521 DAC direct to amp. I tried a few notable preamps which robbed the sound of pinpoint imaging and timbral purity.  The MSB volume control is better than the Wadia. With the Wadia the volume control needed to be above 67. I could adjust the output gain on the Wadia to match the amp in order to use volume control from 67 to 100.     The MSB has high resolution from very low volume. 
Just to clarify.   I have heard it explained that The volume control in the Ps audio DS (I'm a dealer) is digital up until 50 - from 50 to 100 it is analog.  as Robert Deuch found it sounds fantastic and close in sound to the Cat preamp.   Well as good as the DS is - the reports from Paul at ps audio is that the BHK preamp is significantly better in all respects.   he's a straight shooter and these days won't release a product that doesn't live up to his expectations.   He spent years developing a hypex based amp with custom front end, and scraped it because there were better out there. 
audio doesn't always make sense.  One would think less parts means better sound but it doesn't always.  
Bascom king who measures electronics for a magazine once tested a ss amp from a DAC manufacturer that measured much lower in distortion than any other - but it didn't sound good.  
Paul McGowan was against using a tube input and in fact planned to offer a solid state input and and tube as well (ss on a tube socket) but once he heard the tube input he had to throw out his preconceptions and just build his new amp with tube input only.  

I have tried many passive, direct dac, and active preamp,and vacuum tubes do
Sound more realistic and natural per dollar then a solid state model ,there too there are exceptions if you gave the $$.vacuum tubes give you more bang for the buck.
Active gain stage on a good quality preamp over  $3k has better detail and 
Dynamic range when the volume goes up the whole performance should stay rock steady. I have listened to transformer based passive preamps that are very good 
Like U.K based Billington and Steven's very good but over $4k.
Having the ability to operate a audio store while in Europe and play with all the options was very interesting. I have yet to hear a direct feed from digital converter
That has the slam and control as with a quality preamplifier, DCS Edgar another exception great build and sound quality but pricy.
ami OP
Hi George,
I'm very impressed with your candor:
Thanks ami, just telling it like it is.
On a side note, there is just too much voodoo and shilling that goes unmoderated in these forums, maybe I'm just getting crotchety in my mature age.

Cheers George
Hi George,
I'm very impressed with your candor:
And if his source (AMR CD-77.1) had a volume control of it’s own, it would have sounded even better to him direct.
Wow... coming from the manufacturer of the product, that is rare.
If I ever consider a passive again, (for this system or another one) your Lightspeed attenuator will be the first one I'll try.
Here is a part of the review from 6 Moons for the new Gryphon Antileon Evo poweramp, driving Wilson Alexia’s
What was used first as the preamp was his Supratek Reference DHT, and yes this quote of part of the review is pushing my product, but it goes to show at least to this reviewer what a passive can do.
And if his source (AMR CD-77.1) had a volume control of it’s own, it would have sounded even better to him direct.
That’s the quintessential description for the sound of the Antileon EVO, too. There’s a sense of weight, power, dominance and uncompromising authority to music when played via this amplifier. And it’s not just about the bass either. It’s about overall dynamics that approach reality (yes, rest of gear permitting…) with explosive contrasts. This last came through even more outwardly when I connected George Stantscheff’s Lightspeed Attenuator quad-matched LDR passive. The Lightspeed does no harm. It’s as clear a conduit to the musical content from your source as you’re going to get, provided all impedance parameters are optimal, and without hindering dynamic expression in any way, shape or form.
Cheers George
If your source has sufficient output voltage, there are a couple of DACs that offer volume control solutions that maybe superior to even properly implemented passives, and may approach the sonic quality of very good active preamps.  These are implemented by changing the reference voltage of the dacs, which does not affect the "bits."

Steve Nugent's Empirical Audio Overdrive SE and SX offer this type of on-board volume control method as does Metrum's new Adagio.  I am currently enjoying Metrum's Pavane (which does not offer volume control) but I am very curious to try the Adagio, which is said to offer other sonic improvements over the already very good Pavane, in addition to the volume control option.

