Passive preamp vs. powered

Rleff, It is the interaction between the cable, the source resistance (which is a combination of the passive control and the actual source, including the cable from the source to the passive) and the input impedance of the amp that creates the bass/dynamic filter that many passives are guilty of being. The only way around it is to use really low impedances, something that most sources cannot handle.

So in effect passive controls are a form of tone control. The fact that they can sound better then some actives is simply the measure of how bad those actives really are. The only way I have found to make a passive work is to eliminate the cable between the control and the amp, IOW put the control **in** the amp. This eliminates convenience but then the control works.

If the designer of the preamp line stage has done his homework, that preamp will sound better than any passive made. Passives cannot control the interconnect cable and that is one thing that a good line section **can** do (although not all preamp designers realize that what I just said is possible, so you will see a lot of variance as a result).

You may have noticed that as you turn down the volume of your passive, there is a loss of bass and punch. Any preamp made will prevent **that** although with most you will still have to be careful about the interconnect cable. A good preamp design will free you of even the choice of cable and its length!

Up to this point my comments have been directed at Passive Volume Controls. TVCs are another matter- if done properly they solve a lot of the issues that PVCs cannot address; I think they represent far greater bang for the buck than PVCs.

So it is harder to beat TVCs with a good line stage whereas beating a PVC is like shooting fish in a barrel. The problem you run into with TVCs is ringing due to improper loading of the transformer, and I find that there are still the losses that I always find transformers doing. Proper design can reduce these issues! Nevertheless they do not have the 'turn down the volume = turn down the bass and dynamics' problem that PVCs have.

Mr. Tennis, your remarks address mediocre equipment quite well but there is a league of equipment transcendent to such comments. 'Better' refers to greater resolution, wider bandwidth, natural dynamic punch, more natural tonality, improved soundstage... You can always ask me to clarify and I will be happy to do so. My use of the term 'better' in this thread does refer (but is not limited to) to the prior list of attributes.

Mrtennis, it is true there are those who do not like imaging, bass extension, smoothness or clarity. I've met them, but generally I find that I don't care for their opinions as they are so far from reality. It is my opinion that the more it sounds like reality, the better :)

Phaelon, quite simply, it sounds to me as if you are after the truth. That is very different from not liking imaging, its all about getting as close to real as possible. Part of the issue of course is hearing recordings made in the spaces that you commonly hear performances in.

A pet peeve of mine does have to do with imaging. In a system that properly retrieves ambient information, the ambient information will make the musicians seem less distinct in the soundfield. So a system that does that might get docked because a lessor system that is unable to retrieve the ambient cues has the images portrayed in a stark fashion. But the system that can portray the ambient information is the one that I would say is 'better', because it has the organic quality that is what you hear in real life.

BTW this is one of the areas that I find a good line stage to outshine any of the passives- PVC or TVC- that ability to reproduce all the low level detail, all the ambient information. However, I have seen a lot of passives beat out active line stages that are not up to snuff, so its no surprise to me that a lot of people might be convinced that passives are ultimately better.