2. amps-preamps
  3. 1075728615

TVC vs. active pre?

I'm using a Bent Audio NOH in my system, and love the sound - it's detailed, open, dynamic, coherent, musical and very immediate.

Whenever I talk to amp designers however, the universal preference seems to be for active preamps. My feeling is that if there are no interfacing issues between the pre and the power amp (sufficient voltage drive, no impedance or capacitance problems) that an active pre can't "add quality" to the signal. As far as I can tell, an active preamp provides buffering and gain. Absent any need for these, I don't see what benefits it can provide.

Is my assessment incomplete? Are the recommendations for active preamps simply based on the avoidance of potential interfacing issues in unknown systems?

I understand that a good active may beat a poorly implemented passive, but given good design/build in both situations, what would it take for an active to beat a good passive, especially a TVC? And specifically, has anyone gone from a TVC to an active? If so, what were the system issues that prompted the change?
128x128gliderguider

Showing 1 response by ozzy62

ozzy62's avatar
ozzy62
3,249 posts
 
After living with several well respected tube preamps such as offerings from BAT, Audible Illusions, Cary, JJ Electronics, and Kora, I now have a custom preamp using the Mark I version of the TX-102 transformer. There is no comparison regarding bass extension, dynamics and transparency, the TVC has it all over the competition. You might give up a slight bit of midrange bloom, but this is very close. The TVC actually has a more fleshed out midrange than some tube preamps, while retaining greater resolution. I also heard the Placette in my system and my buddy's too, not even in the same ballpark as a TVC.

I agree that the performance of any passive linestage will be system dependent. I have heard my preamp in another system and it didn't perform nearly as well as it does with my gear. So caveat emptor, but for me the TVC is great.

Oz
More to discover