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

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, barrows said:

In my opinion, you are living in the long past:

 

You could have simply agreed to disagree as I suggested , but possibly due to commercial High End product affiliations ,  you chose not to.

My experience ,like quite a few other members is very different to yours in this area, where I have been able to directly compare components in systems worth >$100K in well set up rooms using both Digital attenuation and Preamplifiers (Au$50K) so I will leave it at that.

 I will not be responding further in this thread, and I would hope that you choose to do the same.

[barrows]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

You could have simply agreed to disagree as I suggested , but possibly due to commercial High End product affiliations ,  you chose not to.

I have no "affiliations" that would give me any advantage if people choose to use. or not, a preamp???

Why the need to suggest that I have some kind of ulterior motive?  I express the results of my experience and the actual facts here, for the benefit of members looking for the best possible playback fidelity and nothing more. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 1/23/2020 at 9:06 AM, SoundSparks said:

Dear experts:

 

Guess I'm out

 

On 1/23/2020 at 9:06 AM, SoundSparks said:

Many DACs have volume control function so they could serve as a DAC or as a DAC + Pre-amplifier.

 

Could you please report on the differences in the sound of your systems in both cases?

 

The latter configuration provides shorter signal path, but how does it effect the sound? What variables are in play here? I am planning my setup and would appreciate your expert advice very much indeed.

 

Please chime in!

 

I haven't read the previous posts but IME I always go back to using a pre-amp. Yes, these days Pre-Pros, digital sound attenuation works well. If you are on a budget, or if you feel you may get better bang for your buck dedicating more to the speakers or whatever, then go for it.

The most recent DAC I used with digital volume control was the Bricasti M1. I have massive respect for the guy behind it and its lineage back to My Mark Levinson DAC from years gone by. I was lucky enough to chat to him about his DAC over dinner one night, including the excellent digital volume control. My audiophile friend also had a Bricasti DAC. Both of us ended up adding an analogue preamp.

 

To save money on a $50,000 all up system I put together for a wealthy non audiophile friend I excluded a pre-amp. When I added in my pre-amp he wanted one too. Expectation bias? Maybe. However, he did not want to exceed his budget but did so.Without any coaching or prior discussion of expectation, he volunteered "the sound has more body". This accords with many similar descriptions like "fuller, richer, more body, more life like, less sterile".

 

This is totally subjective assessment by listening. I have no idea whether things like improving impedance mismatching or other mechanism is responsible ( or if its an illusion).YMMV

 

23 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

My experience ,like quite a few other members is very different to yours in this area, where I have been able to directly compare components in systems worth >$100K in well set up rooms using both Digital attenuation and Preamplifiers (Au$50K)

 

Totally agree !

[MrUnderhill]

Dear OP,

 

A few years ago I tried a Bel Canto DAC 3.5VBS, as it has an inbuilt volume control. The DAC is excellent, but ONLY came to life when I added the Bel Canto Pre 3 VBS.

 

The Oppo 105D is an excellent all round box, with a built in digital pre, starting from 32bit, so a way to go before you actually truncate the music. I think it is excellent VFM, better when I have either my EAR868pl or Townshend Allegri in circuit.

 

The technology is moving all the time and I would happily put money on the table that system context is critical; you'll only know if you try.

 

M

[barrows]

10 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

To save money on a $50,000 all up system I put together for a wealthy non audiophile friend I excluded a pre-amp. When I added in my pre-amp he wanted one too. Expectation bias? Maybe. However, he did not want to exceed his budget but did so.Without any coaching or prior discussion of expectation, he volunteered "the sound has more body". This accords with many similar descriptions like "fuller, richer, more body, more life like, less sterile".

 

I have no desire to suggest that your are not hearing what you claim, indeed I entirely believe that your are hearing what you claim.  

