2. amps-preamps
  3. 1042062775

preamp vs. no-preamp

Hi guys, I would like to know your opinions regarding the classic question (which also has been posted many times in this forum, I know, I know) whether or not a preamp is needed for a good (= musical sound). You see, if you can delete the preamp and connect the DAC into the poweramp, you can save lots of money, sometimes up to $ 15,000 for a Conrad-Johnson ART (this is off course an extreme example). The money you have spent on the preamp can be used for buying a better source or amplifier (mono's?). So theoretically if you don't have a preamplifier you can improve the sound reproduction by: deleting redundant audio circuitry and interconnect cables, upgrading the quality of you source, poweramplifier or speakers.
My personal experience is that without a preamplifier the sound is becoming thin and uninvolving, but I know there are audiophiles who don't have a preamp in their audio system.
dazzdax

Showing 2 responses by jmcgrogan2

jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
I'll stick in the pro preamp camp. Although I don't think I ever went direct from CDP to amp (I've always had too many sources), I did experiment in the early 90's with passive preamps. I didn't care for them overall. They were very revealing, but they did sound thin and bass shy. I've been back on active preamps for over 8 years. I currently use 6 sources, so I need a preamp. I'm sure in the right system a CDP driving the amp straight may sound pretty good, but then how would I play my LP's?

Regards,
John
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
Come on Sean, jeesh, I'm sorry. That's what people were calling them in the very early 90's. Technically, you are correct. However, I will not be submitting a 5000 word essay.

........passive preamp.. whoops I said it again...hehe...buffered unit.....couldn't resist it.

Regards,
John
More to discover