Jon, If anything, one more component and one more set of cables in the signal path will degrade your output. At the very best -- very best -- the preamp and cables will be perfectly transparent. In other words, they will have no effect at all.
Of course, this is not always the case. Many components are designed, by accident, purpose, or by default, with frequency bumps or the like. A tube preamp will inevitably sound different from a solid state preamp. It will not be as transparent or accurate (don't take my word for it. Call McIntosh Labs and ask to speak with Chuck Hinton, their technical rep. They sell equally excellent and very expensive solid state and tubed gear; he will tell you in an instant that there are subtle differences, but that, ultimately, on the bench, the solid state gear is more accurate.) and it might be euphonic. This is not necessarily a bad thing, either -- depends on your taste. Cables, too, can have subtle frequency shifts and people will argue for days, with terminology akin to the world of wine tasting, as to which is better (oddly, without taking measurements). Preamps were definitely necessary when components put out much lower signals. Today, most components have line level output, and that means you can run them straight to the amp...provided they have built-in attenuation (some CD players, like the Audio Aero, which I have owned, do just that). Anything else is, I'm sorry to say, hype. This is one reason why the Transporter is a such a cool device. You can set the internal analog attention and, in one box, it becomes transport, DAC, and line stage. joncourage;138465 Wrote: > There have been some threads elsewhere indicating that a pre-amp does > something that enhances the sound quality - all the usual, soundstage, > etc etc. > > I don't recall seeing the science behind this conclusion, just that > experiments on the part of the posters of this opinion have resulted in > this. > > Some further research may turn up the above-referenced posts. > > If anyone knows why this may be true, it might be interesting to > understand better, or maybe it's "just one of those things". > > I too basically have no need for a pre-amp for the same reason (SB is > my only source for 2-channel), and I think I've asked the same question > before. Sure would be nice to invest the $ into better amplification > rather than an unneeded pre-amp, as long as the gain/attenuation issues > are heeded. -- highdudgeon SB3->Lavry DA10->Nuforce 9.02s->Harbeth Monitor 30s/Skylan stands. Simple and satisfying. In a larger room, I would move back to larger speakers, subs, and probably RCS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=27685 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
