Differences in sound: DAC vs. DAC + Pre-amplifier

[fas42]

I achieved a very high standard of SQ over 3 decades ago - no longer "hifi", but rather having all the characteristics of live, natural sound - largely because of the simplicity of the system: CDP, power amplifier, speakers. A very high quality CD player for the time, with proper digital volume control, directly driving the amp - there was always enough headroom, easily enough, say, to provide dance music for a party. Just need to make sure that the output of the DAC can be dialed up to drive the amp to clipping, as a guide.

 

I am 100% certain I would never have achieved this quality, back then, with any preamp in the chain - every extra 'unnecessary' can only degrade, not enhance

[fas42]

1 hour ago, Blake said:

 

Wow Frank, so you are the first person in the world that has achieved "The Absolute Sound" with your stereo system in your home! 

 

Amazeballs.  

 

 

 

I thought that was the point of that particular magazine ... that the publisher knew what was possible, and had a system which produced such, when the wind was blowing in the right direction ... 🙂.

[fas42]

On 2/6/2020 at 4:16 PM, Rexp said:

The pre amp used to be THE most important component in a high-end system with solid state ones hard to find. Good ones I've had were made by ATC, Gryphon, Parasound and Simaudio. No idea whats on offer now but they wont be cheap. 

 

From my POV, pretty obvious why ...they are a basket of weaknesses, full of switches, pots, and inputs and outputs that are not terminated, plenty of loose wiring; all of these need to be handled in the best possible way to not impact SQ.

 

If one wants the highest standard of sound, absolute simplicity will always win ...otherwise, the highest quality, and therefore expensive parts are essential - either end of the cost spectrum can be winners; in the middle, not so much ... 😉.

[fas42]

On 2/9/2020 at 6:19 AM, photonman said:

I have same question and thoughts.  I imagine it is all equipment and system dependent.  I have a Benchmark DAC3 L arriving on Monday so I can compare it against my Chord Qutest.  My reasoning is that I want better volume control (and balanced outs) than the software volume I am using as I am thinking I am missing out on some SQ and not having a good gain match.

 

My experience is that the volume control, if analogue, can be THE bottleneck - if I want to assess the potential of a system, I would bypass the part altogether, with a temporary fixed resistor divider to give me a decent, non-variable gain - and see what that told me ...

[fas42]

13 hours ago, sandyk said:

???

 A decent preamp these days rarely needs more than perhaps a quality multi position ceramic switch with several wafers,(or relay input control) and a decent attenuator such as a Goldmund, DACT or Khozmo 48 position. It shouldn't matter if non selected inputs are terminated or not ,when both sides of the selected input are switched through. It should also have a relatively low gain of perhaps 3 times .

 Most high quality preamps these days don't use tone or balance controls , and shouldn't need to.

 Neither should they need Tape Outputs either, which also simplifies switching, or need an RIAA  Phono stage.

 

Note that I was responded to a post that that said "used to be THE most important" ... in previous times it was the go to have lots of options on a preamp, or integrated, of lower cost. That NAD unit I'm using was pretty rough in SQ when I got it - most of the really objectionable crappiness disappeared when I ripped all the switching, etc, out of the signal path.

 

I started to get the SQ I'm interested in when using an extremely simple setup - zero preamp type facilities ... so I would always go back to that arrangement, effectively, to see what the inherent capability of the chain was - and then assess whether the losses of adding desired switching and attenuation capability was acceptable or not.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

you must mean "THE most [electronic] important component" - speakers have always been the real issue

 

 

I think there needs to be an epiphany at some point in the life of each audio enthusiast, when they realise that this is incorrect - luckily, this happened for me over three decades ago; and so I just smile when I'm subjected to the awfulness of the sound coming through some mega-expensive speaker - "It's not your fault, Mr Speaker!" ... 😝.

 

When you can get sound that "makes you smile" over a "junk" speaker, then you realise where the priorities really lie ...

[fas42]

13 hours ago, One and a half said:

There are exceptions for preamplifier with very little noise and still provide switching flexibility.

Interior craftsmanship and know how to keep paths short are not mysterious but takes some experience.

This one looks very much like my preamp, btw.

 

The photo below is from Luxman if google is correct.

 

 

 

Just came across this one, the Mola Mola Makua,

 

This is one that, visually, says to me that it should be of a high order.

