How important is the pre-amp?

Streaming sounded like the best way to go, as I was getting my system going.  I was trying to watch spending.  My preamp was failing.  So I connected the streamer to DAC then direct to the amp.  How creative, I thought.  Well, I didn't realize the digital volume was cutting bits.  So with 100 dB speakers, I thought an active preamp would make my volume control run on the lower third.  I currently have a tube buffer.  Greatly improved vs the direct connection.  The preamp is a Tubes4HiFi SP12.  A solder joint and I can make it active.  I think it has 5dB gain.  I have not tried this version yet.  Would this cause problems?  I have a Pass XA25 with horn speakers(Crites).

The preamp IS the heart and soul of a system - it’s the driver in the car. The driver puts the car in gear, controls the steering and direction, and controls the throttle making the engine do what it needs to do to run the car. This is all the functions of a preamp in a sound system.
It drives the system! It has to accept and manage a wide array of sources; Turntable, CD and/or BluRay player, Streamer, Cable/Satellite Box, etc., allowing you to select between all of those sources, and has to control what the amplifier does with your speakers. It’s gain, balance, treble/bass, dynamics, it controls all of those things between the sources and the amp.
Without a good preamp, it would be a lot like putting a kid who just got their driver’s license behind the wheel of a race car. If you can’t manage the sources well, that’s like not knowing what gear to be in. If you can’t control what the amp is doing, it’s like not controlling the throttle, which you’re likely to blow the engine and burn the tires along with not being able to handle the steering. That’s much like not getting a good image between your speakers because you can’t control the balance and not being able to fully handle what the amp is doing to the speakers where it can sound distorted or likely blow your speakers. I hope that’s not confusing and gives you the direction you need?
Good luck in your quest!

I have a DAC and amp with balanced capability and the DAC has volume control.  My tube pre only has single ended connections. Sometimes I run the DAC strait to the AMP via balanced. I always recognize the music a little more analytical with the balanced connections. Then I switch back and put the pre in. I always seem to settle in on having the pre in the mix for longer periods before switching back to the DAC directly connected to the amp.   I am in agreement that Balanced is not always better than single ended. It's like wine , it depends on your taste.

Essential for getting the most out of the source. Don't fall for the story of using a DAC output alone. It is lifeless and unrealistic on every DAC I've tried this with. I know, digital is digital, blah blah, but something goes wrong without a quality preamp in the chain.

Do you believe it’s a point of tremendous debate that certain preamps color system sound? If so, that point of view would be surprising. One has only to look at twenty years of Audiogon preamp discussions to reach the conclusion that among many it’s not debatable, and in fact is a consideration when selecting a preamp.

@tvad

Nope- not debating that.

Or, do you rather believe it’s a point of tremendous debate that some folks like coloration that certain preamps provide?

Not debating that either.

I was talking about the endless debate between passive and active linestages.

I’m in the active camp because I can get the interconnect cables to drop out of the system equation and I can keep the distortion so low in the active linestage that coloration isn’t a thing. Not all active preamps can do that so coloration happens. Also, no passive or transformer system can do that either so you can expect coloration from them too.


To my knowledge you can either throw money at the interconnect cables in the hopes of minimizing coloration, or you can get something that was designed to minimize the coloration of cables. That latter problem was solved in the 1950s with the balanced line system (which is based on standard) but is mostly unused in high end audio. The latter part of the last statement is true because most high end audio companies either ignore the balanced standard or are ignorant of it; most high end balanced preamps I’ve seen don’t support it. The Backert is one of the few I’ve seen that does.

 

I am in agreement that Balanced is not always better than single ended. It's like wine , it depends on your taste.

Its not a matter of taste, its a matter of most high end products don't support the standard. If they did there would be no debate, no matter of 'taste' in this regard. IOW if you've heard a balanced setup but the standard isn't supported, you may hear colorations that cause you to prefer a single-ended setup you heard.

@cheeg raises some interesting points.

