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

[matthias]

13 minutes ago, barrows said:

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). 

 

This linked thread was not started by TotalDAC but by Emile from Taiko Audio.

I is not about to praise a product from TotalDAC but it shows nicely that the role of the preamp is to drive the power amp properly.

BTW, I do not own a product from Mola-Mola. Sorry.

 

Matt

[barrows]

19 minutes ago, Kimo said:

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

If you have not read my previous posts, I have made the distinction of my preference for a system which is hi fidelity, which means transparent to the recording.  All of my other thoughts here are referenced ty that point of view.  Additionally, I have made no judgements about those who might have different preferences.  If you like SET amps, that is fine with me, if you like adding a preamp, that is also fine with me, your audio system is for your enjoyment (and hopefully that of your friends and family).  If one prefers a colored sound, rather than an accurate one, that is fine with me.   

[Kimo]

Just now, barrows said:

If you have not read my previous posts, I have made the distinction of my preference for a system which is hi fidelity, which means transparent to the recording.  All of my other thoughts here are referenced toy that point of view.  Additionally, I have made no judgements about those who might have different preferences.  If you like SET amps, that is fine with me, if you like adding a preamp, that is also fine with me, your audio system is for your enjoyment (and hopefully that of your friends and family).  If one prefers a colored sound, rather than an accurate one, that is fine with me.   

 

I doubt that my system qualifies as neutral with all Linnenberg Electronics and Alta FRM speakers, but unless you are running active monitors with DSP  you aren't running a very neutral system, preamp or not.  JBL with Crown will get you closer to neutral.

[barrows]

23 minutes ago, matthias said:

 

This linked thread was not started by TotalDAC but by Emile from Taiko Audio.

I is not about to praise a product from TotalDAC but it shows nicely that the role of the preamp is to drive the power amp properly.

BTW, I do not own a product from Mola-Mola.

OOPs!  My bad on Mola Mola.  My reference to TotalDAC was because the entire beginning of that thread is quoting from the TotalDAC folks on why one would want to add their buffer to their DAC.  There was so much mis-information in the first couple of posts I could not bare to read any further.

 

Indeed, though.  The goal of any output stage (line driver) is to drive both the cable (and this can be a significant load with some poorly designed audiophile interconnects with high C) and the input stage of the amplifier correctly.  This is true of both preamps, and DACs (when they include volume controls).  My point in this thread is to illuminate that in the case of most DACs (and yes, there are a few exceptions) they can adequately drive the input stage of most amplifiers in exactly the same way as a preamp.  Preamps have no "magical" quality which makes them "better" at driving amplifier input stages than DACs.  In fact, the output stages of most DACs and preamps are the same circuit.  To clarify, I will provide an example of a DAC, which in my experience, does not drive amplifiers adequately:  The PS Audio DS DAC has at its output a transformer, without an active line driver stage-IME this DAC suffers driving amplifiers directly, and does  a lot better with a really good preamp. 

[matthias]

12 minutes ago, barrows said:

OOPs!  My bad on Mola Mola.  My reference to TotalDAC was because the entire beginning of that thread is quoting from the TotalDAC folks on why one would want to add their buffer to their DAC.  There was so much mis-information in the first couple of posts I could not bare to read any further.

 

Indeed, though.  The goal of any output stage (line driver) is to drive both the cable (and this can be a significant load with some poorly designed audiophile interconnects with high C) and the input stage of the amplifier correctly.  This is true of both preamps, and DACs (when they include volume controls).  My point in this thread is to illuminate that in the case of most DACs (and yes, there are a few exceptions) they can adequately drive the input stage of most amplifiers in exactly the same way as a preamp.  Preamps have no "magical" quality which makes them "better" at driving amplifier input stages than DACs.  In fact, the output stages of most DACs and preamps are the same circuit.  To clarify, I will provide an example of a DAC, which in my experience, does not drive amplifiers adequately:  The PS Audio DS DAC has at its output a transformer, without an active line driver stage-IME this DAC suffers driving amplifiers directly, and does  a lot better with a really good preamp. 

 

Some time ago I connected my CD player directly to my power amp and it was inferior sounding in comparison to using the preamp in between both components. What I found is that without a good preamp there is often a lack of PRaT, slam, drive and excitement. So in every case you have to try.

 

Matt

[bodiebill]

deleted 🙂

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

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

 

with respect I am not understanding how you feel your theory is fact and somehow scientifically unreproachable.

 

 

9 hours ago, barrows said:

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.

