2. amps-preamps
  3. 125047-818

I used to think passive preamps were superior to active preamps given right the setup, but

my recent evaluation of a modded old SS preamp has me a little befuddled.  I've evaluated $10K+ active preamps in the past and was never impressed especially given their cost.  In general, I've found passives to do better job. I know there's ongoing debate on this.  But here's a very illuminating video on the subject by Bascom King, one of the legends of high end audio.

https://youtu.be/HHl8F9amyY4
dracule1

Showing 2 responses by jmcgrogan2

jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
Interesting that Bascom King points out a couple times that 'intellectually' wise he really wants to like the sound of passives better, and direct to amp better.
It must be difficult from an engineering mindset to let oneself relax and actually listen to music without trying to analyze components.
Many engineers cannot grasp a lot of the concepts that audiophiles enjoy, as they cannot make intellectual sense to them.

As for myself, I tried 3 passive preamps about 15-20 years ago, and realized early on that a passive could not compete with a good active tube preamp to my ears.
Looking back, I did not perform these trials with tube sources and tube amps, so that could have some affect on my results.
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Is BK dismissing passives to promote his new active preamplifier?
Or did he design his new preamplifier to be active due to his previous experiences with active/passives?
More to discover