While I have not heard the M1 here in my system, I have heard its successor the M21, and both these DACs appear to have nearly, if not entirely, identical output stages.  The output stage of the M21 and M1 are quite potent, and easily meet the needs of driving any ordinary amplifier directly.  So  I would suggest to you that you consider the following possibility:

 

The addition of a preamp is adding new distortion harmonics to your playback which are the cause of the additional "body" which you perceive.  So, the preamp is adding a coloration which is not part of the source recording.  There is nothing "wrong" with this of course.  If you prefer this sound in your system, then get on with listening and be happy with it.  I would only ask that you be aware that what you are preferring is the addition of distortion products which are not part of the actual source recording, and that your system is less accurate (less transparent to the source) than it would be without the preamp in place.

 

I (personally) would not be "happy" with the above approach myself, but that is me.  If I had the same experience as you, that is if I perceived a lack of "body" in my system going amp direct, my solution would not be to add additional distortion harmonics to achieve the body I was looking for.  Instead, I would acknowledge that the system has a problem which needs addressing: "thin" sounding components somewhere in the chain, or bad synergy, etc.

 

I remember years ago several companies sold "tube buffers", which were unity gain buffers, designed to be added to a system, in the line level signal path somewhere, such as between a preamp and an amplifier.  Of course all these things did was add the distortion profile of tubes to the mix, reducing resolution and transparency, but often increasing "body".  To me, this is a "band aid" approach of system building, and not one I would recommend if one is looking for a transparent and revealing system; but again, there is nothing wrong with that as long as one understands they are giving up some transparency for a colored sound.

 

I would suggest that by the same logic of this approach, if one wants to add even more "body", one could put several preamps in series between the source and amplifier.

 

BTW, @Audiophile Neuroscience, have you seen this:

 

Given you forum name I thought you might be interested if you have not watched it.

[sandyk]

5 hours ago, barrows said:

The addition of a preamp is adding new distortion harmonics to your playback which are the cause of the additional "body" which you perceive.  So, the preamp is adding a coloration which is not part of the source recording.  

 

I apologise for feeling the need to again rejoin the discussion that I had hoped would result in us choosing to disagree.

 

Rubbish. You have painted yourself into a corner. Many high quality Preamplifiers these days have distortion figures with 3 Zeroes, with some approaching 4 Zeroes. My own DIY Class A Preamplifier for example has <.0006% distortion, a -3dB bandwidth of 1.5MHZ, is considerably lower noise than most and is also fully DC coupled .
I doubt that any of the Objective crowd here would even agree that distortion much below .001% can even be noticed by the average Audiophile. In fact one of them started a thread about it in the forum's Objective area.

What many EEs and designers refuse to accept, is that the PSU area of a Digital device is every bit as important as an Analogue device, and perhaps even more so. Many use PSUs with the output impedance considerably lower in the >100KHZ to 1MHZ area than at the low end. This often results in a sound with a great soundstage, but a little cold and clinical sounding with very little NATURAL warmth, even though the PSU itself may be a very low noise design such as achieved with voltage regulators such as the LT3045 . 
  I feel sure that Alex C also agrees with the need for a very low noise PSU with a low and flat output impedance from almost DC to 1MHZ.

This cold and sterile sound in many DACs and Media players is an ongoing criticism of Digital by many members, and is also part of the reason for the resurgence of Vinyl.
Incidentally, I have heard a friend's Bricasti M1 in my own System, and my DIY DAC and Class A Preamp easily outperformed it. So much so, that my friend who was a Telstra Engineer investigated forcing it's output stage into Class A operation.
 This Bricasti M1 DAC was actually sold to my friend by David when he upgraded to a Gryphon Kalliope.

[sandyk]

35 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Many use PSUs with the output impedance considerably lower in the >100KHZ to 1MHZ area than at the low end. This often results in a sound with a great soundstage, but a little cold and clinical sounding with very little NATURAL warmth, even though the PSU itself may be a very low noise design such as achieved with voltage regulators such as the LT3045 . 

 To further expand on this statement. Quite a few members in other areas of the forum, such as Cornan, have even used generic implementations of " daisy chained"  ultra low noise LT3045 etc. voltage regulators to try and increase HF detail (artificial HF detail ?) in lacklustre sounding streamed digital files.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 hours ago, barrows said:

 

I have no desire to suggest that your are not hearing what you claim, indeed I entirely believe that your are hearing what you claim.  

