moving on from Emotiva UMC-200 pre/processor

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...

Zd543 says "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"

I'm going to play devil's advocate here to see what the responses might be, as I find this to be one of the big topics in the audiophile community. It interests me greatly and I'd like to know others' feelings as well ...

I believe your opinion is the Placette Passive "has it's own sound", and my D.A. response is that I'd expect that sound to be that of the source. If you tell me that no, the passive adds or subtracts something then I'd ask for an objective if not factual basis for that statement.

Where is this all going? In my opinion this is going in the direction of asking "just what IS the sound of the source"? I don't think that's been adequately addressed anywhere I've been reading. Why? Because this sound is dependent upon the recording specifics, the other components and the listening environment. I don't think it's too bold to state that the only way to reproduce the true sound of the source is to have the vocals, instruments and venue almost perfectly reproduced (whatever that means) in your listening room. Is that even possible when most audiophiles (I believe) listen through only the two channels in their own home listening environments?

My true opinion about all this (losing the devil's advocate point of view now) is that for almost all of us extremely analytic listeners of different recordings of various musical genres it doesn't matter! You either do one or the other of these ...

1. spend all your time and $$ trying to reproduce the sound of the source - a very expensive endeavor that's not possible because every recording is different and a single system just cannot truely reproduce each soundstage & venue recorded. Even the most expensive and/or well engineered systems can only come close to truely reproducing SOME recordings and venues but will fall far short of others ( though in a pleasant sort of way). Or ...

2. spend only enough time and $$ needed to achieve compromises that result in an enjoyable listening experience for as many recordings of your preferred musical tastes and recordings as possible. Will it be as enjoyable as approach #1? That's completely up to the listener to decide.

A closing question as a case in point: do some audiophiles prefer tubes and vinyl because those technologies and approaches give them the feeling of the most accurate sound reproduction or is it because they simply like the sound? Does it even matter?