2. amps-preamps
  3. 1293746922

Preamp or Not

System:
Speakers: B&W 802D
AMP: 2 Plinius SA100 MKIII used as mono
Preamp: Musical Fidelity need upgrade to BAT or Pass Labs?
Source: Arcam fmj CD37

I have bunch of other good equipment in my theater room. The above are my 2-channel audio only set up. I have been thinking of upgrading my pre and CDP because they have no XLR connections. They sound very good but I'd like to use the balance connections. I just found an Esoteric SA50 player which apparently can be connected to the amplifier directly, therefore, eliminating the need for a preamp.

Question:

Since I have a very high gain amp and some external distortion and noise issues, would I be better off with a preamp and a source or just go directly from source to the amps. If there are no setbacks with this kind of set up, I can eliminate one component and save some $ in the process.

I would love to hear from members with similar experience and/or familiar with Esoteric SA50.
espoverload
wilsynet's avatar
wilsynet
264 posts
 
It should work out ... on paper anyway.

The Plinius SA-100 amplifiers have 47 Kohm input impedance, which is theoretically a reasonable match for a passive (Lightspeed, Bent, etc) and hence a reasonable match for source direct.

Also, both the Arcam FMJ CD37 and the Esoteric SA50 have output impedance less than 100 ohms.

Given that your amplifier and your source (current and proposed) are theoretically well matched for a passive setup, you don't need to buy the Esoteric SA50 to accomplish this, a good passive would also do the trick.

However, you may want the Esoteric anyway. Either approach should work out in theory, but proof is in the listening.

If I may interject my own personal bias: with all of that solid state, I'd recommend a tube preamplifier, perhaps a Mapletree Line 2A SE for the budget conscious.
elescher's avatar
elescher
112 posts
 
I would go with a preamp and source.....I had the SA-50 in my system for a brief period, and have had the Arcam as well. My opinion is that I prefer the Arcam. I wouldn't put too much emphasize on having balanced/XLR connections either unless your cable lengths are more than 50 feet. If you only have one source, then no preamp is an option, but I would listen to what a decent preamp does for your system before buying a cd player based on it having a volume control. Besides, you may decide that you want to add a turntable in the future.
lak's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
lak
3,516 posts
 
I have tired various good passive preamps and have always found there sound to be lean compared to a traditional preamp. To each there own and that's just my opinion based upon my ears and system components, I don't want to offend those that prefer passive.
The Esoteric will work in your set up, and there are many other CDP's with volume controls that will also work.
The major point I want to make is some people will prefer the sound of the system using a CDP with volume control and others will prefer the sound using a traditional preamp.
The only way you will know for sure is to try it for yourself.
espoverload OP
14 posts
 
Thank you for your suggestions. The major reason I'd like to use XLR connection is distortion. I hear a high frequency noise (distortion) from the mid-range and tweeters of the speakers. When I disconnect the RCA from preamp the noise disapears. I have tried everything and can't get rid of the distortion. The noise is not from the amps only when the RCA from pre is connected. So I was thinking if I could eliminate the preamp and go directly from source to the amp with XLR, I may be able to avoid the distortion. Otherwise, I am OK with the system's sound.
4est
507 posts
 
I doubt that the change from rca>xlr will help. I think that the pros of xlr are over hyped. In theory they are certainly better. In reality it may not make a bit of difference. In my system, the cable it's self makes more of a difference than the type of connections. YMMV
More to discover