Is it possible that you are using cable runs on the IC's that are too long? Stick to the shortest IC connection possible, especially between the passive and the amp(s). The passive pres are much more sensitive to cable length. I have a Placette and love it in my SS system, but have heard it sound poorly in my other system because of cable length and source output voltage. Which brings me to the other question; what is the output voltage of your source? If it's very low, say under 2.5V, that may be a cause of, or part of, your problem there.
That said, in researching my purchase, all the real-world input I could find that had compared both said that the Active was better than the passive, but at a substantial cost (more than 3X price of the passive, and almsot 5X price of the RVC single-input passive). I can't comment myself as I have not heard an active Placette. The passive is just outstanding, IMO, and is a tremendous value for the money if it works in your system.
Marco |
This question would be best answered by Guy at Placette. |
Redwoodgarden, I have heard both the passive and active Placette, my reference is the active which replaced a Mark Levinson reference 32 which cost $10000.00 more, and I would say the active is about 15% to 25% better then the passive. But, that last 15% to 25% in audio can make a real difference if you can hear it in your system. |
The Active does not have any added gain unless you order it that way. Guy can probably modify your passives (or an Active) to have more attenuation.
|
Jax2 there's really no problem. It's just that I'm wondering if a good thing could sound better. I keep hearing that actives sound better than passives. Because I have to attenuate the Pre an additional 20dB, I don't think there's a problem with the output of the CD player.You're right about the interconnects. I have to be very careful with the position of the 1M interconnects or I'll get hum and buzz. Getheleadout I'm looking for an unbiased opinion. Guy has treated me very well, but I'm just after a second view. Teajay I have a Mark Levinson 334 amp which is not reference level. I also have Khorns and LaScalas. Is this good enough to get the extra 15% to 25% from the active preamp? |
Redwoodgarden, my hunch, looking at your total system, is yes, the Active would offer a sonic improvement over your passive. I'm sure Guy would setup an audition and if I got my facts right, you get the full value of the passive towards the Active if you trade up. |
In theory, you will only get better results fm the active IF the buffer it has helps transfer energy into the amp (i.e. if it "MATCHES" better).
Also, to give my biased opinion, none of us here can help you in this case UNLESS we're playing the same source and load components (and the pre, in between, of course).
I would expect the placette people would know best, as they have obviously researched their product extensively.
IMO, the ML 334 is a very nice and honest product, BTW. I like it a lot. |
Teajay I hope your facts are right. I didn't know about the upgrade. Thanks.
Gregm and Getheleadout you talked me into it. I'll call Guy again. |
Have any of you chosen the passive over the active because the system did match and did not need the buffering? That is, your system matched well enough that there was no improvment when adding the active buffering? I use a Merlin BAM (bass augmentation module) between my RVC and Amp (the RVC is fed by a DAC with 2.8mv output and 225 ohms). It has 40kohm input and 100ohm output, so I'm not sure what beneifit if any I would receive from the active Placette. Guy wasn't sure I would necessarily hear an improvement given my system. The active is tempting, but like Gregm said, it is not necessarily improvment for every system. |
Pubul57 - I noticed you had a CAT ultimate in your system and are now selling it. Can you compare the sound of the CAT with that of the RVC in your system?
Marco |
I'm not to good at describing sound. To start with, I subjectively like listening to the RVC as much as the CAT, and since I only have one source and no turntable (my unit includes phono). I felt the CAT was a bit more pre than I needed, especially given the RVC price. I would say the RVC is a bit quiter and even more transparent, with excellent detail retrieval and microdynamic shading, and seperation of sound sources within the soundstage (that is an "artifact" that I like). The CAT is a bit sweeter and perhaps more dynamic (macro). To tell you the truth, I love both. I was especially happy using the RVC as a remote volume for the CAT. I noticed no change in the sound of the CAT with the RVC in use, and I had extremely fine volume-levels to choose from with this set-up. If I don't sell the CAT, I'll probably end up using this set-up, but for now, I don't see the need for both. |
