If you only have 1 device source, and volume reduction is the only function - no active gain needed, the Pre90 would be overkill for the application.
Besides the additional cost, there are the aspects of having another active signal amplifying device, you should be able to get by with a less expensive passive volume control device instead, and with good build components, there shouldn't be any effect on the audio quality.
Sorry, I don't currently use a passive volume control so I cannot give a personal use recommendation, perhaps someone else can give a recommendation for one they use?
I did a quick search on Amazon for "passive volume control", these are names I know and they look good enough to check out. And, there are more to look at one Amazon too.
Amazon.com: Schiit SYS Volume Control and 2-Input Switch: Home Audio & Theater
Amazon.com: Nobsound Mini Fully-Balanced/Single-Ended Passive Preamp; Hi-Fi Pre-Amplifier; XLR/RCA Volume Controller for Active Monitor Speakers (Black): Home Audio & Theater
Amazon.com: Nobsound High Precision Passive Preamp Volume Controller VOL Control HiFi Preamplifier ALPS (RCA&HiFi Version, Black): Home Audio & TheaterPhoto of back panel with XLR inputs and outputs, Douk Designed - I'm looking at getting a tube amp from Douk Audio Designs too.
View attachment 130383
And, here is the front panel, nicely sized for stable volume control use than their smaller RCA/RCA only models.
View attachment 130388
A little more searching, I remembered this gem from a review I'd read (and seen on Youtube), perhaps overkill too - it switches 4 devices, but it got good reviews:
Amazon.com: Bellari PP532 Passive Preamplifier: Electronics
Then I searched on Youtube and was reminded of the Schitt Loki Equalizer that can also be switched to a passive bypass mode, and you might enjoy the equalizer functions, hopefully, these active devices do not degrade the audio signal audibly:
Schiit Audio: LOKI MINI+ HIGH-QUALITY 4-BAND TONE CONTROL $149 ROLLING BACKORDER. SHIPS 4-6 WEEKS.
"The Silent and Transparent Companion
Loki Mini+ transforms your system without getting in the way, or making itself known. Forget noisy, bad-sounding equalizers you may have used in the past. Loki Mini+ uses a single, discrete, current-feedback gain stage, coupled to passive LC filters for 3 bands, plus a gyrator for the bass. It also uses sealed Alps potentiometers with rational adjustment ranges to allow for fine control. Coupled with a 100% passive bypass setting, Loki Mini+ offers the transparency and flexibility you need." - Not sure if the Passive Bypass still allows volume control? More info on the Schitt site.
And, then I recalled Bellari also has an Equalizer - along with other Bellari similar-sized devices, like a Phono Amplifier - check out the comments for more info / photos. This is powered like the Schitt Loki and this Bellari has an "Active" button - again not sure if the Loki / Bellari has passive volume control when in passive mode...
Amazon.com: Bellari Rolls EQ570 Audio Equalizer: Home Audio & Theater
Question: Loki vs eq570. how does each sound? which do you prefer?
Answer: "They sound similar and function alike. I prefer the Bellari since it has a slightly better build and its on/off switch is accessible on the front side (unlike the Loki)."
Answer: "Real difference is Loki bass boost centered around 20hz, Bellari at 60hz. Otherwise almost the same, Bellari power buttons on the front and of course gorgeous red color. No discernible quality differences in build. Bellari may be a bit heavier w/slightly thicker build material, it’s been a while since I handled Shiit and my memory may be off."
Question: How is this compared to Schiit Loki? from a performance standpoint
Answer: "For me, the low control at 60hz is better than the Loki’s at 20 hz. (Room resonance)"
Answer: "I have heard others say the two are basically the same, have no personal experience with the Schiit."
Which one "kill[ed] the energy of music"? You don't seem to have really bad things to say about the passive pre-amps you gave as examples.Happy to oblige. My system changes all the time, sometimes many times a day, so I will have to pass on giving you the configurations specifics. The most notable passive attenuators I have had in my system were a Goldpoint stepped attenuator in a DIY pre, a Rotel RHC-10 preamp and a LDR, light dependent resistor pre amplifier. The Goldpoint was pretty good. The Rotel looks gorgeous but the sound is laid back and a bit lazy. The LDR preamp sounded clear with a lovely reverb but also slow. None of them provided a sound I really enjoyed. The Rotel and especially the Goldpoint are much higher quality than a generic ALPS pot. No idea how the LDR pre compares to an ALPS pot.
I would not touch most of the devices from Amazon that you posted with a 10 foot pole (Schiit should be ok...). I say this based on decades of experience with audio equipment.