While I have not heard the M1 here in my system, I have heard its successor the M21, and both these DACs appear to have nearly, if not entirely, identical output stages.  The output stage of the M21 and M1 are quite potent, and easily meet the needs of driving any ordinary amplifier directly.  So  I would suggest to you that you consider the following possibility:

 

The addition of a preamp is adding new distortion harmonics to your playback which are the cause of the additional "body" which you perceive.  So, the preamp is adding a coloration which is not part of the source recording.  There is nothing "wrong" with this of course.  If you prefer this sound in your system, then get on with listening and be happy with it.  I would only ask that you be aware that what you are preferring is the addition of distortion products which are not part of the actual source recording, and that your system is less accurate (less transparent to the source) than it would be without the preamp in place.

 

I (personally) would not be "happy" with the above approach myself, but that is me.  If I had the same experience as you, that is if I perceived a lack of "body" in my system going amp direct, my solution would not be to add additional distortion harmonics to achieve the body I was looking for.  Instead, I would acknowledge that the system has a problem which needs addressing: "thin" sounding components somewhere in the chain, or bad synergy, etc.

 

I remember years ago several companies sold "tube buffers", which were unity gain buffers, designed to be added to a system, in the line level signal path somewhere, such as between a preamp and an amplifier.  Of course all these things did was add the distortion profile of tubes to the mix, reducing resolution and transparency, but often increasing "body".  To me, this is a "band aid" approach of system building, and not one I would recommend if one is looking for a transparent and revealing system; but again, there is nothing wrong with that as long as one understands they are giving up some transparency for a colored sound.

 

I would suggest that by the same logic of this approach, if one wants to add even more "body", one could put several preamps in series between the source and amplifier.

 

BTW, @Audiophile Neuroscience, have you seen this:

 

Given you forum name I thought you might be interested if you have not watched it.

 

hey

thanks for the youtube video,i will check it out later today (after work).

 

I have no problem with your theory. FWIW I do not like the added distortion of say tube amps etc even though I can hear the "warmth".

 

For your theory that my pre-amp is coloring the sound with distortion and that alone explains my preference one would need to firstly demonstrate the distortion levels of the Gryphon Pandora. One would also need then to correlate and concord this with the perception.

 

The OP asked for listening impressions, that's what I gave. YMMV

 

Cheers

David

[barrows]

32 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

For your theory that my pre-amp is coloring the sound with distortion and that alone explains my preference one would need to firstly demonstrate the distortion levels of the Gryphon Pandora. One would also need then to correlate and concord this with the perception.

I do not think so.  We can use the process of elimination here.  The truth is that there is no actual technical problem with how the Bricasti DAC drives the input stage of the amplifier, that is a fact which is not challengeable.  Then, given that fact, what are the possibilities for how the "additional body" is produced by the addition of a preamp?  Can anyone reading this suggest a means by which the addition of the preamp, in this example, produces produces "additional body" other than by adding something of its own to the playback?  If the preamp is adding something, that addition can only be a coloration, as what other possible option is there?  A preamp cannot magically know how a recording is supposed to sound, and then add in the needed additional aspects, all it can do is add in a color of its own through its imperfections. 

 

Audio playback systems are not magical devices operating by properties which we do not understand, anyone who takes a position suggesting that they are might re-consider that position.

 

As to sound differences, I have described my own experience in specific sound differences in a previous post in this thread where I discussed my process moving from using a preamp in my system, to eliminating it.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

I do not think so.  

With respect your thinking does not make it so.

Quote

We can use the process of elimination here.

 

Provided that elimination included a properly conducted scientific experiment. until such time it is theory. That is fact.

 

Quote

 The truth is that there is no actual technical problem with how the Bricasti DAC drives the input stage of the amplifier, that is a fact which is not challengeable.  

 

The truth is you do not think, based on available evidence, that the DAC has no technical problem. The notion that it is not challengeable is anti-scientific, which is I suggest, is why we differ.

 

Quote

Then, given that fact, what are the possibilities for how the "additional body" is produced by the addition of a preamp?  Can anyone reading this suggest a means by which the addition of the preamp, in this example, produces produces "additional body" other than by adding something of its own to the playback?  

