Active Placette pre sound better than Passive?

In theory, you will only get better results fm the active IF the buffer it has helps transfer energy into the amp (i.e. if it "MATCHES" better).

Also, to give my biased opinion, none of us here can help you in this case UNLESS we're playing the same source and load components (and the pre, in between, of course).

I would expect the placette people would know best, as they have obviously researched their product extensively.

IMO, the ML 334 is a very nice and honest product, BTW. I like it a lot.

Redwoodgarden, my hunch, looking at your total system, is yes, the Active would offer a sonic improvement over your passive. I'm sure Guy would setup an audition and if I got my facts right, you get the full value of the passive towards the Active if you trade up.

Teajay I hope your facts are right. I didn't know about the upgrade. Thanks.
Gregm and Getheleadout you talked me into it. I'll call Guy again.

Have any of you chosen the passive over the active because the system did match and did not need the buffering? That is, your system matched well enough that there was no improvment when adding the active buffering? I use a Merlin BAM (bass augmentation module) between my RVC and Amp (the RVC is fed by a DAC with 2.8mv output and 225 ohms). It has 40kohm input and 100ohm output, so I'm not sure what beneifit if any I would receive from the active Placette. Guy wasn't sure I would necessarily hear an improvement given my system. The active is tempting, but like Gregm said, it is not necessarily improvment for every system.

Pubul57 - I noticed you had a CAT ultimate in your system and are now selling it. Can you compare the sound of the CAT with that of the RVC in your system?

Marco