"08-08-14: Hazyj
Zd543 says "But the argument here isn't passive vs active, its the Placette vs Forte Model 2. Each component has its own sound, regardless of design"
I'm going to play devil's advocate here to see what the responses might be, as I find this to be one of the big topics in the audiophile community. It interests me greatly and I'd like to know others' feelings as well ...
I believe your opinion is the Placette Passive "has it's own sound", and my D.A. response is that I'd expect that sound to be that of the source. If you tell me that no, the passive adds or subtracts something then I'd ask for an objective if not factual basis for that statement."
That's actually pretty easy to answer. I think you are letting the terms active and passive trip you up a bit. It's not that an active component adds something to the music/signal, and passive components do not. Both active and passive components have an effect on the signal. Its just a matter of what and how. With regards to passive preamps, they will all sound different from each other. How much of a difference they sound from each other can only be taken on a case by case basis. Also, the difference, will mostly be subjective. Alot to me may not be alot to you. I like to think the differences in passive preamps, resemble very much the differences in cables. Cables, which are also passive devices, sound different from each other. But the differences usually are not anywhere near as big as the differences between active components. Active components, preamps or otherwise, "do more" to the sound. They impose more of their will on the signal. If we now look at active preamps, the differences can be a 2 edge sword. Active has the potential to be alot better or alot worse than a passive. In context of this discussion, its the alot worse, possibility that's of concern here. This is also where the arguments become most subjective.
Here's my personal view on when to go with an active preamp or a passive (Include in passive category sources like CD players/DAC's that have a built in volume control. Components like that allow you to eliminate an active preamp). There's a price point of about $3000 that many feel to be a cutoff between active and passive. The general rule is that unless you can afford a stand alone, active preamp in the $3000 range, its best just to use a passive. But you need to keep in mind that this is my own personal, subjective judgement. There are plenty of people who feel the same way and use the $3000 rule of thumb. Many, however, do not. If you'll remember, Avgoaround said he preferred the active setting on the $1500 Adcom preamp, I mentioned. There's nothing wrong with that. Some people just prefer an active, no matter what. Its like some people prefer vinyl even though its a lot of work and have to deal with the ticks and pops. Its what they like. I also know other people on this web site that won't use an active preamp at any price. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Its just personal preference.
You ask quite a bit more in your post. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to get into anything else. Later on, I'll try to comment on some of the other issues. But here's one last thing.
"A closing question as a case in point: do some audiophiles prefer tubes and vinyl because those technologies and approaches give them the feeling of the most accurate sound reproduction or is it because they simply like the sound?"
Its a combination of both. |
Zd542-
I find your response to my devil's advocate question to be neither objective nor factual. I do understand the opinions quite well, but doubt they move this conversation forward in any meaningful way.
Your over-confident approach to this topic is misplaced in my opinion. You can't listen to all equipment in all combinations. You don't know objectively that all equipment has a noticeable effect on the "sound" of source reproduction. Your (apparent) opinion that all equipment has it's own "sound" implies that someone somewhere (you?) can definitely hear that "sound". I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences. That does not imply that all equipment must contribute a noticeable difference.
There is no physical law or set of laws that necessitate that a piece of audio equipment must contribute it's own noticeable (to the ear, not the oscilloscope) "sound", but you seem to have the opinion that such laws exist. It's a simple (but meaningless) statement to say that most equipment will contribute its own "sound", but another entirely different statement to profess that all equipment has a "sound" that is noticeable. |
"Your over-confident approach to this topic is misplaced in my opinion. You can't listen to all equipment in all combinations. You don't know objectively that all equipment has a noticeable effect on the "sound" of source reproduction. Your (apparent) opinion that all equipment has it's own "sound" implies that someone somewhere (you?) can definitely hear that "sound". I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences. That does not imply that all equipment must contribute a noticeable difference."
Understand that you are guessing here. My overconfident approach is just me trying my best go give you some useful info that you'll be able to use to help you make a selection. Remember, you're the one that has almost no experience here. Since you want to pick things apart, lets start here.
"I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences."