Point #1: Wikipedia URL with comment "you can see its not quite that simple". Actually, it is that simple. he wikipedia article manages to make a simple topic complicated by badly explaining older dB references in the context of impedance matching. Impedance matching is, in fact, one of the key jobs of a preamp. Sometimes it’s needed, sometimes not. If only high end products adhered to some standards or conventions (they often don’t) the problem would be far simpler. In fact that article points out just how wildly out of spec most DAC outputs are today. nominal line level - under a volt rms (caveat I always thought it WAS updated to 1V rms, but no matter). Many DACs now put out 2, 3 and even 4V this means a 15V swing at the INPUT to your preamp. Are they mad? Which brings us to point #2.....

No, they are not mad. Just narrow minded (IMNSHO) or maybe lazily practical for heir own product anyway. If, as a manufacturer, you wish to offer a DAC with volume control and claim it's basically a control center for all-digital systems, you need sufficient gain (output level) to drive any amp. And they have gains that run the gamut from low to high.

So what do you do? You put out a crazy high voltage level and then attenuate it. Its a preamp. Let’s say that again, it **IS** a preamp, right there at the output of your DAC. The only question is "is it a good one"? Some are, some are not. Volume control in the digital domain is fraught with issues; so that may be compromised. With R2R DACs its largely impossible except via DSP interpolation. Next, too often the output stage (line circuitry) is an op-amp chip. Unimpressed. To be fair, some are excellent, discrete, even tubes. but most are not.


So the idea that the preamp solves the impedance matching problem, if an output stage exists (even an op-amp) is not really valid. More likely the answer to why this "simpler" chain is not in fact superior is:

1. it’s as simple as you might have thought
2. The volume control is compromised (Nice word for "sucks")
3. The line circuitry is compromised
4. They really DID simplify the signal path, by leaving out the line circuitry and placing the volume control at the output and the impedance is now high (yep seen it)

OTOH i have used high quality digital volume (done in the DAC at 32-bits resolution, with all truncation below the 18/20 bit threshold) and a decent (not all that impressive output stage - essentially what one would have with a preamp too) and it soudns very, very good.

And then there’s the elephant on the table. Most tube components ADD euphonic distortion. We like it. this is not really a bad thing - its also what a Piano’s sounding board does. but in that case technical arguments go out he window,and we pivot to music theory.

And, I kid you not, i have a couple of Pianos to try out.

happy listening, and maybe, playing.
G

smandlej- I have the Townshend Allegri Reference (upgraded from the "standard" Allegri). This was well reviewed by Martin Colloms of Hi-Fi Critic and Raphael Todes of Allegri String Quartet fame, the latter uses the Bartok and found the Reference worked far better for volume control/sound quality. I believe both reviewers now own and use the Refernce in their own systems.
 This unit requires no expensive mains lead or support as it incorporates Max's podium style feet, but you could use one of Max's platforms as well.
From my perspective, this is the most important element of my system, and using it is like upgrading all my source components in one go !! It does require a substantial run-in period and benefits from balanced interconnects between pre and power. Martin uses solid state (Naim) whilst Rapheal uses valves - it works well with either - see millercarbon's post above. 

Good to know. It has been quite a few years since I really dug into this subject. Was really interested in improving my integrated amp which at the time one was using trim pots the other a stepped attenuator, neither one a true preamp just a volume control. The more I learned the more clear it became that transformers are the way to go.   

That was a long time ago so I forget all the technical electrical reasons. But the real reason they've been forgotten is my memory tends to low prioritize the moot point. Because ultimately there will always be someone willing to throw enough time and effort and money at it to solve that part of the problem.  

The one they can't solve is the seemingly simple volume control. For that they always fall back on a resistor of some sort. Trim pot, variable resistor, stepped attenuator- whatever you want to call it is just a resistor used to control volume. These things are inherently lossy and noisy and problematic.  

Transformers on the other hand, where resistors have problems transformers have benefits. There is a reason after all why we use them all over the place for isolation and power conditioning.  

But I gave up on transformers because a) hard (read, expensive) to find good ones and b) even harder to find one with all the taps needed to make a good volume control, and then c) you still need a lot of really high quality switches.  

But yeah, like you say, eliminates an expensive power cord, can be incredibly transparent, and passive, so slight gain in not adding any field noise to the system.  

I read the Colloms and Todes reviews, thanks. In the nearly 30 years since I looked into it there must have been a hundred thousand preamp questions and discussions. Yet I could count on my fingers the times transformers have been discussed. This kind of thing deserves a lot more mention and attention. Transformers, I mean.

