Placette RVC review in Stereophile

Pubul57, I have heard both and still believe in my system, that the Active was about 15% to 25% better sonicly then the the passive. But, as we know that last percent in audio still makes a big difference if you can hear it.

I was talking to a designer who has great respect for both the passive and active Placette pieces and the genuis of Guy Hammel's designs, he refers to the Active as a "buffered passive stage" that gives you the best of both worlds, out standing clarity/transparency of passive stages and the dynamics of an active stage.

The Placette Active has no gain, although you can get it if you ask. So it is, effectsively, a buffered passive. I don't think you need sacrifice dynamics with a normal passive line stage, but things need to be carefully matched. With the Active, that problem goes away.

So then what would be ideal matching for a passive to work as well as an active. I guess it is optimizing source output impedance with amp input impecance assuming gain is more than sufficient. But what are those optimal impedances?

Good question, I hope someone with knowledge will chime in.

Source: typically the more energy your source outputs, the (much) better. Output impedance is part of the equation (W=V2/R, remember) -- but as usual line sources have a sort of standard 2V spec, the impedance is good indicator.

On the amp side, a relatively stable input of 10k ohm & above should be fairly OK across the acoustic spectrum.

Of course, you have the attenuator in between and its impedance changes will affect the result. The buffered option would keep the output impedance fairly stable across the board, which is probably why some people find it "better".