[stump4545]

in general, what piece of gear should one look to upgrade first, their amp, or pre amp?

all things being equal which component in general would yield more of a benefit after upgrading.

[*Scotty*]

There is no meaningful answer to this query in my opinion.  There is no way to know where the weakest link is. Is it the preamp or the poweramp. The source component must also be part of the equation as well as the speakers. Another thread addresses the room speaker conundrum. Any answer must deal in specifics and not generalities. You have posed a general question to which a general answer cannot be given.
Scotty

[ajzepp]

If your amp is properly matched to your speakers (i.e. there is enough current on tap to easily drive your speakers) then my vote would be for the preamp. Adding a tube preamp to my system was the most notable difference I've ever made next to speakers and room treatments.

[K Shep]

In general, which is how you posed the question, your preamp.

[rollo]

In general, which is how you posed the question, your preamp.

  Agreed. Preamp. The two most affective changes for me have been Preamps and yes speaker cables.


charles

[WGH]

When I switch out amps I have to listen hard for changes, most of the time the difference is subtle. I can notice differences immediately when switching out a pre-amp, usually in three notes. Definitely upgrade the pre-amp first.

Wayne

[flintstone]

I agree with "preamp", as long as the amp is well matched with the speakers.


Dave

[Stu Pitt]

The pre-amp is probably the most over-looked and under-appreciated component in a system.  They do a lot more than just select sources and adjust volume.

[Nuance]

As Scotty said, we need a little more information to answer the question.  Can we assume the rest of your system is already sound (no pun intended )?  For the sake of making a choice, I will assume it is. 

If your current amp is clipping during transients and/or when the volume is turned up, I say the amp is more important to replace first.  But if you're just asking which will yield a more noticeable change in sound quality, I vote preamp.  It is always situational, of course. 

[PhilNYC]

in general, what piece of gear should one look to upgrade first, their amp, or pre amp?

all things being equal which component in general would yield more of a benefit after upgrading.

It depends on what you think are your system's current short-comings and what are you looking to improve?

[dflee]

A while back I was thinking I needed to change out the pre cause the sound, while good had shortcomings. Since I didn't have the cash to get what I felt would be a major improvement, I tried an interconnect and was floored. Sometimes a simple thing like the interconnect can improve your system way beyond what you think.

Don

[Bigfish]

in general, what piece of gear should one look to upgrade first, their amp, or pre amp?

all things being equal which component in general would yield more of a benefit after upgrading.

Don't upgrade anything unless you have the speakers you plan to use for some time.  If you have the speakers everything you upgrade will impact the sound.  I think the route I would go (which I have) would be preamp, source, cables and amps.

Good Luck,

Ken

[S Clark]

Don't upgrade anything unless you have the speakers you plan to use for some time.  If you have the speakers everything you upgrade will impact the sound.  I think the route I would go (which I have) would be preamp, source, cables and amps.

Good Luck,

Ken

+1

[wilsynet]

Generally agree regarding speakers.  But it all matters, and that's the problem.

A friend of mine has a pair of budget, entry level speakers, and no matter what electronics I've loaned him, he can't tell the difference between any of it.  No matter how good your source and amplifier is, if your speakers are not sufficiently resolving, then there's really nothing more you can do.

The Zu Druids which I had for 3 years, they were very sensitive to different amplification.  And once I got a sufficiently resolving amplifier, then I could tell the very real differences between pre-amplifiers and finally sources.

While I agree in principal that the output of the speakers will only be as good as the output of your source, my general finding is that a well executed $1500 DAC is, without an appropriately resolving system, barely distinguishable from a $3000 DAC.  Add in a low jitter interface (I just got my M2Tech in the mail last week) and the differences may vanish entirely.

As for preamps, so long as your source has the right output impedance and enough voltage, many people find that a $500 passive is as good as a $2000 active.  For example, the stepped attenuator on the Red Wine Audio 30.2 integrated is better (to my ears) than so many other sub $2000 active preamplifiers out there.  Can you do better?  Sure.  But how much is it going to cost you?

