moving on from Emotiva UMC-200 pre/processor

HAZYJ, sorry about that. It was an auto word spelled TYPO!
The word I was trying to type was "AMPLIFYING" ..not oversimplifying.
My understanding has always been that source components, have not historically outputted the same level of amplified or buffered analog signal as say you would from a good active preamp output signal!! In fact, if you read through both old and even more recent threads and reviews on passive preamp n such, you'll get similar feedback (which often is commented as "constricted dynamics" or even rolled highs, on occasion) from those who have tried passive pres and direct both!
My years past results ,using high end CD and DVD players with passive pres and direct to amp ,BOTH have only resulted in softened dynamics, unfortunately, as well..otherwise I would have stayed using Pass Aleph L passive pre, or direct analog out from my 24/96 DVD player w built in volume control, amp direct, if I had gotten stronger overall sounding results! It just never worked out, and I was much more satisfied using meow expensive active preamp, accordingly.
That make sense?
Now, however, looks like I'm unna look into trying, yes, the likes of a modded Oppo, direct to tube n ss amps BOTH, with short ICs n see if that player handles the passive, or even no-preamp approach, better than years past. If it does, I'll be most encouraged, certainly!
I mean, seriously, who wouldn't want to be able do without an unnecessary extra component in the chain if they can effectively do without it?! I would, sure. ...just can't live with with whimpy dynamics nor constrained soundstage from my sound. No no..that I WILL NOT do. It's just uninspiring n weak sounding, otherwise, you know...

Zd543 says "But the argument here isn't passive vs active, its the Placette vs Forte Model 2. Each component has its own sound, regardless of design"

I'm going to play devil's advocate here to see what the responses might be, as I find this to be one of the big topics in the audiophile community. It interests me greatly and I'd like to know others' feelings as well ...

I believe your opinion is the Placette Passive "has it's own sound", and my D.A. response is that I'd expect that sound to be that of the source. If you tell me that no, the passive adds or subtracts something then I'd ask for an objective if not factual basis for that statement.

Where is this all going? In my opinion this is going in the direction of asking "just what IS the sound of the source"? I don't think that's been adequately addressed anywhere I've been reading. Why? Because this sound is dependent upon the recording specifics, the other components and the listening environment. I don't think it's too bold to state that the only way to reproduce the true sound of the source is to have the vocals, instruments and venue almost perfectly reproduced (whatever that means) in your listening room. Is that even possible when most audiophiles (I believe) listen through only the two channels in their own home listening environments?

My true opinion about all this (losing the devil's advocate point of view now) is that for almost all of us extremely analytic listeners of different recordings of various musical genres it doesn't matter! You either do one or the other of these ...

1. spend all your time and $$ trying to reproduce the sound of the source - a very expensive endeavor that's not possible because every recording is different and a single system just cannot truely reproduce each soundstage & venue recorded. Even the most expensive and/or well engineered systems can only come close to truely reproducing SOME recordings and venues but will fall far short of others ( though in a pleasant sort of way). Or ...

2. spend only enough time and $$ needed to achieve compromises that result in an enjoyable listening experience for as many recordings of your preferred musical tastes and recordings as possible. Will it be as enjoyable as approach #1? That's completely up to the listener to decide.

A closing question as a case in point: do some audiophiles prefer tubes and vinyl because those technologies and approaches give them the feeling of the most accurate sound reproduction or is it because they simply like the sound? Does it even matter?

Avo-

Yes - I understand now. "Amplifying" makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the clarification.

"08-08-14: Hazyj
Zd543 says "But the argument here isn't passive vs active, its the Placette vs Forte Model 2. Each component has its own sound, regardless of design"

I'm going to play devil's advocate here to see what the responses might be, as I find this to be one of the big topics in the audiophile community. It interests me greatly and I'd like to know others' feelings as well ...

I believe your opinion is the Placette Passive "has it's own sound", and my D.A. response is that I'd expect that sound to be that of the source. If you tell me that no, the passive adds or subtracts something then I'd ask for an objective if not factual basis for that statement."

That's actually pretty easy to answer. I think you are letting the terms active and passive trip you up a bit. It's not that an active component adds something to the music/signal, and passive components do not. Both active and passive components have an effect on the signal. Its just a matter of what and how. With regards to passive preamps, they will all sound different from each other. How much of a difference they sound from each other can only be taken on a case by case basis. Also, the difference, will mostly be subjective. Alot to me may not be alot to you. I like to think the differences in passive preamps, resemble very much the differences in cables. Cables, which are also passive devices, sound different from each other. But the differences usually are not anywhere near as big as the differences between active components. Active components, preamps or otherwise, "do more" to the sound. They impose more of their will on the signal. If we now look at active preamps, the differences can be a 2 edge sword. Active has the potential to be alot better or alot worse than a passive. In context of this discussion, its the alot worse, possibility that's of concern here. This is also where the arguments become most subjective.

Here's my personal view on when to go with an active preamp or a passive (Include in passive category sources like CD players/DAC's that have a built in volume control. Components like that allow you to eliminate an active preamp). There's a price point of about $3000 that many feel to be a cutoff between active and passive. The general rule is that unless you can afford a stand alone, active preamp in the $3000 range, its best just to use a passive. But you need to keep in mind that this is my own personal, subjective judgement. There are plenty of people who feel the same way and use the $3000 rule of thumb. Many, however, do not. If you'll remember, Avgoaround said he preferred the active setting on the $1500 Adcom preamp, I mentioned. There's nothing wrong with that. Some people just prefer an active, no matter what. Its like some people prefer vinyl even though its a lot of work and have to deal with the ticks and pops. Its what they like. I also know other people on this web site that won't use an active preamp at any price. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Its just personal preference.

You ask quite a bit more in your post. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to get into anything else. Later on, I'll try to comment on some of the other issues. But here's one last thing.

"A closing question as a case in point: do some audiophiles prefer tubes and vinyl because those technologies and approaches give them the feeling of the most accurate sound reproduction or is it because they simply like the sound?"

Its a combination of both.

Zd542-
I find your response to my devil's advocate question to be neither objective nor factual. I do understand the opinions quite well, but doubt they move this conversation forward in any meaningful way.

Your over-confident approach to this topic is misplaced in my opinion. You can't listen to all equipment in all combinations. You don't know objectively that all equipment has a noticeable effect on the "sound" of source reproduction. Your (apparent) opinion that all equipment has it's own "sound" implies that someone somewhere (you?) can definitely hear that "sound". I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences. That does not imply that all equipment must contribute a noticeable difference.

There is no physical law or set of laws that necessitate that a piece of audio equipment must contribute it's own noticeable (to the ear, not the oscilloscope) "sound", but you seem to have the opinion that such laws exist. It's a simple (but meaningless) statement to say that most equipment will contribute its own "sound", but another entirely different statement to profess that all equipment has a "sound" that is noticeable.