Why an active preamp with Rock-N-Roll ?

In past threads I have read that people have said that an active preamp is better for rock-n-roll.

Sometimes it's the dynamic-swing-thing!
Have yet to hear, in my 20+ years of experience around high end audio stores and 1000'S OF SYSTEMS, one single passive/pre set up system that sounded as dynamic potentially as a good active preamped system! Something is to be said about the gain stage from an active preamp, and maybe has to do with impedance matching quit a lot as well. Without trying to get technical, it just is the way it is.
Agree with both above.
There is no reason that active or passive is better for rock music, take most of what you hear as what they know, anyone who is street smart and not book smart would tell you so. There is no reason why solid state or tubes are better for one kind of music. There is no reason why, mono-pole speakers would be better than bi-pole or di-pole or any other kind of speakers for music. I have played with all of these toys for over 35 years and learn more all the time. I just went passive not long ago and my rock sounds great, most people that tell you that passive is not a good thing are only book smart, then there are those that will tell you that passive only works with very few amps (more of that book smart stuff) and the real answer is that most cdp source and amps on the market will work just fine, as a matter of fact, now that I know (street smart) if I had an amp that would not work with a passive I would get rid of it and get an amp that would. I would have went passive long ago if I had not read so much (book smart) bad things about passive. Well, gotta go, supertramp just finished and I have to put some more rock on.
I think that's a lot of nice theories that Sogood is putting forth. But bottom line is that I'll take his passive preamp out of his system, and replace it with a good active, play some rock, and we'll see which is more dynamic! Infact, I'll put money on it that EVERY LISTENER in the room will tell you which is more dynamic!..that's right, the active one...tube, solid state, or otherwise!
And, for the record, I never said active is better than passive. I said for dynamics, active is supperior. If someone likes lots of instrumental, vocals, light jazz and classical, then I used to use a passive to superb effect myself! I'm not saying that at all. But, for dynamic ability, you're better off with active pre's in my experience.
Now maybe "Sogood" has some very dynamic high efficiency speakers, and a passive isn't hurting his dynamics as much as it may other set up's. But the active still has advantages here, all things considered.
So what would be a good active pre for rock/heavy metal?

Please reference my post

What tube pre for live sound with rock n roll?
I'm very happy with my Kora Eclipse. It's got great sound and great customer service!
Before I bought my Bent 102 passive, I had a Kora Eclipse and was very pleased with it playing a wide variety of music. It is one piece that I have sold that I would own again. That said, the Bent IS DYNAMIC playing the hardest of rock, or most anything else for that matter.

Steakster, what other components are you using with the Kora? If you've tube questions regarding the Eclipse, contact me.
4yanx, the Eclipse is collaborating with a Carver Lightstar
Reference SS amp and E-stats. I just installed Ram 6DJ8's (via Roger Modjeski helpful advice). My system sounds wonderful but I'm always open to suggestions on tubes. BTW, once upon a time, I had my Lightstar amp paired up with its' highly regarded stablemate, the Lightstar Direct (passive pre). As much as I was hoping that magic would happen, the dynamics just weren't there. The Kora makes everything sparkle - including my tuner. It never sounded so good. The soundstage just exploded with the Eclipse.
I like the transparency that Passives give.I do not have wads of cash for a SOTA Active and if your speakers are on the Bass side it might do well to Balance the system.

My Passive out played the Rotel I was using I know that much.It did so many things better that I am really glad I moved to the passive.

I have read great things about BENT and PLACETTE also.It is not expensive to go down to Radioshack and buy the components to try it out yourself.A good saturday project and then repost your findings.Do it and lets see what you think then.

The same challenge was done in another BB and the poster was very thankful he tried it.

