Kensetsu, I think that does make sense. Do you have specs on the unit? Output impedance? |
Thanks for all the answers. I did not even know what a TVC was before, so of course I had to do some reading. This issue of electrical compatiblity seems a bit difficiult to grasp. So I throw it out there. The output impedance of my Audio Logic DAC is 225 ohms, the input impedance of my CAT amp is 100 kohms. This is complicated by the fact that the DAC gets plugged into the Merlin BAM bass equalizer which has 40KOhm input and 100 ohm output to the preamplifier. Do these impedances bode well for the use of one of these passives to drive my amplifier? Ultimately, I want to knwo if this will sound better than my CAT SL1 Ultimate, but I guess I won't really know that till I try it. |
Yesterday I ordered the Placette Remote Volume Control with a 30-day trial. From my discussion with Guy, it seems the impedance issues are ideal for a passive approach. I'm very interested to see if it betters my CAT Pre, not only is it $7,000 cheaper, but no tubes to "worry" about (except for the 22 in my CAT amp). I'm glad I'll have both on hand to A/B, if the Placette proves to be better or as good, it really would be an eye opener. Thanks for all you input (no pun intended). Oh, and if it works, I'll probably be posting the CAT for sale here at Audiogon. |
Tbg, I will definitely not give up on the CAT that fast. On the amplifier side, I keep bringing in challengers to the JL2 and while I like trying new stuff, I find that the JL2 is clearly superior to any othe amp I've heard (all these other amps (ARC, Pass, Quicksilver) I've tried sound great to me in their own right, till I go back to the CAT as a reference point). I have found the SL1 pretty hard to beat as well, I've tried Lamm LL2, Joule 150, and ARC Ref 2. Of course, these are all "good", top flight preamplfiers, but the CAT equipment just seems hard to beat for my taste and matching equipment. I would love to find that a $1,000 passive pre can beat the CAT over the long run - I'm certainly open to it. I'll report back on my "test" when I have 2-3 weeks with the Placette. Thank you all for you help. |
Thank you Atmasphere. I think this will prove to an interesting experiment for me. Of course if I prefer the Placette>CAT to the CAT>CAT I imagine (hope) that it will not be due to bad synergy. Does your view suggest that an integrated amplifier approach with a passive preamplfier section might by interesting. If you get the advantage of the quietness and transparency (theoretical advantage of straight wire) of a passive with and internal, interconnect-free connection to the amplfier section, with perfect designed impedance matches - would that work in theory, or is it a matter of tradeoffs at that point? |
Audiomadness, I'm confused by your statement: "Unfortunately it does not stand a chance against aesthetix in terms of speed, transparency, soundstage." Is the "it" the Placette you prefer to the Aesthetix, or to the group of other pres you auditioned versus the Aesthetix? I can't imagine that an active could beat a passive in terms of speed and transparency. Just looking for clarification. |
I'm still waiting for my Placette, which should be here this week. Just for the record, my IC from the Placette to the amps will by 1M Cardas GR or 2M. Guy, Mr. Placette, thought I would have no problems with the cables and my equipment. He also suggested that placing the Merlin BAM between the Placette and the Amp might be a good approach. So, if the Placette can't beat the CAT, I think I can assume it would not be do to capacitance issues in the ICs. I see Atmasphere's point about running 30-100 ft cables, which would suggest the need for an active and perhaps balanced cables, but as GMood1 suggests, is this really relevant to me, with my setup. Well, I guess the proof will be in the listening. I'll send my observations when I have a few days of listening. Thank you. |
Still waiting, but maybe they'll arrive today. Atmasphere. let me ask you a question. If you could design a passive preamp, choose an appropriate source with just the right output impedance, select the cabling to be used (for appropriate electrical properties- and lenght)and they were feeding one of your OTLs or some other quality 100KOhm load - that is you could optimze the variables that determine successful versus unsuccessful implementation of the passive approach - could you conceive that a passive, minalmist approach might work better, sound better than an active, any active preamplifier. I would accept that the passive might not be as flexible, be more fussy, and may be less universally marketable. |
The Placette has arrived. I don't and won't rush to judgement - I plan to A/B with the CAT for 2-3 weeks. I can say that it is certainly competitive, and on first blush I think it might be better. I do not notice any diminishment in bass or dynamics which I was looking for. It is quiet. The music seems to be very clear and localized - that is I hear clear delineation between the location and source of a sound. Microdymamics are fantastic, instrumental or vocal inflections (what I think expresses emotion)is superb. I impressed that at this point I can't say the CAT is better, a pretty good sign for a $1000 unit - true, there is no switching facilities and can't drive long, high capacitance cables - but you know, you could defintely live with this thing in a high end, single source system. To say the least I am impressed. I would certainly recommend that this piece be auditioned and compared with top of the line active preamps (the CAT has to be one of the better ones). It is making me awfully interested in hearing Placette's no-gain active - I think Placette's desinger is on to something, and it might be that Vishay-based volume control . Well, I'm going to listen to this for a while, but darn it sure has made a good first impression. |
