Does a DAC need a pre-amp

[Speed Racer]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

You are misinterpreting what you have experienced*.

 

Hold on there. You don't get to tell me that I am misinterpreting my experience. Passive preamps have always sounded a bit flat to me...lifeless and boring.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Fitzcaraldo215 said:

For decades, I have found that the introduction of additional analog stages to the signal path inevitably introduced some loss of transparency.  Expensive preamps were better in this regard and their degradation less noticeable, but the issue was still there. No getting around the fact that good analog volume controls are expensive.  Excellent, totally transparent, digital volume controls are much cheaper to produce.

 It's not just your experience, it is a product of the physics of active analog electronics. All else being equal, a preamp or buffer stage with 2 transistor (or op-amp) gain stages is going to sound (and surely measure) better than one with more than two gain stages as each adds it's own set of non-linearities to those inherent in the preceding stages and the effect is cumulative. Just as in a mechanical system, everything adds it's own friction to the overall.

[Speed Racer]

A passive preamp may very well measure better. But that does not mean it will sound better. That's like saying an amp that measures better is going to sound better which is so completely untrue.

[davide256]

 Pre amps are important. I think of them as  the diplomatic buffer and negotiator  between two parties that don't get along well face to face, your sources and your amp.  More of the music gets heard with a good pre-amp in the picture

[gmgraves]

4 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Hold on there. You don't get to tell me that I am misinterpreting my experience. Passive preamps have always sounded a bit flat to me...lifeless and boring.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause offense, I was merely stating a fact. If someone's experience runs counter to known fact, then there is one of only two plausible reasons (well, maybe three if we consider that the observer might be lying about his experiences. But let us set that aside here): his experience is either based on a false premise, or he is misinterpreting what his senses are telling him. I never took any issue with the fact that you might find an active preamp to sound better than a passive one or no preamp (as a matter of fact, in most circumstances, so do I) but that doesn't mean that the addition of such a component doesn't make the overall sound more colored. It's that the trade-off of other factors makes the addition of a pre-amp a more predictable matter in terms of overall sonic performance. I often found that when I bypassed my Audio Research SP11 and ran my Otari MX5050 reel-to-reel recorder directly into my VTL mono blocks, that the sound was cleaner and it was instantly apparent that several "veils" had been removed from the recording. Still, I didn't replace my SP11 with a passive device because some of my components (such as my phono-preamp) couldn't drive my power amp to a sufficient loudness to satisfy me and certain other components sounded kind of thin (for some reason, which might be to what you are alluding). 

[Speed Racer]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

...I was merely stating a fact.

 

No, you are merely stating your opinion.

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

A passive preamp may very well measure better. But that does not mean it will sound better. That's like saying an amp that measures better is going to sound better which is so completely untrue.

 

We still seem to be talking at cross purposes. We are certainly talking about two different things. You are talking about overall sound quality (which is, subjectively speaking, an opinion, that, as I have indicated, I share), and I was talking about adding distortion to the chain by introducing more active components to that chain, which is indisputable. 

[Speed Racer]

Come on, George. This whole hobby is about sound quality, what sounds better, not what measures better.

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, Speed Racer said:

 

No, you are merely stating your opinion.

 

I don't see how you can say that. Do you mean that you dispute that adding more active electronics to an audio chain will add more distortion? I can point you to any number of textbooks which state that outright. It is, my friend, not an opinion, it is a fact! And it is indisputable and easily demonstrated. As to whether it makes a system sound better or worse, that's another issue altogether and is a product of more factors than just added non-linearities.

[gmgraves]

Just now, Speed Racer said:

Come on, George. This whole hobby is about sound quality, what sounds better, not what measures better.

 

That's not the issue. And I certainly know that. But that knowledge doesn't make my argument any less correct. 

[ferenc]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

 

We still seem to be talking at cross purposes. We are certainly talking about two different things. You are talking about overall sound quality (which is, subjectively speaking, an opinion, that, as I have indicated, I share), and I was talking about adding distortion to the chain by introducing more active components to that chain, which is indisputable. 

 

I have DACs with volume setting capability and built-in preamp feature. I have passive and active preamps driving different active studio monitors, they have gain pots as well.

 

The most entertaining way of listening music is the setup when I use my old and really cheap Heed C100 active preamp driven from Roon, SOTM SMS200 and Heed Abacus DAC. None of the other ways are as entertaining as using this preamp based system.

 

So it really does not matter for me how it measures or distorts more than other system combinations. It seems to be my distortion any way, what I really like, if my enjoyment is coming from a distortion. Or not.  

