I used to think passive preamps were superior to active preamps given right the setup, but
https://youtu.be/HHl8F9amyY4
- ...
- 57 posts total
You are right dracule, but lets get the "critical matching" in perspective We (most of passive users) are after nirvana, that’s why we persist with passives and get the impedance matching right "makes the sound". Which by the way in 99% of systems is a great impedance match. Except for some tube output sources which have ridiculous high output impedance (more than >1kohm). Or some ClassD amp that are very low input impedance (less than <10kohms). These users usually find something wrong with the sound of passives, and say active preamps are better, oblivious to the fact that they had an impedance mismatch with the passive they used. Cheers George |
I replaced an ARC Ref 5SE with fully balanced copper slagleformers, then eventually upgraded to fully balanced silver slagleformers. I have tube sources (Ref 2SE phono and Ayon CD-07 player) plus OPPO 95. Gain is never a problem. For HT, I use additional 3 copper slagleformers (single-ended center and rear channels from OPPO 95) in slave mode in another box, hence no need for HT processor and HT bypass. For HT L+R main channels, OPPO XLR outs are used. With autoformer passive, no background noise, high resolution, and controlled bass. And in multi-channel HT, I am getting high fidelity sound. I may consider going active but will still use autoformers as volume control. |
- 57 posts total