 

Again, you are inviting theory for counter-example. What is required is experiment and evidence.

 

Quote

If the preamp is adding something, that addition can only be a coloration,

 

adding coloration is a theory.

Quote

 

as what other possible option is there?  

 

 

Not knowing the answer is not the same as concluding your theory correct.

 

 

Quote

A preamp cannot magically know how a recording is supposed to sound,

 

neither can speakers, or my left shoe 🙂

 

Quote

 

and then add in the needed additional aspects,

 

 

theory

 

Quote

all it can do is add in a color of its own through its imperfections. 

 

Theory

Quote

 

Audio playback systems are not magical devices operating by properties which we do not understand, anyone who takes a position suggesting that they are might re-consider that position.

 

Not understanding a phenomenon doesn't make it's existence "magic". Anyone suggesting they understand everything "might reconsider that position" (using your words)

 

 

Quote

 

As to sound differences, I have described my own experience in specific sound differences in a previous post in this thread where I discussed my process moving from using a preamp in my system, to eliminating it.

 

Now, we agree that you are guided by your listening experience which is fine. You listened, unlike others heard no difference, moved on.

 

As for the rest, it is theory. I require evidence from experiment to test that theory.No conjecture. Not "it must be", not "I don't understand why", not it doesn't accord with your belief system.

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”

― Richard P. Feynman

I would humbly add ...If you haven't tested the theory, it remains theory, or in the alternative - faith based belief

[barrows]

27 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Now, we agree that you are guided by your listening experience which is fine. You listened, unlike others heard no difference, moved on.

That is not what happened at all.  Please go back in the thread and actually read what my process was before making assumptions.

 

28 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

As for the rest, it is theory

No, it is not.  It is technical fact that the Bricasti M1 can drive most amplifiers input stage without any problems.  There may be an exceptional case with a really weird amplifier or something, but otherwise this is a fact, not a theory.  I have seen the specifications of the DAC.

 

One other thing I would stress here.  Were your listening comparisons level matched to within 0.5 dB?  If not, they are invalid.  The only way to be sure a listening test is valid is with very close level matching.  Some would say the test needs to be blind, but I am not a believer in blind testing myself.  But level matching, via measuring the voltage the amplifier is getting, is absolutely necessary for a test like this.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, barrows said:

No, it is not.  It is technical fact that the Bricasti M1 can drive most amplifiers input stage without any problems.  There may be an exceptional case with a really weird amplifier or something, but otherwise this is a fact, not a theory.  I have seen the specifications of the DAC.

 

I have no problem accepting the Bricasti is a technically excellent DAC. The non sequitur in logic occurs when you conclude a pre-amp cannot enhance the sound except by adding distortion.That is theory.

So tell me what the level of distortion is for the Pandora DAC and where you have experimented with this distortion causing the alleged audible phenomenon. I'm sorry Barrows,until such time you are pushing your theory.

 

 

[barrows]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

So tell me what the level of distortion is for the Pandora DAC

I am sorry, but I am lost here, what is the "Pandora DAC" and what is the "alleged audible phenomenon"?

 

I am additionally confused as to how one cannot understand what I am saying here?   This seems so simple to me, but apparently either myself, or you, or both of us are experiencing some cognitive dissonance here?

 

I would ask, by what mechanism do you propose that a preamp can "enhance the sonics" which would not qualify as an additive process (which would be by definition a coloration)?  The question assumes a desire to have an accurate and revealing system which is as transparent to the source (recording) as possible.  As I have mentioned previously, I have absolutely no problem with anyone who prefers the sound of their system with a preamp in place, as long aa they understand that this preference is one which comes with the understanding that by adding the preamp, one is adding a coloration not present in the recording, and there is nothing wrong with this either.  Just as some prefer a SET amplifier, which colors the sound in a sometimes pleasant way.

 

Additionally my other question still stands unanswered: were your listening tests done with rigorous level matching?  If not, i would suggest you repeat them to be sure of your findings with rigorous level matching.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, barrows said:

I am sorry, but I am lost here, what is the "Pandora DAC" and what is the "alleged audible phenomenon"?

