The Best Preamp is no Preamp?

Sorry, integrated amps 

I suppose integrates could have a say in this? Thanks 

Thus, the only explanation for this is that the brain “likes” certain types and amounts of distortion. A more complex topic is how distortion from different parts of the chain interact.

@tangramca There is more than one explanation! If you've ever heard differences between interconnect cables then you know that they can color the sound too. A good linestage can vastly reduce this coloration (on account of its lower output impedance). If the linestage is doing its job properly you might not hear any significant difference between interconnect cables at all.

Intellectually, removing a piece of gear from the chain must remove distortion.

Yet, so many experienced audiophiles try passive and return to active preamps because they “sound better” in their systems.

Thus, the only explanation for this is that the brain “likes” certain types and amounts of distortion. A more complex topic is how distortion from different parts of the chain interact. 

I just sent my Zesto Leto in for service.   That preamp sounds incredible, its getting the ESP Power Supply update that the new Ultra II has.    I have a Conrad Johnson Classic 2se and Sonic Frontiers SFL-1 ,  both of which are decent but the Zesto walks all over them.  The difference is so pronounced in my system its not even funny.   Preamp IS the most important component in the chain .

I agree with a 'less is more' approach but It could have been the Marantz holding your system performance back.

I'm feeding a CD player directly into my Sophia EL 34. Anything else comes in on an "Aux" input. It sounds glorious.

I have to agree with ghdprentice and phantom_av: the vast majority of the time, a great (tube) pre-amp is essential.

It really depends on what you have. We have tried to forego a pre-amp and go direct from Streamer (Linn Selekt DSM w/Kalayst DAC) to our Pass Labs monos. And while there were gains in resolution, it was not the type of resolution you want to actually LISTEN to--at least for more than a song or two.

The tube pre-amp gives us all the resolution of the direct method--that is: everything we heard going direct was there with the pre-amp. But here's the the trick: it was the pre-amp's arrangement and emphases of the frequencies and detail that made it both (audiophile-terminology alert!) musical/dynamic and cohesive (properly packaged with sounds in proper relation to each other).

Perhaps if we had the MSB Select or dCS Vivaldi+, we would have different results. But I really do not think so.

The gains in going direct are unbridled detail. But is that what audio systems are designed to do? Maybe a stethoscope is. But a MUSIC system is supposed to trick our brains into believing (coupled with our willing disbelief) that we are sitting I front of the live performance.

And that requires a tonal and dimensional consideration that a direct connection is usually incapable of delivering.

After purchasing the Lumin X1, I realized how much cleaner, open and dynamic the sound can be without a preamp.

I ended up selling my Ayre KX-20 preamp along with all the extra cables, footers and streamlined my system.

ozzy

Yeah I missed that too.

I just re-read the post and realized the OP was using a damn AVR as a preamp.  And not just any AVR, but a Marantz AVR which, IME is one of the most veiled and colored AVRs out there.  So no wonder when the OP heard the detail and transparency of going direct to the amp he found it revelatory.  My advice would be to demo some good stereo preamps and see if they improve things further — my experience is likely they will.  Also, at some point gotta upgrade from those Emotiva  amps, which aren’t worthy of a good stereo pre IMHO.  My $0.02 FWIW. 

I currently have a VTA SP12(bob latino) It is currently running passive buffer with 12AU7 Tungsol. All it takes is change one wire and I could have active. It has remote volume, but I doubt it’s anything special.  @ozzy what is your definition of "good" amp?  Thanks

@ozzy62,

fully agreed: twenty years ago I replaced a Graaf 13.5B with a simple Modsquad passive feeding a Graff GM20. The phono stage was a Zyx Artisan and digital was a then state of the art dac. Ever since I have gone either passive or direct from the DAC.If the source has sufficient voltage at adequate impedance additional pre circuitry is simply detrimental.

@daledeee1 A lot depends on what type of passive you are using. All are not created equal.

Edit:

I just looked at your system. You are doing yourself a huge disservice if you don't at least listen to a couple of good tube amps on those speakers. I owned them in the past so I know of what I speak.

