What difference a pre-amp do?

[The Bish]

Going back to the Topping E30.
Can i just add one to the node 2i and quad 306 or would i be better adding a passive pre + Topping E30?

I've been using an RME DAC straight into a Quad 306, worked fine. If you want more attenuation above what the Topping gives and have the ability to switch to other sources then you'll need a pre of some sort, a passive shouldn't change the sound. You could just try the topping direct into the power amp first, and if you don't like it you can always pick up a Quad 34 cheap, and sell it for what you paid for it if you don't like it.

 

[hifinutt]

I've been using an RME DAC straight into a Quad 306, worked fine. If you want more attenuation above what the Topping gives and have the ability to switch to other sources then you'll need a pre of some sort, a passive shouldn't change the sound. You could just try the topping direct into the power amp first, and if you don't like it you can always pick up a Quad 34 cheap, and sell it for what you paid for it if you don't like it.

we are not far away , must have a bake off with difference pre amps sometime !!

 

[Brian]

I’m currently using my DAC connected directly to the poweramp. It sounds better to me through the active preamp first.

 

[The Bish]

we are not far away , must have a bake off with difference pre amps sometime !!

Yes indeed. For the most part I prefer the sound of an active preamp despite the fact it's adding distortion etc, just sounds sweeter to my ears. I have been running the 306 recently with a Type 76 valve pre that @Disarmamant built, sounds great and I prefer that to direct in from the RME DAC, although that is pretty good in its own right.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

An active preamp can make a great difference driving long interconnects - try that with a passive!

Actually with the lengths normally used in domestic hi fi and sensible resistance of pot or attenuator there is usually no problem whatsoever. 5m no problem and 10m often OK.

 

[Darren]

I strongly disagree. Failing to recognise the difference between fact and opinion is a very slippery slope. As the founder of the Guardian said, "Comment is free but facts are sacred".

Climb down off your orange box Jezzer. It's a hifi forum. We are amateurs. It's about sharing the hobby. Pooling our knowledge. Sure we get stuff wrong. It would have been far better to find out why his system behaves as it does than to say 'nope' or 'bollocks'
The pros on this forum such as yourself should be the elderstatesman, not leading the rabble. I bet you could easily think of half a dozen reasons why an active pre amp sounds better in his system.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

No it doesn't. It may amplify but that has no bearing on anything else.

Pre amps are a left-over from the days when amplification was required and and all pre amps were expected to have tone controls and a variety of filters. These days with most sources having around 2V output and most power amps needing no more than 1V for full output all that is required is a means of attenuating the input ie a volume control, and a selector of some sort. Most modern integrated amps are simply a power amp with a vol control and selector before it.

But doesn’t this rather depend on the quality of the analogue output stage in the device? My personal experience is that driving the power amp directly from a variable output DAC, or via a passive pre, can be beautifully clean and transparent, but a bit anaemic if what you want is drive and energy. There seems to be something missing in terms of excitement and engagement. It feels like maybe there’s voltage, but insufficient current capability, perhaps?

 

[beammeup]

You don't need a pre no. Beware though of the possibility of a software controlled volume going haywire and giving you full volume.

If you want software controlled volume and fear the possibility of it going haywire and giving you full volume - why not put a simple attenuated interconnect between the digital source and power amp (Russ Andrews did one with -11dB attenuation at one point) - then if the software does go haywire it's not going to go loud enough to cause damage.

If you have a single source - then surely an attenuated Interconnect (for safety in case digital goes wrong) is as pure as you can get?!

 

[Arkless Electronics]

Climb down off your orange box Jezzer. It's a hifi forum. We are amateurs. It's about sharing the hobby. Pooling our knowledge. Sure we get stuff wrong. It would have been far better to find out why his system behaves as it does than to say 'nope' or 'bollocks'
The pros on this forum such as yourself should be the elderstatesman, not leading the rabble. I bet you could easily think of half a dozen reasons why an active pre amp sounds better in his system.

Amateurs indeed. The problem with hi fi is the vast majority of people have no technical knowledge and no intention to learn. Because of this they have no knowledge with which to arm themselves against the complete BS the industry fills them with from every direction. As has been noted before "it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled". We long ago reached the truly pathetic situation where people who have been conned into believing such things as eg mains cables or USB leads can make a difference will not back tread on this and will in effect believe the snake oil salesman who conned them over an engineer who designs hi fi equipment telling them they've been had!