That statement is pure speculation on your part. You don't have the experience to make a statement like that. You can only come up with that from what you are reading. And before you say no, remember that you are the one asking the questions and giving your list of experiences. So don't try and back track and come up with a whole list of components that you have heard but just didn't mention. For someone who is demanding scientific proof, "There is no physical law or set of laws that necessitate that a piece of audio equipment must contribute it's own noticeable (to the ear, not the oscilloscope) "sound", but you seem to have the opinion that such laws exist. It's a simple (but meaningless) statement to say that most equipment will contribute its own "sound", but another entirely different statement to profess that all equipment has a "sound" that is noticeable." (those are your words), maybe you should hold yourself to the same standard.
Now, about the part where I don't know objectively about all equipment and my apparent opinion, blah, blah, blah... Great. I couldn't agree with you more. Its silly to even mention it. It's impossible, no one can do it. Why bring it up? The only answer that makes sense is that you just don't know any better because of your lack of experience.
Last, can you point out some examples of my overconfident, know it all approach?
"Both active and passive components have an effect on the signal. Its just a matter of what and how. With regards to passive preamps, they will all sound different from each other. How much of a difference they sound from each other can only be taken on a case by case basis. Also, the difference, will mostly be subjective. Alot to me may not be alot to you."
"In context of this discussion, its the alot worse, possibility that's of concern here. This is also where the arguments become most subjective."
"Here's my personal view on when to go with an active preamp or a passive (Include in passive category sources like CD players/DAC's that have a built in volume control. Components like that allow you to eliminate an active preamp)."
"But you need to keep in mind that this is my own personal, subjective judgement. There are plenty of people who feel the same way and use the $3000 rule of thumb. Many, however, do not."
"If you'll remember, Avgoaround said he preferred the active setting on the $1500 Adcom preamp, I mentioned. There's nothing wrong with that. Some people just prefer an active, no matter what."
"I also know other people on this web site that won't use an active preamp at any price. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Its just personal preference."
I don't know about you, but it looks to me like I'm pretty clear about what my personal opinions are from fact, and keeping the objective and subjective separate.
At this point, if you are still going to still insist on objective proof, you should realize by now, in many cases, its not even relative. Even if you can measure some tiny difference in a lab there's no guarantee that you'll be able to hear it in absolute terms, have the potential listening skills to hear it or have a system that is able to realize the differences regardless. So, in the end, the most impotent thing you can really rely on, is the experience you gather from working with this type of equipment. That's how I do it and I make no apologies. Not only that, I'm done wasting my time trying to help you. Just to put things into perspective, if Avgoaround was able to fix his personality issues and have a normal discussion, with me, and some of the others, he could do so. You're no where near qualified to have a discussion at this level, so when people try and take the time to help answer your questions, don't be a jackass.
|
At least 4 problems with your response:
1. You appear to have missed the main point of my post.
2. You're guessing incorrectly about my experience with the subject matter.
3. You aren't being either objective or factual.
4. You continue to approach the subject from an inappropriately over-confident and apparently authoritative point of view.
Fleshing this out ...
1. The point of my post was three-fold: a.) prove that all components necessarily add or subtract something to/from the "sound" & b.) start a discussion regarding "just what IS the sound of the source?" & c.) reopen the topic of what listeners hear and want to hear. You appear to have addressed c.) but ignored the others.
2. 24 years ago I spent hundreds if not thousands of hours listening to high-end audio equipment throughout Los Angeles and the Bay Area. I met and had many discussions with "audiophiles", dealers and manufacturers, went to audio shows, read what I could, and took a lot of time mixing and matching several pieces of equipment in my own system. During my schooling/training as a physicist and electrical engineer I studied semiconductors and circuitry, built simple amplifiers, mastered priciples of sound propagation and materials science. I then sold everything I owned and swore off all of it because I couldn't afford it, and I needed to concentrate on other things. I've been away from high-end audio for 24 years and only since May this year have I even looked to see what was new and what has remained the same. I've never heard of some of these new companies and I'm only now learning about multi-channel systems, hence my questions about multi-channel pre-amps.
3. I'm not sure what to write here but I'll take a stab at it... You don't seem to want to be involved in an objective discussion, or maybe you don't understand what an objective discusssion is. That's hard to believe so I don't think that's what's going on, but you made a mistake by writing "that statement is pure speculation on your part" regarding my statement "I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences." Do you realize that I'm stating this as a fact which I do in fact know? It is a fact that audio listeners can hear differences between components. It is a fact that some listeners are better than others at hearing differences. It is a fact that I realize this. I don't understand how this can be confusing to you and/or why you would waste time arguing the point.
