How to evaluate preamps?


Based on experience, I found that any preamp, regardless of quality, degrades sound reproduction compared to a direct connection. My power amp has a passive source selector and passive precision stepped atteuator, allowing me to enjoy life without a preamp. Until now. I had to move my sources away from the power amp, behind my listening sofa, and the number of sources has increased. The need for switching between sources, and to drive a long interconnect (9m) from the back to the front of the listeing room forces me to re-visit preamps. Too bad for me.

So how does one evaluate a preamp? I just purchased two units to audition. Since I already know it is impossible to "improve" and only alter the signal from the source, I want to begin by assessing the extent to which a preamp damages the sound compared to no preamp at all. How much transparency is lost by inserting the unit in the system? If all is not lost at this point, I want to assess "how" the unit alters the signal. I don't understand the usual reviewer approach that analyzes individual facets of sound, i.e. deep bass, mid-bass, mid-range, hf, micro dynamics, macro dynamics, etc. Rather I hear different genres of music reproduction that I call "synthetic sound", "euphonic sound" and "natural sound". These are complicated to explain, but the names communicate an idea of the meaning.

Synthetic sound is typical contemporary high-end sound. My reaction to synthetic sound is "this is (or is not, as the case may be) the most amazing sounding stereo system". Synthetic sound excels at resolving detail like the number of cymbal shimmers, background sounds, fingers working frets and keys, breathing, recording session editing, etc. I can hear individual parts, but synthetic systems tend to fail at synthesizing and integrating the parts in to the whole. Or they simply distract from the holistic experience of reproduced music. Euphonic sound is just that - very pleasing to the ears. Music sounds beautifully enhanced on euphonic systems. They may or may not also be resolving and accurate - I've heard both. When I listen to euphonic systems, the experience is look viewing through a golden-tinted lens. It can be pleasurable, but over the long term not my cup of tea. Natural sound is typically unspectacular and unimpressive at first listen because nothing jumps out. No earth-shaking bass, ultra-sonic "air", or microscopic resolution. I guess they error in being subtractive rather than additive. Over time, they become extraordinary for not imparting electronic artifacts or artificial additives. To me, this is the correct approach.

An observation on the "absolute sound", comparison to live music. This is a very silly concept. First, no audio system compares to a live event. Yes, I listen to a lot of live music. Yes, I play instruments (piano now, alto sax and clarinet in the past). Yes, I have listened to some very expensive SOA systems. None of these remotely compares to a live experience. None. But what is intereting are systems that elicit reactions similar to the reactions we experience while attending exceptional live music events. In other words, an exceptional system is one that is able to re-create reactions in the listener that the listener might experience during a live musical event - not trying to re-create the sound of a live musical event, because that is an exercise in futility.

So what does this have to do with evaluating preamps (finally! get to the point!)... To my way of thinking, synthetic sounding preamps are doomed from the beginning. The perceived resolution they render is distracting and has no contribution to recreating the emotive experience of live music. Ask yourself this: when was the last time you were at the symphony or a Stones concert and thought, "I can hear the sound of Mick Jagger's heavy boots when he is strutting across the stage" or "listen to the breathing of the third chair viola in the second row". Who cares? On the other hand, on a euphonic system I listened to some of the most heart-achingly beautiful classical music (Michelangeli on the second movement of Ravel's concerto in G), and on the same system listened to Dereck and the Dominos play "Why does love got to be so sad" recorded live. Clapton's guitar was more beautiful than ever! It was a little weird hearing rock sound so beautiful, but not entirely objectionable.

So, how do you evaluate a preamp? I'm seeking one that allows me to switch sources and control volume, while minimizing corruption to the input signal, and imparting a natural sound.

Scott
skushino
Gettheleadout wrote:
This leads to the biggest challenge for any preamp, totally transparent volume control.

The best preamp would be one that has no sound of it's own. It should be completely transparent.
Yes, agree with you. From personal experience I know that most volume controls are horrible, and just become adequate when moving up to precision matched devices like those used by Guy Hammel (Placette) and Emanuel Go (First Sound).
When defining what exactly a preamp is and what it does, as a bare minimum, it's a volume controller.
Sorry, this is not correct. Preamp literally means pre-amplifier. By definition a preamp MUST include an active gain stage (the definition of amplifier). We may be getting entangled in semantics, but the phrase "passive preamp" is technically incorrect, and misleading.
Tvad wrote:
For me, transparency is not as important as musicality (coloration). I find I enjoy a preamp that adds some color to the system because the result is a sound that approaches the sound of real music, in my opinion. It's my personal preference.
Adding colorations to enhance pleasure is what I describe as "euphonic sound" in my original post. Intellectually, I have reservations about adding colorations. Emotionally, I have really enjoyed some euphonic systems.
Mike wrote:
inevitably one day i bypassed the #32 and ran straight into the Tenors. it made the #32 sound very broken. the $16k #32 was cloudy, congested, and closed in. the #32 lacked micro-dynamics and immediacy.
Yes, your experience is similar to mine, comparing Lamm L2 and Lamm L1 to direct connection. There is just no comparison in terms of transparency. By transparency I mean compared to nothing. It is surprising and disheartening the extent to which even expensive preamps change the signal, compared to direct connection.
for the next 4 years i tried maybe 15 mostly very spendy both active and passive preamps in my system......only a couple were on par (with trade-offs) with the Placette passive......the rest were not as good.
The Placette has a precision matched value volume control and uses Vishay resistors which are very transparent in this application. I think this is the reason so many Placette users remark on the success they have compared to other units.
about 2 years ago i was introduced to the darTZeel amp.....for the first time; here was a preamp that easily bettered the Placette in every way......even at the things that the Placette had always bettered all the other pre's......low noise floor, transparent, and amazing micro-dynamics. it added a sweetness and dynamic range that was singular. in battery mode; the dart was special. and it also bettered my long term phono stage reference; the Lamm LP2.
Mike you know me, I'm one of those idiosyncratic horns and tubes guys. I totally agree with you about the ss Dartzeel preamp, based on listening to yours. It is very, very good. To my ears, it is one of the best "natural sound" preamps I heard, with an added touch of beauty. And yes, it also has that killer phono stage. Someday I need to get one to audition in my system.
Ok guys, who has hands-on experience using TVCs for volume control in the preamp? Sorry, no TVC passives. I'm listening to one now. First impression: the TVC is comparable to precision discrete resistor based unit.

Scott
Mikelavigne,

For the record, I too have talked to guy extensively about his active verses passive unit.

He confirmed, that in every case, to include his own experience, that the active "ALLWAYS" sounded better than the passive.

I also inquired about a system being ideally set-up and optimized for the passive, that in this case, wouldn't the passive sound equal to the active.

His answer was in every case, "NO" the active unit "ALWAYS" sounded better.

Just to be clear, I specifically cornered him on this issue.

So, my premise that the only fair comparison to the darTZeel would be the active Placette still stands.

P.S. I'm totally with you on the whole battery thing. Sometime down the road, I'll probably be looking into putting my entire system on batteries.