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
The only way I know of to accurately evaluate any components insertion into an existing system is to have references (recordings) which are an intregal part of your musical memory and represent instruments, including voice, which replicate your impression of their sound live, or as close to live in the most important aspects of that sound that can be recorded.

For me piano, solo horns, and voice reproduction is critical and very revealing. I'm familar with their sound live and proper replication is very important to me. I do not use large group performances or electronic music to judge - one's not capapable of reproduction on any approximation of live, and the other is too variable as to be identifiable to anyone except the person with the gear. IMHO.

Once you have recordings which from past experience you know to represent the best reproduction of the sources in your extant system its easy to judge the capabilities of an inserted component, in your case a pre-amp. You do have to listen to the sound segmented. Unless you are a musical savant its incredibly difficult to in any reasonable period of time to identify minute differences in high quality components.

For me distortions of high frequencies and upper mid frequencies are far more important than lower mids and bass which in real life are too variable depending on the recording environment. Then I listen carefully to the the segemented sound for sounds most linear and clear/transparent, consequently natural. I probably am listening to an octave at a time.

If you want to insert a pre-amp into an existing system and you want to minimize the differences it can introduce you are going to have to insure that it has the capability to drive long cable runs without creating impedence issues, noise issues, and plain old sonic issues. This is both pre-amp and IC related. You will also need to insure that it has SOTA volume control. Bewarned, even with the greatest dilligence, and the best (read SOTA) pre-amps you will not be able to replicate what you have now, so it will be seeking out the lesser of evils (to you).

I hope that makes a bit of sense to you and helps.
IMHO, your premise that you're not currently using a preamp, is a common misconception.

When defining what exactly a preamp is and what it does, as a bare minimum, it's a volume controller.

So, what's really happening in your present configuration is you source unit is pulling double duty, as your source unit and preamp.

Because a preamp is at a minimum a volume controller, only a system devoid of volume control can be said to have no preamp.

This leads to the biggest challenge for any preamp, totally transparent volume control.

The best preamp would be one that has no sound of it's own. It should be completely transparent.

The most transparent preamp I've ever encountered and own is a Placette.

IMHO, it's far more transparent than any pot integrated into a source unit, not to mention other dedicated preamps.

Maybe for a controlled experiment connect a headphone
amp and set of phones you are familiar with and run it
through the preamp outputs. The relative differences should
be clear (warm, detailed, up-front, whatever...). Use
a known pair of interconnects for this.
A SOTA d/a converter does less damage to a signal than most passive volume controls.
Long story short, during our "passive" years we found that one Vishay 201 resistor in the line with a pot shunted to ground, was about as good as it gets, being only slightly bettered by having one Vishay in each position - depending on the quality of the switch used. We made these for years and took on all challengers. Then we discovered digital room correction. With it the sound is much less confused (more intelligible) and more natural sounding (less distorted). I store response curves in memory and tweak them to compensate for different sources and program material.
So my advice is IMPROVE your system with a digital pre-amp with room correction. I use one made by Tact, but others may work as well.