[fas42]

And, I note in this thread review, that the right things are being said about the subjective performance,

https://www.stereo.net.au/forums/topic/117214-mola-mola-dac/

 

[fas42]

3 hours ago, barrows said:

It is clear to me that DAC direct, for those who do not need source switching. results in the best fidelity to the source, as long as the DAC's output stage is capable of driving the amplifier input stage robustly.  Additionally, most DACs have the capability to drive most amplifier input stages entirely adequately.  Look for a DAC with low output impedance (less than 100 ohms is nice, but up to a couple hindered ohms is going to be OK for most amps) and enough output voltage.  Most IC opamps in DAC output stages can drive amps directly with no problem.  Occasionally there might be a DAC with a bit weaker output stage, but these are rare.

 

I would advise that taking advice direct from manufacturers who sell preamps might not be the best way to make decisions on this, as those manufacturers have an interest in selling preamps.  One really needs to listen in their own system, to the DAC, Preamp, and amplifier one is considering, to decide for sure.  And, definitely do not take advice from "old skool" audiophiles who just claim that any serious audio system must include a pre amp (for no good technical reason), this is a quaint and antiquated notion which has no basis in reality.

 

 

Amen. First good rig had CDP with digital volume, output impedance of 100R, no trouble driving the power amp - in fact, the Perreaux was the component that started to lose it at higher sound levels.

 

An inadequate analogue volume control can easily kill any chance of achieving convincing SQ ... the weakest link scenario.

[fas42]

What a preamp can do is buffer the output of the DAC, so the current drive demanded by the power amplifier doesn't load the DAC circuitry to the point that the SQ suffers; this only gets worse, the higher the gain is set - audio friend down the road has this very problem, has spent huge amounts of time trying to get the cleanest solution; and still hasn't achieved a peak performance trying this.

[fas42]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

Guys, nobody achieves 21 bits of resolution in room, so there is no advantage to a DAC which achieves 21 bits of resolution at its analog outputs vs 20 bits, or even 18 bits.  When a DAC gets beyond 17-18 bits of resolution it is a moot point for listening to speaker systems in a  room.  If one is willing to risk their hearing in a headphone set up at extremely high levels of playback, then maybe 19 bits is meaningful, but for speaker systems these high levels of resolution mean nothing in the real world.

 

I have a middle range Yamaha CD player from the 80's here, bought from a pawn shop for a few bucks, which showed quite clearly to me what the worrying about the number of bits working properly is just nonsense - it uses average quality DACs of the day, and one channel, the left I think, has lower resolution than the other; you can hear digital chattering being worse in the "bad" channel. How could I hear this? By using a Denon CD test disc of a classical piece encoded at -60dB down, replayed at maximum gain, and listening with my hear hard against the speaker drivers! There, it's obvious 🤣 ... in all other situations, the fact that this channel was performing more poorly was completely invisible ... 😉.

[fas42]

It is noise, impacting the system from myriad sources, weaknesses, that is the villain, so often - analogue waveforms transduced into sound waves, that the ear/brain attempts to interpret as being the "real thing", have to be on their best behaviour for our minds to be fooled. IME only fastidious attention to detail yields worthy results - and unfortunately it is far from trivial getting all of this under control. Digital while being interpreted as digital is easy - just follow basic rules and it always works. Once that data enters the analogue domain, all bets are off - how one chooses to implement the analogue area matters ... enormously!

 

In audio it's always "the last thing" that counts - get 99.999% working up to standard ain't good enough; that last 0.001% is going to slug your SQ, in a major way - unless one is prepared to do what's necessary to find and sort that "last thing", then it will be never shine as brightly as it could.

[fas42]

6 hours ago, xamastrok said:

 

Is it because a 1300€ machine cannot do everything right and the digital preamp department lags behind? Is it because G02/G57 are designed to work at their best as a pair? Is it because that's the way it is as the PS audio owner described in his video in the first page of the topic?

 

I'm not an expert to say why. It's a pity because it's so much more convenient to simplify and control the volume from an app. On the other hand, I am getting excellent sound :)

 

Thanks.

 

 

A low priced machine can do everything well - but the engineering has to be done, exactly right. Most of the audio world refuses to understand what is the most important factor - which is, how well the overall integrity of the chain has been sorted, in its raw state. Most people get excited at the thought of adding an ultra expensive 'bit' to the rig, which will 'transform' the sound ... ummm, no - that's not how it works, 😉. I'm thinking here of going to a good restaurant - and the audiophile customer brings a whole bag of fancy condiments, and spends the whole time adding various combinations of them to bits of the meal - to "improve the experience" 🤪.

 

Well executed engineering has to have some thought put into it - it's not a "tick the boxes" process. So, a bit of gear that gets it right may be found anywhere - it could be a unit in the middle of the range of a large company; a single product from a mom and dad garage shed outfit; or an ultra expensive model from a highly regarded high end company - currently, there are largely no rules that dictate what makes something really excellent at producing good sound.