I think I have a good example of when a passive pre works.  100 dB speakers  PASS XA25 with 20dB of gain.  1.25V will run the amp at full power.  The lowest active preamp I could find was 5dB.  Even now with this passive setup at times I only need to turn it up to say 10AM.  An active will change the sound I know.  Are there active solutions for my setup?  I don't really want to mess with tube amps.  Tube preamps would sound OK but too much gain might make my volume very sensative?  I think.

The best preamp is no preamp only until you hear high quality active preamp

@sns 

While I don't disagree that active preamps can be very good, I think if a high quality passive doesn't beat it, your system is what's at fault. I have owned many "higher end" active preamps from CJ, ARC, deHavilland, Art Audio, Lamm, Audible Illusions, Cary, BAT, and the list goes on. But a TVC or LDR beat every one of them.

There are a lot of debats on this but I just share my experience.  Shorter signal path is better. I am running straight from Dac (as Dac mode) to PA and the system sounds really well.  I maximize the volume on the source and adjust the volume on PA to reach the listening level.  I also found playing CD/SACD player straight into PA is better than going through Dac, even though the internal Dac inside the player is lesser than the external Dac I had.

Sound reinforcement systems don't have pre-speaker-amp "preamps" as a concept even.

Of course they do! The preamp is known as a 'mixer'.

*******************************

There are four functions a preamp provides:

1) provide input switching

2) provide volume control

3) provide any needed gain (tuners usually do not make enough output to drive a power amp directly; many make only 1 volt)

4) (and the least understood) control interconnect cables; prevent or reduce them from adding colorations due to cable construction (if you've ever auditioned cables and heard differences you know what I'm talking about).

If you use the balanced line system, you can reduce cable artifacts and should eliminate ground loops entirely. The balanced line system is intended to be low impedance which rules out passive systems. I tried this decades ago and found dramatic differences between cables that were eliminated when I used an active line stage that drove balanced cables properly (e.i. supports AES48, the balanced line standard).

Streaming directly to my power amp on my second system for years. In my First Second System, I had an amplifier with gain controls and a Denon CD player that also provided some limited volume control. Plugged the CD player in direct to the power amp. Great sonic result and it’s simpler to manage. Even simpler now with streaming. 
 

Since the OP mentioned a Marantz preamp, will also say that I’m very happy with the sound of my main rig setting my AV7001 in PureDirect mode. I need a preamp on my main rig because of all the input devices to control.  But it just seems to make sense that if I can cut out a layer of electronics, I’ll get closer to the actual source signal. This seems analogous to hearing a Direct-To-Disk vinyl record vs ones that were made mixed and mastered the usual way. 

The best preamp is no preamp only until you hear high quality active preamp. The added resolution, transparency one may hear sans pre vs lower quality pre is generally initial novelty Many will discern analytical flavor over longer term, seek out pre to add, others may assume this as good as it gets, until they hear the magic that great active pre can bring to the table. I can easily convince myself my active pre is most important component in my system, it was game changer for me.

Brandonhifi the Qutest is not designed to drive an amp directly. There if this is your intent  I would look at the Hugo2 at a minimum as it has some form of volume control. The TT2 and Dave a designed with this use in mind. For my money the best implementation of a dac as a preamp is by MSB but you are talking about a lot more money to get into one of their dacs. 

Over the many decades I have owned various passive pres, autoformers, stepped attenuaters, dedicated preamps/dacs (tube/ss), and for a couple years now, what I think is the best opf them all: Audio Alchemy DDP-1 + PS 5 (PS -5 being essential to optimize the DDP-1). I am surprised dac/pres aren't more popular. Mine saves shelf space, PLUS an extra; digital cable, power cord and isolation devices

Absent an (active) preamp one is effectively listening to the source device's output stage, which is most cases has been designed to drive a preamp and not a power amp. In addition, many digital volume controls lose resolution at lower signal levels. In your specific case, it's relevant that the Chord equipment has both a very well designed output stage and a very high quality digital volume control implementation. I'm not surprised that the setup sounds better than with the Marantz in circuit. Not only are you eliminating the electronics, but a set of interconnects. To echo previous posts, given well designed source electronics, no preamp will most likely be better than a poor one. Lastly, preamps  generaly do, of course, provide source switching which many people need - statement of the obvious perhaps, but relevant nonetheless.

