moving on from Emotiva UMC-200 pre/processor

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/54/

http://thecarversite.com/yetanotherforum/default.aspx?g=posts&m=178039

Dbphd, thx. Now if you would also be so kind and steer me to either some profession Audio reviews, or also postings here on this kind of site's chat forum, where there is in-depth discussion pertaining to SPECIFICALLY comparing Oppo direct from its analog outs, vs passive preamp vs active, I'd like to see it!
Does Oppo have built in volume? Otherwise,what,..us need passive pot or pre??.. Thx

"In fact Im pretty certain just about every hiend audio equip you could think of produced better sounding top end preamp during that time, of which the Adcom was no match, if I recall correctly?! I mean if the passive section of that 750 was that good, why wouldn't more reviewers using them as reference pieces in their own systems???!
Anyway, what was I missing then?..."

It looks like you missed what Stereophile had to say about the GFP-750. I believe that it set the record for being the lowest cost preamp to get a class A rating. Here's part of the review where they talk about sound quality and compare it to some active preamps.

" The GFP-750 must be a disciple of Hippocrates, because it does about as little to a system's sound as any preamplifier I've heard—at any price. There is a slight—extremely slight—softening of details when it's used as an active preamplifier, but many audio cables have more sonic impact than the '750. So do most other preamps, for that matter. If you need to drive a long run of cable, or if you have a difficult amplifier impedance, I wouldn't hesitate to use the GFP-750's active circuitry.

In comparisons with the $1495 Audio Research LS8 (reviewed elsewhere in this issue by Martin Colloms), the active GFP-750 sounded considerably more open and extended. On discs with deep bass, such as Robert Rich's Seven Veils (Hearts of Space 11086-2), the Adcom quite simply captured the power and heft of the synth-produced bottom end in a way that the Audio Research did not. Without the direct comparison, I would probably have been quite happy with the LS8's bass response, but the Adcom had a lot more impact down under.

Nor did the LS8 reproduce the harmonic overtone structure of the recorders on the Flanders Recorder Quartet's Armonia di Flauti (CD, Opus 111 OPS 30-201) with the harsh and extremely extended—extremely alive—effervescence of the GFP-750. That harshness, which almost clangs, is what gives this fantastic-sounding CD its sparkle, but it was subdued by the LS8.

Again—while I clearly heard the Adcom as having superior overtone presentation in a direct comparison with the Audio Research, I did not find the ARC particularly closed-down on its own. It is not as transparent as the best preamps I've heard—which the Adcom is—but it is by no means among the most colored either. It's enjoyable, if not exemplary. The Adcom is both.

Actually, the preamplifier that most reminded me of the GFP-750 was the Mark Levinson No.380S, which costs $6495. The two had similarly open, grainless characters. In direct comparisons I had an extremely difficult time discerning differences between them—and that was a sighted comparison! Blindfold me and ask me to identify which one was playing and I'd probably have to flip a coin.

Unless the Adcom was in passive mode, when it was the sonic equivalent of nothing at all. What's it sound like? After many hours of listening, I'd have to say, "What did what sound like?" The GFP-750 is the preamp for the audiophile who hates preamps.

But if I had to describe the sound of no preamp, I'd say open, open, open. Open as in huge soundstage, uncompressed, naked—nary a veil in sight.

Not everybody prefers their sound so unembellished. I'm not sure I always do—sometimes a little euphony can be very appealing. That's okay. There's a lot to be said for liking something simply because it's pretty... But if you want to hear what the signal really sounds like, then the Adcom is the preamp for you.

Experiment treacherous, judgment difficult
But sometimes, judgment is simple. Adcom's GFP-750 is a remarkable preamplifier. It's well-built and elegantly designed—on the inside, where it counts. I've gone just gaga over it, not simply because it performs well for the money, but because it begs comparison with the best preamplifiers I've ever heard. Period. No matter how much you've budgeted for a stereo preamplifier, listen to the GFP-750 first. If you end up choosing something else, then you'll know that your choice is very good indeed."

I'm not a huge fan of Stereophile, but it seems like they were pretty happy with the Adcom. Also, it doesn't appear that they had any issues with the preamp running in passive mode like you did. Are you sure you had it set up right?

Avgoround, your question about whether the Oppo has a volume control suggests you have never heard one and have little or no knowledge about the 95/105 analog capabilities. You can visit the Oppo 105 owners site at AVS for an extensive discussion of the pros and cons of taking a 105 direct to amp. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the work you could do yourself if you really had an interest other than promoting your belief that an active preamp is required.

db

"..it looks like u missed what Stereophile had to say about the GFP750" "I believe it set the record for the lowest cost preamp to ever get a Class A rating" - Zd542

Zd542, no no NO NO NO!! Hate to break it you, ..don't care one iota what bogus rating Stereophile got paid to give,..ADCOM NEVER MADE IT INTO A LEGIT CLASS A STATUS!! Let me reiterate, just incase you didn't hear me ,..NEVER HAPPENED! (Yeah, let's just say it was, ahem,...conveniently "placed" there at one point) ..Used this piece in several systems, in different stores, and it's not a world class piece! I'm tellin you. It's just not. MUCH better in lists even bellow it, yes.
lemme just go ahead inform you that, after having worked directly in hiend audio retail sales in 4 different very hi end av salons for over 15 years, TO NOT BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ REGARDING AV EQUIPMENT REVIEWS!!!..YES, EVEN IF ITS STEREEOPHILE MAGAZINE!! Yes, reviewers are, have been, and always will continue to be incentivized and paid directly from equipment manufacturers-desperate for GLOWING OVER REACHING REVIEWS - because they know for proven absolute certain that such favorable write-up will SELL PRODUCT!! SEEN this over and over for decades now. That's just business. And, if anyone is naive enough to believe otherwise, then I dunno what to tell ya - but it's historically proven to be EXTREMELY difficult for small esoteric equipment makers ( let alone even larger mainstream manufacturers ) to stay in business, let a lone turn a profit. Yup, reviewers definitely play their roll..and the money changed hands in this very tight knit hiend industry. Believe it! ..as a famous competitor once said .."man,I got kids ta feed!"
So sorry to say, but no, Bryston nor Parasound never made it as an elite product line, nor was the Modulus 3A actually Class A, nor was the Mirage M1 tower class AB, .and neither did the B&W DM302 speakers really make, class B stereophile, ..and nor are Def Tech the greatest loudspeakers, as Brent Butterwort lead u to believe, and neither were Paradigms,. Also, nopeTHE Arcam AV300 AV receiver also WASNT better than separates, as crazy over zealous reviewer claimed to "sell soap", etc, and so forth.
All I'm sayin, is you gotta try this stuff out with actual hands on!...otherwise don't just always believe what's printed somewhere..cause there may be an agenda. It happened. I swear.

("Money answereth all things" -Eclessiastes 10:19) hummmmmm..