Preamp or Not


System:
Speakers: B&W 802D
AMP: 2 Plinius SA100 MKIII used as mono
Preamp: Musical Fidelity need upgrade to BAT or Pass Labs?
Source: Arcam fmj CD37

I have bunch of other good equipment in my theater room. The above are my 2-channel audio only set up. I have been thinking of upgrading my pre and CDP because they have no XLR connections. They sound very good but I'd like to use the balance connections. I just found an Esoteric SA50 player which apparently can be connected to the amplifier directly, therefore, eliminating the need for a preamp.

Question:

Since I have a very high gain amp and some external distortion and noise issues, would I be better off with a preamp and a source or just go directly from source to the amps. If there are no setbacks with this kind of set up, I can eliminate one component and save some $ in the process.

I would love to hear from members with similar experience and/or familiar with Esoteric SA50.
espoverload

Showing 1 response by wilsynet

It should work out ... on paper anyway.

The Plinius SA-100 amplifiers have 47 Kohm input impedance, which is theoretically a reasonable match for a passive (Lightspeed, Bent, etc) and hence a reasonable match for source direct.

Also, both the Arcam FMJ CD37 and the Esoteric SA50 have output impedance less than 100 ohms.

Given that your amplifier and your source (current and proposed) are theoretically well matched for a passive setup, you don't need to buy the Esoteric SA50 to accomplish this, a good passive would also do the trick.

However, you may want the Esoteric anyway. Either approach should work out in theory, but proof is in the listening.

If I may interject my own personal bias: with all of that solid state, I'd recommend a tube preamplifier, perhaps a Mapletree Line 2A SE for the budget conscious.