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

[Blake]

This is a hotly debated topic and there have been a number of threads on this issue over the years, with some virtual blood spilt.  I've owned and and experimented with all options for volume control- several different DAC's with built-in VC, and all varieties of separate VC's (software only, and lots of different separate preamps- passive, solid state of varying designs and tube) and my experiences have been all over the map.  It is difficult or impossible to draw any absolute conclusions.    

 

Although logic says this should not be the case, I have found that in some cases, but not all, a separate preamp can improve sound quality, namely, sound staging and layering (relatively more 3-dimensional). I am a sound staging nut, so I've gone in the direction of separate preamps.  The key is, balancing the sound staging improvements with possible losses in transparency.  There are preamps I've tried though that suffer extremely little audible loss in transparency, if any at all.  However, not all preamps I've tried improve sound quality.  Some made things worse.

 

There are plenty of members here on AS with a different opinion (the best pre is no pre) and I have no problem with that, so....... you just need to try for yourself.  Right now I am playing around with a simple Schiit Sys in my office system and I'll say, it is a surprisingly good passive preamp!  Shocking even for $50....  from a sound quality perspective, I slightly prefer it to using software volume control in my desktop setup.

 

Feel free to take this video with a grain of salt as PS Audio now sells a preamp, and it is just one data point, but I've come to the same conclusion:

 

 

[Blake]

37 minutes ago, fas42 said:

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 -

 

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.  

 

 

[Blake]

@barrows can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think he has issues believing there are people who subjectively prefer the sound with a preamp inserted, he is just speaking from a technical perspective, DAC direct to power amp will be technical "more transparent" which is correct.

 

On the subjective preference, IIRC, Jim Smith has noted in the past that he has subjectively preferred the sound when a good preamp is inserted in the chain, as compared to DAC direct and he has no financial incentive for stating that belief and Jim probably has more experience listening to more systems in more environments than perhaps anyone.  I have read lots of component reviews over the years where the reviewer subjectively preferred a preamp in the chain.  So there are plenty of examples out there.  And of course there are lots of people preferring DAC direct after experimenting.  

 

Also, there is no such thing as a 100% transparent system or component.  So we are talking relative degrees of  transparency here and of course there is the question of whether the reduction in transparency resulting from the insertion of the preamp is audible, and if audible, did the other subjective sonic "improvements" from inserting a given preamp outweigh any loss of transparency.  

[Blake]

1 minute ago, Kimo said:

 

Not according to the guys who make the most transparent electronics in the world, as I pointed out earlier.  

 

 

 

I might have missed that.  Which company makes the most transparent products in the world (sorry if your comment was tongue in cheek)? 

 

[Blake]

6 minutes ago, barrows said:

I am interested in hi fidelity playback, and not playback which is intentionally colored, or obscured.  Other's may prefer a colored system, and that is fine with me as long as they recognize that and understand that the colored sound is what they are getting.

 

 

 

I don't know that all preamp designers are intentionally coloring the sound, in fact I am sure that is not the case with some preamps, but of course, there are probably plenty of designs out there with intentional colorations.  But again, you are speaking from a relative point of view here, right?  Your current system for example is not 100% transparent, you are just attempting to get as close as possible to a theoretical ideal of transparency.

 

[Blake]

IMO (I'm not claiming my thoughts are absolute truths by any stretch) given my experiments over the years and general observations:

 

1. The "loss in transparency" from inserting a preamp in the chain in some (but certainly not all) cases is grossly overstated.  For example, I am hard-pressed to detect any loss in detail, transparency and musical information when inserting my preamp, as compared to going DAC direct.  With other preamps I've owned, I have notice some loss in transparency (ranging from very small to very noticeable losses).

 

2. I think that generalized statements about tubes simply adding distortion/warmth, while always detracting from transparency is also misguided.  In well implemented circumstances, the tubes can make the music subjectively much more like real musicians in your room- it can sound much more like real music, with very little or even no perceived loss in detail/transparency.  I won't call out any specific component examples as I don't want to offend, but we have all heard systems/components that while seemingly transparent and detailed, sound sterile, flat and un-inspiring.  Not like the real thing.  The word "transparent" can be misleading and incomplete in this context.  We want music that sounds "real".  If the tubes don't result in any perceived loss in detail, while also adding to the body and sound stage, then how are tubes detracting from audiophile goals of being true to the source material?

 

3. I understand the theoretical reasoning behind the "simplest path" approach, but then what about all the findings in the "novel" thread, with long strings of audio spaghetti resulting in perceived improvements and enhanced transparency?

 

4.  While we know lots about audio, there is so much more than objectivists are willing to admit that we don't know.  Thus, audio is science and art.  For example, what makes tubes of the same family type sound different from manufacturer to manufacturer (and I mean exactly what changes to the tube result in what sonic differences), why do different usb cables sound different from each other?  Until we are able to reliably measure every single aspect of sound, as perceived by humans, we will necessarily need to rely to some degree on the "art" part of the equation.

[Blake]

20 hours ago, barrows said:

As for objective/subjective discussions, i am not a believer in "camps" or dichotomies when it comes to audio playback systems.  And I think that the current fashion of placing audiophiles/music lovers into "camps" like this is destructive, silly, and infantile.  Surely listening to music is a subjective experience, so subjective impressions matter.  Similarly, decent audio components cannot be adequately designed without engineering/maths and making many measurements.  Separating these things out, and defining people as one or the other is absurd to me.

 

Agreed, 100%.  Unfortunately, there are lots of people in our community that put themselves in a "camp" and we have recently seen the results of extremist "camp" views here on AS. 

 

To be very clear, in case it was implied from my post, I was definitely not referring to you as being one of the hard-line objectivists.  I should have clarified that earlier.  I have never considered you to be in any camp.  I enjoy reading your posts and have learned much from you over the years.  You are one of the good people on this forum.  I am always very interested in the views and experience of those, like yourself, who work in the industry as you have insight that most others do not have.  And, of course, I have benefited greatly from my Sonore products! 

[Blake]

So... as I was typing this, we just experienced yet another earthquake aftershock here in Salt Lake City.  The house shook pretty good!  I think we are at something like 350+ aftershocks now.  Ok, worldwide pandemics (check), earthquakes (check)....   What next?! 🤕

 

Of course, others in more earthquake prone areas of the world would laugh at a 5.7 quake!