The future of preamps

Since I ventured into computer-based (source-)audio I've passed on hardware preamps. I guess luck, or perhaps even taste has seen to it that none of the poweramp/source-direct constellations that have gone through my setups have turned out less than favorable - i.e. where impedance/gain matching have tilted the sonics towards the anemic or body-less, something that is quite often reported to occur when named matching goes wrong. My current, and by all accounts future volume control option is 24-bit (preferably 32-bit in the near future) dithered digital attenuation via JRiver MC19; it works and sounds excellent. From what I'm able to assess it's not digital volume controls like the one I'm using right now that inflicts any character on the sound of the sort an analog volume ditto and associated component of the hardware preamp with cables as a whole would create, so whatever character arises with the use of a software-based digital volume control, insofar the poweramp/DAC-direct combo is an electrically suitable match, is more likely to be an "effect" created, and to be corrected elsewhere. This, at least, is my stance as is.

The future use of hardware preamps may maintain a certain level due to the continuing bloom of turntable/LP use. I'm likely never to return to analog, so the hardware preamp won't either.

I'd wager whether "Bit stripping" of the signal with 24-bit digital dithered volume controls isn't mostly of academic order (32-bit dittos wouldn't, in this regard, pose any in-use limitiations, at all) - that is, where it is stated it's very often based on a theoretical non-listening experience foundation. Only high sensitive speakers and high-gain combinations could tend to pose a possible sonic limitation here, and highly sensitive speakers is not what overflows the market as is.. For what it's worth my own setup includes moderately sensitive speakers (~93dB), and it sounds terrific at lower volumes with the digital volume attenuation named above.

If for whatever reason one doesn't like the final sonic outcome where digital attenuation is involved without a separate hardware preamp, the bit stripping (i.e.: truncation) is by all accounts not a factor as much, or at all as the totality of this implementation; if one has carefully tuned a setup through the use of a hardware preamp the negation of this preamp (leaving in its place a software-based digital ditto) could easily tilt the sound in a direction reflecting back negatively on the preamp as a source of more or less outspoken coloration and synergy-effect, than what is an inherent limitation of its digital stand-in solution. I'd rather rid my setup of a hardware preamp so long as the analog output stage of the source can be made to drive the poweramp suitable (which is certainly possible) - hereby doing the same as the hardware preamp, yet without an extra hardware component and set of cables.

Audiolabyrinth --

Hi, no my source (direct to poweramp) is 24-bit as described in reply no. 3 from above. I would gladly convert to a 32-bit source and digital volume control if it really meant providing that extra last "ounce" of insight, clarity, resolution, organic quality or whatever to the sonic presentation (most notably perhaps at lower volumes), and it is only a matter of time when this occurs rather than "if." Until this happens there is much to treasure with a (24-bit sourced) dithered volume control a la JRiver MC19. Several who have listened to my setup have - without in any way being lead by me to this observation - noted very positively the level of clarity, information, and "ingition" at lower levels, though I believe this could be an affect of the use of a compression driver with waveguide as well. Still, had the digital volume control here used been a limiting factor at especially lower levels it remains questionable whether reports of the very opposite had flourished as they did. It is not, as you can deduce from above, that I believe 24-bit sourced dithered digital volume controls to be flawless, but they are, many things being equal, extremely capable. And when a 32-bit source is finally implemented, bit depth and any associated thought of truncation would not be my concern at all.

I'm a bit confounded why it would be implicitly, and quite arrogantly assumed I'm not using my ears when stating the above; I most certainly base my findings on actual listening impressions, and there's nothing in the slightest anemic/thin/lean/unemotional or what else that robs my sonic experience from an organic, coherent, and effortless presentation through my setup without a hardware preamp. I have heard MANY setups, some of them extremely expensive (>$100,000), using hardware preamps (both solid state and tubes), and through a not insignificant number of these what has struck was: a malnourished, too soft presentation that furthermore lacked coherency and dynamic impact. I'm guessing this has less to do with the fact that hardware preamps were used here than the speakers used, and other combined factors. What I'm actually saying is also that the oftentimes prejudiced stance that 24-bit digital volume controls are marred by truncation effects is blown out of proportion, and that ACTUAL LISTENING has told me and my ears something very different. Perhaps there's much more in store for me with the addition of a hardware preamp, but until such (listening-)experience would tell me so I'm trusting my ears damn well enough to know that it sounds great without one.

Atmasphere --

Phusis, I would guess that the reason is you have had a spat of bad luck, as your experience is one of the minority. A lot does depend on the preamp though and they are not all created equal! Some simply act as filters in the system. If you have been working with such preamps I would not doubt that you reasonably arrived at your conclusion.

Thanks for your response. I would add that not all DAC's are equally created either, and that the analog output stages here used vary (to include some that are good matches for a direct poweramp coupling) with regard to their abilities to properly drive a poweramp - something you know, of course, but a factor that needs more visibility in discussing this subject, as I see it. I'm not necessarily after simplicity per se - as in, it cannot simply overrule sonic impressions as a general principle - but I like keeping it as a mind(out-)set , even as a counterweight to conventional "wisdom" in developing a setup. Had my impressions of the DAC-direct approach, in the combinations I have tried, been less than favorable I would surely have gone back to using a hardware preamp(models from Electrocompaniet, Classé and Cary being the last ones - the latter indeed with tubes..).

Charles1dad --

Thanks for your reply. I am perfectly fine with some of us having to agree to disagree amongst a variety of taste and opinions, so this is not my dispute. I was after the subtle, back-handed notions - insofar they were directed at me, let alone that they existed at all - that I was lacking the sole experience of actually listening before forming an opinion on the related matter, a seeming prejudice against digital volume controls (speaking of actually having the experience), and that a scent of "we, the lovers of active preamps, know the sonic truth; you don't" persisted. I may have overblown the existence of all this, but truth be told there's a rather overwhelming preference for the use of an active preamp (something that can have other reasons than SQ alone), and I guess some, if not most of these haven't made extensive experiments with a DAC-direct approach; the inertia, or convention of using an active preamp is very likely a factor.

Marqmike --

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Your reference to having a history of "exposure" to live music makes for an interesting, and highly relevant backdrop with regard to "having an ear" for evaluating reproduced music, and how this relates to a more strict understanding of the term "hifi." I do not intend the walk down the absolutism-path with this (nor do I read your reply in such a way), but it is a valuable piece of information about knowing what real, live acoustic music sounds like, in a living room no less, and how this could ground some of the subjective views that "all is just as good," insofar we're actually interested in what live acoustic music sounds like, and that having the goal, or simply a natural inclination towards seeing it reproduced most faithfully has any meaning. Myself I have attended quite a lot of classical concerts, mostly symphonic scale, and more intimate jazz/club concerts as well, and through the last years has been very keen on how to recognize the signature or "pattern" of live music in optimizing my own setup - not an easy task, and one that takes some perceptive tricks to achieve, to me at least.

I think if one has an active one would probably need to do more than drop a passive in to compare. I think you really need to pick your components for a passive system to optimize it. Just like you would do with changing any component. I say that (as many here say that the pre amp has a considerable effect and change on a sound system)because I think going from a active to a passive is one of the bigger changes one would make to a system.

This is exactly one of the main points in discussing this subject. Well said.

Asa --

I know, this is hardly dispositive in an empiric sense, but I know of a guy who streams only digital into class D amps - talks a lot, doesn't listen much, cognitively chatters like a monkey - and who says that his is the most "transparent" way, it just has to be, its so, um, logical.

My response? You can't describe the color purple to a blind man...

Who're you referring to?