If a passive is inappropriate in your system, the Modwright SWL 9.0SE at used prices of $1300 is a very good preamplifier indeed, and you need to really outspend it to do anything more than marginally better.  Want something new for a bargain?  The Mapletree preamplifiers tend to also be very much recommended around these parts.

But with speakers, not so.  $3000 speakers tend to be considerably better than $1500 speakers.

[doug s.]

as has been said before - amp/speakers are an interface, and need to be looked at together.  in general, preamp upgrade will give you the best bang for buck.  but, if you already have your s.o.t.a. preamp, and are looking to get a better amp for your speakers, then you obviously upgrade the amp.

also, while i agree w/the point wilsynet is trying to make, i disagree w/the specific example:  imo, a well-executed $500 dac will be barely indistinguishable from a $5k dac, even on an extremely resolving system.    and, while i thoroughly enjoy the zu druid speakers, (i own a pair of the monitor iterations), resolving power is one of their (few if only?) known weaknesses.  the zu's sound great, and do so many things well.  but many way-less expensive speakers have higher resolution, and that is a priority for me - i want it all.     which is why, tho i decided to keep them, they did not go in the main rig, but in a second system.

ymmv,

doug s.

[Niteshade]

The question is too vague because it makes the assumption there is a weak link, but we don't know which one it is. My advice: Don't put a $100.00 saddle on a $50.00 horse. Find the weak link and replace that, whatever it may be.

[JLM]

I vote for active speakers.  Flatter frequency response, incredible dynamics, and unbelievable deep bass.  I compared passive and active versions of Paradigm Studio/Active 20s (small two-way standmounts) years ago and there was no contest, not even close.  Let the designer do the all important synergistic matching between amps and speakers.  And let each channel of amplification "see" (react) to each driver directly.  Absolutely huge improvements.  (These are the pluses enjoyed by fans of single driver speakers.)


My 2nd vote (option) would be for attenuators versus passive or active pre-amps.  If you're a KISS or purist kind of audiophile this is the ultimate.  Fewest possible components/connections and no impedence problems that passives can have.  The downsides are:

1. You must disconnect/reconnect between multiple sources (if you have them);
2. No remote control
3. You'll probably have to look at the side/back of your amp if you don't want to reach around back to adjust the volume.

A few digital components like the Squeeze Box 3 and Oppo 970 I've owned have good built-in volume controls and make for an even better and more convenient solution.


So the absolute best solution would be digital sources with a good built-in volume control feeding active speakers.  No pre-amp to add colorations or limit the reproduction, no speaker cables to screw with the sound, minimum number of interconnects to mess with the sound, and no (separate) power amp.  (This is along the lines I've followed.)

[turkey]

The question is too vague because it makes the assumption there is a weak link, but we don't know which one it is. My advice: Don't put a $100.00 saddle on a $50.00 horse. Find the weak link and replace that, whatever it may be.

I would agree with this, but would add that your electronics are less likely to be the weak link than your speakers and room.

[kach22i]

There is no meaningful answer to this query in my opinion.  There is no way to know where the weakest link is. Is it the preamp or the poweramp. The source component must also be part of the equation as well as the speakers. Another thread addresses the room speaker conundrum. Any answer must deal in specifics and not generalities. You have posed a general question to which a general answer cannot be given.
Scotty

You are right, it is system specific.

In my case years ago I knew my Carver CT-17 preamp was the weak link. However I found a used tube amp first and even with the CT-17 I just had to have the tube amp.

A few weeks later from the same dealer I picked up a used tube preamp with tube phono and was even more pleased the way they went together.

So, even if you know what your weak link is, you can improve anywhere.

Another example is years ago I upgraded my Yamaha CD changer to a six month old McIntosh CD player. I was not looking to upgrade but got a smoke'n hot deal which I just had to pounce on. Of course with the CD's sounding better than vinyl I had to put money into the turntable and the pattern continued until vinyl surpassed the CD.

It's just best that things are balanced so you can stop spending money on equipment and can start spending it on music including live music events.

[Noseyears]

I'll choose the Preamp...they are like the brains, controls everything. They go well with a decent set of speakers.