Jump to content

In a digital system how important it an analogue preamp?


DomT
 Share

Recommended Posts

Your preamp likely has gain, whereas most DAC based Volume controls don't.

This may explain the new found dynamism.



Sent from my KB2003 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure it's as simple as this. An active pre amp can have a gain >1 but for normal listening levels with a power amp of normal sensitivity it's likely to be attenuating the DAC output a lot. Its ability to add gain itself that's not being used is unlikely to be the cause, but something about the circuit could be. The input (of the pre) and output impedances (of both) devices could play a part.

There's a never ending debate about the disadvantages of attenuating the signal only to amplify it again but if it adds dynamics it's clearly not a one way street.

Maybe someone with more knowledge than me could explain better.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it's as simple as this. An active pre amp can have a gain >1 but for normal listening levels with a power amp of normal sensitivity it's likely to be attenuating the DAC output a lot. Its ability to add gain itself that's not being used is unlikely to be the cause, but something about the circuit could be. The input (of the pre) and output impedances (of both) devices could play a part.

There's a never ending debate about the disadvantages of attenuating the signal only to amplify it again but if it adds dynamics it's clearly not a one way street.

Maybe someone with more knowledge than me could explain better.
Could also be a better impedance match.

It's impossible to really know without employing the knowledge of one of my go to gurus, but like I always say, if you like what you're hearing, it doesn't matter why....just enjoy it.




Sent from my KB2003 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lawrence001 said:

I'm not sure it's as simple as this. An active pre amp can have a gain >1 but for normal listening levels with a power amp of normal sensitivity it's likely to be attenuating the DAC output a lot. Its ability to add gain itself that's not being used is unlikely to be the cause, but something about the circuit could be. The input (of the pre) and output impedances (of both) devices could play a part.

There's a never ending debate about the disadvantages of attenuating the signal only to amplify it again but if it adds dynamics it's clearly not a one way street.

Maybe someone with more knowledge than me could explain better.

Are you saying that playing around with attenuation and gain will change the dynamic range of the signal, or just about perceived "dynamics"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Super Wammer

Sheer speculation on my part…but having just last week attended my first full orchestral concert for almost two years, the colour, vividness, character and power of even a flute, let alone a cello or a tuba.  Wow!  

Admittedly, the vivid scoring in Prokofiev’s second suite from Romeo & Juliet is stunning, but everything seemed like, CinemaScope, IMAX, Dolby Atmos times ten, compared with home audio.  It makes me wonder if adding something, whether we call it distortion, seasoning or moussaka, is an attempt to remind us of the drama and scale of the live event.  After all, a normal domestic system can only hint at this, albeit persuasively if chosen with care. 

Edited by Nopiano
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nopiano said:

Sheer speculation on my part…but having just last week attended my first full orchestral concert for almost two years, the colour, vividness, character and power or even a flute, let alone a cello or a tuba.  Wow!  

Admittedly, the vivid scoring in Prokofiev’s second suite from Romeo & Juliet is stunning, but everything seemed like, CinemaScope, IMAX, Dolby Atmos times ten, compared with home audio.  It makes me wonder if adding something, whether we call it distortion, seasoning or moussaka, is an attempt to remind us of the drama and scale of the live event.  After all, a normal domestic system can only hint at this, albeit persuasively if chosen with care. 

I agree with this. Stereo has significant limitations, and if some types of distortion help people to connect with the music then they should go for them. Same with speaker dispersion, some like dipoles, a few like omnis, many are somewhere in between.

@JANDL100 was hinting earlier that people who "prioritise an emotional connection as opposed to an intellectual one" prefer a more euphonic sound. I don't agree with this. I think that people who prefer a more euphonic sound do so because it sounds better, more involving, etc. to them than a more accurate presentation. It's all too easy to think "this guy's a techie and likes measurements so he must prefer a more intellectual connection"...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Nopiano said:

Sheer speculation on my part…but having just last week attended my first full orchestral concert for almost two years, the colour, vividness, character and power of even a flute, let alone a cello or a tuba.  Wow!  

Admittedly, the vivid scoring in Prokofiev’s second suite from Romeo & Juliet is stunning, but everything seemed like, CinemaScope, IMAX, Dolby Atmos times ten, compared with home audio.  It makes me wonder if adding something, whether we call it distortion, seasoning or moussaka, is an attempt to remind us of the drama and scale of the live event.  After all, a normal domestic system can only hint at this, albeit persuasively if chosen with care. 

Exactly this. 

Real music is far more vivid than hifi systems convey. 

Is that vividness hiding in the recordings and the best hifi allows more of this through than other components do? 

Some folks might miss-label this as euphonic whereas actually it's just being more transparent to the original performance and, hopefully, recording. 

Bland is the hifi normal state, and seems often to be assumed to be accurate. I think that components that can take you beyond this misconception are to be treasured. 

Perhaps pizzaz isn't being added by a euphonic component, it's there in the recording but is usually filtered out by the hifi. 

Edited by JANDL100
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JANDL100 said:

Exactly this. 

Real music is far more vivid than hifi systems convey. 

