Modern Linestages

Onhwy61, Not unexpected. Didn't think you would understand. Thanks for the advice.

Atmasphere. I understand the point you are making and sure understand how hard it is to put together a well matched system.

I am however, not talking about taking a bright this + a dull that + plus a soft this and an agressive that to come up with a finished system. That is an endless circle of fustration and $$$ spent.

My point is simple; All gear editorializes and has its own particular flaw(s). No exceptions to this rule is the premise we need to agree on to go any further here. If one believes a source is perfect and just needs the signal to be feed into the speakers EXACTLY the same way it left the source , without any "improvement" for filedity to the voice or instrument, then yes you ONLY want gear that is true and unwavering in fidelity to the one thing that matters to you - the front end source. If you think that, then fine - have at it! I understand many an audiophile and Aphile editor/reviewer thinks this way. At least they write this way.

I don't. As I have said, the end result of the total system matters, not fidelity to the source component. The source component is not the object or goal of fidelity, rather the goal is fidelity the natural, real sound of the voice and instrument. The source component is flawed and simply an electronic attempt to recreate the real thing - so I would not try to pledge all of my eforts to being true to it only!Heck, the CD or digital medium is also flawed - the dang CD itself (before the source component) is flawed.

So yes, putting together a system that recreates the reality of voice and instrument is hard work and often times done through trial and error. Dealers and fellow audiophiles with great experience can be a great help as they have tried many combinations. Some of us learn on our own and that is also great fun. I enjoy the process, not all do.

Actives and passives can be part of the final music making system result. I just accept all gear is flawed and system matching is critical to recreating the real thing. No source component is the real thing. The master tape is not the real thing. Every single step from the recording studio to our stereo systems is an effort to recreate the real thing. Every step is flawed in one way or another. Yes, it is the combination of a complete system that strives towards fidelity. To serve the source component as master assures you of one thing only - fidelity to the flawed ONE electronic component.

What's particularly fun is the fact that one need not spend $100,000 to arrive at fidelity to voice and instrument. More money is not the only means to this end. So the fun continues in our quest as audiophiles.

And now what started as a debate with sensible questions and responses turns to posters taking pot shots.
Do you think this happens with forums for other hobbyists ??
Here, it seems if you have a different opinion even on something subjective you are branded an idiot.
At the risk of being one ,I firmly am in the camp with Knghifi,Charles1dad,Onemug and a few others.
Naturally I haven't heard every preamp,no one has.in my 40 years of high end listening I have never heard a passive that I liked better then the preamp I owned at that time.
Today my preamp retails in excess of 20K.
It really is something I cant afford but it also gives my more enjoyment when listening to music then I have ever experienced so how does one equate $$$ to enjoyment??
In the end it doesn't matter which component is better or why.
What matters is what it sounds like to you.

Onhwy61,
Hi, I must say I`m a bit surprised you did`nt get the obvious point Knghifi was making.

Goldeneraguy,
The strange thing is the pro active lightstage posters don`t belittle the those who prefer the passive or direct route at all. I`ts just a choice based on what sounds better to you. The passive advocates insist theirs is the purer,more accurate, thus the right way. Many who have tried both approaches have simply found that is`nt the case often.