 

Yes, these are feasible theories

 

 

9 hours ago, barrows said:

 

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,

 

 

No, incorrect. Just because you do not know the mechanism does not mean it doesn't exist. You have nominated two feasible theories already (which you have discounted) and unless you are all-knowing, you must entertain that there may be other possibilities which you are not aware of.

 

This is where science plays a role in hypothesis testing. Your theory suggests the hypothesis that distortion added by a preamp colors perception of sound and in such a way to explain the audible effects as mentioned above. Until that is tested by experiment it is just your faith.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 3/23/2020 at 4:00 AM, barrows said:

 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.

 

7 hours ago, barrows said:

 If one prefers a colored sound, rather than an accurate one, that is fine with me.   

 

Statements like these are IMO both condescending and misguided. It might be equally condescending to say, provided you are willing to discard science, sure you can believe whatever theory you want, based on your faith.

 

However strong your theory is, no matter how many measurements you have, the scientific method demands a testable hypothesis. This is the only way forward if any progress is to be made in resolving differences of opinion, to the extent that that matters to someone.

 

As mentioned, you have made predictions and proclamations based on a theory which in turn is supported by various facts. None of this matters one iota unless said predictions and proclamations are subject to experiment and test of the hypothesis. You have not done this but rather argued in support of your theory. Sweeping and  condescending generalisations such as "you are preferring is the addition of distortion products...... If one prefers a colored sound, rather than an accurate one, that is fine with me"  simply turns a blind eye to the scientific method.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

An  important point for me is if the goal is to be transparent to the source it must sound like the original event ie the real actual source, to the extent that one knows what this is. Live acoustic unamplified sound is usually the yardstick with real people in a real space. So when I say faithful to the source it is faithful to the real thing, real people and real instruments in a real space. Of course I cannot be there to verify each recording but the experience must accord with other real-life events that I have physically attended and have physically heard. I have no problem with people defining faithful to the source in terms of comparing two different signals, input and output, provided the final result accords with reality.

 

Hence, the discussion of fidelity is all about whether you are listening to a convincing, realistic and engaging presentation whereby you are able to suspend disbelief that you were not actually at the venue. Anything less than this is not *transparent*. Whatever you do to the signal it must adhere to this goal otherwise in my opinion there is a failing somewhere in the chain .

 

Without a preamp in my experience, transparency suffers if defined in the above terms. By definition it is not coloration if the sound is *closer* to the real event, hence more accurate and transparent. It is the latter that I and interested in not measurements and theories about audio signals.

[sandyk]

7 hours ago, barrows said:

 If one prefers a colored sound, rather than an accurate one, that is fine with me.   

 Here we go again !

 

Keeping repeating it, is not going to convince a single member that it is always true.

 The same as non Balanced is always inferior to Balanced in a proper design using short well constructed interconnects.

[One and a half]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

The same as non Balanced is always inferior to Balanced in a proper design using short well constructed interconnects.

I need to disagree here.

unbalanced promotes common mode noise and bonds grounds from one component to the other, which leads to ground loops formed through earthing conductors on the AC side.

 

Balanced is inherently common mode noise rejection, with bonding of the chassis of equipment in a separate conductor and not bonded to the ground point in either device, unless some twisted designer had done so. 
 

unbalanced works in phono cartridges since there’s no loop to create, it should never have been used for line level sources with earthed chassis equipment.

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, One and a half said:

unbalanced works in phono cartridges since there’s no loop to create,

 In my case there should be no loop because the reference ground is extended all the way back from the 10 ohm earth lift resistor in the P.A, then switched through the Preamp to the DAC

[DuckToller]

Following the discussion between @barrows and @Audiophile Neuroscience about dac +pre amp vs Dac direct to amplification in this thread, I am wondering what triggers the strong reaction towards knowledge and experience of audio engineering?

I've got the impression the discussion is about "who has the valid ideas" and information (validated by observation) about uncolored, realistic, unaltered SOUND (not information). From the outsides it looks like two schools of thoughts have found a place to battle it out, while, on reflection, both may have it merits, depending on your own personal preference.

Personally, I support ratio, which leaves me on the side of signal processing and supporting barrows "opinion" about the result he prefers being uncolored, notwithstanding the fact (based on observation) that other systems may sound better to my ears for whatever reasons.

However, through the magnifying lens, it is just about the question who owns the key to audiophile nirvana, defined by the pure (absolute) sound. There is perhaps a strong denial of reason, if acknowledgement of that reason would close the access to that precious key?