Is that vividness hiding in the recordings and the best hifi allows more of this through than other components do? 

Some folks might miss-label this as euphonic whereas actually it's just being more transparent to the original performance and, hopefully, recording. 

Bland is the hifi normal state, and seems often to be assumed to be accurate. I think that components that can take you beyond this misconception are to be treasured. 

Pizzaz isn't being added by a euphonic component, it's there in the recording but is usually filtered out by the hifi. 

How can a system which distorts the signal be more "transparent" to the recording (I presume you mean the signal and not the performance)?

The signal is all we have and thus the only accuracy possible is to the signal. Not only that but stereo through speakers is unable to reconstruct the original soundfield as it was captured by the mics. And you can only capture the original soundfield with a pair of mics, which rules out most recordings anyway.

So what we get is a representation of reality, an illusion, like a photograph is an illusion, one which requires a degree of abstraction from the viewer in order to "make sense". And it's a flawed illusion, which I presume is why you call it "bland".

What I find interesting is that for some people the "bland" illusion is enough to convey emotion and make the connection whilst for others it is manifestly insuficent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, JANDL100 said:

Pizzaz isn't being added by a euphonic component, it's there in the recording but is usually filtered out by the hifi.

Playing around with EQ / frequency response will produce a whole lot of different effects which will change how we perceive sound, and thus music (see link below). But you're not letting through the "pizzaz", you're adulterating the recorded sound in order to make it more "appealing".

https://alexiy.nl/eq/

Reverb is another good example:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bigman80 said:

Your preamp likely has gain, whereas most DAC based Volume controls don't.

This may explain the new found dynamism.



Sent from my KB2003 using Tapatalk
 

that's what i mentioned pages ago about the original benchmark remark but got interpreted as removing power amps  - how that happened -no-one will ever know.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Nopiano said:

Sheer speculation on my part…but having just last week attended my first full orchestral concert for almost two years, the colour, vividness, character and power of even a flute, let alone a cello or a tuba.  Wow!  

Admittedly, the vivid scoring in Prokofiev’s second suite from Romeo & Juliet is stunning, but everything seemed like, CinemaScope, IMAX, Dolby Atmos times ten, compared with home audio.  It makes me wonder if adding something, whether we call it distortion, seasoning or moussaka, is an attempt to remind us of the drama and scale of the live event.  After all, a normal domestic system can only hint at this, albeit persuasively if chosen with care. 

I watched The last dual and the sound was awesome - I put it down to the amount of sheer power behind all those speakers 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's what i mentioned pages ago about the original benchmark remark but got interpreted as removing power amps  - how that happened -no-one will ever know.
I apologize, I haven't read the entire thread.

I only chimed in to add the bit on TVCs and SUTs.

Sent from my KB2003 using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bigman80 said:

I apologize, I haven't read the entire thread.

I only chimed in to add the bit on TVCs and SUTs.

Sent from my KB2003 using Tapatalk
 

no i appreciated the sense - if you open up the benchmark it has 3 gain settings - I suspected that the pre amp had higher gain so perceived to be more dynamic

thanks 🤣

Edited by Bokke
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DomT said:

But unless you were at the mastering session it’s just a guess though. 

Isn’t that the argument you use against objectivists? If you hadn’t cherry picked my post it should have been clear that I don’t fall into that camp.

I couldn’t give a flying fig if what I hear is defined as accurate as long it gives me an “illusion” to my ears of performers playing music in front of me. Quite obviously what I hear is highly unlikely to sound the same as in the mastering session let alone the concert hall, but if the recording and hifi fool me into thinking I’m listening to the original performance, particularly with small scale acoustic classical, than job done. The whole thing is an illusion and it is what we think we hear that really matters.

Some may like their hifi to add a touch of flavour, others not; neither is right or wrong, so much as being what works for any individual.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bokke said:

no i appreciated the sense - if you open up the benchmark it has 3 gain settings - I suspected that the pre amp had higher gain so perceived to be more dynamic

thanks 🤣

The RME DAC has adjustable output-level settings too, but I can just change the fixed ouput level on HQPlayer and get the same effect:

To maintain the full dynamic range within the best operating level, discrete 4-stage reference level settings were realized for maximum dynamic range (-5, +1, +7, +13 dBu).

Edited by tuga
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Camverton said:

Isn’t that the argument you use against objectivists? If you hadn’t cherry picked my post it should have been clear that I don’t fall into that camp.

I couldn’t give a flying fig if what I hear is defined as accurate as long it gives me an “illusion” to my ears of performers playing music in front of me. Quite obviously what I hear is highly unlikely to sound the same as in the mastering session let alone the concert hall, but if the recording and hifi fool me into thinking I’m listening to the original performance, particularly with small scale acoustic classical, than job done. The whole thing is an illusion and it is what we think we hear that really matters.

Some may like their hifi to add a touch of flavour, others not; neither is right or wrong, so much as being what works for any individual.

Also there's no guarantee that listening to the mixing or mastering system will provide more (or less) enjoyment than one's system and room. As you say, it's a matter of preference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...