preamp vs. no-preamp


Hi guys, I would like to know your opinions regarding the classic question (which also has been posted many times in this forum, I know, I know) whether or not a preamp is needed for a good (= musical sound). You see, if you can delete the preamp and connect the DAC into the poweramp, you can save lots of money, sometimes up to $ 15,000 for a Conrad-Johnson ART (this is off course an extreme example). The money you have spent on the preamp can be used for buying a better source or amplifier (mono's?). So theoretically if you don't have a preamplifier you can improve the sound reproduction by: deleting redundant audio circuitry and interconnect cables, upgrading the quality of you source, poweramplifier or speakers.
My personal experience is that without a preamplifier the sound is becoming thin and uninvolving, but I know there are audiophiles who don't have a preamp in their audio system.
dazzdax
If a preamp actually amplifies, where on the volume control is zero gain? That would have to be about 5 oclock on the dial, which we never use. So why would we want to amplify a signal just to attenuate it?

I understand that a preamp doesn't actually amplify, rather it optimizes impedences to optimize power transfer. Of course, whether one can hear the difference continues to be the subject of debate (in my mind as well).
Remember that all passives are not alike. There are resistive and transformer based passives. There are significant differences in the impedance matching characteristics. The transformer based passives may not exhibit any of the problematic qualities that many of you have experienced in your resistive passives. They should not be "lumped together" because they are very different.
Gboren the gain is the constant value on the most of the preamps. There are preamps with variable gain. Turning volume up or down you still working with already amplified signal.
Changing the volume by changing the amp's gain is not efficient and will not sound right.
Come on Sean, jeesh, I'm sorry. That's what people were calling them in the very early 90's. Technically, you are correct. However, I will not be submitting a 5000 word essay.

........passive preamp.. whoops I said it again...hehe...buffered unit.....couldn't resist it.

Regards,
John
I'm with TWL on this one- and about to trial the Bentaudio.com transformer-coupled preamp. I have had passives in my rig previously, and agreed on the 'thin' sound, however clarity/detail was very good (sorry Keith, have to disagree with you on that one). However Keith, what I do agree with you on is the lack of dynamic impact across the entire frequency spectrum with passive, and I am hoping the transformer-coupled passive addresses this- should be interesting.

Oh- and Tim- YES to the VD Nite PC's (I use a couple of them- excellent product), but no to the Nite IC's- smooth over too much detail in mine and other reference systems we have tried them in...

Re: the Capitole (I owned MK I for a year and a half, and have heard MK II extensively in my system and others), I agree w TIm- direct seems to be preferable, however the Cap is ultimately not revealing enough for my tastes, and I ended up changing to my current rig which is eminently preferable (albeit more $$)- Spectral SDR 3000SL transport (incredible) and the superb new Audio Note Dac 3.1 Balanced (transformer-coupled) w Kharma Grand Ref digital IC. I am looking forward to testing the merits of the preamp idea once again (am running direct currently, as the tube monoblocks have volume control). I will try to post results on the transformer-coupled pre, as it may be an excellent avenue for some of us...