 

[Yomanze]

In some systems passives can sound a bit flat. I’ve used both passive and actives in my system and am happy to lose a bit of transparency for more slam, tonal colour and dynamics, especially at lower volumes. Just IME as a listener though... and have heard other setups just fine with passives, no “lack” of dynamics!

 

[Arkless Electronics]

But doesn’t this rather depend on the quality of the analogue output stage in the device? My personal experience is that driving the power amp directly from a variable output DAC, or via a passive pre, can be beautifully clean and transparent, but a bit anaemic if what you want is drive and energy. There seems to be something missing in terms of excitement and engagement. It feels like maybe there’s voltage, but insufficient current capability, perhaps?

No. None of that is possible. Unless it is fitted with a dynamics processor and/or tone controls or has some bizarre form of distortion then you cannot add or remove "drive and energy" or "excitement and engagement". Those are entirely human constructs...

 

[chris peacock]

So, how can Naim claim that’s its power amps need a Naim pre to perform properly?

 

[ToTo Man]

If you want software controlled volume and fear the possibility of it going haywire and giving you full volume - why not put a simple attenuated interconnect between the digital source and power amp (Russ Andrews did one with -11dB attenuation at one point) - then if the software does go haywire it's not going to go loud enough to cause damage.

If you have a single source - then surely an attenuated Interconnect (for safety in case digital goes wrong) is as pure as you can get?!

Unless you have woefully inefficient speakers and a power amp with abnormally low input sensitivity, you'd need a lot more than -11dB attenuation as a fail-safe against damaging your speakers and/or ears IMO if the DAC goes ape and outputs full signal.

Say you have a DAC that outputs 2Vrms max, a 50wpc power amp with 0.5Vrms input sensitivity, and 90dB/1w/1m speakers. Full output would be a clipped/distorted 107dB or thereabouts. Because the power amp's input sensitivity is four times the DAC's output voltage, -11dB of attenuation between DAC and power amp won't actually reduce the speaker's output by -11dB because the power amp's full power output was reached the moment the DAC's output reached 0.5Vrms. In this example it wouldn't reduce the speaker's output by anything. It would however just about prevent the power amp from clipping (-11dB attenuation would reduce the DAC's output voltage to just over 0.5Vrms, which would in theory only just slightly clip the power amp's 0.5Vrms sensitive input).

The flip side of this is that if you use strong enough fixed attenuation to protect against such risks, e.g. -20dB, you may end up sacrificing too much headroom for the occasions when you encounter an unusually quiet album that needs to be cranked up louder.

 

[halvis]

There seems to be something missing in terms of excitement and engagement. It feels like maybe there’s voltage, but insufficient current capability, perhaps?

Sue hears it as I do and probably explained it better. A softer sound is perhaps another way to put it, not as dynamic.

I'll leave it there as I am not going to argue about such things, I was just trying to help.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

So, how can Naim claim that’s its power amps need a Naim pre to perform properly?

They talk utter BS like the majority of hi fi companies... they will also sell you expensive mains leads that they claim improve the sound... this is an impossibility.

 

[Arkless Electronics]

FWIW a passive is technically more dynamic than an active pre as it has lower noise and higher headroom and this is the definition of dynamic range.

 

[Mike Reed]

Sue hears it as I do and probably explained it better. A softer sound is perhaps another way to put it, not as dynamic.

Not in my case. When I went from Naim pre (552) to E.A.R. pre. the difference is every aspect of musical enjoyment was improved. Okay, maybe synergy played a part but I wasn't aware of any failing before I changed.

Furthermore, my pre. does amplify (on phono stages at least) plus give me total control of inputs and VU meters to identify the signal strength etc. I've no experience of passive pre's but doubt that they'd match up to a good active. Maybe I'm just a pre. man (Neanderthal, possibly?)

 

[stevec67]

So, how can Naim claim that’s its power amps need a Naim pre to perform properly?

Same as a car manufacturer tells you that the minute you fit a non BMW part you are no longer driving a BMW but turning it into an ordinary car.

 

[halvis]

FWIW a passive is technically more dynamic than an active pre as it has lower noise and higher headroom and this is the definition of dynamic range.

Yeah true. I used dynamic out of context, less crash, bang and wallop is what I meant.

 

[James]

FWIW a passive is technically more dynamic than an active pre as it has lower noise and higher headroom and this is the definition of dynamic range.

... which is entirely lost if the source(s) feeding it isn't properly buffered and the power amp has unexpectedly low input impedance.