Given the fact, that different people have different preferences, one may refer to a philosophy of having the signal path as short as possible (aka straight wire with gain), knowing that only a minimum of alteration of the signal will occur by adding/discounting information on the way to the transducers, as a preference, while others don't refer to the signal process but to the perceived sound quality as the most important indicator of an audiophile system, which in practice shouldn't be denied, but not evidently depends on reasons like unaltered signal processing.
 

In my understanding, it is nearly impossible to converge these schools, neither part time nor permanently, because ignoring the math in signal processing can't be generally accepted by audio engineering principles,  while the idea of unaltered, pure, absolute signal (in that case equals Sound) can't be given away by the opponents as, objectively, they don't want to book the 2nd class entry to audiophile heaven by an altered signal and sound with coloration.

I personally do not regard that result as 2nd class at all, especially when they are completely happy with the premium results they hear, however, the strong reaction of moderate and educated people let me consider that there is more to that discussion than the perceived best sound quality.
 

The core of the discussion, imho, is not about objectivist and subjectivist, even not as Chris has put it about saving/stopping/deluding people from their hobby of "spending their own money having fun".

Thinking about that latest discourse it feels like the people spending money can't have fun if other people spending money have fun with results that differ from their own objective/ perception/ experience.

In real life, the price of a 21k Bricasti DAC - for example - would cover for the vast majority of the forum members all of their expenses for their audio system, which in turn means that the discussion we have seen is on a very elevated battleground.

Though it is exemplary about the inconvenience of the "everything matters" community about the "straight wire with gain" hood claims, they have the ultimate, unaltered or the equivalent in most minimized, uncolored signal processing. 

Giving that part of audiophile nirvana away, could be counted as opening the pathway for even more ignorant and incompetent objective assessments from the nay-Sayers outside their own galaxy. I wonder what is the real reason to defend that golden vlies in such an irrational way?

Why they just can't stand it, and feel the need to fight it with both, considerate academic language & constant snark bickering from the sidekicks?
 

AN for example does have a really wonderful system (and even a nice pool outside!), thus it seems to be of great importance to him to be very referential in his opinion, that barrows reason is nothing more than a claim and scientifically disputable because it suffers evidence that he would acknowledge.
While anyone can perceive his well educated school of thought for making a point in this debate, I look at this and wonder what is the trigger when both members are as close with their technical preferences as it could get given they haven't got the same parents, education,  and profession. I wonder if this is related to some cultural differences sharing the same language but different cultural influences ? (i.e. here )
 

I remember reports from RMAF 2019 that the SONORE room had been one of the best (judgement by Jud / Purple Warrior) with an exquisite choice of equipment:

From what I've seen in this forum, I'd assume AN may have not a lot to criticize about that selection, except of lacking a pre-amp that would make the system sound the way he prefers. 😉
 

When we see so much converging aspects in our hobby, then what is the underlying reason for disregarding the philosophy behind the above system configuration so vehemently, in a forum section where disagreement usually is sourced out to the objective forum?
 

I am very curious to find out about that, because in my personal opinion , these triggers look to me like another core problem to forum civility.

Cheers, Tom

[barrows]

3 hours ago, DuckToller said:

From the outsides it looks like two schools of thoughts have found a place to battle it out, while, on reflection, both may have it merits, depending on your own personal preference.

 

Indeed, I referenced many of my posts here saying I have no problem with those who prefer the sound of their system with a preamp in place, as long as those persons recognize that the sound which they are preferring is a result of the color added by their preamp.  And then I stated that my preference is to have a system which attempts to be as transparent to the source recording as possible.  As there are many people reading here who do not post, I think it is important to put out rational, factual, straightforward information on forums, as not to lead astray readers who may not feel they want to participate to get a deeper understanding.

I have no problem with those who prefer a colored system, or a "nice" sounding system, which might be editorializing on the recording a bit, to suit the preference of the owner.  Everyone gets to choose the system of their preference, and that sounds the way they want it to.  I am not a zealot, who chooses to impose my view on what a system "should" sound like to others: my preference is to try and approach accuracy, but I do not think that should be anyone else's goal just because it is mine.

This is similar to my view on vinyl playback, it has been demonstrated to me that for the most part, folks who like the sound of vinyl playback like it for its inaccuracies/colorations, and not because it is more accurate than digital (it is not, and that is a technical fact which cannot be disputed with any verity).  That does not mean I would discourage anyone from enjoying vinyl playback, but if someone claims that vinyl playback is more accurate, or more transparent to the source recording, than digital, then there would be a dis-agreement.

