moving on from Emotiva UMC-200 pre/processor

Great! So direct Oppo vs Oppo to passive pre vs Oppo to active pre should be easy to judge the differences and quantify??. Like to hear the results posted, if u dare?? Yes,please compare difficult dynamic large scale stuff to compare would be awesome, n inform us all what differences u found comparing the diff connect arrangements?
Yes, oppo is as I suspected, read reviews as better than most, but bellow world class disc spinners for more money. From what I gather, I'm sure I could live with moded versions. Which ver is best bang fer???
yeah yeah...probably look into getting one for all it accomplishes.
Then again we WILL be going 4k and even disc-less real soon. Soooooooo.......

Avoground, you're reading far too much into my posts. For stereo, I prefer my Ayre C-5xeMP for CD and SACD or my Thorens TD 124 with SME Series III arm and Ortofon SMS 30H cartridge through the Parasound JC-3 for vinyl. Of course, both of those sources go through the JC-2. OTOH, an opera on Blu-ray DTS HD MA played on the Oppo 105 and projected onto our 100" screen is a treat.

db

Am very happy to find people having 'fun' with this thread, and am more than ready to jump into the melee or would be if I didn't have equipment comparisons to get to ...

As stated earlier I was going to do some testing with a Placette passive pre and compare with an active (a Forte Audio Model 2). So far inconclusive except for the clear fact that there is no "dynamic" rolloff of any sort whatsoever, and I see no reason why there would be given Placette's attempts to prevent it. It's been nothing but a pleasure to listen to the passive in concert with Pass Labs x250 and Vandersteen 2Cs. If you doubt it, give me some source material to listen to that should convince me. I want to hear the rolloffs but simply can't - highs are well extended and bass is beautiful and as "dynamic" as is delivered by the Forte.

Avo - you've written a lot and I've enjoyed most of it and appreciate quite a bit of the writing. I'm getting plenty out of it as well, but always with a keen eye on the lookout for extreme subjective commentary. There is a lot, but that's true with most of the posts here. I find that to be useful at times as well. However you never even tried to answer the question I posed to you about your claim that "Not properly oversimplifying the initial signal before the amp section, will cost you in that area." There's no way for me to understand what you mean, either as an engineer or an wanna-be-audiophile. "Oversimplifying" just isn't a word that means anything at all to me. Can you at least try to explain this comment you made?

"As stated earlier I was going to do some testing with a Placette passive pre and compare with an active (a Forte Audio Model 2). So far inconclusive except for the clear fact that there is no "dynamic" rolloff of any sort whatsoever, and I see no reason why there would be given Placette's attempts to prevent it. It's been nothing but a pleasure to listen to the passive in concert with Pass Labs x250 and Vandersteen 2Cs. If you doubt it, give me some source material to listen to that should convince me. I want to hear the rolloffs but simply can't - highs are well extended and bass is beautiful and as "dynamic" as is delivered by the Forte."

I'm familiar with the components you are trying here, and if I had to guess what kind of results you would get, it would be what you just stated. Pass, in my opinion, is much better with amps than preamps. Going from the Forte to the Placette, I would expect dynamics and resolution to increase a bit, even though you are using a passive. But the argument here isn't passive vs active, its the Placette vs Forte Model 2. Each component has its own sound, regardless of design. So, while you can make some generalizations as to the overall merits of one type of design over another, in the end, you still have to take things on a case by case basis. And in this case, I don't think you overlooked anything. Your findings make complete sense.

HAZYJ, sorry about that. It was an auto word spelled TYPO!
The word I was trying to type was "AMPLIFYING" ..not oversimplifying.
My understanding has always been that source components, have not historically outputted the same level of amplified or buffered analog signal as say you would from a good active preamp output signal!! In fact, if you read through both old and even more recent threads and reviews on passive preamp n such, you'll get similar feedback (which often is commented as "constricted dynamics" or even rolled highs, on occasion) from those who have tried passive pres and direct both!
My years past results ,using high end CD and DVD players with passive pres and direct to amp ,BOTH have only resulted in softened dynamics, unfortunately, as well..otherwise I would have stayed using Pass Aleph L passive pre, or direct analog out from my 24/96 DVD player w built in volume control, amp direct, if I had gotten stronger overall sounding results! It just never worked out, and I was much more satisfied using meow expensive active preamp, accordingly.
That make sense?
Now, however, looks like I'm unna look into trying, yes, the likes of a modded Oppo, direct to tube n ss amps BOTH, with short ICs n see if that player handles the passive, or even no-preamp approach, better than years past. If it does, I'll be most encouraged, certainly!
I mean, seriously, who wouldn't want to be able do without an unnecessary extra component in the chain if they can effectively do without it?! I would, sure. ...just can't live with with whimpy dynamics nor constrained soundstage from my sound. No no..that I WILL NOT do. It's just uninspiring n weak sounding, otherwise, you know...