Placette RVC review in Stereophile

Drubin: I see the symbiosis between magazine and manufacturer as a good service to audiophiles for the most part. The magazine needs gear to review and sell advertising at the same time the manufacturer needs the publication to inform the consumer of their products.

Although it is easy to be cynical of an editor's or reviewer's motives when giving the nod to a component, there is a trust built over the years between a reviewer and the readers. It just so happens that Brian Damkroger, the reviewer of the Placette RVC for Stereophile, has also reviewed the same speakers and cables I owned. The first review was of the speakers and he put into words what I had found to be true about them for months. Next he did a review of the cables I am still using which served as a good validation for my purchase decision. Now comes the Placette RVC review. If I did not already own the Passive, which is the identical volume control coupled with additional switchable inputs, and since he wrote the review, it would have caught my attention as something to consider buying.

One of the advantages a professional reviewer has is the opportunity to hear almost anything out there and a wider basis of comparison. Most amateurs are not able audition a wide variety of gear. A forum like this can be manipulated by amateurs, manufacturers, and dealers alike, with no accountability, in an attempt to create a market for a certain component or accessory. With that in mind, your guarded cynicism is a good thing and looking to other sources of information helps us find our way through the maze.

Has anyone heard the active Placette and preferred the passive. I'm now using an RVC, it replaced a CAT Ulitmate MKII (as I only have one hi-output CD source and no phono, and really do like the remote). The RVC is fed by a DAC and plugged into my Merlin BAM, which is a bass augmentation unit for Merlin speakers, and which has 50KOhm input and 200 ohm output impedance (in affect a buffer for the passive - I also use Cardas GR with exceptionally low capacitance). Guy suggested that in this setup, the active might not be much of an improvement. I wonder when the active would be an improvment, and when it would not. Having seen Mike's system in the Virtual section I know he could have gotten an active Placette if he wanted to, but chose not to; so I'm wondering about the difference and reasons for choosing passive versus active in the Placette line.

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?