The L-1 preamp I mentioned above can be set for gain at any level you like. There are 2 gain controls that feed the master volume control. The Audible M3A does not have these and I think is the one Steve is refering to. I did use a M3A with a couple of DNA .5's. Its gain is relatively high and hard to control at lower volume settings with high output source components.
As for the Adcom preamp, it works very well with the McCormack amps. Using the passive mode, you might run into a problem with not enough gain depending on your source components. It is a very transparent sound that is really hard to fault. The active stage sacrafices a little in transparency but is reasonable with the gain.
If I was going to go passive, I would look at McCormack's own TLC-1, a very transparent unit. However, with passive, dynamics seem to suffer a touch. Also, at around $1000, the Placette passive preamp is really something. It has a very, very accurate volume control that is precisionally stepped.
McCormack makes a couple of active preamps, the ALD and RLD. I found neither to be as transparent as the Audible in producing a clear picture into the music. Of the two, I like the RLD better.
As you can see, I've been around the block with preamps in search of the Holy Grail! The Placette is the best passive I've heard to date. The Audible is my favorite active preamp and the one I currently still use. I admit though that if I if I could find a solid state pre with the same sound as the Audible, I would go that way. Even though the Audible is trouble free, you still need to buy a set of tubes every few years.
If it makes a difference, the Audible, Adcom and TLC-1 were all given a class "A" rating in Stereophile. Pretty good stuff under any conditions(especially for the money.) The Audible has been praised in about every major(and minor) magazine I can think of.
I looked at the BAT 51SE, a much more expensive preamp. I didn't feel sonically that it was worth the money over the Audible. In fact, in some ways, I didn't think is was as good. BUT, as in everything with audio, this represents MY personal feelings. Over 35 years, I've tried a lot and now I do really have a certain sound that I enjoy(which if you don't like renders this response moot!.) The other thing I firmly believe is you don't have to pay mega bucks for excellent sound. A good example is McCormack equipment. It's darn good stuff, period.
It's kinda like a car that runs the quarter in 14 seconds and for $50,000 more you can have one that will run the quarter in 13.97 seconds. Is it worth the money? All of these pre's are excellent value and have excellent sound. You have to make the call with what work's for you.
As for the Adcom preamp, it works very well with the McCormack amps. Using the passive mode, you might run into a problem with not enough gain depending on your source components. It is a very transparent sound that is really hard to fault. The active stage sacrafices a little in transparency but is reasonable with the gain.
If I was going to go passive, I would look at McCormack's own TLC-1, a very transparent unit. However, with passive, dynamics seem to suffer a touch. Also, at around $1000, the Placette passive preamp is really something. It has a very, very accurate volume control that is precisionally stepped.
McCormack makes a couple of active preamps, the ALD and RLD. I found neither to be as transparent as the Audible in producing a clear picture into the music. Of the two, I like the RLD better.
As you can see, I've been around the block with preamps in search of the Holy Grail! The Placette is the best passive I've heard to date. The Audible is my favorite active preamp and the one I currently still use. I admit though that if I if I could find a solid state pre with the same sound as the Audible, I would go that way. Even though the Audible is trouble free, you still need to buy a set of tubes every few years.
If it makes a difference, the Audible, Adcom and TLC-1 were all given a class "A" rating in Stereophile. Pretty good stuff under any conditions(especially for the money.) The Audible has been praised in about every major(and minor) magazine I can think of.
I looked at the BAT 51SE, a much more expensive preamp. I didn't feel sonically that it was worth the money over the Audible. In fact, in some ways, I didn't think is was as good. BUT, as in everything with audio, this represents MY personal feelings. Over 35 years, I've tried a lot and now I do really have a certain sound that I enjoy(which if you don't like renders this response moot!.) The other thing I firmly believe is you don't have to pay mega bucks for excellent sound. A good example is McCormack equipment. It's darn good stuff, period.
It's kinda like a car that runs the quarter in 14 seconds and for $50,000 more you can have one that will run the quarter in 13.97 seconds. Is it worth the money? All of these pre's are excellent value and have excellent sound. You have to make the call with what work's for you.