4. You seem to think you're educating me and twice now I think you state that you're helping me. You appoint yourself as an authority, but I don't find any reason to recognize that self-appointment. I do recognize that you've probably been involved in high-end audio for quite some time and that you've probably listened to a lot of equipment. That means something to me, but not much wrt the current topic. You did help me earlier in the thread wrt a question or two I asked about multi-channel pre-amps. Thank you, but if you read closely you realize that I came to the same conclusion with regard to trying out a separate 2 channel preamp prior to your advice. |
my previous post is addressed to Zd542 only. sorry if there was any confusion about this. |
"That statement is pure speculation on your part. You don't have the experience to make a statement like that. You can only come up with that from what you are reading. And before you say no, remember that you are the one asking the questions and giving your list of experiences. So don't try and back track and come up with a whole list of components that you have heard but just didn't mention."
"24 years ago I spent hundreds if not thousands of hours listening to high-end audio equipment throughout Los Angeles and the Bay Area. I met and had many discussions with "audiophiles", dealers and manufacturers, went to audio shows, read what I could, and took a lot of time mixing and matching several pieces of equipment in my own system."
"I've been away from high-end audio for 24 years and only since May this year have I even looked to see what was new and what has remained the same. I've never heard of some of these new companies and I'm only now learning about multi-channel systems, hence my questions about multi-channel pre-amps."
So I was right. How on earth can you claim to have experience from May until now? Well I guess 24 years ago, you would be the man to talk to. lol. I'll give you some credit. Why don't we change any experience to any relevant experience.
"During my schooling/training as a physicist and electrical engineer I studied semiconductors and circuitry, built simple amplifiers, mastered priciples of sound propagation and materials science."
And this is where we get to the heart of the matter. I knew it was coming but I just couldn't decide if you were and EE or a psychologist. You knew everything all along and were just waiting for the right time to drop it on us, and therefore win the argument by default. All due to your superior intellect and education. You are, after all an EE.
Let's try something different. I've done my best to answer your questions, now see if you can answer one of mine.
You state that you "mastered priciples of sound propagation and materials science". Can you back that up? Since we're on the topic of preamps, tell us how you would design the best preamp, be it active or passive? If you really are a master it should be light work for you. (I know. You're probably waiting for the pattens on your state of the art designs to come through, so you can't divulge any proprietary information until that happens.) |
You miss the point that I am not asking YOU any question at all directly but was opening up a topic for discussion in a forum. I think my questions are good topics for discussion with people who really want to contribute rather than argue or just promote themselves (remember I NEEDED to list my experience for you - i did not want to do that but you seemed to need the info). Clearly I'm opening up the topic in the wrong forum though. I know mine are not home theater questions. That's fine - I'm still curious about how people might respond so I'll probably try to open the topic elsewhere.
I make no claims to being an expert about audiophilia which makes all this more fun for me. I do have the experience as mentioned albeit almost all of it was 20+ years ago. I'm learning about changes since then and remember a lot of things that don't seem to have changed at all.
For what it's worth I most certainly did master the subjects I mentioned and many more I studied. Does that surprise you? I'd guess that at least half the members on audiogon have studied engineering and science and am absolutely certain that many also have graduate degrees in these disciplines. I make no claims to being the smartest or most experienced or most accomplished here. I don't care if I'm not even of average intelligence here, but I am proud of what I've learned and accomplished. I've put in a lot of work and have often done well like many others here I'm sure. I have no idea how to design the best pre-amp - why in the world would i know such a thing and why would you ask that question? Can I figure out how to design the best pre-amp? I don't know, but I certainly know how to start to find out how if I wanted to. I've learned quite a bit about pre-amp design over the past 2 weeks. Is that unexpected? Does it matter?
I need to move on from this - you seem to just want to argue so I don't see any resolution and doubt you really want to discuss the topic I was trying to open up. No hard feelings. Thanks for the discussion, but let's just go our separate ways please. |
ZD542, I NEVER said I liked the ANY mode, neither active nor passive, regarding the adcom 750 pre! I merely stated that the active section was more dynamic and weighty over the passive.. didn't care for any part of that preamp, actually!
