Who is using passive preamps and why?


Seldom has there been any discussions on passive preamps in the forums and although my experience with them has been limited I have found them so far to be very enjoyable and refreshingly different. They seem to fall into their own category, somewhere between solid state and tube. Finding a preamp that is satisfing has been difficult. Some active solid state preamps can be very good but they seem to inject grain to some degree in the upper registers and some tube preamps are not too far behind. So far I think they should at least be matched up with an amp that has sufficient gain which is often overlooked. Which passives are you using and with what amp? Why do you like them?
phd
Herman, What would you rather have? A system that hardly plays above a whisper at full volume or a system that plays loud at 9 o'clock? To say the requirements for passive and active are equal can be misleading to the unsuspecting Audiogon member reading this forum.

At the end of my last statement I mentioned "and the list goes on". Meaning there are many more factors to consider, including impedances between source, passive and amp.

I don't know if you personally use a passive preamp or not, but let's do an experiment and say you do. Let's take your incredibly high efficiency speaker out of the equation and replace it with a medium to low efficiency speaker leaving everything else the same. Now what do you have?

I understand your confusion and the confusion of other inexperienced audiophiles like yourself that have not had the oppportunity to experience a wide variety of equipment over the years of being involved in this hobby and learning from the ground up so to speak.

This forum is a great place to help one another with an accumulation of experience in a helpful manor without rude or condescending behavior so we all can learn and enjoy this hobby together.

Happy listening.
Herman doesn't sound inexperienced; not sure he was being rude either. But I do agree that a passive does take more thought to implement correctly than an active, no doubt about that IMHO.
Rrog, I'm sorry if you felt insulted but I was merely pointing out that your post had nothing that was exclusive to passive preamps. Everything you mentioned pertains to any system. I didn't point this out to insult you. I brought it up because your post didn't have anything that pertained to a debate about the pluses and minuses of passives vs. actives and it would be easy for the uninitiated who read it to falsely conclude that it did.

Again, I'm sorry if this offended you, but turning it into a pissing contest doesn't help anybody who is reading this and wants the facts. This debate will never move forward as long as you continue to latch on to some small piece of what I say and try to build a case around it. Example, you asked
What would you rather have? A system that hardly plays above a whisper at full volume or a system that plays loud at 9 o'clock?
I didn't say either one was a good choice. I said you could get either one with either a passive or an active if you didn't build the system correctly. I want neither one nor would I accept it. I've constructed my system so it plays near maximum volume with the volume all the way up. That's the way it should be.

You also stated
To say the requirements for passive and active are equal can be misleading to the unsuspecting Audiogon member reading this forum.
I never said that. In fact if you look through my posts I said that they require careful system matching, actives will work well in more situations than passives will, and that passives are not suited for all situations. How did you go from that to all requirements are equal? What I did say, and this is the whole point of my last post, is that you have to consider the same factors in regard to system gain when you talk about either one. That doesn't mean they have the same requirements. When you build a race car you need to be concerned about safety, reliability, handling, gas mileage, and many of the same factors you consider when you buy a car for commuting. Even though you consider the same factors it doesn't mean they have the same requirements.

You also stated
Let's take your incredibly high efficiency speaker out of the equation and replace it with a medium to low efficiency speaker leaving everything else the same. Now what do you have?
You once again are clouding the picture by focusing on just one facet of the equation, this time my speakers. Of course if you kept everything the same in my system and substituted low efficiency speakers it would be a problem. I could substitute a preamp that has 30 dB of gain and cause problems, I could substitute a source that had a much higher output and cause problems, and the possible ways to screw up the sound are endless. I picked a gain structure that complements high efficiency speakers because that's what I have. If I had low efficiency speakers I wouldn't build it with flea powered SET amps and low gain. Your whole premise of changing speakers is silly and has nothing to do with the debate..

Finally, as for my inexperience, I'm not sure how to answer that. It appears you consider yourself to have some experience but your incomplete answers that draw false conclusions and your use of convoluted logic would say otherwise. Why else would one bring speaker impedance into a discussion of passive vs. active preamps? Since you brought it up I'll run with it and say you are simply out of your league in this discussion. I started in this hobby in the sixties and I've put together good sounding systems using all manner of solid state as well as tube electronics including Conrad Johnson, Avantgarde, VTL, BAT, Aesthtix, Lamm, Mark Levinson, Naim, and Theta to name a few using all manner of speakers including B&W, Magnepan, Soliloquy, Wilson, Alon, Lowther, and others. I've experimented extensively with all types of room treatments and tweaks including many manfactured and DIY cables. I've built both active and passive preamps. I taught electronics in an associate degree program for 10 years, in my current system I built my woofer amps from scratch, the mid/tweet amps from kits and modified their power supplies, built the bass horns, and modified the output circuit in my DAC so it bypasses the active stages. That doesn't mean I know everything but I do understand the concepts involved in this matter. I have clearly and logically described what they are and why they matter. Since you continue to misconstrue what I say and latch onto small snippets instead of discussing the underlying concepts this discussion is pointless.

Good day

.
Rrog, there are quite a few people who chimed in here whose experience and opinions I trust. As with Pubul57, I can say for a fact the man has tried a number of different components and if he prefers active preamps so be it. I myself have tried a Cary SLP-98, Joule Electra LA-100MkIII, TRL Pre-1.5, Jeff Rowland Capri, all of which I have owned, and have auditioned a number of others including a very fine Herron preamp. I prefer the passives and that was whether I was using my 88db Spendor 1/2e speakers, 92db Audiokinesis Jazz Modules, or 95db Tonian Labs DL-1 speakers.

I think we've probably beat this subject into the ground. So I'll thank Phd for starting this thread, and people like Herman, Pubul57, Tvad, Almarg, and the others who offered constructive advice and opinions for contributing.
Herman, maybe you can answer this, under what circumstances would you expect a resistor based passive to perform better than an AVC or TVC. I know they address some issues of impedance matching, but they also add alot of "stuff" between the source and amp. What is your opinion. Roger Modjeski tried explaining it to me (he prefers resistors and no buffering) but I could not understand him after two minutes into his explanation.