I have no clear idea how PS Audio's DirectStream DAC controls volume although it is said to be in the "digital domain."  It was surprising to me that Art Dudley didn't even try the direct-to-amp approach in  Stereophile's first review of the DirectStream DAC.  He brushed it off by saying;
Given the choice, I always prefer the sound of my system with an active preamplifier—the passive approach seems to me sorely lacking in drive by comparison—so I didn't try using the DirectStream to directly drive any of my amps.
Robert Deutsch did try it direct and had this to say in his 2015 follow-up;
Since the DS's analog output is variable, it can be used to drive an amplifier directly rather than running the signal through a preamp. Like most people who've compared a high-quality active preamp with a passive controller, I've found active preamps to be superior, particularly in dynamics. But the DS is different: its output level is controlled in the digital, not the analog domain, and Ted Smith, lead designer of the DS, claims that using the DS's variable output to drive an amp directly results in no loss of resolution. In fact, this is what PSA recommends for optimal sound quality.

Listening at matched levels through my Convergent Audio Technology SL-1 Renaissance preamp vs direct connection, I went back and forth at least a half-dozen times, trying to decide which was better—which should give you an idea of how close the sounds were. The sound through the CAT was a bit warmer, which was welcome with voices. The direct connection to the MC275LE resulted in even more finely defined detail, but perhaps veered slightly in the "clinical" direction. Overall, I preferred the connection through the preamp, but it was a close thing. The CAT is one of the best preamps around; pitted against a lesser preamp, the direct connection would likely be the winner.

He seemed to observe the "more detailed but thinner, dryer, less full, etc." perception that others report when running DACs direct to amplifiers, or when using passives, compared to using active preamps.  In fairness to PS Audio, AudioStream also preferred having an Ayre preamp in the signal path when compared to running the Empirical Audio Overdrive SE direct to their Ayre amplifiers.
Thanks for the detailed post Mitch.
I totally agree with you that if your source and amp gain and/or impedance are mismatched, an active unit may improve the overall result.
What i'm questioning is the common approach on how to solve this mismatch.
My suggestion is that you might be better off trying to find a better matched source-amp combination than introducing an active pre-amp to make them work well together. 
If you invest the money you save on the preamp, and get an upgraded and better matched source or amp, the overall result may be much better than having to introduce a preamp as a 'match maker' for a 'given' source and amp.

I would like to add a quote from Ted Smith that addresses cable capacitance as well, which was posted on the PS Audio forum regarding the DS DAC direct to amp approach. The key sentence here IMHO is
  • "We don’t always build our systems from whole cloth where we might have the opportunity to find a set of components with no interface issues: a preamp is a good thing to have on hand for the cases where other factors like gain mismatch or cable length or… get in the way of a well balanced system." - 
So why not strive for a well balanced, preamp-less system to begin with?

Here is the full quote:

“There are two issues that come to mind: gain (which has already been mentioned) and the other is cable capacitance.

With respect to gain, there’s a “best” sensitivity of amp to use with the DS direct: you need enough headroom to have dynamic music (even on your louder tracks) but also enough sensitivity that you aren’t using the volume control far from 100 a lot of the time. Obviously if your music collection has tracks that are significantly different in loudness or dynamic range or if the amp isn’t sensitive enough or is way too sensitive you’ll probably want a preamp.
With cables that have too high of a capacitance there are FR response issues with almost any source. With most sources high capacitance implies a high frequency rolloff, but at times the transformer output of the DS can interact with cable capacitance to add a little high frequency boost. In an already existent system that already has high capacitance cables but is otherwise balanced changing from some other DAC to a DS may make quite a difference in the very top of the audio band. Either a rolloff or a boost of the highs could be beneficial in some setups, but in general, average to lower capacitance cables will be better with the DS or you’ll need a preamp to drive/buffer a higher capacitance or long run cables after the DS.
My counter argument to the minimalist point of view is that “Why should you expect a $6000 preamp in a $6000 DAC for free?” We don’t always build our systems from whole cloth where we might have the opportunity to find a set of components with no interface issues: a preamp is a good thing to have on hand for the cases where other factors like gain mismatch or cable length or… get in the way of a well balanced system.
Given a particular amp the DS could be designed so that you probably wouldn’t want a preamp – and similarly given the DS an amp could be designed so you probably don’t want a preamp, but in real life, as all things in audiophile land, you’ll need to listen for yourself to different setups and make up your own mind.”




