Zd542 is correct in my opinion, it truly depends on the desires and preference of a given listener. You could have 10 very experienced liseners in the comparison such as this, five would say the direct source to amp is better and the other five would say sound is better with installation of the preamp. In my own experience more often than not I find a high-quality preamp to make a substantial improvement, but again that's just my listening perspective. |
" Meat on the bones" It may be an overused term but most people understand its meaning in regard to sound quality.
For most it suggests more tonal body, fullness, harmonic richness and dynamic contrast, macro and micro. Resulting in more tactile presence and gravitas.
However some proponents of direct or passive approach would consider these preamp attributes merely "colorations" and not true to the source. They will state passionately that although these colorations may be pleasing, they aren't "accurate" or neutral. In theory I understand this opinion, but not in actual listening reality.
The sonic attributes provided from high quality preamplifiers will render the music/sound more realistic and thus more natural to certain liseners. They seem to fill in added vital information that would otherwise be absent. This absence or subtraction resulting in a leaner, less fleshed out and complete sound. This could be interpreted as more transparency and clarity for some listeners.
So it seems there are two broad camps of listeners.
1, Accurate/neutral and true to the source and
2, Natural, organic and more like live sound.
Listeners will eventually determine which camp or group suits them best. As mentioned earlier this is why people can hear the same direct comparisons and reach opposing conclusions as to what sounds better. This debate won't ever yield a universal right answer.It's a matter of what sounds right to each listener. |
I don't accept the premise that direct source to amplifier delivers the audio signal fully intact. It may in fact deliver only a partial signal and the addition of a good preamp corrects these subtractions.
This thread and others reveal many lisners who find the preamp improves the sound.Better tone,harmonics,bass, dynamics and fleshed out images are just colorations? Really? Each active preamp does have its own sonic signature, agreed.
Run five different sources direct to amplifier, guess what? Five different sonic signatures amongst them as well. Each is distinct from the other direct source. Every audio device, part and component has a signature. MSB sounds different compared to DCS which again differs from Trinity or what ever brand you choose.
This is why the experienced contributors on this thread readily acknowledge it is pure preference and subjectivity that rule the day. |
Regarding Paul McGowan, why is hard to acknowledge he simply heard improved sound with an active preamplifier added to his system. This is not a rare finding. |
Jon,
Yes, there is no flawless source or flawless anything else when it comes to audio. Your logic and reasoning is on the mark. The notion that direct source to amplifier is ideal/perfect/flawless and thus can't be improved upon is a flawed premise. This approach may be preferred by some(which of course is fine)but it has its compromises as well. |
Al's last sentence is what really sums it up. Keeping it simple is the desired path( I agree) until you reach a point where "simpler" is no longer the best sounding option. You have to be practical, listen and decide. It does no good to say direct source is better if it doesn't provide the best sound in a given system or circumstance. In this case simplicity isn't the best option if it fails to deliver the best sound for a particular listener. |
Jon,
That's a good observation regarding Al's system choices. When all is said and done, we're all just after the best sound we can get given the available options we have. We all travel our own individual pathways to reach an objective/goal.
|
Initforthemusic,
You summarized very well the point I hoped to get across. The "alive" emotionally engaging aspect of music reproduction is a must have for my listening pleasure. Without this aspect the music sounds diluted, canned and less involving. For those who'd say these aspects are simply colorations added to the signal, why does their presence increase the live, full bodied and realistic sound? Anyway I long ago decided to choose what sounds more natural and alive to me. I can't/won't declare for other listeners any proclamation of what's right or wrong, these are clearly individual choices. The high quality active preamp gets it done for me( very often too much vital musical information is missing in their absence ).
|
Phusis,
I have stated on this thread and previous ones covering this same topic, listen both ways and decide. Why is that so hard to understand? Both approaches will and do have their supporters. I've never been critical of anyone who prefers direct source(and why would I be, it isn't my system). You have your preferences based on your listening experiences and so do I. If we have have different conclusions, that's fine and what different does it make? We all are just stating our opinions here on an open forum. I have no interest in converting anyone to my choices, I'm just sharing my personal listening experiences in the spirit of friendly discussion. i'm only interestered is owning what provides the best sound in my home and believe others here are motivated in the same fashion.
Charles, |
Grannyring,
Very well thought out and expressed.
Arthur Salvatore for many years was a strong proponent of direct source or passive preamps. He tested an active Line Stage and realizes for the first time that the source wasn't delivering the "complete" audio signal. In other words the direct source was "subtractive" of vital audio signal information. He was initially stunned with this revelation. In his opinion based on this direct comparison the Line Stage provided missing information rather than adding "pleasant" colorations. This isn't always the case with every situation of course. He now believes a top flight active Line Stage can be an improvement when placed in a system. That's just one man's listening experience and nothing more. He had previously accepted the ideal that the source audio signal is pure and complete and thus couldn't be improved, wrong premise he realized. |
Jon,
Yes he's a very interesting person, I like his strict no nonsense rating of components and his clear rationale and explanations. You don't have to agree with him but at lease he makes strong logical points in his defense. |
Bill,
I appreciate your time and considerable effort to compare these 2 custom made and obviously high quality components. Interestingly you and I both are proponents of the simpler is better philosophy. This is why I eventually gravitated to a SET amplifier and a very simple circuit- transformer based active Line Stage with minimal parts count. At the end of the day however the ultimate determinate is listening. Someone else could hear the same exact comparison and prefer your passive component. The inevitable subjectivity factor which cannot be eliminated. I have no doubt that your newly created active Line Stage sounds superb and provides the superior listening experience as you attest to. Congratulations on completing this ambitious project.
Charles, |
Hi Phil,
Exactly!
Charles, |