 

typo:  should read Gryphon Pandora Pre-amp

 

so, re-phrasing to clarify:

I have no problem accepting the Bricasti is a technically excellent DAC.The non sequitur in logic occurs when you conclude a pre-amp cannot improve the sound except by adding distortion or coloration.That is theory.

 

Can you tell me what the measured level of distortion is, or what coloration is being added that you have measured for the Pandora Pre-amp; and where are your results from experiment that correlates these measurements to the audible effect ie in your words distortion being "the cause of the additional "body" which you perceive".

 

I'm sorry Barrows,until such time you are pushing theory.

 

Quote

 

 

I am additionally confused as to how one cannot understand what I am saying here?   This seems so simple to me, but apparently either myself, or you, or both of us are experiencing some cognitive dissonance here?

 

I believe I understand what you are saying just not in agreement. It is a plausible theory (to many). It is simply untested. I remain open minded but not convinced just because you have a theory.

 

Quote

I would ask, by what mechanism do you propose that a preamp can "enhance the sonics" which would not qualify as an additive process (which would be by definition a coloration)?  

 

I don't have to advocate a mechanism. I am simply reporting an observation (as asked by the OP). You are asserting this to be an invalid observation based on your untested theory.

 

I did not claim it was an additive process (and therefore coloration). That is something you inferred in accordance with your theory.

 

Quote

The question assumes a desire to have an accurate and revealing system which is as transparent to the source (recording) as possible.

 

What question?

I have no evidence that adding a pre-amp would reduce transparency. I get the *theory* that you are adding more electrical components and wires but it does not automatically follow this causes a perceptible degradation in transparency. IME it improves transparency (I have no idea why but no doubt others may speculate).

 

You must remember that we are being asked what we hear, not what we think we should hear according to belief or theory.

 

Quote

 this preference is one which comes with the understanding that by adding the preamp, one is adding a coloration not present in the recording,

 

Theory

 

Quote

Additionally my other question still stands unanswered: were your listening tests done with rigorous level matching?

 

Yes, on the occasion prior to my friend purchasing a pre-amp he had (at my suggestion) an audio engineer friend come in and level match. This is because the (my) pre-amp was disproportionately expensive for his system as @sandyk might recall. He went on to subsequently upgrade all other components except for the speakers ( I suggested he upgrade speakers and not get the Pandora pre-amp). He bought a different DAC to myself as well, meaning he was not just influenced by my choices or recommendations.

[craighartley]

On 3/19/2020 at 8:07 PM, barrows said:

Wow Craig, 39 dB is really high and quite unusual gain for a power amplifier.  Have you ever contacted the manufacturer and asked if the gain could be lowered?  That much gain is probably also make the amp(s) noisier than they could be.

 

The amplifier manufacturer suggested trying these:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Loops-20db-Balanced-Attenuator-Adapter/dp/B0060GDZTG

[barrows]

@Audiophile Neuroscience, I am not understanding why you seem to have a problem following my logic, I will try again:

 

There are a couple of feasible theories which have been floated about which could explain how the addition of a preamp might actually improve the performance of a system:

 

1.  A DAC may not have a stout enough output stage to adequately drive the input stage of an amplifier.  This theory can be true, in some very unusual cases, where the output stage of the DAC might be unusual, relatively high impedance (well over 400 ohms output impedance), and/or where the output stage has very low current capability.  But this is not true for most DACs these days, and it is certainly not true for the Bricasti M1, where the output stage has plenty of current capability and is relatively low in impedance.  The fact here, is that the output stage of most DACs is the exact same design as that of most preamps, as this stage is a line driver designed to drive an interconnect at line level to another component.  The design requirements for a DAC output stage and a preamp output stage are the same, and it is not difficult to design a competent output stage.