"This kind of thing deserves a lot more mention and attention. Transformers, I mean."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ERuhks3GNk

Transformers on the other hand, where resistors have problems transformers have benefits. There is a reason after all why we use them all over the place for isolation and power conditioning.  

You solve one problem; you introduce others. Then it gets tricky.


The issue with transformers is loading and inter-winding capacitance. All transformers have inter-winding capacitance. If the transformer is not loaded correctly (usually too lightly) the capacitance may play a role causing the frequency response to be less than flat. This coloration can be easily heard.

Transformers are called that because they transform impedance. It goes both ways; you're not insulated on the input from the output. So if the output load is reduced, so is the impedance on the input side.

What happens when you have a transformer with multiple taps used as a volume control? Since you are working with a variable turns ratio, to keep the transformer linear you need to have the correct load at both the input and output. You can't, as a designer, expect to always see the same source impedance and you certainly don't see the same load impedance since all power amps are different in that regard. On top of that you have the moving target of variable turns ratio.


So you'll need a lot of switch contacts, not just the ones to change taps but another set with resistor to correct for the changing load impedance as the turns ratio is varied. 

This has to be done right, else the unit can introduce coloration.

I agree that a high performance preamp is important with respect to the performance of a hi-fi system as a whole, but I disagree that the preamp’s sonic performance is always tightly correlated with the price. Sometimes you pay a lot of money for heavy cases, thick, engraved faceplates, name brand recognition, other cosmetics, etc. I prefer to spend the money on advanced circuitry, the best vintage vacuum tubes, high quality stepped resistor motorized volume attenuators, point to point wiring, dual mono power supplies, outboard power supplies, etc.

I disagree that the preamp’s sonic performance is always tightly correlated with the price.

Funny- I was just commenting about this on another forum. I agree the price doesn't have much to do with performance. Those that price to a formula will be less expensive generally speaking. My philosophy runs very similar to yours.

How little I know, and wish I knew! re:

The issue with transformers is loading and inter-winding capacitance. All transformers have inter-winding capacitance. If the transformer is not loaded correctly (usually too lightly) the capacitance may play a role causing the frequency response to be less than flat. This coloration can be easily heard.

Transformers are called that because they transform impedance. It goes both ways; you're not insulated on the input from the output. So if the output load is reduced, so is the impedance on the input side.

What happens when you have a transformer with multiple taps used as a volume control? Since you are working with a variable turns ratio, to keep the transformer linear you need to have the correct load at both the input and output. You can't, as a designer, expect to always see the same source impedance and you certainly don't see the same load impedance since all power amps are different in that regard. On top of that you have the moving target of variable turns ratio.

So you'll need a lot of switch contacts, not just the ones to change taps but another set with resistor to correct for the changing load impedance as the turns ratio is varied.

This has to be done right, else the unit can introduce coloration.

It's all alchemy to me, what the great designers do. I'm glad for it though.

Shortest signal path (not the same as least complex)  is best and most efficient route to high-end sound imo. For digital sources, the future will see a well-designed preamp function with precise volume control built into primary components such as streaming DAC and amplification components as standard. We are already seeing speakers with streaming DAC, and seeing integrated amplification all with ‘everything inside’, although i would contend that such an approach as far as within the speaker enclosures is not best because of isolation from soundwaves / vibration.

Remember that NOISE removal is the problem we face. Noise being any thing not in the original source. Since it deals with low level information, the preamp is the most likely source of noise of all sorts. Listening to a truly low noise preamp can be very "revealing" (sorry) and I believe the preamp is the most audible and critical of the power components.

Actually the problem we face is NO removal.

I have relatively recently gone down the audio rabbit hole and have had this question myself.  Thank you all for your perspectives!

Dare I ask if it is possible to get decent sound from a home theater preamp?  

I am very happy with the upgraded Emotiva XMC-1 I currently have, but during the lockdown I spent a lot more time listening to music and watching TV than ever......And buying used equipment, then selling it to try something else.  I've had a lot of fun and discovered even with a modest budget, different components can make an obvious difference.  I may be near enough the point of diminishing returns to stay put for a while, but love input for upgrade direction.

I haven't gotten into tubes yet, but I have a Cary Audio solid state that sounds great to me with Zu Druid MK IV's.

