• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Talk me out of buying an "audiophile" preamp - confirm/deny some myths/assumptions

win

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
430
Likes
432
Location
Irvine CA
It's tough to find something that has everything, but I think the minidsp shd might have the most:

1. DAC
2. ADC
3. Volume
4. XLR outputs, you need at least 4 channels imo
5. Active crossover
6. Remote control
7. Room correction
8. EQ/dsp
9. Multiple inputs that can be switched
10. Missing Headphone out
11. Streamer

pretty tough to find it all
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,288
Likes
12,194
Dunno about those pre-amps.

But as for the "ditch the pre-amp" idea, I certainly get it, in theory.

Over the years I've tried some passive volume controls. And one of the reasons I bought my Benchmark DAC(s) was the ability to go directly in to my amps (Conrad Johnson tube amps) and control the volume via the DAC. However, I have the same experience every single time I've tried this. "Wow, this sounds cleeeean and transparent!" That impression holds the day for a while, but every time I go back to a pre-amp it's a relief.
Perhaps it has to do with quirks in my system, but a preamp always sounds more dense and gutsy, the DAC direct in sounds super clean but a bit ghostly (and more "dark" toned, which I don't care for). (I currently use a Conrad Johnson tube preamp, which is also very useful for switching between my analog and digital source).
 

Worth Davis

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
162
Likes
205
I removed everything in favor of a minidsp shd...highly recommended...have 2 lexicons and a modwright ready to go on eBay
 
  • Like
Reactions: wje

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,696
Likes
37,434
Dunno about those pre-amps.

But as for the "ditch the pre-amp" idea, I certainly get it, in theory.

Over the years I've tried some passive volume controls. And one of the reasons I bought my Benchmark DAC(s) was the ability to go directly in to my amps (Conrad Johnson tube amps) and control the volume via the DAC. However, I have the same experience every single time I've tried this. "Wow, this sounds cleeeean and transparent!" That impression holds the day for a while, but every time I go back to a pre-amp it's a relief.
Perhaps it has to do with quirks in my system, but a preamp always sounds more dense and gutsy, the DAC direct in sounds super clean but a bit ghostly (and more "dark" toned, which I don't care for). (I currently use a Conrad Johnson tube preamp, which is also very useful for switching between my analog and digital source).
C-J preamp are you using? And which amps too? Just curious.
 

CDMC

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,172
Likes
2,321
I just bought a Freya + and am waiting for restocking at Schiit, (Aug. 07 they say). Maybe I'll be able to confirm or not. Lots of people say that passive loses some dynamics -- something I've noticed myself with other preamps and amps, (though others say it's just my imagination).

I observed that with mine. Then I used my Umik to level match between the two modes and the difference disappeared.
 
OP
7

73hadd

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
126
Likes
96
Thanks all for the help so far. I realize that I posted this as a "talk me out of" but then only posted "decide between" information. Many of you went the direction that I meant to describe, which is to consider the direct DAC to amp, "passive pre", or minidsp options as alternatives. I am likely not going to make any decision anytime soon so there may not be a "what did I do" follow up.

If it measures better (which is why I am on ASR) then I should consider the new technology.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,288
Likes
12,194
C-J preamp are you using? And which amps too? Just curious.

I use a CJ Premier 16LS2 pre-amp.

Before that was mostly a procession of tube pre-amps (and one or two SS I tried, e.g. Bryston). Audible Illusions, a locally built tube preamp and others.

[Worthless Anecdote] As I mentioned, it was a combination of lack of density/punch and a sort of dark, less airy tonal balance, that kept driving me away from the Benchmark DAC straight in to my amps. I settled on the Premier 16LS2 because, finally, it was a tubed pre-amp that sounded subjectively about as "transparent" and clean as the Benchmark DAC, while not having the problem of darkening the tonality.
The trade off is that it isn't as dense and punchy as the locally built tube pre-amp I'd used for many years, but it's good enough and I prefer the clearer sound. [/Worthless Anecdote]
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,696
Likes
37,434
I use a CJ Premier 16LS2 pre-amp.

Before that was mostly a procession of tube pre-amps (and one or two SS I tried, e.g. Bryston). Audible Illusions, a locally built tube preamp and others.

[Worthless Anecdote] As I mentioned, it was a combination of lack of density/punch and a sort of dark, less airy tonal balance, that kept driving me away from the Benchmark DAC straight in to my amps. I settled on the Premier 16LS2 because, finally, it was a tubed pre-amp that sounded subjectively about as "transparent" and clean as the Benchmark DAC, while not having the problem of darkening the tonality.
The trade off is that it isn't as dense and punchy as the locally built tube pre-amp I'd used for many years, but it's good enough and I prefer the clearer sound. [/Worthless Anecdote]
I've owned some C-J gear, and it pretty much always sounds enjoyable. I've not had any of the pre-amps in the series of the 16LS2 however. Their gear is also very well built.
 

