As a designer, redesigner, inventor, yada, yada, we all face choices--and unfortunately, depending on what world you live in financially--those choices seem to revolve around price/cost of production, that is if you're trying to create a resaleable piece of audio goods, (or maybe Saturn Vehicle for that matter).
In the world of passives, I believe the 'choices' to be different than in the active product.
I can't get past that first time exprience with the Gryphon, or Premier 3 from cj. Those experiences were both what I call 'Hallmark' moments. I heard and experienced musical information that I had never heard before--not slightly, but dramatically. Were those differences 'exaggerations' of reality, or from what was actually placed into the original source? Of course, there's no way to know.
My gut, (I haven't had my 'guts ears' tested lately) tells me from a strictly musical or visceral standpoint that the excitement quotient was off the scale. So the question would be for a listener like me would be, 'does neutrality' completely colorless reproduction give me that same 'rush'? I don't think so. So maybe my internal listening mechanism, my internal reference of music tends to like the 'spectacular side of the experience.' If that's the instance I deferr to others who prefer the passive.
But the one comment that seems to mitigate the conversations here, is the one which talks about, 'up to a certain dollar amount' the passives do very well.
That may mean to me, at least, that when choices of internal parts starts to become serious, serious, expensive...therein lies the advantage of the active.
In other words, if we're not making dollar but sound choices, the active can be better. But then, the question, "Since when, when all things are equal, doesn't more money create a better product?"
Good listening.
Larry
In the world of passives, I believe the 'choices' to be different than in the active product.
I can't get past that first time exprience with the Gryphon, or Premier 3 from cj. Those experiences were both what I call 'Hallmark' moments. I heard and experienced musical information that I had never heard before--not slightly, but dramatically. Were those differences 'exaggerations' of reality, or from what was actually placed into the original source? Of course, there's no way to know.
My gut, (I haven't had my 'guts ears' tested lately) tells me from a strictly musical or visceral standpoint that the excitement quotient was off the scale. So the question would be for a listener like me would be, 'does neutrality' completely colorless reproduction give me that same 'rush'? I don't think so. So maybe my internal listening mechanism, my internal reference of music tends to like the 'spectacular side of the experience.' If that's the instance I deferr to others who prefer the passive.
But the one comment that seems to mitigate the conversations here, is the one which talks about, 'up to a certain dollar amount' the passives do very well.
That may mean to me, at least, that when choices of internal parts starts to become serious, serious, expensive...therein lies the advantage of the active.
In other words, if we're not making dollar but sound choices, the active can be better. But then, the question, "Since when, when all things are equal, doesn't more money create a better product?"
Good listening.
Larry