View attachment 130424View attachment 130425
I never said a passive preamp was better than an active preamp, I've been through that testing myself decades ago and decided on an active preamp for my own listening enjoyment.More on passives vs actives. Yes, he knows what he is talking about:
If I needed a passive variable attenuator I'd pick two or three to order and audition in my system. I've found variations of compatibility for new products added into my systems at higher price points, and the same goes for less expensive products.Impedance variation is the issue (for some at least) and for once PS audio above posted by @Peternz sounds reasonable.
The simple way to use DAC digital attenuator in it's upper range is to use simple attenuator on RCA / XLR.
Other way is to make an interconnect with voltage divider (2 resistors) set to some fixed attenuation.
If you reduce the volume in the digital domain you are reducing the bits - but when you have a 16bit/44.1khz signal, and you have a DAC with 32bit/768khz of headroom - I've found I can reduce the volume with the variable volume "Pre" mode of the Topping D90 MQA - adding attenuation of -3dB to -15dB with no audible reduction in the quality of the sound. Even going down as far as -30dB it still sounds great.These passives can potentially create more problems than they solve. I'd use one only if my DAC had fixed output that was too "hot" for my integrated amp.
And, that says it all. Measurements are only a guide, actually listening to a component in your system and judging if the end result is a positive or negative for your listening enjoyment.Well, finally gave up on the Pre90, I'll send it back. I tried to love it, went back and forth with so many different recordings using my tube phono pre, and dac, but I couldn't get a sound I can live with. It has beautiful clarity and sheen, top end extension, but just missing some warmth in the low end. On one track recently (All of me, Adam Mackowicz), there was so much missing that it was hard to follow the bass line which was clearly audible on my other preamp. My brain liked a lot of what I was hearing, but ultimately I didn't enjoy hearing music played through the Pre90 as much as I did with my other preamp. Might suit some systems, but didn't do it for me.
In case anyone needs to know, I made up an RCA to XLR interconnect (hot pin 2, sheild on pins 1 and 3) to use the XLR input as single ended, and it worked great-it can be totally used as a 2-single ended input preamp with balanced out, the gain settings stock even made the 2 different inputs come out at approx the same volume.
Which one "kill[ed] the energy of music"? You don't seem to have really bad things to say about the passive pre-amps you gave as examples.
And, if you don't have first-hand experience with the units I posted, you don't know anything about them do you? You are guessing based on nothing except they are inexpensive?
And, that says it all. Measurements are only a guide, actually listening to a component in your system and judging if the end result is a positive or negative for your listening enjoyment.
I found the same with the Topping A90 vs Xduoo TA-20, the A90 measures better, but the TA-20 with any tubes - even with the stock Shuguang tubes, the TA-20 sounds better than the A90.
I hope you find what you are looking for as a replacement for the Pre90, and please come back and let us know what you found as a better sounding replacement for the Pre90.
The photo you posted is from a review from a date during the middle of the pandemic, one post next to it said the knobs were too small, many of the others said the knobs size and placement were good for their use.They all killed the energy, however the Goldpoint did by far the least damage and was semi acceptable.
Yes, I am guessing but my guess is educated, based on experience, reviews and photos that reveal hideous workmanship.
Uh huh... Without a level matched blind test the listening "test" is useless and biased, as they all are, seems the listening is based on "photos"... "Killed the energy" - again, what units is this measured in? Or do you mean distortion or some other measurable factor? Without measurements or data there is nothing anyone can discuss.They all killed the energy, however the Goldpoint did by far the least damage and was semi acceptable.
Yes, I am guessing but my guess is educated, based on experience, reviews and photos that reveal hideous workmanship.
No offence but the "listening > measurements" things goes a little against ASR no? Might as well go full objective
So far I've read many anecdotal 'Pre90 sounds superb, better than much more expensive pre-amps' and the odd 'Pre90 doesn't work in my set-up'. Could be impedance matching issues. Or in case of weird channel tracking, possibly a defective unit? I'm sure it won't work in every set-up imaginable but so far I've seen mostly very positive feedback on the Pre90's sound and usability.
You are both missing a big element that isn't measured in any ASR product test, what we as individuals hear and enjoy listening to.Uh huh... Without a level matched blind test the listening "test" is useless and biased, as they all are, seems the listening is based on "photos"... "Killed the energy" - again, what units is this measured in? Or do you mean distortion or some other measurable factor? Without measurements or data there is nothing anyone can discuss.