MattHooper

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 27, 2019
Messages
7,288
Likes
12,194
I've owned some C-J gear, and it pretty much always sounds enjoyable. I've not had any of the pre-amps in the series of the 16LS2 however. Their gear is also very well built.

It seems to be well built. My CJ monoblocks are 22 years old, used constantly, and are reliable work-horses (with the exception of course of, after a certain number of years, it's time to replace some tubes). The pre-amp is about 8 years old and it also seems reliable.

I believe you mentioned the Quad ESL 63 as one of your formative speaker experiences (?). The 63s were my re-introduction to high-end too, when a friend bought them second hand and paired them with the Dynaco St-170 amp. I was so besotted I just had to try to replicate it at my place, so I bought ESL 63s but ended up with a Conrad Johnson MV55 tube amp. I was in heaven, and the pairing seemed great. If one wants to end up with tube amps that actually exhibit some tube coloration, it seems the older, classic CJ amps are a good bet. (Whereas I understand something like Peter Walker's Quad tube amps would be, when paired sanely, more neutral given his design goals).

But then I started trying more challenging dynamic speakers, full range and/or challenging sensitivity/impedances, the MV55s were running out of steam and sounding a bit flabby in the lower end. Totally bummed me out because I loved the mids and highs still. The Premier 12s saved the day for me. All the power I've ever needed, wonderful control (for a tube amp) in the bass of big or challenging speakers, but still from the classic time with some tube coloration where I like it. The story is that CJ, especially with their pre-amps, started going for an ever more neutral sound over time, and that the Premier 16LS2 that I own, is that sort of 1/2 way point between the old and newer "sound." That's what it seems like. It doesn't sound thicker and bloomy like my other tube pre-amps; sounds clear and precise, but still with that hint of CJ "glow." So, just about right for my purposes. (And of course...all anecdotal).
 

win

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
430
Likes
432
Location
Irvine CA
Never listened to them but I love the chassis designs of conrad johnson. Also note the stylized all-lowercase branding they employ.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,696
Likes
37,434
It seems to be well built. My CJ monoblocks are 22 years old, used constantly, and are reliable work-horses (with the exception of course of, after a certain number of years, it's time to replace some tubes). The pre-amp is about 8 years old and it also seems reliable.

I believe you mentioned the Quad ESL 63 as one of your formative speaker experiences (?). The 63s were my re-introduction to high-end too, when a friend bought them second hand and paired them with the Dynaco St-170 amp. I was so besotted I just had to try to replicate it at my place, so I bought ESL 63s but ended up with a Conrad Johnson MV55 tube amp. I was in heaven, and the pairing seemed great. If one wants to end up with tube amps that actually exhibit some tube coloration, it seems the older, classic CJ amps are a good bet. (Whereas I understand something like Peter Walker's Quad tube amps would be, when paired sanely, more neutral given his design goals).

But then I started trying more challenging dynamic speakers, full range and/or challenging sensitivity/impedances, the MV55s were running out of steam and sounding a bit flabby in the lower end. Totally bummed me out because I loved the mids and highs still. The Premier 12s saved the day for me. All the power I've ever needed, wonderful control (for a tube amp) in the bass of big or challenging speakers, but still from the classic time with some tube coloration where I like it. The story is that CJ, especially with their pre-amps, started going for an ever more neutral sound over time, and that the Premier 16LS2 that I own, is that sort of 1/2 way point between the old and newer "sound." That's what it seems like. It doesn't sound thicker and bloomy like my other tube pre-amps; sounds clear and precise, but still with that hint of CJ "glow." So, just about right for my purposes. (And of course...all anecdotal).
Similar story here. I first used the Quads with a McIntosh 752 which is a 75 wpc solid state amp made in the style of their earlier tube gear. Was a pretty good match. I was already using a C-J PV5 for a preamp. I then switched to a C-J MV50 power amp. A friend purchased a VTL 75/75 a few months later. This was just after VTL had moved to California. That was a much better amp than the C-J. I eventually purchased one for myself and used it for many years.

I tried a number of amps on the Quads over the years that friends owned and such. The best SS amp in my opinion was a Spectral DMA-50 I owned. Shouldn't be surprising as basically that amp was designed for the Quad ESL63s. I still preferred the VTL on them.

Apologies to the Op for hijacking your thread briefly.
 
OP
7

73hadd

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
126
Likes
96
Leaning toward the Bryston, but still like the Benchmark LA4. Some features might outweigh performance beyond a certain level.

I do not know how to compare the Stereophile Bryston measurements to the Stereophile Benchmark measurements:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-la4-line-preamplifier-measurements
https://www.stereophile.com/content/bryston-bp-173-line-preamplifier-measurements

What numbers should I be looking at? IMD, THD, or

Benchmark S/N 137 balanced
Bryston S/N 108 balanced

So the Benchmark is "22% better?" What does this mean in "bits?"