Won't cost you much to hear the difference.Then if you say it is hindering your system I will respect your opinion,but till then I can't really see how people can slam them.
The Bent 102 is solid state isn't it?
Steakster, I tried a wide variety of 6dj8, 6922, and 7308's in my Eclipse; Siemens, Teles, Amperex, Mullard, all the usual "suspects". Not so much because any one of them sounded bad, just found it fun to do and listen for the difference. Believe it or not, the best OVERALL sound I realized was using La RadioTechnique 7308's. A bit hard to track down, but worth an audition if you enjoy tube rolling. May sound different in your system, though.

Tweakster, the Bent is solid state in the sense that it does not have tubes, I guess. It is a transformer-based passive with neither tranisitors nor printed circuits (except for the optional remote control I chose for mine). It is true that you can build a passive rather inexpensively following a Radio Shack visit. BUT, and this is a but bigger than J Lo's, not with the same quality of components found in either the Bent or Placette. I am not sure if that is what Abex was meaning to imply, though it should be clarified. Apologies if this is not the case.
Active or passive ain't the issue. It's how well the components match, i.e. synergy.
My cdp direct to ss amp has all the "snap" you'd want: on certain Radiohead cuts, you can reach out and feel the electronic current---pulsating.
But it also has the fluidity, grace, and subtle power to convey every nuance in Callas's highest notes.
Steakster,do you have the newer version of the Eclipse???

Have you tried any of the ARC or BAT stuff ??
Tweakster, my Eclipse was manufactured in April, 2002. The latest version I believe was manufactured in August, 2002. A Kora rep stated the following:
"The model you have is the version one before the definitive, as it is today. The two main differences are, the present has a newer remote board and gain adjustment but you do have the principal up-grade which is the main board - this works on the signal path, reducing the surface noise even further. So, in terms of sonics, you can say you have the definitive version!"
No, I have not tried the Arc or Bat stuff. The results would be system dependent anyway. Good luck in your hunt!
I would beg to differ just a bit with respect to whomever was the Kora rep and what they told you, as it is different than what the person I talked to at Kora in France (Jeff Starr)has stated to me. The August 2002 part is correct in that this is when the Eclipse was upgraded to include Auricaps, Jena Labs silver cryoed wiring, and improvements to the powewr supply. This resulted in a BIG, and I mean big, difference in sonics. I can state such because I had TWO previous versions of the Eclipse before the Sept 2002 one that I recently sold (and would buy again). It is my understand that the MOST current Eclipses utilize very fine silver wiring within, not unlike the 47Lab OTC stuff, or so I am told. The sonic differences are, again, said to be audible, but not as dramatic as the improvements realized after the August 2002 upgrade version.

For what it is worth.
4yanx, considering that Jeff Starr is the Kora rep to which
I was referring, this is a curious development. That paragraph in my post is a direct lift from a two week old email. I would expect that Jeff will be able to explain the apparent discrepancy. Saga to be continued . . .
Odd, indeed. Not what I was told personally NOR what my dealer was told by Kora. Does yours have the Auricaps and such? If not, it would also seem odd that Kora would make such major changes to yield no improvement in sonics.

Regardless of what was or wasn't said, I personally had three different versions of the Eclipse in my system, the last having been manufactured in September 2002. That version was SIGNIFICANTLY better than the previous two. And I am not tlaking by a small margin. Clearly, things could be different in different systems, but....

I sold my Eclipse to another A'gon member who is thrilled with it in his system, too.
4yanx, well my compliments to Jeff at Kora. He has responded
immediately with info that will help clarify this Eclipse mystery. This is typical of the great customer service that Kora provides.

"This model (April,2002) does have the Auricaps and silver wiring. As I mentioned, it doesn't have the new remote pcb but does have the current, up-graded main board, which is the most important feature, sonically. From August 2002, the new feature was the re-designed remote pcb, but this doesn't affect the signal path . . . the B (series in the serial #), being precedent to the C series, denotes the fact that it doesn't have the new main board up-grade! (the C series does reflect the upgrade board and Auricaps)"

So, it appears that are incremental upgrades to the Eclipse depending on the manufacturing date. You mentioned that there was a significant improvement between the latest model and next to latest model. Out of curiosity, how would you describe the difference.