So, I've been thinking and reading (two dangerous occupation to be sure) and have a couple of thoughts. First, for a stereo system (not surround sound) it appears that the purpose of the preamp is to take the signals from your source and amplify them to levels that your amp can then use. It also lets you switch sources and adjust volume. And you want to do this with as little degradation to the original signal as possible.
So, the best preamps do the least, they just amplify the signal a little bit. But why bother? If your preamp amps the signal X 5 (for instance) and the amp X 10000 (yes, I making these numbers up, the point is that the preamp is a little and the amp a lot) couldn't you just make an amp to accept the lower level signal and amp it X 10005? You shouldn't need any extra electronics for that, should you? Then your preamp would really just be a box to switch between sources, and a volume control (via signal reduction, not amp). Yes, I know these exist and are called passive preamps, but you need a source with enough power already for the amp. I guess I don't understand why the need for designing the systems so that amps require a higher power input than your normal sources provide. Or am I missing something?
The reason I'm trying to figure this out (other than curiosity) is that I figure the rotel rb-1050 is only $400, well within my limit and from what some of you say amps can make a difference. This would also allow me an upgrade path later, possibly to surround sound with a preamp and another amp (much later, when I get a real job) and I could still swing some good speakers, the M50s or even (if I stretch it) the M60s. Or maybe I'll just use my old technics for now...