Mitch2, thank you for taking the time to explain in detail the other variables involved and pointing out the genius behind Steve McCormacks designs which I believe are top notch!
Simply having enough voltage is not the whole story.
There are so many variables (including listening preferences) that, as others here have pointed out, there really is no one answer.
In addition to having enough voltage to drive the amplifier, impedance matching is also important with a low output impedance (from the passive device) feeding a high input impedance (to the amplifier) being desirable.  The length of the IC cable between the preamp or passive device and the amplifier(s) also affects this.  
You cannot lump everything that has gain into one "preamp" basket because there are many different designs.  When folks say that preamps are no longer needed, I believe they are mostly referring to the high gain devices that were common 30 years ago.
The optimal set-up for a passive preamp is between a source with sufficient voltage output to drive the amplifier, and an amplifier with sufficiently high input impedance to not be negatively affected by the output impedance of the passive device, and finally for the connecting IC cable to be sufficiently short to not have an effect.
Even when these things seem appropriate, there are many who still prefer sending their signal through an active "preamp."
The issue is further complicated in that all "passive" devices are not the same.  Some passives are simply a volume control, including a pot or perhaps a discrete resistor type control, and others use transformers, autoformers or even LDRs (light dependent resistors).  The resistor based volume controls seem to be most affected by impedance issues.   I own two resistor-based passives, a Goldpoint single input unit and Endler attenuators which connect directly to the amp so taking the length of the IC cable out of the equation.  Both use discrete resistors and both sound very good but need careful impedance matching between the source and the amp.   I have also had the Acoustic Imagery JaySho here for an audition (this is the same design as Chapman's Bent Audio TAP unit, but repackaged) and while it may open up a wider range of equipment that will work well, IMO there are sonic trade-offs so I wouldn't necessarily say everyone would like the TAP unit better.
George posted a portion of a Nelson Pass quote previously in this thread that was taken from Pass' discussion of his DIY "buffered" preamp.  A "buffered" preamp is generally considered to be a no-gain device with an active electronic circuit that reduces the output impedance.  Here is the other half of Pass' quote;
Is impedance matching an issue? Passive volume controls do have to make a trade-off between input impedance and output impedance. If the input impedance is high, making the input to the volume control easy for the source to drive, then the output impedance is also high, possibly creating difficulty with the input impedance of the power amplifier. And vice versa: If your amplifier prefers low source impedance, then your signal source might have to look at low impedance in the volume control.

This suggests the possibility of using a high quality buffer in conjunction with a volume control. A buffer is still an active circuit using tubes or transistors, but it has no voltage gain – it only interposes itself to make a low impedance into a high impedance, or vice versa.

If you put a buffer in front of a volume control, the control’s low impedance looks like high impedance. If you put a buffer after a volume control, it makes the output impedance much lower. You can put buffers before and after a volume control if you want.

The thing here is to try to make a buffer that is very neutral. Given the simple task, it’s pretty easy to construct simple buffers with very low distortion and noise and very wide bandwidth, all without negative feedback.

Link: https://www.passdiy.com/project/preamplifiers/b1-buffer-preamp

Other manufacturers have also found the no-gain to low-gain approach to work well, such as Steve McCormack who originally offered no-gain or +6dB options on his highly regarded VRE-1 preamp, which is basically a very high quality buffered circuit.  The +6dB option is standard on his current version of the VRE-1 with this relatively low-level of gain resulting from high quality output transformers he uses, and not the active circuitry.   Steve has found the power supply to be very important to the quality of sound of the buffered preamps he has designed.  

