Robin Bowes Wrote: > And there's the hole in your argument - you don't listen in isolation. > There's a source and a power amp involved. But the basic point remains true. Passive pre-amp stages are more transparent than most active stages and the only concern is whether your source and power amp are inadequate (we will get to that in a second). Why pay through the nose for an active pre-amp that doesn't actually do anything apart from potentially harm your signal? It's like buying a Lamborghini to do your grocery shopping.
Robin Bowes Wrote: > Technically, yes. *Any* device in your replay chain will degrade your > signal - even a passive device. Utter nonsense. The *only* *possible* issue with a passive device is the non-linearity at the volume stage. But this is almost totally insignificant to any audio engineer who knows what they're doing and is easy to control. Introduce active gain stages and it's a different ball game. Robin Bowes Wrote: > Active pre-amplification does *not* always produce a "pumped-up" sound. > An active pre-amp can sound as transparent and neutral as a the > designer cares to make it. /sigh I admit I was being somewhat flippant. :-) But the inherent compression and distortion present in many (esp. cheaper) active designs is *precisely* why so-called audiophiles prefer them. Plus they generally look good. They tend to sound 'heavier' or 'weightier' and these are the consequences of the design, ask any engineer who broadcasts radio (for example) why they use compression. Passives can sound 'lifeless' in comparison but nine times out of ten it is because they are simply being more transparent. Yes, you can purchase very very good active stages, I've owned both E.A.R active pre-amps and the ATC SCA2, each excellent units in their own right. But you have to pay a lot of money for the engineers to get to grips with controlling the transparency in an active design. It's basically not worth it. If you instead look at Creek or Audio Synthesis you can get superb performance for much less dosh. Even building your own is completely doable. Actives are useful if you have a weedy source (and most people don't), long cabling (most people don't), or a 'difficult' power-amp (again, most people don't). It would have been nice if some of these hi-fi companies spent an extra $100 and slugged passive attenuation into their CD players, but of course that'd make their $2500 pre-amps redundant.... Robin Bowes Wrote: > It would also seem that there's a lot of crap talked about actives. > > However, I agree with the assertion that passives can be very good "if > you match your kit carefully". Well I hope there are some tenets of useful information for the original poster amongst the crap. Also, let's not over-state the problems of matching a passive. For example the SB3 outputs about 2Vrms with an output impedence of what, 230ohms? That is excellent news for passive users. In addition the original poster uses an MF power-amp that almost certainly has an input impedence equal or above 20k ohms. Again, no problem for the signal. Anything above 20k and you're laughing. I'd guess the sensitivity of the unit is also compatible but I don't know for sure. Run short (<5ft) shielded, low capacitance connectors and you're not going to have any issues using a passive pre. A lot of cabling is low capacitance these days so the poster can almost certainly use what he already has. Most people have the right kit to run passive 'switchers' without any problems already and enjoy the genuine fidelity that is part of the design. Hope that helps the original poster make a decision. -- GeeZa ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GeeZa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=5563 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25614 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
