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 sogood51

My limited experence with passives in my system has been very favorable towards them. I think they have the kind of midrange quality that tube lovers talk about..only better. I have listened to the Placette passive (very good) and I owned the Bent TVC for about a year (also very good). Do I think that an active pre-amp can better the Placette or Bent, sure I do..but at much cost. I plan to bring a passive back into my system in the future as I only sold mine to upgrade elsewere in my system on short notice.

Dave

Dave