My personal preamp is a no-gain, buffered unit that was custom built by Steve McCormack and is very similar to his early VRE-1 preamp.  It works well with every amplifier I have used and sounds better than the over-20 highly regarded preamps that have paraded through my system over the years. Below is an excerpt from a 1995 interview with Steve where he was discussing his thoughts at the time on passives and buffering.  A link to the full article follows.

The sonic performance of the finished product, called the Line Drive, fulfilled all of the original design goals. It was characterized by the exceptional transparency and natural musicality which are now recognized as classic passive features when the preamplifier is properly designed and manufactured, yet rarely heard from other types of components.

With further experimentation, I discovered that the very best performance of my design came from running it with a high input impedance (20 kOhm or higher), high gain power amplifier. This too is characteristic of all passive units. The amplifier's high input impedance prevents loading effects while the high gain assures ample capability to drive loudspeakers to an appropriate volume level. Only extremely low loudspeaker sensitivity combined with low gain amplifiers present a problem for attaining high volume levels. Again, this combination of factors is rarely present in the real world.

While investigating early reports of "insufficient" volume, I found that people simply were not turning the volume control far enough to achieve the levels they wanted. Following the lessons they had learned about not turning up the volume of active preamplifiers too much as a precaution against system damage, these individuals were setting their controls too low. Since passive line-level preamplifiers have unity gain (1X), there is no reason not to turn the volume all the way up if that is required.

Please understand that I have nothing against active circuits, and I assume the same is true of other creators of passive designs. I build active units for applications where they are appropriate, such as phono preamplification. However, I prefer the passive path in some other applications because of the exceptional transparency and natural musicality possible through this approach.

During the latter years of the original Line Drive's seven year tenure, I worked with design refinements in preparation for releasing its successor. These experiments confirmed most of my earlier conclusions, but they also led me to appreciate the advantages of offering a buffered output in addition to the passive output. I had resisted that option for a while because the buffer circuits I knew had a negative effect on sonic performance. It was during the development of the Active Line Drive ALD-1 preamplifier that I designed a special buffer circuit that was based on a simple complimentary FET pair, but which required a very high quality power supply to make it work properly.

This was the first electronic circuit I had worked with that complimented the passive circuit and did not compromise sound quality. It allows the use of any length of cable between the preamplifier and power amplifier. Adding the buffered circuit brings the opportunity to enjoy the sonic benefits of minimalist preamplification to all systems.