@azwineguy

I certainly have never heard it. Well, I guess a $15K surround processor versus a $1.5K preamp. But no, never.

Also, I am currently enjoying a glass of Chateau Haut Bages Liberal Pauillac, 2018 while listening to my all tube system. We have our home theater upstairs… top of the line… but no match for my system down here. Life is good. I lived in Tucson for 25 years.

Dare I ask if it is possible to get decent sound from a home theater preamp?

Not even. The problem is HT means surround means processors means noise.

Think of it this way. Some of the very best preamps out there are designed to power off the display when listening to music, because of the detrimental effect of even that tiny little bit of extra stuff running. Seriously. Stop and think about that. People can actually hear the sound degradation caused by something as seemingly minor as a function display.

Now imagine a whole big surround processor chip, about the size and power of the one in your computer. The noise and distortion that thing is generating, makes my skin crawl just to think of it. But then that is maybe partly because I know from experience, from having actually tried and compared these things. It is abysmal what they can get away with having a big screen to distract from the reality of the sonic dreck coming out of one of these things.

@smandlej 

I just ordered the Allegri Reference preamp myself. So I'll soon know the answer to the OP's question.

My Classe SSP-800 processor/DAC has been my systems preamp since 2009. It has served me very well but I've read enough from millercarbon and others to have learned that my
2 channel isn't at its best with the Classe(as great of a unit it is). My surround and digital will pass through the Allegri(until I buy an external DAC) as well to my front speakers. I don't think it will change anything sonically though. 

John at Townshend told me that "there is no need at all" for additional Allegri isolation.
"Save your money" he said. 

IMHO,
The preamplifier is extremely important.
I would consider it right up there with your choice of speakers.
That being said,
The improvements tend to be incremental, relative to price.
Trust your ears and buy the best you can afford. With consideration towards future system additions.

ing@azwineguy

Dare I ask if it is possible to get decent sound from a home theater preamp?

sound quality is a combination of a number of things.

on this forum with it’s 2 channel focus signal path’s need to be as pure as possible (including the most pure preamp) to optimize the 2 channel media. along with rooms and acoustics which promote 2 channel listening, which is mostly diffusion. the subtle nuance is critical. the speakers are intended to work ’with’ the room.

but a dsp based multi-channel Home Theater system has a different set of rules. the room needs lots of absorption since with 11 to 15 surround speakers for performance you want direct sound not reflected sound. the challenge is still low noise but the dsp process and adding all those speakers makes it less critical (the concept of noise.....is actually signal to noise); especially if you play at the top of the dsp food-chain with 15 speakers and a Trinnov Altitude 16 or 32 processor (it's damn quiet).

https://www.trinnov.com/en/products/altitude16/

but rooms are not chameleons; you have to choose......and if you combine 2 channel and serious multi-channel then one (or likely both) will be compromised. i’m talking degrees of good here, not saying both cannot still be enjoyable.....but still they both can’t be truly optimal since the room rules are different.

i have 2 separate serious rooms; one for 2 channel with mostly diffusion for the walls and one for dsp multi-channel/movies.....with 15 speakers and 3 subwoofers.....and lots of absorption.

you can get fantastic sound from a Home Theater processor, but it’s lots of effort. and if you get fantastic multi-channel sound, then playing 2 channel media will be compromised......although it’s possible you might like some sort of multi-channel effect more than just using 2 speakers for the 2 channel media from that Home Theater processor.

A few comments on the "transformers are the answer" topic.  I agree that especially when you have an impedance mismatch, particularly the wrong way (high into low), that needs **transformation** rather than gain or attenuation (fractional gain),a transformer could be very good.

Its that "could be" part.  They have many issues - several notes above, several not. And like most problems, they can be mostly solved with money, lots of money, and few have attempted it.   No market maybe, or very very hard.   An ideal, variable, volume-controlling transformer must be VERY expensive.

Ditto resistors.  They have issues.  You can buy better ones.  But.... I actually think even modestly good (name brand 1% metal film) resistors are pretty transparent. And with resistors there is a mature market for VERY good ones, and while they too are expensive (like 10-50X the cost of modestly good ones), even at 10-50X they are still less than half a buck (Caddock, DALE mil-spec noise controlled, non-inductively wound, blah blah) or were the last i checked which i admit was years ago.  To be clear, you need a dozen to hundreds of pairs depending on how you implement the solution.  I use 11 pair.  Oh, and a micro-controller  to control the mess.