Tbg, the nice thing about the Placette marketing model, is you can try it in your home for 30-days and determine how it compares with what you have. So they make it easy to answer the question for your self, directly, in your system, for your taste. I won't say something silly like it smoked the ARC,Lamm, or CAT, but I prefer its sound to theirs (they are all excellent units). Personal taste rules, but the Placette should be on the audtion list, not just with comparably priced units, but with anything out there, IMHO. |
Ken Stevens, the designer and manufacturer of CAT equipment, once told me that a parts manufacturer (I think they were resistors)asked him what "flavor" of sound he wanted from the resistors (warm, bass-oriented, etc.). That is, these parts could be used as "tone controls" - Ken's answer was I want the flavor of water. The sales reps was a bit confused, but I think Ken's goal and Ralph's goal seem similar - "get away from tone controls so as to get to the truth of the matter". Which gets back to the passive/active debate - can an active line stage ever get as close to the "truth" as a passive (minimal flavor, clear as water) implemented in a properly matched "system". I still think that the active approach is probably necessary for some of the reasons mentioned by Ralph and the need to actually sell this equipment into a variety of listening envrionments and matching equipment. |
I tried the RVC as a remote volume control for the CAT, the CAT sounds the same, or at least I can't tell the difference.I think the RVC is worth the price just as a remote volume control with no apparent harm to the CAT. If you own the CAT you know you need/want some finer volume settings. This RVC has me wondering about their active linestage. I'm thinking that much of what I like about the Placette might be attributed to the volume control itself (and address some of Atmasphere's concerns or issues with passives) Who has made the change from the passive Placette to the active? What were your impressions? How does this active Placette compare with great tube units (CAT, Joule, Atmasphere, First Sound, BAT, CJ, Lamm, etc). I'm especially interested if you have made the move from your beloved tube models to the Placette, and have had no regrets. |
Thank you Teajay. I'll read the review. It would be worth it if the active was 10% better - we all accept diminishing returns at this end of the hobby. What tubed units were you audtioning at the time you chose to go with the Placette? |
I spoke to Guy about my setup and I think it would be of interest to Merlin Speaker w/BAM owners. I'm feeding my DAC to the Placette RCV and that is connected to the BAM (Bass Augmentation Module running in battery mode)which is then connected to my amplifiers. The BAM has a 40 Ohm Input Impedance and a 100 Ohm Out put impedance and can put out up to 8-9 volts. Guy felt that with the BAM in my system, there would be very marginal improvements, if any, if I were to use his active. Apparently the BAM does a lot of good for this passive approach, which explains why I like it so much. My observations therefore might have to be taken in that context, although there are apparently other users of the Placette passive that like it quite a bit without the use of a BAM. I would say this, if you own a Merlin speakers and are using the BAM, you really owe it to yourself to try the RVC (he gives you a 30-day trial). I think you will be suprised by the results. |
Teajay, that is a very impressive lineup of tube preamps. I think the CAT is up there too. I started this looking for a passive to try, but what has impressed my is the Placette focus on trying to build the "perfect" volume control. I'm going to continue to A/B with the CAT for a while, but either way I think this RVC is a keeper, especially at $1000. |
Well,it is official, I love the Placette RVC - in my system it works. I'm finding it hard to justify keeping the CAT for my system and my needs, I've put it up for sale - don't get me wrong the CAT is one of the great preamplifiers,and can obvioulsy do soemtings the RVC cannot (phono, source switching, drive any cables into any loads, etc) and deserves its following, but for single source CD with the right impedance/sensitivity/blah,blah - the RVC is awfully good, especially at its price point (I'm not saying it is good for the price, it is good period - at any price). Of course, I'll be thinking about the active Placette, well, maybe after the CAT is sold. |
Well, after six weeks of A/B evaluations, I have sold my CAT SL1 and am very happy with the Placette RVC. It works with great in my system - low output impedance single source, no gain needed, low capacitance cables (Cardas GR), and high sensitvity, high input impedance CAT JL2 amplifier. Sounds like the debate can go on forever, but in the right system, I think it is hard to beat a high quality passive preamp. |
