Adding a pre amp

[Spacehound]

This is SO  easy.

 

If the DAC has a volume control it's:

DAC------->POWER AMP------->SPEAKERS

Any given DAC  (with a volume control) is going have an output stage near enough the same any give preamp. Each box adds a small amount of distortion, it can never  'improve' the signal it receives.

 

So unless you HAVE have some 'analogue'  inputs  adding a preamp just distorts it some more. If you don't accept that you aren't interested in high fidelity (equals 'good sound'). Take  your fancy equipment to the local dump and go  buy a fifty dollar ghetto blaster.

 

[Spacehound]

On ‎12‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 8:42 PM, coot said:

tI highly recommend adding a pre. I did so acoupla months ago. It improved SQ by "fleshing out", providing a fuller, richer body over all.  You will like the improvement.

 

On ‎12‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 8:42 PM, coot said:

I highly recommend adding a pre. I did so acoupla months ago. It improved SQ by "fleshing out", providing a fuller, richer body over all.  You will like the improvement.

"Fleshing out"  is distortion whether you like it or not. Fine, it's your money.

 

But  do you think it's a good  idea to suggest  to others that they deliberately distort their sound? You haven't even put any kind of  'qualification' in.

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

 

Sigh. 

 

I don’t care so much about the distortion my tube preamp may add to the signal. I do care about the sound quality I hear. My tube preamp increases the pleasure I get from listening to music. You can quote all the theory you want. The proof is in the listening!

Good for you. But you are NOT seeking "sound quality", which is entirely objective, you are just buying what you personally prefer. Which is fine.

 

I have seriously thought about   buying both a tube preamp and a tube power amp.

 

But if I do that  it will be with   full awareness  that  it is not high fidelity  (=  sound quality)  that I am seeking. Which is why I have not done it.

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, diecaster said:

 

 

If the only path to “high fidelity” were less distortion, amps with the best specs would sound the best. There is more to great sound than spec sheets. 

There is a school of thought, of which I am a  member, that the more money you spend the more everything should sound the same. (Playing the  same  recording  of course )

 

You want what is possibly the best 'high fidelity' amp in the world? Try  the Cambridge Audio 851 power amp. It's only about 1,500 dollars. You probably won't like it, as it is totally 'characterless',  as a  good amp  should be. Play a different recording.

 

 

[Spacehound]

2 minutes ago, Kimo said:

If almost every amp has a character, how do you know which one is characterless?  Your concept of character appears to be based on specs.  Nothing wrong with this approach, but loads will vary and character will follow, in some cases much more than others.

 

Your best shot at a characterless sound is going to come from active speakers.  I have heard a number of pro monitors and I certainly wouldn't say that they all sound alike, however. 

Amps with 'character' impose it on everything they play.

This applies to everything, active speakers included.

 

If they don't sound alike some of them are 'broken'.  Maybe all of them are. A  true full specification  which is far more accurate than your own personal opinion ('red cars are better than blue ones') will tell you.  It's that easy. 

 

HiFi is simple engineering, not difficult, and well understood. No magic is involved. It's  just  a 'consumer durable', like a washing machine. 

[Spacehound]

35 minutes ago, Kimo said:

Apparently, you missed every point I made, and they weren't that obtuse.  You only wish to spew the tenants of your audio orthodoxy, so there is no point in talking about this any further.  

I didn't miss a  word/point as there weren't many of either  to miss.  I just don't believe in magic. Nor  the claims of small companies with  correspondingly  small resources.

 

I just buy stuff I take  a fancy too, same as everyone else.  I didn't take a fancy to the  Cambridge 851.

 

Will this do?

Lenovo tower PC, unmodified----->dCS Rossini---->no preamp----->Naim NAP250DR------>Tannoy Kensingtons.

 

And you did ask me, after all, Orthodox things are orthodox because they work, I don't want an untested flying saucer that is claimed to operate by magic, I want  a Boeing 747.

[Spacehound]

13 minutes ago, barrows said:

SandyKBecause this is not concern here!  You are talking about something separate from the OP's question and it is off topic.  He is not adding transformers in his components, they are already there and at a minimum he needs his DAC and amp to play music.  The question is whether or not adding a preamp is a good idea, not whether transformer coupling is a good idea, that would be a different topic.

If you want to discuss the merits of transformer coupling in component design, that would be another thread. 

Sandyk is doing this:

[Spacehound]

1 hour ago, Kimo said:

would not have an improved sound ality.So, it really is a religion for you.  You preach one thing, but follow another.  You are still missing most of what I said, though.

 

You do get points for the Tannoys.  They really do some wonderful musical things to enhance listener fun.  Too bad the Germans are now dragging the company down to an ugly finish.

 

I must add that I bet your system would sound better with a matching Naim preamp...

