Newbee, I didn't mean to insinuate that those with tube amps would prefer a passive preamp. I've owned tube and SS amps and have always preffered active preamps myself. What I was saying is that I have noticed that most of the fans of passive preamps are using tube amps. It's very rare to find a fan of passive preamp with SS amps. Just something that I've noticed. Since Lynne is using a SS amp, I would think a active preamp would be the obvious choice. To more directly answer the question: Does a passive preamp with transformers so that its impedence can be matched with an amplifier have the potential to provide better sonics than a line preamp? I would say yes, the potential does exist. However cable, source and amp matching would still make it very difficult to realize better sonics. IMHO. Cheers, John |
FWIW, because of Johns comments, I must say that I've used passive's with tube amps and can't say that I ever found anything about them that made them preferrable to a good active amp.
Its too easy to lose the sources dynamics because of poor matching of cables and IC's with a passive, and like every thing else in the hobby, everything between the source and speakers is either additive or subtractive. There ain't anything that is just neutral to the source, if for no other reason that you can never know what the source sounds like with out adding equipment to decode the contents of the recording. Doesn't that initial playback equipment define neutrality.
Has anyone actually listened to the recording over the studios playback system to get a fix on what it should sound like? Perhaps a recording engineer might, or some one at the recorded event might, beable to rely on aural memories if they actually heard it, but I doubt it
I doubt that anybody would recognize 'true neutrality to the source' in audio equipment so why not add an active pre-amp to those things one might use to dial in their version of neutrality or replication of the sound of a 'live' or 'close to live' event. Do what sounds good/realistic/neutral to you! Thats what everybody else is doing. Even the guys that wear hair shirts, even though they would proclaim otherwise! :-) |
Another vote for active. I've owned a couple of passive units which sounded so "clean and open" on initial hook up I was impressed. But ultimate lack of drive and dynamics always caused me to return to an active unit.
There is one significant value to owning an inexpensive passive unit (can be assembled with <$15 for a stereo pot, two pair of female RCA jacks, some wire and a small box) -- that is to test the transparency of any "active" preamp under audition. A good unit should be as open sounding (lacking in distortion) as the test mule passive box.
Also, I agree with Sam Tellig that a "passive preamp" is an oxymoron term. |
Jmcgrogan2 - you hit something there. Tube amps typically have very high input impedance, much higher than the typical SS amp, and this is why passives work better with them.
However, in almost all cases at least, a very good active pre will eclipse any passive. The passives all somehow lose body and drive. |
Albertporter...You criticize a lack of "enhancement from the original signal." Wouldn't that be *distortion* of the original signal? Pleasant perhaps, but not "transparent". |
I prefer active preamps. I've tried a few passives, but they never seem to work for me. That being said, I've noticed that many who like passive's also have tube amps. I cannot say that I have tried a passive with tube amps, so it may be a possibility.
Cheers,
John |
Told you (see my first comment). But the comment made above - "music came alive" - pretty much describes why ultimately I preferred an active, even if it does not provide the same "see through quality" you get with passives. You will not find the answer from this thread, you will have to try good examples of both. I agree with the comment above that a budget passive is likely to sound better than a budget active. |
I've owned both and definetly prefer my active pre. |
I am using a Preeminance 1A passive ahead of Atma-sphere M-60 II.3 with the best results in my system to my ears thus far. The actives I have used (Cary, Sonic Frontiers, BottleHead, Musical Fidelity) imparted a color to the sound peculiar to each preamp that I only noticed due to the tranparency of the passive.
I would equate it to prefering water to drink over soda. Water is quenching and ulimately satisfying where as soda is great at first but leaves you with a thirst and an after taste that may not be pleasant. |
The most important factor when considering a passive is to look at the impedance match between your source and your amplifier. A passive simply muddles things up - unless your impedance match has a lot of leeway built in, a passive simply will not work.
I have never heard a passive setup which impressed me. Quite often, the system would run out of volume when more is needed. This is especially true for classical music which is mastered at a relatively low volume. |
I am a happy owner of passive pre-amp based on S&B trainnies. It has 0 and 6dB of gain, which is switchable.
The sound is very transparent without loss of dynamics. I compared it with several pre-amps (for example with EAR 864) and it was clear winner.
Saying all that, I wouldn't though say that every passive is better than every active pre-amp. It depends a lot on your music taste, the rest of equipment, ... So the best way is to try several options, active and passive, in your system and then to make a decision. There are a lot of extremly well sounding active pre-amps (and not only tube but also SS) on the market. |
Just to represent the other 50%
I like my Sonic Euphoria passive a lot. The last active I had created a lot of glare which is now gone. The active before that did not provide enough gain. The one before that sounded flat. (Supratek, Joule, BAT - not top of the line but not exactly chopped liver)
No doubt that the rig sounds different with the passive then straight from source to amp. A bit darker and smoother. Maybe more emphasis on certain details. But NO glare.
For now I am happy - lots of detail. sounds great at low levels, no tube rolling ang$t. I am sure I will go active again but for now this is working for me. |
I had an NVA passive pre which....delivered music "as is". When I tried an Audio Note tube pre, the music became alive. So I am now an active pre camper! |
I agree with Albert and Pubul:
Right now I'm listening through Endler resistor-based volume controls ahead of Atma-Sphere MA-1s. Nice combo, but I've got a custom Audio Note kits L3 active in the UPS pipeline that'll replace the Endlers with no regrets. I've also used the DIY HiFi Django w/S&B iron ahead of Atmas as well - again nice, but ultimately lacking the energy imparted by a Blue Circle BC-3000 or Atma MP-3 (the last two actives in my system).
If one has $1000 or less budgeted to a "preamp", I'd go with a passive; otherwise, I'd save for a quality active preamp. |
Agree with Pubul57,
My response to passive preamps is no.
With passive you have the hardware in the way, volume controls in the way, wire in the way, RCA (or XLR) jacks in the way but you get ZERO benefit.
Zero gain, zero contrast and zero dynamic enhancement from the original signal. |
It will be quieter and maybe more transparent, which does not mean it will sound better to you. You are going to hear 50% argue for passives and 50% swear by active tubes. Ultimately you will have to try four yourself, but there are certainly very, very good passives and happy owners. I know this does not help much, but it is hard to to give a definitive answer that is warranted. I've been the passive route, and prefer my tubed Joule 150 MKII. |
