preamp vs. no-preamp


Hi guys, I would like to know your opinions regarding the classic question (which also has been posted many times in this forum, I know, I know) whether or not a preamp is needed for a good (= musical sound). You see, if you can delete the preamp and connect the DAC into the poweramp, you can save lots of money, sometimes up to $ 15,000 for a Conrad-Johnson ART (this is off course an extreme example). The money you have spent on the preamp can be used for buying a better source or amplifier (mono's?). So theoretically if you don't have a preamplifier you can improve the sound reproduction by: deleting redundant audio circuitry and interconnect cables, upgrading the quality of you source, poweramplifier or speakers.
My personal experience is that without a preamplifier the sound is becoming thin and uninvolving, but I know there are audiophiles who don't have a preamp in their audio system.
dazzdax
Every passive preamp I have tried has cut down on both dynamics/microdynamics and resolution/detail. They all tended to put a veil on the music that was not good at all.

One thing about live music is that it is dynamic. If there is one sin I cannot forgive in a component is lack of dynamics. I can forgive something sounding a little more dynamic than it should in certain areas of the frequency spectrum, but lack of dynamics is a pretty big audio sin...

I will say this Saxo, many tube preamps are not the end all in resolution by a long shot. Many solid state preamps are not either. There are not a whole lot of excellent preamps be them tube or SS made.

I must admit that I have not tried some of the state of the art passives of today. Not too many companies make passive preamps to begin with.... This should tell us something about them. Good ideas tend to be copied in the audio world. If a technology works well people will build it and refine it.

I really WANT to know what Capitole uses to regulate volume. If it's regulation is as good as Tireguy says, they should make a preamp with the same technology (maybe they do, I have not done the research).

KF
Passive's are not "preamps". A "passive" is simply a "line level attenuator" that may also function as a "line level switchbox" if it has multiple inputs. While one could argue that it is a technically a "pre-amplifier" because it is before the amplifier, the name "preamplifier" came about as there was a need for amplification prior ( or "pre" ) the final gain stages of a high level amplifier. As such, a "preamp" was "amping the signal prior to the main amp".

Let's get the terminology right, stick to it and use it accordingly. Either that, or you'll all be forced to write a 5000 word essay on the subject. Preamp's have a gain stage : ) Sean
>

PS... Don't get me started about buffered units. All hell would break loose then : )
If a preamp actually amplifies, where on the volume control is zero gain? That would have to be about 5 oclock on the dial, which we never use. So why would we want to amplify a signal just to attenuate it?

I understand that a preamp doesn't actually amplify, rather it optimizes impedences to optimize power transfer. Of course, whether one can hear the difference continues to be the subject of debate (in my mind as well).
Remember that all passives are not alike. There are resistive and transformer based passives. There are significant differences in the impedance matching characteristics. The transformer based passives may not exhibit any of the problematic qualities that many of you have experienced in your resistive passives. They should not be "lumped together" because they are very different.
Gboren the gain is the constant value on the most of the preamps. There are preamps with variable gain. Turning volume up or down you still working with already amplified signal.
Changing the volume by changing the amp's gain is not efficient and will not sound right.