Remember:
- We can measure everything that can be heard
- We can measure to greater resolution than human hearing
- Everything that can be heard can be measured
Oh but that was never my point there though. I don't think one should be forced to like something he doesn't like. On the other hand, especially the bit where you mention "not publish measurements if they aren't convincing", if the manufacturer knows they're not good enough to show that would be a major red flag to me. "Still sounds good" to me is not enough of an argument. I honestly think a lot of what enthusiasts think is "euphonic distortion" is really nothing all that great. Then again I've always quickly sold tube oriented gear, I've never seen the appeal or heard the magicThat is why companies use measurements of products they are developing - to see if it measures well against the "generic" population or against the accepted "standard"...and they will make design changes/decisions based on measurements during development. They will even publish measurements as a marketing tool to convince people to purchase their product. Or, not publish them if they aren't convincing.
I don't think we need to force people to "like" something they don't actually enjoy using, simply because they don't like what they are "hearing".
Yup, that that is part of how we measure the value of a product before purchase. Those of us that know when a product doesn't have manufacturer published measurements, it signals that the manufacturer may know something they don't want us to know - and that is why ASR is so valuable - we need somewhere else to go to get the information the manufacturer isn't confident enough to publish themselves.Oh but that was never my point there though. I don't think one should be forced to like something he doesn't like. On the other hand, especially the bit where you mention "not publish measurements if they aren't convincing", if the manufacturer knows they're not good enough to show that would be a major red flag to me.
Exactly Veri!Oh but that was never my point there though. I don't think one should be forced to like something he doesn't like. On the other hand, especially the bit where you mention "not publish measurements if they aren't convincing", if the manufacturer knows they're not good enough to show that would be a major red flag to me. "Still sounds good" to me is not enough of an argument. I honestly think a lot of what enthusiasts think is "euphonic distortion" is really nothing all that great. Then again I've always quickly sold tube oriented gear, I've never seen the appeal or heard the magic
Everyone has their tastes, sure, 100% agree. But if part of your conviction stems more from beliefs in some hard to define qualities, because that's basically the differentiator here, I would not personally rely on that second hand opinion/experience. But if you own something and you like it and are happy, 100% not knocking it haha
I really do not agree with these statements. Yes, measurements of some parameters are more resolved than we can hear, but for sure we have not figured out how to measure everything we hear. So far, no one can predict how a component will sound based on the current group of measurements. We can get a good sense of how it will perform with respect to some parameters, but the act of listening to complex waveforms with a component inserted into a system reveals things that we haven't been able to put a number on yet.Uh huh... Without a level matched blind test the listening "test" is useless and biased, as they all are, seems the listening is based on "photos"... "Killed the energy" - again, what units is this measured in? Or do you mean distortion or some other measurable factor? Without measurements or data there is nothing anyone can discuss.
Remember:
- We can measure everything that can be heard
- We can measure to greater resolution than human hearing
- Everything that can be heard can be measured
You can disagree as much as you like, but you would be wrong.I really do not agree with these statements. Yes, measurements of some parameters are more resolved than we can hear, but for sure we have not figured out how to measure everything we hear. So far, no one can predict how a component will sound based on the current group of measurements. We can get a good sense of how it will perform with respect to some parameters, but the act of listening to complex waveforms with a component inserted into a system reveals things that we haven't been able to put a number on yet.
I think people claiming significant soundstage changes are either having major differences in output levels, or crosstalk. So comparing apples with apples will never yield such crazy sound stage changes, no way. There's no reason for that in any case. No numbers, as you say.So there is a number that can describe soundstage?
This thread is littered with such talk.I think people claiming significant soundstage changes are either having major differences in output levels, or crosstalk. So comparing apples with apples will never yield such crazy sound stage changes, no way. There's no reason for that in any case. No numbers, as you say.
Yes, we fail to see how it is possible, which is why we need more science! Many people hear things we 'fail to see'. Nice to think it's all in our heads, but I really think that there are other things happening that we haven't figured out how to quantify. Or I could be wrong, but history shows us that the progress of science brings new discoveries where we thought we knew it all.This thread is littered with such talk.
Other than better gain staging I fail to see how a pre amp can create many of the improvements noted over and above a transparent dac with vol control into amp.
Uh huh... Without a level matched blind test the listening "test" is useless and biased, as they all are, seems the listening is based on "photos"... "Killed the energy" - again, what units is this measured in? Or do you mean distortion or some other measurable factor? Without measurements or data there is nothing anyone can discuss.
Remember:
- We can measure everything that can be heard
- We can measure to greater resolution than human hearing
- Everything that can be heard can be measured
Let's not go down that road. It's well trodden.Yes, we fail to see how it is possible, which is why we need more science! Many people hear things we 'fail to see'. Nice to think it's all in our heads, but I really think that there are other things happening that we haven't figured out how to quantify. Or I could be wrong, but history shows us that the progress of science brings new discoveries where we thought we knew it all.