Link:http://hometheaterhifi.com/volume_2_1/passive.html

The purpose of taking the time for this post is to provide information showing why I believe there is no one answer or product that is going to work well for everyone and to respond to the OP as to why simply taking things out of the signal path is not always a recipe for success.
Cerrot, 
I understand  your point. Keep in mind that some will say that the Criterion midrange is merely added coloration from an active preamplifier. The sterility you describe is transparency to others.
I'll add my experience here with a similar situation. I am primarily an analog listener. Vinyl is number 1 for me, but I do listen to the odd CD. It is my only digital source. Both my turntable and CD player run through an Audio Research LS17-SE, although I do have a separate phono stage between my turntable and pre-amp. My CD player is a McIntosh 301 that has the ability to run direct to my amps as it has an attenuator control for this specifically. Out of curiosity one day, I decided to give it a shot, and see what differences I could hear. For my money the quality was superior WITH the pre-amp in the circuit. I was not impressed with the direct to amp configuration. My opinion for my musical taste only folks.
I would be interested to see (hear) what a good, active preamp could do in your system. I went preampless for a few years and thought it was great, but the got a Jeff Rowland Criterion preamp and I realized all the midrange I was missing.  Preampless is a bit too sterile for me.  My preamp is the heart and soul of my system.  
I do this on my analog rig... I ran my PS Audio GCPH and now my Manley Steelhead directly to my amp, as they both have volume controls.  Sounds great, wouldn't have it any other way.  I also tried using a preamp to confirm what I was hearing and couldn't get it out of the chain fast enough.
Here is the Colloms rating. The only one almost the same was the very top ARC and it was a very little worse.
Conrad Johnson Premier 14 39
Conrad Johnson Premier 16LS 49
Conrad Johnson Premier 18 28
Conrad Johnson Sonographe fet pre 15
Conrad Johnson 18LS 30
Conrad Johnson PV10 B 28 (line)
Creek OBH -15 MM, MC phono 35, 19
Creek OBH 22 passive (load sensitive) 39
Creek OBH 21 Headphone amp 40
Cyrus Phono (PSU) 28(35)
Edge Signature one (battery) 37
Electrocompaniet EC3 18.5 MC, 22 line
Exposure MCX 98
Halcro DM10 22 disc/26line
Jadis JP 30 (original series) 14
Klyne sk6 13.5
Krell Evolution One 120
Krell Evolution 202 70
Krell KSP pre 21
Krell KRC-2 22.5
Krell KCT 28 28
Krell KPS 28 35
Lehmann Audio Silver Cube 26
LINN Uphorik 98
Mark Levinson No 38s 33
Mark Levinson ML 26 20.5
Musical Fidelity MVX pre 12
Musical Fidelity MVT 13.5
Music First Reference Bal/SE TFR 180
Myryad MP 100 pre 15
Naim Prefix mc phono 45
Naim Superline mc phono- Hi-Cap 120
Naim Superlinemc phono Supercap, Supercap DR 145, 190
Pink Triangle PIP pre 18
Plinius Koru 15 MM/MC
Pro-ject Tube Box SE II Phono MC, MM 45,45
PS Audio GCPH 15
Roksan Platinum Phono Reference DXP SE 45
Roksan Platinum PR15B 20
Stevens and Billington transformer passive 33
Tag McLaren DPA 32 19
Thrax Dionysus 135
Thrax Orpheus 225
Townshend Allegri autotransformer 230
Townshend Glastonbury Pre 1 SE AutoTFR 195
Trichord Dino Mk2 MC phono 29 std supply, 33 NC supply
Van Den Hul Grail MC phono 65
XTC PRE II 80 (line)
YBA Pre 1 15.5
- See more at: http://www.hificritic.com/preamplifiers-and-phono-stages.html#sthash.gh4VAjUt.dpuf

I got rid of my preamp years ago (DAC straight to power amp) and never looked back. 
The bad thing about no pre is that you lose the volume control as well as the switching on most amps. Also the volume control has more effect than most think. On Audio Synthesis the different models had different volume controls. Really good volume controls are expensive. I have used my passive with CJ 350, Gamut 200, and Meridan 605s. The last are my backups and still good after all these years. Not it the class of the others of course. It has worked well with all.

I am using the Townsend Allegri Passive pre. I have used Creek and Audio Synthesis before and it is considerably better. I liked it so well that I was going to become a dealer before I got sick. It has a big lead in the Colloms sound rating on the High Fi Critic site. This is avable free if you want to look. I have been reading him since the early 70s and based many of my purchases on his reviews. Many are rare or not sold here. I got my Metrum from Europe before it was avable here. I have a very good [and expensive] active pre and I am going to give to another try when I can. [ it is very heavy and I can't lift these days] 

They don’t have enough gain, so they need an active pre to help the signal along.
If it goes loud enough for you, you have enough gain, a passive preamp will NOT compress the music if it’s up near full.

Quote from 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.
Cheer George
I think what you've just demonstrated is that your system has a very good gain structure. I was running my Oppo BDP105 directly into my mono blocks too for a while as it sounded better than going through the Octave Phonomudule preamp. I built a passive using Slagle autoformers and the sound is somewhat the same, maybe a touch sweeter. 
But it's all about the gain. That's why it doesn't good to go direct with most people's systems. They don't have enough gain, so they need an active pre to help the signal along.