If the Bryston is "16 bits" and all my content is "16 bits" then does it matter?

Thanks!
 

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,479
Likes
4,099
Location
Pacific Northwest
Every bit doubles the dynamic range, and every 6 dB doubles the voltage, so every 6 dB is 1 bit. Roughly speaking.
If you can't hear the dither on a CD (-93 dB), then you won't hear the noise in either of these preamps.
 

waynel

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 14, 2019
Messages
1,036
Likes
1,290
Benchmark S/N 137 balanced
Bryston S/N 108 balanced

So the Benchmark is "22% better?" What does this mean in "bits?"

If the Bryston is "16 bits" and all my content is "16 bits" then does it matter?

Thanks!
The Benchmark is 2818% (~28x)or roughly 5 bits better in S/N
 

AnalogSteph

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,377
Likes
3,325
Location
.de
What was your power amplifier(s) and speakers again? (Also, sources - how many balanced / unbalanced?)

As a user, you are interested in two things only:
1. Will I have audible hiss?
2. Will distortion remain inaudible all the way to, say, 110 dB SPL?
(That is, with frequency response already out of the way, of course.)

Unfortunately, JA's test protocol for SNR measurement is outdated / incomplete and hinges on some assumptions that are not generally true for amplifiers with balanced inputs. (Basically, it relies on the input going more or less straight to the volume pot, as often done in traditional hi-fi.) His results will only give you a worst-case estimate:
108 dB(A) re: 1 V output for the Benchmark is likely to result in inaudible noise in many scenarios.
92 dB(A) re: 1 V output for the Bryston is likely to be quite audible.
That said, have you ever met anyone who was listening with the volume cranked all the way up? That's what this test is doing.

What you actually want to know is more along the lines of: What's the output noise level when e.g. 2 V of input will produce 1 V of output? Or 100 mV? (Much like the way that power or integrated amplifier SNR is also being tested @ 1 W / 8 ohm, 50 mW / 4 ohm or 5 W / 4 ohm levels.)

Unfortunately, we don't know. The briskness noted for the Bryston's volume pot may indicate a two-stage volume control, and noise levels are likely to drop into unproblematic terrain. Still, the specs say -108 dB relative to full output, whatever that may be - it's not specified. This generally is way beyond 1 Vrms, so could result in some truly mediocre noise levels - I find that kind of hard to believe though. Man, I hate it when stuff doesn't have a decent set of specs. The bloody thing costs over 6000€, is that really too much to ask for? :rolleyes:

What I can tell you right away, however, is that anything that manages 137 dB of SNR is pushing the physical limits. I'm assuming that's with the Benchmark's gain turned down to 0 dB (and may be purely synthetic, i.e. maximum output divided by minimum output noise), it's a bit hard to achieve otherwise. In any case you'll probably have to worry about your power amp's noise levels first. Running some Klipschorns or even more sensitive speakers should not be an issue.

There's only one thing about the Benchmark's results that I didn't like - 600 ohm load driving is not reference grade and could definitely be better.

One thing to consider: We're talking just preamp / source selection now. No room EQ or anything. Where is that supposed to be happening, preferably for all sources as well? A super high spec preamp is all good and well but you definitely shouldn't be ignoring the elephant in the, erm, room. That's something plainly audible, unlike whether distortion is 90, 100, or 120 dB down.
 
OP
7

73hadd

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
126
Likes
96
Thanks @AnalogSteph . For this setup, Amp=Bryston 4bSST2, Speaker KEF LS50. Balanced out to amp and also a pair of subs. One balanced source (DAC) and a couple unbalanced (different dac, phono preamp).

In what scenario would we drive a 600 ohm load from the preamp? Aren't most amplifiers in the Kohm range?

As for room EQ, I have been delaying this confession. (puts on flame suit)

I still don't "trust" ADC-EQ-DAC to maintain a bit-perfect signal. I am going to keep going with the room placement, room treatment options for now. I want to be open minded though, which is why I am here.
 

FrantzM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
4,372
Likes
7,863
Don't dismiss the miniDSP SHD... This unit is unique and the performance aming the best on the market ...
Read the review HERE and draw your own conclusions
 

ferrellms

Active Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2019
Messages
299
Likes
258
All you need is a passive attenuator and a switch. No coloration, cheap. Save your money and give it to the local food bank.
 

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
856
Likes
934
Location
Calabasas, CA
I still don't "trust" ADC-EQ-DAC to maintain a bit-perfect signal.
I had a hard time with that idea initially. But room correction/EQ is much more important than any theoretical question of bit fidelity. DACs are a solved problem, according to the experts here. Nothing bad is happening to the signal.
 
Top Bottom