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

Showing 2 responses by mikelavigne

Gethe; i've spoken to Guy at Placette regarding the passive verses the active. when a system is optimized for passive then the passive is 'as good, but different' than the active. the problem is that most systems are not optimized for passive.

you cannot generalize on active verses passive. or even resistive based passive verses transformer based passive....or autoformer based passive.....or battery based active.....i have tried them all in my system.

at the top performance level of each topology it becomes all a matter of context. i have heard many people say that the active Placette is better IN THEIR SYSTEM than the passive...and i believe it.

i would say that until you compare a properly implimented battery powered preamp (combined with an impedence matched amp) with the Placette active (with that same amp) you won't know what preamp is truely transparent to the source.
Scott; your musings on this issue have a familiar ring to me. 6 years ago i purchased a pair of Tenor OTL monoblocks with integrated resistor based passive volume controls and input selectors. at that time i owned the Levinson #32 preamp and loved it. the Tenors and #32 seemed to work well together....i was happy.

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.

next i needed a remote volume control as dual manual volume knobs were not going to work for me long term. i had known about the Placette passives so i found a used balanced RVC on Audiogon. i then added it in front of the Tenors while still using the Tenor passive volume control. i could not 'hear' the Placette in the signal path......which kinda defines transparent. later; i traded my integrated Tenors for Tenors without the passive volume control. these Tenors had true balanced circutry and were a little more transparent than the integrated ones.

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.

i had 10 or 15 recordings that i used to compare the preamps; all types of music and my first priority was transparency and lack of signature. my system was natural sounding with passive and anything that added a signature distracted me from the musical event. i also was after natural transients and microdynamics......and any pre that blunted or added crispness to transients was not for me. i desired an open but texturally rich mid-range.....not bleached or golden. i wanted clarity but not color one way of the other.

overall bass performance, macrodynamcis, and soundstaging were down my list since those things only matter after the other issues are handled. the Placette was always excellent in these areas; but for me the other issues are what connect me to the emotion of the music.....i want to hear into the music and be effected by it first and foremost. maybe others want to focus on tone and bloom......or soundstage depth or height.

does the system escape the speakers and connect me?.....the Placette did.

about 2 years ago i was introduced to the darTZeel amp.....which i really liked but was not as good a match with the passive as my Tenor hybrids.....i think an impedence issue when the dart was used with the DC compensation turned off. it still sounded good but not 'perfect'. then the battery powered dart pre was introduced.

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.

sorry i got a bit wordy; but to me pre's are very easy to compare (and i have done lots of pre comparisons).....since the differences jump out much more than amps or sources......especially when you are comparing different topologies. if you have clear reference recordings it should be easy.

the only caution is with the synergy issue with amps. my Tenors loved passive......my dart was good with passive but is other-worldly with the dart pre (it also uses a unique 50ohm proprietary cable between the dart amp and pre).