Adding a pre amp

[sandyk]

6 hours ago, jabbr said:

I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been said but one of the best reasons for a pre-amplifier is to to match a high output impedance source with a low input impedance amplifier i.e. to amplify current.

 They are also normally able to properly drive much longer cables, as well as higher capacitance type cables, sometimes even being able to properly drive a 75 ohm cable terminated at the amplifier end.(my DIY Preamp can)  Some recent model solid state amplifiers have a much lower input impedance too, with a trend to input resistances such as 10 Kohms.

In fact, even lower input impedances in Solid State amplifiers can also result in a lower DC offset at their output.

[Mustu]

I have ordered the JRD Capri S2 

[mevdinc]

20 hours ago, Spacehound said:

Sound quality isn't 'subjective' at all. What you personally happen to like is.

Agreed but I didn't say or imply SQ was subjective.

[Blake]

On 2/25/2018 at 6:35 AM, Spacehound said:

HiFi is simple engineering, not difficult, and well understood.

 

Hmmmmmm........

 

[firedog]

On 2/26/2018 at 3:04 AM, Kimo said:

It was a Citron.

 

On 2/26/2018 at 2:58 AM, Spacehound said:

BTW: It wasn't an apple, either  They don't have apple trees in the ME, it's too hot. More likely an olive.

 

The Hebrew text literally says "the fruit of the tree"; no type of tree or fruit is mentioned. So any mention of what fruit is intended by the text is some type of speculation. 

 

On 2/26/2018 at 3:12 AM, Spacehound said:

Did citrons exist then

Citrons have certainly existed for a long time and are still farmed. They are one of the 4 fruits that are considered the "original" citrus fruits - all other citrus fruits are some genetic/branch-root hybrid based on a mix of 2 or more of these 4 original species. The citron is considered the oldest and most "pure" of the four. 

[KingRex]

I heard on another forum about 20% of the recorded information is lost between the mic and the tape.  Hold that kernel of thought and think records and RIAA now.  Once again lost information.  

 

It seems there are 2 thought camps here.  One purity to the source and the other attempted reproduction of assumed real instrument sound from the speaker.

Per my opening statement above, if you have no preamp and go for accurate to the source, right off the batt you are missing 20% of the "music ".  If you really ascribe to no preamp, would you not also have all RIAA resistors in your phono pre removed as they are coloring the source as well as being more material in the signal path.

 

If you use a preamp,  you are adding distortion and coloring the music.  Its a bit of a crap shoot whether you are adding back in color that gets your speakers to give an accurate picrure of what was lost from the point of the mic forward.  IMHO, this is where building a preamp is a very difficult art.  There is nothing simple or text book about recreating something lost.

[Mustu]

Well I am holding of the Capri.... Yes!!! did some research.... I I add a pre it will be the CORUS.

 

On Sunday after a few of them single malts..... Ah the Music!!!

 

Music and Malts go so well..... !!!

[KingRex]

I tried to state the above in a neutral position. I am only trying to say I feel either topology is inherently flawed.  Therefore it is only a personal decision to use or not use a preamp.  There is no right or wrong. 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, KingRex said:

I tried to state the above in a neutral position. I am only trying to say I feel either topology is inherently flawed.  Therefore it is only a personal decision to use or not use a preamp.  There is no right or wrong. 

 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights do make a left. A flawed recording will not get any better if you add additional distortion to it.

 

[GUTB]

Saying SQ is subjective is a truism, but it’s a useless one.

 

Everyone knows what sounds good, even if they can’t conciously qualify it. It’s true that some people will try and pretend what they have sounds good (ie, class D, vintage speakers, etc) but they don’t enjoy the listening experience. Others lack a frame of reference to judge good vs better sound: those who think thier DAC’s volume control is fine likely fall into this category.

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Saying SQ is subjective is a truism, but it’s a useless one.

 

Everyone knows what sounds good, even if they can’t conciously qualify it.

 

If you know that SQ is subjective, then how could you possibly state anything about what sounds good to me or to anyone other than yourself? Do you understand what the word 'subjective' means?

 

[rickca]

1 hour ago, mustafakaiser said:

I add a pre it will be the CORUS.

Then you must listen to the Corus with the JRDG ultracapacitor Power Supply (designed for Corus and Aeris DAC).  It's only $8200 last time I looked!

[KingRex]

It is a little funny to hear someone say sound quality is subjective, but in a roundabout way say my subjective opinion is wrong.

[barrows]

2 hours ago, KingRex said:

If you use a preamp,  you are adding distortion and coloring the music.  Its a bit of a crap shoot whether you are adding back in color that gets your speakers to give an accurate picrure of what was lost from the point of the mic forward

It is not a "crap shoot" it is impossible.  No audio component can know "what was lost".  Additionally, "what was lost" is entirely different with every recording; to expect that an audio component could add that back is the same as flying unicorns.