But look a the big picture: we are now worrying about two more resistors in the signal path, one series one shunt. There are likely dozens in your signal path already. Are you replacing all of those too? Or removing them and inserting.... what?

I firmly believe that for 99% of applications, a true, discrete, stepped attenuator using a minimal number of resistors, great contacts, and good (not awesome) resistors is pretty darn transparent. I can say for sure its revelatory compared to what nearly all of us have heard - and I can do A-B-C side by side tests since i have them all, independent of the preamp circuitry, with a switch to do the rest evaluations.

I firmly believe that for 99% of applications, a true, discrete, stepped attenuator using a minimal number of resistors, great contacts, and good (not awesome) resistors is pretty darn transparent.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I might have to agree. My tech geek swaers by a good Acoustics (made in Italy) 44 step ateenuator,,but sadly my Jadis DPL has no room for the vol pot..
I’d bet your DIY attenuator + resistors sounds as good/better
as my Jadis DPL with
Mundorf + Philips caps, Takman Rey Metal resistors.
Shorter path = cleaner path...
  Am I following you right.
For just 1 added component, saya  CD player, we only need 1 out
So you are saying a simple DIY 44 step attenuator + some resistiors, = beats high priced pres?
Yes??

as far as volume attenuation, easily the best i’ve heard is on the battery powered darTZeel NHB-18NS; there is no potentiometer or resistor network in line with the audio, volume control being by passive attenuation governed by a dedicated processor via analogue optical couplers, offering 192 steps in increments of 0.5dB.

it is truly transparent, yet dynamically alive. alas, it does run $50k.

i've compared it with other active preamps, as well as the MSB Select II passive, and the Placette Remote Volume Control passive. so far it's my preference to any of those.

For just 1 added component, saya CD player, we only need 1 out
So you are saying a simple DIY 44 step attenuator + some resistiors, = beats high priced pres?
Yes??

Well....sorta. Mine is intended to go into volume production in products so it s a bit more complex. It was never intended to be independent from a preamp or integrated amp, and i have never used it stand-alone.  Mine involves 4 inputs, 32 x 2dB steps, a bunch of relays (not cheap if you want good ones to control all this stuff and get you down from 128 to say 44 resistors) a display, a micro-controller, an IR receiver, and a TON of code. The code is a big challenge - especially controlling the IR, synchronizing actions, displaying where you are, etc. but the results, yes, are clearly superior to my monolithic ladder chip solution (also intended for volume production, in fact sooner) and that is superior to an ALPS or Nobel POT (IMO).


You will also have to design and fab some fairly complex mixed analog and digital circuit boards.


A project like this is not for the feint of heart.

There is a dutch guy selling a complete attenuator kit (two units, dual mono i believe).   I think his are intended to go into an amp, but you could build a box and a power supply.  No balance to the best of my knowledge (which, along with mute, is a logical nightmare BTW since both are stateful and you don’t want to swap states wrong). 


For DIY i’d look at the Dutch kit. I suspect his day job is with Philips. Can’t recall his name, Google is your friend. I really wanted remote control that was as good as the best rotary pots. I suspected they could be better (even the monolithic ones) and they are. See my post way way above.

Noble is a good place to start…..

I agree that the death of the preamp is inevitable. But if I had to estimate when the shift would start with significant movement it would be twenty years. That would put it where the CD player is now… a few companies stop production… the ones that are future minded, most users are not yet aware that the age is over. Most people are not aware the world has changed until long after (check out the discussions of CD vs Streamer). But analog needs to die… Don’t see that soon. So that leaves a point maybe 25 years as a good transition point. Even if I was twenty five years old, I would buy a preamp.

It’s about the size of the signal.
The signals from sources are very small and delicate...especially from turntables. Any sins committed here are, sorry for the pun... amplified.

This is why even the quality of the attenuator is so important in a preamp. This is why sound gets colored so easily.

A good preamp is so important. It took me a good while to understand this.

Since you can drive your power amps directly, the preamp is only a buffer and input switch.  Therefore it can only degrade the sound.

However it is an opportunity to make the sound as colorful as you like. I guess people like that, and some like it alot.