I'm now thinking that a great deal of that may have been due to the source components and interconnects used, byenlarge. Dunno..gonna need to experiment w the whole passive approach n compare. |
"08-11-14: Hazyj
You miss the point that I am not asking YOU any question at all directly but was opening up a topic for discussion in a forum. I think my questions are good topics for discussion with people who really want to contribute rather than argue or just promote themselves (remember I NEEDED to list my experience for you - i did not want to do that but you seemed to need the info). Clearly I'm opening up the topic in the wrong forum though. I know mine are not home theater questions. That's fine - I'm still curious about how people might respond so I'll probably try to open the topic elsewhere."
You started this thread under false pretenses. You clearly stated that you were seeking opinions in the context of upgrading your system. Have another look at it.
"I like this Emotiva unit, but got it just before deciding to upgrade almost everything in my system. I can still return it tho and am now hoping to setup the two front channels as follows:
Thiel CS2.7 (or something just as transparent if I find it)
Amp to match the Thiels (Pass Labs x-150, Peachtree 220, suggestions?)
I realize it's a pretty open ended question, but can someone suggest other 7+ multi channel pre/processors to match the above hypothetical system?
Thanks,
hazyj"
What kind of replies did you think you were going to get? Then, in the middle of all this, you bring up all this BS about you being an EE, and all the rest of it. People do this almost on a daily basis here. They start these endless arguments that go on forever, that can neither be won or lost. I know the difference between a very small difference in SQ that may be difficult or impossible to hear, and real differences. We were talking about passives like the Placette, Adcom and other ones around that level, and then comparing them to some actives. And then I have to listen to you tell me about how overconfident I am because I can list the sonic differences between them. I've heard all those preamps and can easily tell the differences between them. They were answers given in the context of you needing a new preamp. You changed the rules, not me. Here, maybe this will make you happy: Would I notice a difference in SQ if you were to cryo the rca connectors on the Placette? Probably not. Happy now?
"I'd guess that at least half the members on audiogon have studied engineering and science and am absolutely certain that many also have graduate degrees in these disciplines."
That's the problem. They all say that but are they really? I don't think so. You can believe whatever you wish. Also, you did clearly state that you are a master in the disciplines you list in your post.
"I have no idea how to design the best pre-amp - why in the world would i know such a thing and why would you ask that question?"
If it didn't apply to audio, why bring it up at all? |
"08-12-14: Avgoround
ZD542, I NEVER said I liked the ANY mode, neither active nor passive, regarding the adcom 750 pre! I merely stated that the active section was more dynamic and weighty over the passive.. didn't care for any part of that preamp, actually!"
Sorry. But the way you worded your post, it looks like you preferred the active setting over the passive. |
I got a call Thursday from Parasound telling me the by-pass mod has been completed for my JC-2 and that it was being shipped back to me. Shipping the 300+ miles from San Francisco to Santa Barbara shouldn't take long.
The Ayre C-5xeMP can't be used without a preamp, so I played CDs and SACDs using the Oppo BDP-105 direct to the amps. I was surprised that voices sound so much less natural than when the Ayre and JC-2 are in the chain. I've been listening to very little music since.
I attribute the diminished sound quality to substitution of the Oppo for the Ayre, but I do think the Oppo sounds better when going through the JC-2.
db |
It doesn't get much better than the Ayre C-5xeMP. If I didn't already have an expensive Wadia, I would own one myself. I'm curious to see how much better your JC-2 is with the mods. After you've had a chance to listen to it, can you post your opinions on it? |
WAIT WAIT WAAAAIIIITTT!!! You guys mean to tell me that an expensive hi end preamp inserted in between the All mighty Oppo sounds better than direct bypass to the amps from the Oppo analog outs??!!! NO WAY!!! How's this possible?!!! After all, should totally be another unnecessary window in the chain, to mess up the purity of the sound, having the active preamp in the signal, yes???
Well I'm jus all confuse ed now!. ..was already to go pick up that unflappable Oppo... but just got derailed!!
Back to the drawing board, I say |
"08-17-14: Avgoround
WAIT WAIT WAAAAIIIITTT!!! You guys mean to tell me that an expensive hi end preamp inserted in between the All mighty Oppo sounds better than direct bypass to the amps from the Oppo analog outs??!!! NO WAY!!! How's this possible?!!! After all, should totally be another unnecessary window in the chain, to mess up the purity of the sound, having the active preamp in the signal, yes???