 

This process is not all analagous to RIAA equalization, as that (for the most part) is entirely standardized such that everyone knows "what was lost" and how to put it back.

 

All we can hope for is an accurate reproduction of the recording, warts and all, but without artifacts caused by the playback process.  Once one is there, if they might like to add a little extra "warmth" or something like that, in order to cover up some of the flaws of poor recordings, that is one thing, a subjective choice.  That subjective choice is OK, as long as the system builder doing it understands that the approach is inaccurate, and reduces the systems potential with better recordings.  To add artifacts to the playback, and think it is returning "what was lost" is delusional.

[GUTB]

Hence my statement that SQ is subjective truism is useless -- to us. A 3rd world villager who grew up without any audio is given a $10 pocket radio tuner: this would be the peak of SQ from the village's subjective view. Of course we all know the pocket radio sounds like crap and none of us would give the slightest credit to any opinion otherwise.

 

The subjective SQ truism is really a rhetorical device to hide the objective truth that some things really do sound better than something else. Lets just be real for 5 seconds.

[Samuel T Cogley]

8 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Hence my statement that SQ is subjective truism is useless -- to us. A 3rd world villager who grew up without any audio is given a $10 pocket radio tuner: this would be the peak of SQ from the village's subjective view. Of course we all know the pocket radio sounds like crap and none of us would give the slightest credit to any opinion otherwise.

 

A rather elitist take IMHO.  Depending on whether the "$10 pocket radio" could drive modest earbuds, the "none of us" qualifier may not stand up to any intellectual scrutiny.

 

Quote

The subjective SQ truism is really a rhetorical device to hide the objective truth that some things really do sound better than something else. Lets just be real for 5 seconds.

 

"hide the objective truth"?  How about this:  Some or even many might say, "different" instead of "better".  And that, IMHO, casts substantial doubt on the veracity of this whole elitist diatribe.

[pkane2001]

14 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Hence my statement that SQ is subjective truism is useless -- to us. A 3rd world villager who grew up without any audio is given a $10 pocket radio tuner: this would be the peak of SQ from the village's subjective view. Of course we all know the pocket radio sounds like crap and none of us would give the slightest credit to any opinion otherwise.

 

The subjective SQ truism is really a rhetorical device to hide the objective truth that some things really do sound better than something else. Lets just be real for 5 seconds.

 

So because 'SQ is subjective' is a truism you can just ignore it and treat it as false? I'm trying to follow your logic. Is that statement true or false?

 

[mansr]

31 minutes ago, barrows said:

This process is not all analagous to RIAA equalization, as that (for the most part) is entirely standardized such that everyone knows "what was lost" and how to put it back.

RIAA EQ avoids losing things by boosting high frequencies above the surface noise.

[KingRex]

My RIAA comment is probably incorrect as it is known what is being eliminated and brought back.  I thought RIAA was used to reduce the amount of wall Groove cutting required to reproduce Bass notes in the recording.

As far as subjective, I'm going to make an assumption that most everyone posting here has heard many systems and has a opinion of what they have heard and like.   Our subjective opinions are based upon experience and personal preference.  A newbie would be totally confused by this conversation. 

[Ralf11]

you can use interpolation to fill in an expected value when a click or pop is present...

 

I see no reason why a box with a DAC chip in it ("a DAC") cannot provide all the functionality of a pre-amp in a separate box

[KingRex]

Something else that may have been discussed on this thread but I don't remember is the quality of equipment. I had a Bel Canto one DAC that was fed by a very nice linear power supply. It did an acceptable job as a DAC. Ran directly from that to my amps was not right.  It was very flat as in no dynamics.  It was smeared and unpleasant to listen to.  I also had a Khozmic passive.  That was very clear and accurate.  Nothing I could say was wrong, just not the end for me.  A Chord Dave and Blu may be the ticket by themselves, but I have never heard them in my system.  My point is that a supporter of no preamp could have unacceptable results if the quality of the DAC and associated volume attenuation in the device are not of a quality equal to or better than the rest of the system.  It could end up a choke point as it did in mine.   

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, KingRex said:

My RIAA comment is probably incorrect as it is known what is being eliminated and brought back.  I thought RIAA was used to reduce the amount of wall Groove cutting required to reproduce Bass notes in the recording.

That as well.

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I see no reason why a box with a DAC chip in it ("a DAC") cannot provide all the functionality of a pre-amp in a separate box

There are many such devices.

[mav52]

After reading all of this, I'll just keep my pre-amps. 

[diecaster]

1 hour ago, mav52 said:

After reading all of this, I'll just keep my pre-amps. 

 

My 40 years of experience never had that in doubt!