Logic suggests that adding a complex preamp with many active components is likely to degrade sound by the distortion introduced in an otherwise pure signal passing from source to amp/speakers.

So what I'd like to hear on this issue from someone qualified is:

If a particular preamplifier can improve sound compared to eliminating it, what is it that the preamplifier adds or changes that makes the sound better?

And what is it that was wrong with the signal from source that required improvement?

Sounds better, or different?

Time will tell you which is better for YOU, but usually, with every component in an audio system that has synergy, a pre-amp included provides the most enjoyable music reproduction.

Working Audio Engineer here. There are three functional ranges of signal:

• Mic Level - This is the miniscule signal that comes from a microphone. It’s tiny! That’s why microphones are run into preamps. The preamps job is the amplify the signal to:
• Line Level - This is the regular, useable, routable signal bouncing around a mixer, compressor, EQ, ADC, etc etc etc, including your DAC. It’s strong enough to power headphones, but you aren’t really gonna move speakers with it. That’s why you feed your line level signal to a speaker amplifier so you get:
• Speaker Level - This is when you’ve got serious juice and could do some damage if you aren’t careful. Whether it’s 20W, 200W, or 2000W, you’ve gotta make sure you are sending the right level to the right gear or you can blow things up.

So... No, you don’t need a preamp. Your DAC is already outputting a Line Level signal, which is exactly what your speaker amp expects. Why add more gear, more noise, more devices to the signal? Could it help - maybe. Could it hurt - definitely. Sound reinforcement systems don't have pre-speaker-amp "preamps" as a concept even.

(In case anyone is wondering, my at home rig at the moment is a Peachtree Audio Nova125, which has an integrated USB DAC. It's the only unit between the computer and the speakers.)

Bought a Carver TFM amp in the mid 90s. Sounded great with CD player going into it directly. I used the gain knobs on the front panel for each channel as volume knobs. Sounded clean.

Sometime around 2008 I bought a new NAD preamp...entry level stuff @ $700. I was expecting to lose a little resolution going into the Carver. Sounded soooo much better. More body, more bass...it had this softness and smoothness. It did not make sense at the time.

I had to turn the gain knobs on the amp all the way up to max (as recommended by the Carver manual) to use a preamp. I thought it was going to blow up...but it sounded beautiful.

The class A gain stages in preamps are designed to handle very delicate signals much better than the gain stages in your average amp.

Using an AVR for pre amp, says enough!

You could go with just a control amplifier. 

I have to agree a great preamp will change and reveal what your system should sound like with the magic quality,  compared to just playing music nicely. I ran a parasound preamp( holo no real  sound was stale, dead sounding), then ran balanced xlr from balanced dac smsl to a old but nice anthem reciever amp( cheap way to get great volume control but no real magic to the sound but nice for cheap).

Then ran a conrad Johnson pv11 with tubes but no xlrs, opened stage, could hear separation better but not coherent, was happier but still missing something. Then bought audio research ls17, omg wow drop your jaw. This was use as reference for reviewers 10 years ago and I know why. 4k or 5k new. Run fully balanced smsl to audio research ls17 out to jeff rowland class a amp to 1.6r Maggie's.  Wow the sound went holographic, live sounds amazing, can hear all instruments  in sound stage but sounded musical, and bass tightened up so much and hit harder, so it's a journey but preamps can take, control, and pull everything  together to sound amazing.

Recently, i tested going from my Lampi Pacific direct to my 300B mono amps.  I was shocked at how good it sounded.  Maybe it is system-dependent but in my case with 98db horn speakers and having 16 Wesstern Electric 300 B tubes in my amps, I don't need a brain.  

exactly, a good pre-amp in the chain always seems to work better.

from my personal experience, DAC direct to Amp sound flat and sometimes the bass just sounds even worse.

Granted my sample size is small at only one, but I heard people waxing poetic about no preamp. So I ran my Audiolab 8300CDQ directly to my Aragon Palladium 2 monoblocks. It seemed good. Until I hooked a preamp back up. Holy moley, a ton of detail, separation and soundstage came back. The 8300 has a "class A" preamp section in it with a digital volume control. It could not compete with a preamp.