 

3 hours ago, DuckToller said:

In real life, the price of a 21k Bricasti DAC - for example - would cover for the vast majority of the forum members all of their expenses for their audio system

 

I doubt that this is the case.  Even my somewhat moderate system would  eclipse this number at retail (if my loudspeakers were available today, they would retail for over $10K).  I would also suggest, that for anyone on a budget, eschewing a preamp, and very carefully selecting a DAC/Amp combo which sounds great together without a preamp, and spending the money saved on better loudspeakers, would result in a much more satisfying system than would result by having a preamp in the chain, and purchasing lesser loudspeakers.  

Now for those like @Audiophile Neuroscience, who do not appear to have much in terms of limitations when it comes to how much they are willing to spend on audio gear, the additional expense of a really good pre amp (I believe his preamp retails for around $39K USD) is not a concern, and he already has loudspeakers which I consider among the very best in the world, is not a concern.  But for audiophiles with any kind of budget, the increase in system performance to be achieved by spending a few thousand  dollars more on loudspeakers can be very, very significant, considering that good preamps are rather expensive.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 hours ago, DuckToller said:

When we see so much converging aspects in our hobby, then what is the underlying reason for disregarding the philosophy behind the above system configuration so vehemently, in a forum section where disagreement usually is sourced out to the objective forum?
 

I am very curious to find out about that, because in my personal opinion , these triggers look to me like another core problem to forum civility.

Cheers, Tom

 

It was a little difficult for me to follow the entirety of your post but addressing the above:

 

I have no problem with the Sonore system, hell I have never even heard it. The fact that it does or does not have a pre-amp is totally irrelevant to me.People make their own choice for whatever reasons.

 

What is relevant to me is when a subjective leap of faith conclusion is proffered about preferences for all systems that include pre-amps as being based on distortion. There is nothing new in scratching an objectivist and finding a subjectivist 🤔 IMO. What often surprises me is that when objective scientific evidence is requested that it should be an issue for an objectivist.

 

YMMV

 

Cheers

David

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

But for audiophiles with any kind of budget, the increase in system performance to be achieved by spending a few thousand  dollars more on loudspeakers can be very, very significant, considering that good preamps are rather expensive.

 

Absolutely agree. This was the advice I gave my friend.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

Now for those like @Audiophile Neuroscience, who do not appear to have much in terms of limitations when it comes to how much they are willing to spend on audio gear,

 

You clearly haven't met Mrs @Audiophile Neuroscience  😅

[Summit]

On 3/23/2020 at 7:16 PM, barrows said:

If you have not read my previous posts, I have made the distinction of my preference for a system which is hi fidelity, which means transparent to the recording.  All of my other thoughts here are referenced ty that point of view.  Additionally, I have made no judgements about those who might have different preferences.  If you like SET amps, that is fine with me, if you like adding a preamp, that is also fine with me, your audio system is for your enjoyment (and hopefully that of your friends and family).  If one prefers a colored sound, rather than an accurate one, that is fine with me.   

 

I must say that you once again come off as condescending toward all those that have come to another conclusion about preferred ways to get high fidelity. It doesn’t really matter if you also says that you have made no judgments about those who might have different preferences, if you at the same time suggests that all other ways, but the ones that you approve, is a preference for a coloured sound. To say things like people that prefer the sound of a preamp/tubes etc prefers a colored sound rather than an accurate one, is IMO condescending and not necessarily correct.

 

I trust that most Audiophiles want high fidelity AND there are many ways to skin a cat. Sometimes it is with a preamp, sometimes it’s without. As always it depends on many things what’s best and that we have to choose which type of imperfection we can live with, because its nearly never about 100 % accurate vs coloured.

[bodiebill]

Some of us believe that digital is in principle flawed and that, even at higher resolutions, some essential information is missing from the signal. Compare it to film cameras of the first decades of the 20th century.

Is it unthinkable that some coloration can correct these flaws and heighten our sense of 'being there'?

See this enhanced/distorted/smoothened/colored clip of New York in 1911:

 

 

[davide256]

17 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

Some of us believe that digital is in principle flawed and that, even at higher resolutions, some essential information is missing from the signal. Compare it to film cameras of the first decades of the 20th century.

Is it unthinkable that some coloration can correct these flaws and heighten our sense of 'being there'?

See this enhanced/distorted/smoothened/colored clip of New York in 1911:

 

(removed)

Thank you for posting! What a time capsule and the improved frame rate made the people real to me. Couldn't help notice the lack of obesity, young and old...

[Kimo]

14 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

Some of us believe that digital is in principle flawed and that, even at higher resolutions, some essential information is missing from the signal. Compare it to film cameras of the first decades of the 20th century.

Is it unthinkable that some coloration can correct these flaws and heighten our sense of 'being there'?

