Placette RVC review in Stereophile

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?

Good question, I hope someone with knowledge will chime in.