 

2.  The other possibility I have heard some suggest, but this has never been demonstrated through any specifications or measurements, but it is still a possibility, so I will list it here.  This is that the preamp is acting as an additional filter to RF content on the DACs output.  While this is certainly possible, for it to actually happen would be a rare circumstance indeed.  First, it would require a very poorly designed DAC, where its own output filter was entirely inadequate, in addition to a very poorly designed amplifier, which has an input stage which is way too sensitive to RF getting into its input.  Amplifier input stages typically have a filter for RF energy at their inputs.  But, it is possible that a combination of a really poorly designed DAC and amplifier could suffer from this problem.  But we are talking about extreme outliers here, really badly designed components.  Again, this would not apply to the Bricasti M1, and given he quality of your preamp, I doubt you have chosen a really poorly designed amplifier for your system.  In the case of balanced connections this would not be a possibility at all as any RF energy woudl be common mode, and cancelled in the amplifiers input stage.

 

Now, logically, if neither 1 or 2 above is present, I would submit that there is no mechanism by which the addition  of a preamp and another interconnect cable can improve the technical performance (resolution) of a system.  It is just not possible, as these components are lossy in nature.  The one other exception would be if the preamp was adding a DSP stage, doing room correction or something like that, but I do not think that is what we are talking about here.  Additional components are lossy: an additional interconnect cable, plus its two additional connections are lossy, every circuit inside the preamp is lossy.  The addition of a preamp can, of course, add a coloration which some might prefer, but it cannot increase resolution.  

 

It is impossible for the addition of a preamp to add in details which are not present in the DAC's output, period.   This is not a theory, and any idea contrary to this would be akin to suggesting one has a "magical" preamp, which somehow "knows" details on the recording which were not revealed by the DAC, and is adding this details back in.

 

This is not difficult to understand conceptually/logically so I will leave it here for people to ponder.  If one still insists that adding a preamp is increasing actual resolution, I am interested in hearing even the most esoteric of theories how that might be possible.

 

I have nothing against the Gryphon Pandora preamp, indeed I have always liked the sound and design of Gryphon components anytime I have encountered them.  But its measurements/specifications have nothing to do with this.  It has a distortion level and noise profile which is added to the system when it is inserted into the system.  

[Kimo]

16 hours ago, barrows said:

I do not think so.  We can use the process of elimination here.  The truth is that there is no actual technical problem with how the Bricasti DAC drives the input stage of the amplifier, that is a fact which is not challengeable.  Then, given that fact, what are the possibilities for how the "additional body" is produced by the addition of a preamp?  Can anyone reading this suggest a means by which the addition of the preamp, in this example, produces produces "additional body" other than by adding something of its own to the playback?  If the preamp is adding something, that addition can only be a coloration, as what other possible option is there?  A preamp cannot magically know how a recording is supposed to sound, and then add in the needed additional aspects, all it can do is add in a color of its own through its imperfections. 

 

Audio playback systems are not magical devices operating by properties which we do not understand, anyone who takes a position suggesting that they are might re-consider that position.

 

As to sound differences, I have described my own experience in specific sound differences in a previous post in this thread where I discussed my process moving from using a preamp in my system, to eliminating it.

 

So, the only preamps that aren't screwing up the signal are thin sounding ones?

[Summit]

Barrows, I wished that high fidelity was as simple, predictable and “logical” as you believe it to be.

 

What most audiophile knows is that to get high fidelity sound is no simple task and never as simple as common sense and basic theories stipulate it to be.

[barrows]

1 hour ago, Kimo said:

So, the only preamps that aren't screwing up the signal are thin sounding ones?

 

Ummm!  I do not know what to do with this, either you are joking, you did not actually read my posts, or your reading comprehension is compromised.  I hope it is the first option!

 

But, to ease your mind and clarify on your post:

 

If one is looking for a system which is transparent to the source recording, the system should not editorialize on the recording.  The system needs to be transparent to the recording.  The goal of any preamp for a transparent system should be the proverbial straight wire with gain (and source switching, and volume control).  It should neither be "thin" sounding nor be "rich" sounding, it should add no sound of its own whatsoever.  In practice, this is never the case, but that should be the goal (from a technical standpoint, in some systems, there are likely preamps which in practice add no audible sound of their own).  If a preamp ADDS a sound of its own, that is by definition a coloration, as the preamp has no "knowledge" of what the recording should sound like, and therefore cannot "improve" it.