See this enhanced/distorted/smoothened/colored clip of New York in 1911:

 

 

 

Here is link to a Bob Katz  article about improving sound via the addition of distortion.  Bob is pretty well known in the professional sound world.  

 

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/katzs-corner-episode-25-adventures-distortion

 

In a nutshell:

 

No distortion sounds better than a little bit of bad distortion, but moderate, well-distributed distortion sounds better, too!. I believe there's a middle amount where distortion can sound deadly. Why? Because in that middle area, where the overall distortion measures somewhat low, but not close enough to zero, the presence of some higher harmonics can psychoacoustically predominate over the important lower ones. In other words, the distribution of the distortion is the key to sonic differences.

[barrows]

2 minutes ago, bodiebill said:

Is it unthinkable that some coloration can correct these flaws

 

I would suggest that anyone believing the above take some time to think deeply about it.

 

I do not accept the premise that digital audio recording and playback is inherently flawed in some way at the current state of the art (although I do accept that there are plenty of digital recording and playback methods and components which are flawed, and do produced flawed results).

 

I would ponder in this direction:  Consider a digital playback system which actually does produce some artifacts which are annoying to listen to (I do believe this exists in some digital recording/playback situations, but not all).  If one has this in their system, then I could see how one might choose to add a coloration in an attempt to reduce the impact of these flaws.  This approach has been used in some components, by methods such as adding a tube output stage to a DAC with high levels of low order distortion, in order to "smooth over" some perhaps annoying digital artifacts.  In this process though, a loss of transparency is a side effect which is not beneficial.  Again, this is something I have no problem with, as long as one accepts that they are choosing to accept a playback system which is trading off some transparency/accuracy, for a smoother sound in playback, in other words, a compromise.

 

Personally, when/if I perceive a problem caused by a digital component (an actual artifact which is not part of the source recording), my approach is not to make a compromise, but to seek out the cause of that artifact and eliminate it.  This approach may be a more difficult to achieve in practice, but ultimately it is also more rewarding in terms of accuracy in playback.

 

In answer to the quoted question, yes, it is unthinkable, because adding a coloration cannot "correct" anything, because the component adds the same coloration to every recording.  The component cannot "know" what the recording is supposed to sound like , and then make an appropriate "correction".  Additionally, every time a coloration is added in a playback chain, some accuracy is lost.

 

My approach would be to correct the actual problem, rather than adding some color which serves to obscure the problem.  

[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.

[barrows]

As to the Bob Katz approach:  We are living in a time where current technology allows us to have no audible distortion in playback electronics at all.  While the approach of accepting some low level distortion in electronic design was once the best compromise we could make, now we can have none, which is even better technically (leaving loudspeakers out of the discussion).

 

As an example of what I ma talking about, I would encourage anyone to listen to a Mola Mola DAC and Kaluga amps driving some really really good loudspeakers, such as Vivd Audio.  When I heard this combination (I think about 4 years ago) it was a landmark experience for me because the level of detail was very fine indeed, as was the realistic portrayal of dynamics, and timbre.  But what was really astonishing was that all of these sonic qualities were achieved along with a sense of naturalness, organic sound, and ease which did not sound like an electronic representation of music at all, but just like music itself.

[Kimo]

3 minutes ago, barrows said:

As to the Bob Katz approach:  We are living in a time where current technology allows us to have no audible distortion in playback electronics at all.  While the approach of accepting some low level distortion in electronic design was once the best compromise we could make, now we can have none, which is even better technically (leaving loudspeakers out of the discussion).

 

As an example of what I ma talking about, I would encourage anyone to listen to a Mola Mola DAC and Kaluga amps driving some really really good loudspeakers, such as Vivd Audio.  When I heard this combination (I think about 4 years ago) it was a landmark experience for me because the level of detail was very fine indeed, as was the realistic portrayal of dynamics, and timbre.  But what was really astonishing was that all of these sonic qualities were achieved along with a sense of naturalness, organic sound, and ease which did not sound like an electronic representation of music at all, but just like music itself.

 

Bob does call out the Ncore amps as being "audibly close to straight wire with gain" specifically in the article, but he really doesn't say too much more about them.   I can't tell if he would prefer to add a little 2nd order distortion to the Hypex, or not, from what he has written.

 

Still, the implication is that most amplifiers, as of the articles date 2018, will sound better by adding a little second order distortion to mask IMD and higher order distortions.   Personally, I never enjoyed a tube preamp with a solid state amp, but lots of people do.  If we go with Bob's approach, it would stand to reason that removing the preamp might make many systems sound worse.