[gmgraves]

17 minutes ago, davide256 said:

 Pre amps are important. I think of them as  the diplomatic buffer and negotiator  between two parties that don't get along well face to face, your sources and your amp.  More of the music gets heard with a good pre-amp in the picture

 

Well stated. The fact that an active preamp, even the best of them, adds noise and distortion to the system notwithstanding, most systems are better with a preamp than without one and largely for the reasons you state. 

[Speed Racer]

I could put a system together with very low distortion numbers that sounds like crap. I can put a system together with much higher distortion numbers that sounds sublime. 

[ferenc]

4 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

Come on, George. This whole hobby is about sound quality, what sounds better, not what measures better.

 

Sorry, but I think it is about listening and enjoying music through some technology. I am not sure what sounds better is more "quality" it is just more of our taste. But we agree, it is not about measuring parameters. 

[gmgraves]

Just now, Speed Racer said:

I could put a system together with very low distortion numbers that sounds like crap. I can put a system together with much higher distortion numbers that sounds sublime. 

 

Again, I agree completely, but you keep missing (or seemingly missing) my point which was introduced purely as an academic aside.

[pkane2001]

2 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Well stated. The fact that an active preamp, even the best of them, adds noise and distortion to the system notwithstanding, most systems are better with a preamp than without one and largely for the reasons you state. 

 

I don't know if most are better, but some -- definitely. And if you want to spend $25k on a circuit that acts as a buffer between two devices, that's your choice.

[Speed Racer]

3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

 

Again, I agree completely, but you keep missing (or seemingly missing) my point which was introduced purely as an academic aside.

 

No. You said that I am misinterpreting my experience. My "experience" said that passive preamps did not sound as good as active preamps. I never said anything about how they measure. How they measure is meaningless in regards to what I said.

[Speed Racer]

I have a preamp that is passive, has a JFET buffer, and has a tube gain stage. I have listened to all three extensively and massively prefer the tube gain stage setting. It is very easy to A/B/C the preamp. But it is in long term listening that I really prefer the tube gain stage.

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

I have a preamp that is passive, has a JFET buffer, and has a tube gain stage. I have listened to all three extensively and massively prefer the tube gain stage setting. It is very easy to A/B/C the preamp. But is in long term listening that I really prefer the tube gain stage.

 

So you enjoy tube euphonic distortion. Good for you. That's what you should lead with, instead of saying anyone who doesn't agree with your preference is 'just plain incorrect'.

 

 

[GUTB]

Time to keep it real. By far the largest source of distortion are the speakers. Distortion is a facet of audio life, and the audiophile will get nowhere fast if he worries overmuch about that as a spec. IMD is evil and should be minimized. But distortion is often euphonic; that is why it’s common knowledge that a quality class A tube line stage is best for a preamp. It’ll smooth digital artifacts, trick your brain with spatial cues, and tweak the signal with to provide all sorts of other audible illusions (increased dynamics, image solidity, definition, etc). All of that in addition to buffering and impedance control tasks it does.

 

A fine analog preamp is an essential part of a quality audio system.

 

As a matter of fact, the parts in the BAT REX aren’t just for show. They do the things outlined above. They were carefully voiced through a master designer’s development process, constantly assessed by ear, and then stablaized into a production form. Dropping a REX into any of you guys’ systems would almost certainly have a dramatic improvement. The belief system in digital attenuation is really just a way to protect egos. Time to break through those barriers.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

There is one right answer -- digital is not better than an analog preamp.

You are correct.  Digital is MUCH better than an analog preamp in a properly gain staged system. 

[GUTB]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

You are correct.  Digital is MUCH better than an analog preamp in a properly gain staged system. 

 

Why don’t you post your system so we can assess these claims?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Hold on there. You don't get to tell me that I am misinterpreting my experience. Passive preamps have always sounded a bit flat to me...lifeless and boring.

So you haven't experience one used properly.  One must pay attention to impedances and cable and gain levels for passives to work well.  They work best with the resistor ladder directly connected to the input of the amp.  Even then you must mind your P's and Q's.  

[Ralf11]

Every active stage adds distortion, but a passive stage may mess up impedance matching, AND with neither, you may reduce the bit-depth while changing the volume.

 

ok?

[esldude]

30 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Why don’t you post your system so we can assess these claims?

I thought it was posted unless it was wiped out in the forum upgrade.  There are a couple items I probably haven't updated in that list. I don't have it in my signature anymore.  Evaluating the worth of someone's ideas by looking at their gear is not exactly great anyway.  

 

I use Soundlabs speakers, and Wyred4Sound CLASS D amps.  So I know you just quit listening. 

Recently I use a couple different ADC/DAC recording interfaces for the preamp.  Most recently some Antelope audio gear.