 

And again: if one prefers the sound of their system with a colored preamp in the system, I am fine with that, as long as one accepts that it is a coloration, and not revealing of the actual recording.  

[barrows]

4 minutes ago, Summit said:

Barrows, I wished that high fidelity was as simple, predictable and “logical” as you believe it to be.

In terms of this discussion, it actually is simple.  There is not any mystery here, these things are well understood.

 

Now, if one would like to talk about loudspeaker design, and room interactions, i would agree with you.  I am no newbie here, as a "practicing" audiophile since about 1974, with an audiophile Uncle (now deceased) and Father, and having worked in the high end industry for the last 20 years, I do have some level of experience with systems and components.

[matthias]

Hi Guys,

 

reading this thread I got the impression that some seem to misunderstand the role of the preamp.

 

I came across a very good thread on another forum which sheds some light on the role of the preamp.

 

It is not too long, six pages only and I would like to recommend reading at least page one:

 

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/totaldac-d1-driver-the-pre-amplifier-driver.29500/

 

Matt

[bodiebill]

10 minutes ago, barrows said:

There is not any mystery here, these things are well understood.

 

Theory is made to be well understood. Reality (read: perception), however, especially in audio, often is at odds with theory. Which for some is disturbing, for others (me included) a relief. Ratio is overrated.

[barrows]

4 minutes ago, matthias said:

Hi Guys,

 

reading this thread I got the impression that some seem to misunderstand the role of the preamp.

 

I came across a very good thread on another forum which sheds some light on the role of the preamp.

 

It is not too long, six pages only and I would like to recommend reading at least page one:

 

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/totaldac-d1-driver-the-pre-amplifier-driver.29500/

 

Matt

I did not expect this from you as one who owns a Makua preamp/DAC, which features the exact same output stage topology as  the Tambaqui DAC, and hence has equal ability to drive an amplifier correctly.  And suggesting that the folks that make the TotalDAC are a good source of reliable information is suspect in my book as well.  The TotalDAC is the definition of a colored component which is clear form its measurements (many audible artifacts in its output). 

[barrows]

16 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

Theory is made to be well understood. Reality (read: perception), however, especially in audio, often is at odds with theory. Which for some is disturbing, for others (me included) a relief. Ratio is overrated.

 

You are making a common mistake here, that many audiophiles seem to be subject to.  Just because we may not understand everything which influences sound quality of an audio system, does not mean that we do not fully understand some things.  This is a very important distinction because without this distinction there is no valid path forward in the path to better (more transparent) audio playback quality.

[Kimo]

16 minutes ago, barrows said:

 

Ummm!  I do not know what to do with this, either you are joking, you did not actually read my posts, or your reading comprehension is compromised.  I hope it is the first option!

 

But, to ease your mind and clarify on your post:

 

If one is looking for a system which is transparent to the source recording, the system should not editorialize on the recording.  The system needs to be transparent to the recording.  The goal of any preamp for a transparent system should be the proverbial straight wire with gain (and source switching, and volume control).  It should neither be "thin" sounding nor be "rich" sounding, it should add no sound of its own whatsoever.  In practice, this is never the case, but that should be the goal (from a technical standpoint, in some systems, there are likely preamps which in practice add no audible sound of their own).  If a preamp ADDS a sound of its own, that is by definition a coloration, as the preamp has no "knowledge" of what the recording should sound like, and therefore cannot "improve" it.

 

And again: if one prefers the sound of their system with a colored preamp in the system, I am fine with that, as long as one accepts that it is a coloration, and not revealing of the actual recording.  

 

Well, if this is the goal, shouldn't you start with a truly neutral speaker?  

 

Briefly, I owned a pair of Dynaudio Craafts.  The legendary king of neutral speakers, though I did not own the active pair.  Sit six feet away, turn up the volume and still be sort of bored.  That Esotar tweeter could do some dynamics though.

.

I am not so sure that the output stages found in most DACs are always more neutral than most preamps.  Maybe so.

 

The loss of transparency suffered by adding a preamp could be very real.  Outside of Benchmark, it would seem that you are going to need to spend decent cash in most cases to maintain your 20 bits.