It would sound different but not have an improved sound quality. That's impossible for reasons  I have already stated. And with which Naim agree in their literature.  .

[Spacehound]

6 hours ago, Kimo said:

Are you a monumental simpleton? 

So I've been told.

[Spacehound]

5 hours ago, Kimo said:

He doesn't really have one.

 

And this becomes a problem, in that guys like him tend to be the type that chase away those from which many of us can actually learn something.  He should be posting on the Hoffman forum, or riding motorcycles with Sal.

I've got a motorbike. Who are Hoffman and Sal?

[Spacehound]

7 hours ago, mevdinc said:

I've been listening to digital only for sometime now, and so far, I've managed to avoid having to put a preamp in my system. I find direct connection always gives better results.

I also happen to believe in 'best preamp is no preamp'. Provided, of course, that the DAC has a very good volume control. I had a Zodiac Gold DAC before, and now using Lindemann Musicbook DSD 20, both with very good analog volume controls.

I have also been using active speakers for over 20 years for similar reasons; no speaker cables, better matched amps and speakers etc. by the designer. ATC are well known for both driver and electronics design and implementation.

I know some friends who use preamps not to improve but change the sound a little to their liking; perhaps warmer, less analytical sound etc.

Of course, this subject is very subjective and everyone's experience is different.
IMHO, I believe that the biggest distortion comes from the mains and any improvements there gives better results than most other areas. For example, I clearly experienced huge SQ improvements using battery power with my Zodiac Gold DAC.

 

 

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

[Spacehound]

15 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 You didn't address my concerns about using 2 transformers, one at the output of the DAC, and another at the input of the amplifier. My main concerns are phase changes and HF roll-off. Transformers are not distortion free either.

A good DAC should not need additional HF filtering, especially by using transformers at both ends.

I.M.E. wider bandwidth sounds better too .

BTW, my Class A Preamp has very close to 4 Zeroes in it's distortion figures. Neglecting the series 100 ohm resistors at the output, which sounds better with most interconnects of 1M or so, it's output impedance at 1KHZ is .002 ohms .

(calculated by an E.E. friend)

Unlike GUTBs recommendation, my preamp only has a gain of around 3.2  x to reduce the need for too much attenuation ,and the loss of more than necessary S/N

We aren't interested in your concerns. Mostly because  we don't share  'em.

 

Can your preamp turn  cartwheels too?

[Spacehound]

5 hours ago, Kimo said:

 

 

But, I guess I summed up my position on preamps in the first reply, so that is that.  

Good.  Now we can get back to high fidelity.

 

Which is what many of us pay for. Or don't, in the case of a preamp.

[Spacehound]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

His argument is real, simple and nearly unrefutable......  

Many people don't like that on forums. Kimo actually said so.

It decreases their opportunities  to waffle on endlessly  and we all like doing that.

 

(I know 10 different  ways to remove a Mercedes door handle. The simplest and quickest  one is in the Mercedes manual. The very  'orses mouth.)

[Spacehound]

2 hours ago, Kimo said:

I can't disagree with this, but I haven't necessary found it to be the case in practice.  I have found that the "simplest" amplifiers haven't always sounded the best, however.

Is "best" objective (= 'highest sound quality" or merely your personal preference?

[Spacehound]

3 hours ago, Kimo said:

I can't disagree with this, but I haven't necessary found it to be the case in practice.  I have found that the "simplest" amplifiers haven't always sounded the best, however.

Did your "that is that" mean  two  more goes?

[Spacehound]

6 minutes ago, Kimo said:

I am now starting to question your literacy, or at least your eyesight and/or sobriety.

Question whatever you want. For example, I question the veracity of  the bible's talking snake.

 

BTW: I gave you an 'uptick' for your  "simpleton" as I can't prove I'm not one.

[Spacehound]

Just now, Kimo said:

Well, your response to that one was rather good, so I can't take all the credit.

You might try reading what I actually said in this thread about preamps, though.

My reading it is why I disagree with you. What's hard to understand?

 

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

[Spacehound]

9 minutes ago, Kimo said:

So, you fervently disagree with the recommendation to demo first.  Are you some kind of anti preamp Nazi?

 

It was a Citron.

I rarely bother to demo stuff. The Mercedes  I mentioned was purchased because the Mercedes dealer was the nearest.and I was fed up with getting wet on the motorbike. It was an impulse purchase as most of my purchases are.  (I've still got the motorbike.)

 

Did citrons exist then?

[Spacehound]

3 minutes ago, Kimo said:

You will have to ask the Pope.  I am not sure what name he uses here.  Apparently, it is one of the original citrus fruits, so there is a chance.

 

What's a Pope?

[Spacehound]

5 minutes 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.

Some people  tried that. Is Krell still around?