For those of you who don’t need line level amplification (who don’t use a turntable) Marchand makes a high quality, battery powered passive “preamp” with motorized passive stepped resistor attenuator & remote plus selector.  The battety supply eliminates any noise that might be generated from a mains sourced power supply.  I have one of these and it works well.  It is no-frills, however—the cosmetics are adequate,IMO, but may not be adequate for some audiophiles for whom thick emgraved faceplates and that tupe of thing are important.

Noble is a good place to start…..

???? for what?

It’s about the size of the signal.
The signals from sources are very small and delicate...

Truer than most realize - gain from low output MC to line is about 1500X.

But i believe this thread would benefit form a very clear distinction between a **phono stage** and a line stage preamp with control circuitry. he question is clearly about the latter.

That said, its the existence of the phono (mixed analog and digital) that sometimes makes a preamp totally mandatory rather than a convenience and sonic choice.

If I have just a power amp hooked up I know you need one.Then it comes to tube or soild state.I have tried both and use many different brands.I still like switching things around.

If I have just a power amp hooked up I know you need one.Then it comes to tube or soild state.I have tried both and use many different brands.I still like switching things around.

The point of this thread is ... no you don;t. But is it beneficial?  You can use a DAC with volume control straight into your amp. Or a regular DAC with Roon and DSP based volume control. or .....  But as has been discussed extensively (read for the details that need not be lowed yet again) there are issues.

The point of this thread is ... no you don;t. But is it beneficial? You can use a DAC with volume control straight into your amp. Or a regular DAC with Roon and DSP based volume control. or ..... But as has been discussed extensively (read for the details that need not be lowed yet again) there are issues.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Agree DAC with vol controls, is not going to deliversame detailed sonics as a  tube linestage.
Just not...so we all agree here
a  linestage has significant impact on ultimate soundstage/presence, details.
Some a  nuance better than others.

back to my formula.
Amp /5%
Linestage 5%
Source 5%..
Tell ya what, I;'ll give the 3, 10% each, hows that, Im fair, and generous.
That leaves the speaker brand a  wopping 70% of the equation.
Take the finest ever made amp, and linestage

say Usegi's very best linestage and very best tube amp...
The Usegi is still going to adopt the character of the speaker.
The speaker voice is the wopping 70%.
It would be a  waste to run a  Usegi's  electronics through most of the speakers on this list.
Just like i would not pair my amp with  any speaker on this list.
Just wouldn't.
I did not work on my system past 3 yrs, to have it brought down to a  speakers lousey voicing.

Perhaps you might see your speaker on this list. 
If horns are there and WBers are there,,,my apologies.
I've not looked through the entire list.
Linestage are extremely important, but not when we havea  speaker that is  hadicaped and is adding unwanted things to  the ultimate expression.


https://mynewmicrophone.com/full-list-loudspeaker-studio-monitor-brands-manufacturers/

I didn't read most of the comments, but looked for a key word that seems to have been overlooked.  IMPEDANCE.  A preamp is the heart of the system.  It receives musical signals from a variety of sources, often with widely varying output impedances.  The preamp selects the input, manages volume and balance control and outputs the signal to the amp(s) with a single output impedance to drive the amp(s).  

Because the source devices can have a wide variety of output impedances, it is important for the preamp to have a high input impedance.  And to drive a wide variety of amps including those poorly designed amps with low input impedance, it is important for the preamp to have a low output impedance.  

a key word that seems to have been overlooked. IMPEDANCE.

Actually both MillerCarbon and I went into it.  I did very specifically.  And basically, yes, a hgih output Z and low input Z is a bad combination. Plus some (very long) cables may have some issues being driven by a high Z output Z due to capacitance.

... should have continued.  But a DAC **can** have a solid, low-output impedance.  That doesn't mean they all do, or that they are all good ( the vast majority of chip opamps, sigh).  So again, there is no right answer, no simple answer. You need to look into what you have, and evaluate if its lacking. Sorry, math.

I firmly believe that for 99% of applications, a true, discrete, stepped attenuator using a minimal number of resistors, great contacts, and good (not awesome) resistors is pretty darn transparent.

It is.

