Best Preamp = No Preamp?

A preamp is not needed if the goal is to simply have a way to control loudness/volume. However, if you want it to sound great, the best your system can sound, then to pick up that last 10 to whatever % of improvement you must have a good preamp. Key here is having a good/great preamp. I have always found that a good preamp improves the sound. I have found this regardless of the reference system I had at the time, regardless of how good the DAC or CD player was and finally regardless of the cost of the CD or DAC in question. I have owned the AA Capitole with volume, the Opus 21 with volume etc, and a good preamp always improved the sound greatly.

Only those who prefer a more threadbare or thin sound will go preless. Some do and for them preless is fine. These are the simple facts of this long debated question based on my experience with lots of top end gear and sound systems.

Ha! Have fun and play for yourself.

Bill

Undertow,

Read my post again. You agree 100% with me and I with you.
Amen.

Bill

Jmaldonado

Your comments are so off point. As I have said, I have owned the best high end has to offer. My reference systems consisted of gear all reviewers would say is not dry and lifeless. No flaws.

A good preamp just sounded better then no preamp in every instance over the years with various pieces of gear - all well respected and match well in a nicely treated room.

Tube or SS, a good preamp always gave the music more body and weight. Even with Thor, CJ, Belles, Wavac, AA, top of the line electronics and Silverline, Dali, Audes and other natural sounding speakers that were far from dry.

I have owned several good passive preamps and great CD players with volume and the preamp always helped.

Bill

Direct sounds thinner with less body, weight and texture. This had been my experience with trying the LSA Attenuator three times, Placette, several DAC's direct, and several CD players direct. To some it sounds cleaner or more resolving, but I feel this is either mistaken for "transparency" or some folks like that lighter than real sound. Ha! I know that sounds negative, but we do all have preferences.

To each his or her own. Just enjoy!

My statements are fact and true for me and my opinion based on my pretty vast experience over the past 2-4 years. Nothing to disagree with. My opinion, my experience, my recent experience.

My preamp is special and has always proven to be better than a direct or passive with the systems it has found itself in.

I can absolutely state this is absolutely true for me and every other person and system my preamp has been compared to direct or passive attenuators. That is the scope and reality of my statement.

I have also found we Aphiles have sonic preferences that lead some to active preamps and others to no preamp. No way to argue or persuade as preferences are preferences.....end of story.

One last clarification. To each his own means just that. If you think it
sounds more real direct, then it does for you. If you think a good active
sounds more real in your given system, then it does for you.

The direct and/or passive crowd seems to state the active crowd likes a
less than "real" sound. Exactly the kind of statement Phusis
stated he would like to stay away from. I agree with Phusis in that we
should stay away from that conclusion. The knife cuts both ways. Sonic
beauty or fidelity is indeed in the mind and ear of the beholder.

Preference is the real determinant here. I will restate my comment on the
direct/passive crowd "mistaking resolution for..." by simply saying they
perceive and hear live music or live/real sounding music to sound more like
their passive/direct set up. In my opinion the two camps are attracted to
different sonic attributes and perceive "real" differently.