It was enough of a difference, that I don't plan on not using a preamp again.

My system sounds much better with a pre amp in the mix. I have a PS Audio BHK pre amp, PS Audio DSD Sr. DAC (which has a volume control), and PS Audio BHK250 power amp pushing Tannoy DC8Ti speakers. About a year ago, I sent the BHK pre in for repair and went straight from the DAC to the BHK250. My system sounded terrible by comparison.

I agree 100%. I have the exact DAC, pre & amp as you, driving Maggie 1.7is with 2 REL subs & the BHK pre transformed the sound. It sounded great with out the pre, but putting that BHK in the chain made it sound amazing.

this is a case where specifics drive the outcome, generalities are fun coffee table chatter, but are inconsequential

I think this is gospel.  It all depends. But, as so many above say, typically a great preamp is better than no preamp.  I'm glad this is working for you though. Don't forget about how lucky you are to have stumbled on your no-preamp-situation when you make your next move....I. mean, if you make your next move. :). 

My system sounds much better with a pre amp in the mix.  I have a PS Audio BHK pre amp, PS Audio DSD Sr. DAC (which has a volume control), and PS Audio BHK250 power amp pushing Tannoy DC8Ti speakers.  About a year ago, I sent the BHK pre in for repair and went straight from the DAC to the BHK250.  My system sounded terrible by comparison. 

I bought a used PS Audio Gain Cell DAC and used it as my preamp until the BHK pre came back.  The Gain Cell DAC sounded fair, but no where near as good as the BHK pre.  

I had my Benchmark LA4 out of commission for a couple of weeks and was using a Denon receiver to fill the gap.  Even in pure direct mode the sound quality was significantly worse.  As per an earlier poster, I’m not surprised you found an improvement removing the Marantz from the chain.   

Then the answer is, what ever works for you. No final concreate answer, many variables that will determine many diffrent ways.

As to me, Pre-amp is very very important, but of course you need a very good pre-amp otherwise possible answer would be to avoid it and go direct to DAC.

A quality active preamplifier is much better then a passive dac to amplifier ,

especially if you have a Quality vaccum tube preamp the signal is amplified and transformer ,choke gain stage when under load is bigger soundstage ,deeper and better imaging ,adding the vacuum tubes adds an added dimension ,having owned a Audio store ,as well as Audiophile for over 40 years I have had every combination 

and their is plenty of ample proof putting a Quality preamplifier at least a  $5 k lie stage preamplifier is far better then use dac to amplifier you need to spend money 

to get mid Audiophile quality .

Like everything - depends on the preamp.

I'm using just the amp and a dac and I think it sounds great. For others maybe not but I'm happy with it. 

I agree. My system sounds much better going straight from the dac into the amp, and I had a great sounding preamp. My dac is fpga based with an attenuation control so I can get the best sound by using this control.

No preamp is better than Bad preamps.

Preamp is the brain of the system, so many pieces of audio/video equipment to hook up to it. I guess if all you have is a DAC, you could bypass it but I would never be able to live with just a DAC.

Using a Lumin DAC is an exception, as Lumin uses Leedh volume control processing which more than some have found to be superior to their high-end preamps. My Lumin X1 direct into MasterSound PF100 monoblocks using Leedh sounds great! Your mileage, of course, may vary. 

Like adult diapers, it depends.

I’ve used a preamp section of my marantz receiver (higher end one than op’s) when my actual preamp was sent for repairs. It sounded pretty terrible, to a point a stopped listening to music on that system until the preamp came back from repairs

this is a case where specifics drive the outcome, generalities are fun coffee table chatter, but are inconsequential

Bingo!  This is totally system and listener dependent.  First, and most important question — what preamp were you using before?  My guess, if you actually demo a good preamp your song will change.  I’ve found the preamp to be, other then speakers and my room, to be the most consequential component in my system.  Also, your amps are meh so that’s something else to look at.  Ignore the preamp at your peril. 

+2 to what @ghdprentice ​​​​@lowrider57 and others already shared. 

And, long listening sessions with a triode based tube preamp can be extra-engaging too. It comes down to what type of sound and presentation you prefer.