The thing that is keeping the preamp as a thing in high end audio is the simple fact that most sources don't have the ability to handle the interconnect cable used all that well. A good preamp does. A preamp that colors the sound more than a passive control isn't a good preamp in my book. A good preamp will be less colored than a passive. This is simply on account of the interconnect cables themselves (if you've ever heard differences between cables you know what I'm talking about). Cables will exhibit the greatest amount of coloration with passive devices.

@larsman
When I added a Herron Audio tube pre-amp to my system, it was an immense change, and all for the better.

I have been thinking about a Herron preamp.

Why is better than what you had? What did you have before? What's the rest of your system?

Thanks for listening,


Dsper

Simply stated, a quality pre-amp is critically important in a hi-fi system.  Audition some well regarded preamps in your system before making the leap. 
BOL

@itsjustme 

Like I said, I didn't read every comment. Missed yours and mc's.  And you're right on REALLY LONG cables.

In my single source CD based system, the DIY HiFi Supply Django Mini TVC, with Silk transformers, works great, for what I consider a very reasonable price.

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/diy-hifi-django-mini-tvc-pre

In my system, I consider the pre essential, but I will never go back to active and/or resistive volume control. When I have the funds to make a serious upgrade, I’m looking at the Music First Audio Baby Reference or Reference.

https://www.mfaudio.co.uk/pre-amplifiers/

So in the end, would a high quality integrated be the best way to go (assuming one likes the sound of the unit) due to one less pair of cables, electrical cord, etc?

So in the end, would a high quality integrated be the best way to go (assuming one likes the sound of the unit) due to one less pair of cables, electrical cord, etc?

If you're looking for ultimate sound quality, no. Integrated amps have both power amp sections sharing a common power supply; in rare exceptions they might have dual power supplies (so that's a thing to look for) but you have a lot of other circuitry on the same chassis and finally, to make it work it has to sit between the speakers (since for best results the speaker cables should be kept short). That may not be the best place in the room since vibration can play a role in system performance. Integrated amps often share ground connections, which has the same effect that you hear with a 3-wire headphone hookup as opposed to a 4-wire hookup. Its nice to keep the left and right hand ground circuits separate- that gives you the opportunity for lower noise and possibly less ground loop potential.


Separates have more chassis real estate for things like extra power transformers, regulation and the like. The don't share power cords (unless you plug them all into the same power strip) so there are less voltage drops in the AC supply.

So in the end, would a high quality integrated be the best way to go (assuming one likes the sound of the unit) due to one less pair of cables, electrical cord, etc?

In the end, yes. Because what the separates proponents always leave out is the cost of all that other stuff you mentioned- "cables, electrical cord, etc". Also the single biggest cost factor in a component is the box- the chassis, faceplate, knobs, etc. The "real estate" mentioned above. Every component manufacturer has to turn a profit, money spent on the box is money not spent on the parts that go inside the box, what makes it sound the way it does. You can pay for real estate, or you can pay for quality parts. Cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Also what you want to really get the most out of your whole system is a whole system. Not just a few boxes, but the stuff connecting, powering, supporting, and the room they are in. So you take your budget, whatever it is, divide into integrated, power cord, Pods, and fuse. Then do the same for preamp, amp, TWO power cords, TWO sets of fuses and Pods, PLUS an interconnect. Now all of a sudden you are comparing one really nice integrated with a budget amp and preamp. This is the reality of separates.

At the very highest levels of performance then that is probably the only way to go. Now you are talking 4 digits on the low end to 5 or 6 - per component! They never mention any of these cost factors. Even when you bring it up. How convenient.

OP,
I had to come back to this thread. I just changed the preamp out of my system for a new to me unit and left everything else the same. Transformative is a massive understatement. This is one of the benefits of separates: The ability to pick one component and go for the home run...upgrading other things as time and budget allows. I may consider an integrated for the bedroom system simply because of space savings. I would sound like a total sound geek shill if I tried to explain all the differences this unit made in my system. My first experience with a true audiophile quality preamp has changed my mindset completely. Cheers.

So in the end, would a high quality integrated be the best way to go (assuming one likes the sound of the unit) due to one less pair of cables, electrical cord, etc?

Note the word 'best' in the question above. Integrated amps are a set of compromises. They might be excellent, but if we are talking about best then they will not be able to outperform separates that are built with the intention to be the best. This simple fact has been a thing in audio for the last 70 years and hasn't changed at all in that time.