Placette vs. Creek remote volume controllers?

Tok2000, The placette only has power for the remote control to work. Passive units of any brand do not have power cords unles they have a remote, mine does not.

You might want to look into a transformer based remote volume control. Bent Audio imports the Stevens & Billington TX102 transformer and sells it as a kit or assembled unit, configured with your choice of inputs and outputs. They are very reasonably priced and supposedly have the advantage in transparency over non-transformer passives. Do a search here or in audio asylum on tx102 for more info. Also on bentaudio.com there are links to some forums that have some interested threads on these devices. I am picking mine up next week and it will take the place of no preamp, as presently I am going directly into the volume pot on my Berning amplifier. Others have concluded it is superior to the Berning pot, and it will be interesting to see if it holds true for me as well.

Tok20000, Jadem6 uses the Placette active and I would expect that he has heard a number of power cords on it.

I would think the Placette has to be substantially better than the Creek, because of its superior volume control (attenuator). The attenuator is the main reason for sonic degradation in passives and in all preamps. I had the McCormack TLC-1, which is a very good unit and considerably more expensive than the Creek and presumably better sounding than the Creek. But, when I replaced the McCorm. with a Reference Line Preeminence One, with a stepped attenuator, the improvement was UNBELIEVABLE. Some have written that the Reference Line is about the same as the Placette. Ergo, Placette is better than Creek.

Sogood- FYI- If a passive preamp with output buffers(no gain),has a power cord for the power supply which
runs the buffers.

Yes, PCs make a difference, as the does the quality of the volume pot,input selector pot/switches jacks,wiring and internal layout.