GeeZa wrote: > I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree Robin, in the spirit of > good natured debate. :-) I just do not see any point whatsoever in > active pre amplification (as you can no doubt tell).
Indeed, I had noticed that. I just think you're being rather harsh on active pre-amps - they have their place. For example, driving multi-channel setups (bi-amping, subs, etc.). > Given that most modern sources like CD players and the SB3 already > provide a good output stage, and that most power amplifiers exhibit > input impedences above the 10k ohm level and can be fully driven with > around a single volt, the active buffering circuitry in even the most > expensive active pres is totally and utterly redundant. It's all done > in the source these days. Again, why are people paying (often several > thousands of dollars) for something they don't need? For some reason > passive units have a terrible reputation. Go to any hi-fi store and > note what the ratio of actives to passives is, that's if they do any > passive AT ALL. The industry just doesn't seem interested, although > you'll often find audio engineers will have built their own volume > pot as a sort of hobby project. :-) Been there, done that. > It's not even about price points or comparing good with average, it's > about design principles and what's worth paying for. A well made > passive controller will out-perform or match any active stage at any > price, I disagree with that. I defy you to tell the difference between a good passive preamp and a good active preamp in a blind A/B test. > and the currently recognised best on the market like Creek or Audio > Synthesis are affordable. Only exotica like Music First gets up to > the multiple thousands. My Creek cost $500 and that compares to my > old ATC SCA which was $6500. The Creek is to all intents and purposes > audibly no different and I suspect measures better. They are > effectively noiseless, and distortion and compression free. I used > active pre-amps for 15 years but once I demoed a passive I never went > bank. I just much prefer the philosophy of a passive controller (I > have three sources), and find the sound effortlessly neutral and > enjoyable. I suspect you're allowing your philosophical preferences to influence your opinion - passive: good, active: bad. It's not as clear cut as that. A more appropriate maxim might be: Well-designed: good, poorly-designed: bad > Plus you can save a pretty penny and spend it on music instead. The > original poster wondered if he should try one and my recommendation > is a definitie yes. I agree with Phil, try it and see, you may well > be surprised. I agree with you that passive pre-amps should be considered, but I would rather you presented a more balanced view, and didn't get hung up on your ideology. > > I guess we've beaten this to death. :-) Oh no, there's always more mileage in a good debate... :) > _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
