Do Passive Pre-Amps 'Limit' the Lower-Mids?

I know one that definitely does NOT!!! Cost? $200. WTF kind of ultra-cheapo piece of crap could I be trying to peddle here?!!? Inexpensive it may be, but I can tell you it will absolutely kick to the curb every passive pre you've had the displeasure to come across AND every ACTIVE pre you've heard under $2,000. Just two restrictions: you give up remote control (but, most of them make you do) and you're pretty much confined to a single source system. So what the heck can it possibly be??...Scott Endler's Shunt Shotgun Attenuators, with surface mounted resistors. When properly installed there just isn't any sonic catagory that they can be said to fall down on...not one. I've used single-ended and Balanced, they're incredible, virtually at any price. They're better than an active pre because...well...there's nothing in the signal path except 2 resistors per channel. Think about it. Every diode, resistor, cap, etc. in your preamp right now is subtly distorting the signal...and, if they are all of first rate quality and sonically beyond reproach, then you probably paid a small fortune for it, yes? It's funny you should mention the lower mids, Waj4all. I just got finished with buying another round of AMD (Alan Maher designs) power conditioning products (something I can also recommend) which resulted in unpresedented gains in that area: a miryad of instrumental resonances and sonorities that were previously un-hinted at in my system. I seriously doubt that I would've been able to hear it all using an ordinary passive pre. Personally, I believe Shotgun attenuators simply solve THE underlying problem with passive pre's. Shotguns can ONLY be effective when applied DIRECTLY at (not 'into', but 'at') the input of a power amp - any intervening interconnect that's any longer than 6 inches begins to noticeably degrade the sound. All passive pre's themselves have the same sorts of sonic compromises the longer THEIR IC's are between them and the amp(!). Simply installing it in a box and locating pysically upsteam of the amp does absolutely NOTHING to solve the inherent capacitence/impedance problems introduced by the cables, no matter HOW good the cables are. It doesn't matter how expensive the cables are, there's simply NO WAY Ohm's Law can be satisfied that way. The concept of passive pre's is not necessarily flawed, but that kind of implementation of them necessarily is. Oh, if your preamp goes for $3,000 or more...sure, I'd say keep it, you're likely better off, but for anything under 2k, and maybe a few over that price, I'd say you definitely want to give these a try. Scott's still offers a 30-day gaurantee, if I recall...

OK, maybe I should drop back 10 yards and punt… There are some things I neglected to say in my post above. I agree with you W.A.J. that most folks are for the most part dissatisfied with passive compared to active pre’s (which includes in my mind the sonic drawbacks you gave). And furthermore that most source/amp combinations, particularly among your average audiophiles (of which I’m perfectly willing to declare myself one), can perhaps often be thought of as something less than ideal. And yet again that active pre’s at their best can well be thought of as the kind of beasts that can simultaneously ‘elevate’ the performance of both source and amp alike, even demonstrably beyond what is available to each, in circumstances such as your own, when directly connected - while also possibly allowing them to ‘see’ each other on a more level playing field. I myself can’t recall ever running across anything that would seem to undermine or preclude any of all that. BUT…what I’m saying is this: what if all this, true as we take it to be, is not the WHOLE picture? What about those times when there can be said to be a synergistic match between source and amp to start with? Could this harbor at least the possibility that in that case the performance gap between those same passive and active pre’s within those systems could be said to narrow? Could passive pre’s in that instance then be thought of as being allowed (for once) to actually live up to the potential of their designs? That is, can the performance of a synergistic source-and-amp combo, when given an appropriately high quality passive pre, favorably compare to the performance of the source-and-amp combo, when given an appropriately high quality active pre? Can the synergy of the former pairing alone account for that difference? Does such a scenario tend to explain the few steadfast holdouts who insist that well-designed and executed passive pre’s offer real performance gains?? I certainly accept the notion that many, if not most, source/amp combo’s out there are likely subpar (as far as the best possible approach toward satisfying Ohm’s Law may go, anyway – even if I, and most of us, I suspect, can fail to reliably predict or perceive all the necessary parameters – real or theoretical – involved with it). But, I mean, nobody questions the performance issues when discussing the synergy (or lack thereof) in amp/speaker combo’s, yes? So why should we feel it somehow shouldn’t apply to source/amp combo’s as well? Maybe, as an owner of remarkably good-sounding shotgun shunt attenuators, it turns out I just happen to be one of the lucky few…? Good synergy all the way around?? I can say this: I have NO apparent bass performance issues…none, zero, zilch, zippo…plenty of slam, articulation, definition, dynamics, swing and, yes, authority! I have NO lower midrange issues either…as I say, natural instrumental resonances and sonorities, rich harmonics…hollow, wooden instrument bodies, all manner of woodwinds, the full measure of the golden sonorities of lower brass and piano that naturally clangs and truly hammers and glows…check, check and check… Currently, BOTH of those categories I consider to be definite system strengths for me – not weaknesses – strengths. Maybe the nearly $3,000 I’ve (gladly) paid for the power conditioning gear I’m using has something to do with it… Maybe passives are more susceptible to EMI/RFI than actives…I dunno. I certainly don’t doubt that you, W.A.J., have heard what you’ve heard any more than I doubt that I’ve heard what I’ve heard in my own system. But, since I can’t prove any of this in a court of Ohm’s Law, I suppose I can only wish I could audition your system and hear things for myself and you do same with mine. I certainly feel like there’s an explanation out there that would account for both our experiences to a large degree, but for now at least I’m at a loss to recognize it.

Hi Atmasphere. I understand the example of synergy you present, but that's not really the kind I was referring to above. In fact, I tend to agree with you that the example may really represent something subpar. I don't really mean the process in which we more or less try to 'shoehorn' amps into their respective speaker mates. This kind of scenario usually starts with us selecting, say, a given amp and then going about the usual process of searching for or trying out different speakers until we find something either really good or, at least satisfactory. We may feel we've succeeded or that we've fallen short, or perhaps not really know. But, there must be other examples of synergy out there in which people, if nothing else, have randomly stumbled across truly excellent combo's (with performance well above what's usually encountered) just by chance. I know of such matches. Brick and Mortar retailers for example are not unfamiliar with them. I once had a vintage Luxman amp mated with my old pair (which I still use) of Magnat 3-way towers (MSP-120) that seemed made in heaven. Older audiophiles can likely tell you similar stories of having had such a pairing only to later regret having had to split them up for whatever reason. My retailer didn't know of the match before he stocked his store with each brand, but he and his customers soon discovered it. There are many 'famous' matches out there. Just ask most Maggie owners what their speakers really seem to prefer. Of course, subjectively it may be hard to ferret out which are the 'best' and which pairings may truly fall into that category and which don't, but my point is that they naturally tend to exist, just as surely as bad ones are known to - and all the average/acceptable ones inbetween. That was really the basis of my questioning.