Active vs Passive Pre amps


I know this is'nt a new subject, but I would appreciate your views folks. At the moment I am using a Passive Pre, equivelant to the Music First Audio baby reference, but built by an independent engineer. I use it into my ARC Reference 75 power amp, into Daedalas DA-RMa speakers. To be frank, I am very happy with it. The only drawback is the dual volume pots only have about 18 stops available, so you tend to go from too soft to too loud. When the dealer delivered the ARC power amp, he used it briefly with an ARC Ref 3 Pre and I preferred the passive, but it was a limited listen with a new, non run in Power amp.

The passive seemed more neutral and detailed, the ARC a little rich and lush. I know you are supposed to lose dynamics with a passive pre. The question I suppose, is whether it is worth trying to get hold of an ARC Ref 3 or maybe an LS 26/27 and comparing again? Do you think ARC power amps should sound better with an active ARC Pre, which are'nt cheap, even second hand? If I am going to stick with a passive pre, are there better options than the MFA baby reference?

Thanks
david12

Showing 1 response by danl77

I too love the purity of passives and have never felt the need for more gain, or an expanded soundstage. As for "added body, weight and drive an active can supply" it seems to me that here the active is over emphasizing what the source is providing (remember loudness controls?) but if that is what the system needs or the user wants then go active.

That said, the interconnects of course should be as short as possible and present low electrical capacitance when using a passive pre.

I am currently using a Luminous Axiom II Walker MOD XLR stepped attenuator passive preamp and find it perfect in my system in terms of accuracy, detail, dynamics and volume control resolution. I am using Cardas Crosslink XLR interconnects, and have Moon monobloc amps and Sonus Faber Cremona M speakers.