Well I'm jus all confuse ed now!. ..was already to go pick up that unflappable Oppo... but just got derailed!!
Back to the drawing board, I say"
Don't you get tired of making a complete jackass of yourself every time you post? You make everything up and get mad when no one goes along with your false delusions. I'll prove yet again. Close your eyes and pretend you don't see the next few lines.
"07-20-14: Avgoround
As much as I LOATH ZD542, I kinda concur. :-) If you're going "music speakers", and focusing on improving 2 ch, then you should go dedicated 2 ch amp/pre and maybe separate the two systems for maximum."
Now that you didn't see that, you can start off with something like: no, no, NO, NO, NOOOOOO!!!! |
The by-pass mod Parasound does to the JC-2 lets you set any or all channels to unity gain and takes the JC-2 volume control out of the loop for a by-passed channel. Kal Rubinson claims the pass through is completely transparent as far as he could tell.
In my application, stereo from an Oppo BDP-105 goes through the JC-2 whereas the surround channels go directly to Proceed HPA amps. Setting the input the Oppo uses to by-pass means only the Oppo volume control that controls all the Oppo output channels is active. I had marked the JC-2 for unity gain with the Oppo, but too often failed to reset it after using the Ayre or Thorens. So I didn't expect any change in sound quality with the mod -- but Pete Seeger is again singing in my room now that the C-5xeMP - JC-2 chain is back.
db |
Zd542-
Not worth my time or anyone else's to write here under "false pretenses". Not even sure what you mean by that, and no wish or need to argue and restate what's already been written.
All-
Thanks to everyone for helping me get back into the fray. I think what I got most from this thread is that there's a lot of enthusiasm for multi-channel audio/HT, there's a lot of enthusiasm for Oppo products (I'll be keeping my eyes open the next time I need a new piece for my system), and there seems to be quite a few audiogoners out there using pieces of their multi-channel system strictly for music listening. I'm still not sure what my system will look like down the road, but this all helps to get me up n runnin again after so many years. Thanks! |
"08-20-14: Hazyj
Zd542-
Not worth my time or anyone else's to write here under "false pretenses". Not even sure what you mean by that, and no wish or need to argue and restate what's already been written."
If you want to find out what I mean, read your own posts. You start out asking for help choosing a preamp for yourself. Then we find out that you're just chasing the never ending argument, and claim to be an EE and all the rest of the BS. If you want to start a thread like that, fine. Just tell people your intentions. I don't get involved in discussions like that and don't like being tricked into them. Its a waste of time (my opinion). If you are looking for those kind of endless threads that go absolutely nowhere and everyone's a genius, try Computer Audiophile. They have threads over there that have been going on for several years and have thousands of posts. Its just the kind of thing you are looking for.
Just to be clear, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Its not possible that you don't understand what I mean. The only reason you say you don't understand is so you don't look bad. Nothing more than that. |
WTF? I don't know where this is coming from and have no intention of trying to figure you out. All I wanted to do was start a thread to get some help on something I knew almost nothing about: multi-channel and HT equipment. People responded. The topic changed somewhat which appears to be business as usual across Audiogon forums. As the topic changed I realized I had more questions that I thought people might enjoy discussing. Meanwhile you argue and argue some more and make misguided/baseless accusations. You're clearly angry about something. How about you get some help and try to keep your problems from messing up the potential for good dialogue here? |
Zd542, just cause I agreed with you on the lone point, doesn't mean that your still not a total douche,nor were we gonna hold hands n sing com bay ya together! However, make no mistake. U ARE an intentional irritant and a wart on the audioenthusiast azz of society! Well played sir!..you've made even more people loath u fer all eternity, this post alone..
See?! Your postings here arent a total waste after all. |
"08-24-14: Avgoround
Zd542, just cause I agreed with you on the lone point, doesn't mean that your still not a total douche,nor were we gonna hold hands n sing com bay ya together!"
I'm really disappointed that's not going to happen.
"However, make no mistake. U ARE an intentional irritant and a wart on the audioenthusiast azz of society! Well played sir!..you've made even more people loath u fer all eternity, this post alone.."
The line is now so long that I can't see when new people are added to it. So thanks for pointing that out. I would have never noticed. |