Audiomadness. Thanks for the clarification - it makes sense to me now. There is obviously a lot of different experiences out there regarding the use of passives (I did not really know what they were 8 weeks ago). In my system I don't think an active can work better then the Placette. The speed, transparency, seperation of instruments, dynamics, bass etc - seems to all be there (an no maintenace). Not that I'm not wondering about the Placette Active, or what a TVC approach might do. But I think the CAT pre that I had and just sold must be considered one of the better active preamplifiers on the market, and in terms of sound quality I am more than satisifed having made the switch. My sense is that passives are "cult" items for the same reason that low wattage SETs are. In the right system they are magic, in the wrong system they can be less than inspiring. They requiring more thought in system building. I have enjoyed finding a low cost, SOTA alternative to active pres - perhaps the passives are less flexible, can't be universally applied, but with the right system approach, they are more than worthy contenders. I'd like to thank everyone for their input and experiences. It has been an interesting experiment. But, what about that Placette Active... |
Well one thing does seem for sure. It is worth trying the PLacette to see what you think in your system, with your music, with your tastes. To me it was revelatory. IN the end you may not like the passive route for whatever reason. But it seems to me that every audiophile should at least try one if possible. What I most notice is that instead of listening for sound attributes (bass, imaging, speed, etc.) I suddenly noticed that songs are more intellegible in terms of emotion and meaning. The point of the song was clearer to me. While I always like and search for "sound" improvements, this aspect of intellegibilty seems more profound and satisfying. That's the best I can describe it. |
I'm not sure how it can sound any better the the Placette Passive RVC, but I have decided to buy their Active Linestage (based on some comments and conversations I have had with other members). If you are interested, I have put my passive RVC up for sale today (January) |
The active is coming this week so I will A/B them, but I'm not sure the active will sound better (that much better?)- but I am considering a Pass amp and I don't think the passive approach will work with them due to their very low input impedance - I think the active will provide more flexibility with low ipedance amps I may want to try in the future. The CAT JL2 (like most two amps) just happens to have a very good input impedance (100 kohms) for the RVC. |
|
Well, I could not leave well enough alone. I got the Placette Active Linestage and it is unquestionably better than the passive - it took very little time to hear the improvement. That being said, the passive RVC is superb, good enough that I sold my CAT SL1 after hearing it. So we are talking very good to great in moving from one to the other.
I believe that the Placette RVC is working in the context of a very suitable system for a passive pre. I have high out put from the source, low input impedance and high input sensitivity with the amp (CAT JL2), and short runs of very low capacitance ICs (Cardas GR). In other words the RVC is in an environment where it should work ideally[?].
The RVC and the Active share many traits - quiet dark backrounds, transparency and clarity, good separation of instruments, air between instruments with no etching of images, beautiful natural mids.
The active is simply more alive and present - more real. With even deeper, better defined, more realistic bass and more detail and presence in the highs (drum cymabls for example). It has better micro and macro dynamics. Given the choice, I can't imagine anyone not prefering the active.
Now the RVC is $1000 and the Active is $5000. This makes the RVC a truly outstanding value. It was good enough for me to sell a very (rightfully) respected tube preamp (CAT SL1). The active is an excellent value as well. In the high end, we can't get into issues of deminishing returns - only you can decide if a certain level of improvment is "worth it" - as long as you have the budget to buy what you prefer. If funds were limited, I would have no hesitation using the RVC. If you can afford the Active, it is better, plain and simple IMHO. I would imagine that if Placette Active sold through dealers (they offer a 30-day trial period) would sell for $10,000 - and it would still be worth it, because it is the best preamp I have heard (others I have owned ARC LS 25, Lamm LL2, CAT SL1 Ultimate)and I don't have to worry about tube rotation, degradation, and heat (no transistor edge or glare either).
So in the final analysis it may or may not be the passive versus active design approach that made RVC so appealing to me; it just may be that Guy Hummel has designed a volume-control that is transparent and free of distortion common to most other preamplifiers I have heard. Is it the BEST? There is no BEST - but it is certainly a series of preamplifers worth considering. |
Factory Direct with 30 Days is the only way to truly find the right piece, or by used on Audiogon, and if you don't like it sell for more or less the same price. I think this may take the thread in a different direction, but I think you make a good point about finding the right equipment for one's taste and matching equipment. I find it ridiculous to listen to a preamp at a dealer, try to evaluate it in a different room, with different speakers, different source, etc. What am I to make of the sound I'm hearing? It is impossible. I would rather rely on a consensus view of those on Audiogon that have tried the equipment, and then choose on that basis knowinf I can return or sell the equipment if it doesn't float my boat. The dealer experience just doesn't do it for me. |
Tbg, you are right. I guess I meant to say the "consensus" in my own mind that comes from filtering the various opinions of people who over time make sense to me. It is a good to have a dialogue with other enthusiast - the dealer experience has usually not been that informative - there have been some exceptions. I am greatful that someone built Audiogon. |
