[mr_bill]

Hi all,

Can I expect good results from running a Mac Mini (or MacBook Air) with Audirvana running on top of ITunes and using the volume control on Audirvana directly (USB) into a Dac?
I don't want to spend big money for a preamp too if I just use digital as the source.

[Crimson]

Can you? Sure. Should you? I wouldn't. This isn't an Audirvana or Mac issue; it's just a matter of time before you break something unless you make a habit of making absolutely sure your source is set to a reasonably low  level before firing up your amps. Consider a passive pre or an attenuator between the dac and amps.

[oneinthepipe]

An active preamp is really the heart of an audio system, IMO.  A passive preamp would be better than a poor quality active preamp, but active preamps provide the additional amplification, filtering and isolation that are essential to achieve the best performance from a power amplifier and speakers.  Every component is important, of course; crap in = crap out, etc., but in a well-balanced system, an active preamp plays an enormous role.

[cheap-Jack]

Hi.

An active preamp is really the heart of an audio system, IMO.  A passive preamp would be better than a poor quality active preamp,

... but active preamps provide the additional amplification, filtering and isolation that are essential to achieve the best performance from a power amplifier and speakers.

 Every component is important, of course; crap in = crap out, etc., but in a well-balanced system, an active preamp plays an enormous role.

How can an active preamp 'achieve the best performance" when they generate harmonic, phase distortions & noise to contaminate the music??

So an active preamp will change the equation to "crap in = MORE crap out". This is physics.

c-J

[Bemopti123]

From my personal experience, all passive sort of devices left much to be desirable in terms of performance.  I once had a passive that was all the rage back in the early 2000s.  The Elad....Gosh, it sounded horrible, made the sound quite plasticky, if it was a word that describes it.  Furthermore, I also purchased a pair of the EVS Ultimate Attenuators which I still have and I use it mostly as a passive preamp but in reality, a quickie level attenuator in many cases.  It gives some of the sonic that a recording might provide BUT, it is still missing some part of the music delivery.  I say you lose nothing in trying to run something bare minimum try but also make sure you have precautions to prevent blowing your amp up. 

[Crimson]

I agree. I've tried quite a few passives in the past but never liked their presentation. Active pres, IMO, are the way to go. Dynamics, presence, and dimensionality are all improved.

[sl_1800]

mr_bill, I have been running my system just as you described, mac mini and Audirvana with no pre and it sounds good but I like the idea of pre in the system as long as it has remote control volume.  I did have a buffer from Dodd Audio in my system but I have now returned it to Dodd for a active stage upgrade.  Can you run your system without one, yes you can.

[Ern Dog]

Put me in the No preamp camp.  I'm running my Empirical Overdrive dac straight into my tube mono blocks and this sounds the most transparent to my ears.  When I added preamps they always sounded like they colored the presentation.  On the flip side, I've had earlier versions of my rig that needed a preamp to sound good otherwise it would sound sterile and thin. 

For my source I'm using a Macbook Pro and Amarra.  For the volume control I'm using 75% from my dac and the remaining 25% fine tuning volume from Amarra.  I haven't any problems other than staying up too late listening to music.

I'm not recommending anything here.  My only point is to say that there's no better experience than trying things out for yourself to hear what you like the best.  Each rig is so unique (especially when including the room) and on top of that everyone has different preferences.

[oneinthepipe]

Hi.
How can an active preamp 'achieve the best performance" when they generate harmonic, phase distortions & noise to contaminate the music??

So an active preamp will change the equation to "crap in = MORE crap out". This is physics.

c-J

It's good that we can share our opinions in an effort to make the best choices in our audio systems.

Here is Frank Van Alstine's perspective.  Obviously, he manufactures and sells preamps, but a more honest man you won't meet (also Jim Salk, Dennis Murphy, Jeff Bagby, Zybar, et al).

A preamplifier must be able to isolate the normally very poor load driving capabilities of your source components and drive the shit out of whatever cables and amplifier)s) you have downstream.  This requires a low output impedance and high drive current capability.

A really good preamp will also isolate the amplifier and speakers from out of band signal garbage so you amp and speakers don't have to amplify crud, which is much harder to amplify than music.

Finally the preamplifier's audio circuits must not screw up the source music or change it in any way (except for the use of tone controls if these are needed to help out lame speakers or horrid source material).

Note that a passive preamp cannot do any of the functions above.  However, a really good passive preamp might be more desirable than a ho-hum active preamp if you don't mind its significant limitations.

Note that a good preamp is not supposed to be a music tweaking device.  If it obviously changes the sound, it is not doing its job well.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

BR,
1INTHEPIPE

[mav52]

I ran a Mac Mini in concert with a Mytek DSD through my pre-amps, hated the sound as it was to clinical at the top end.  I tried both pre-amps , I own a W4S STP-SE & Rogue Athena Pre-amp.  The W4S, clean and detailed no coloration at all.  The Rogue a hint of warmth but clean with a spacious soundstage.. So I just leave the Mac running through the W4S and they match up well.  I use Amarra, but favor the volume controls on the pre.  I using Usher BE-718, Philharmonic 3 speakers using ATI 2002 and a Vincent SP331mkll amps in my setups.