moving on from Emotiva UMC-200 pre/processor

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?

Avo-

Yes - I understand now. "Amplifying" makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the clarification.

"08-08-14: Hazyj
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."

That's actually pretty easy to answer. I think you are letting the terms active and passive trip you up a bit. It's not that an active component adds something to the music/signal, and passive components do not. Both active and passive components have an effect on the signal. Its just a matter of what and how. With regards to passive preamps, they will all sound different from each other. How much of a difference they sound from each other can only be taken on a case by case basis. Also, the difference, will mostly be subjective. Alot to me may not be alot to you. I like to think the differences in passive preamps, resemble very much the differences in cables. Cables, which are also passive devices, sound different from each other. But the differences usually are not anywhere near as big as the differences between active components. Active components, preamps or otherwise, "do more" to the sound. They impose more of their will on the signal. If we now look at active preamps, the differences can be a 2 edge sword. Active has the potential to be alot better or alot worse than a passive. In context of this discussion, its the alot worse, possibility that's of concern here. This is also where the arguments become most subjective.

Here's my personal view on when to go with an active preamp or a passive (Include in passive category sources like CD players/DAC's that have a built in volume control. Components like that allow you to eliminate an active preamp). There's a price point of about $3000 that many feel to be a cutoff between active and passive. The general rule is that unless you can afford a stand alone, active preamp in the $3000 range, its best just to use a passive. But you need to keep in mind that this is my own personal, subjective judgement. There are plenty of people who feel the same way and use the $3000 rule of thumb. Many, however, do not. If you'll remember, Avgoaround said he preferred the active setting on the $1500 Adcom preamp, I mentioned. There's nothing wrong with that. Some people just prefer an active, no matter what. Its like some people prefer vinyl even though its a lot of work and have to deal with the ticks and pops. Its what they like. I also know other people on this web site that won't use an active preamp at any price. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Its just personal preference.

You ask quite a bit more in your post. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to get into anything else. Later on, I'll try to comment on some of the other issues. But here's one last thing.

"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?"

Its a combination of both.

Zd542-
I find your response to my devil's advocate question to be neither objective nor factual. I do understand the opinions quite well, but doubt they move this conversation forward in any meaningful way.

Your over-confident approach to this topic is misplaced in my opinion. You can't listen to all equipment in all combinations. You don't know objectively that all equipment has a noticeable effect on the "sound" of source reproduction. Your (apparent) opinion that all equipment has it's own "sound" implies that someone somewhere (you?) can definitely hear that "sound". I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences. That does not imply that all equipment must contribute a noticeable difference.

There is no physical law or set of laws that necessitate that a piece of audio equipment must contribute it's own noticeable (to the ear, not the oscilloscope) "sound", but you seem to have the opinion that such laws exist. It's a simple (but meaningless) statement to say that most equipment will contribute its own "sound", but another entirely different statement to profess that all equipment has a "sound" that is noticeable.

"Your over-confident approach to this topic is misplaced in my opinion. You can't listen to all equipment in all combinations. You don't know objectively that all equipment has a noticeable effect on the "sound" of source reproduction. Your (apparent) opinion that all equipment has it's own "sound" implies that someone somewhere (you?) can definitely hear that "sound". I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences. That does not imply that all equipment must contribute a noticeable difference."

Understand that you are guessing here. My overconfident approach is just me trying my best go give you some useful info that you'll be able to use to help you make a selection. Remember, you're the one that has almost no experience here. Since you want to pick things apart, lets start here.

"I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences."

That statement is pure speculation on your part. You don't have the experience to make a statement like that. You can only come up with that from what you are reading. And before you say no, remember that you are the one asking the questions and giving your list of experiences. So don't try and back track and come up with a whole list of components that you have heard but just didn't mention. For someone who is demanding scientific proof, "There is no physical law or set of laws that necessitate that a piece of audio equipment must contribute it's own noticeable (to the ear, not the oscilloscope) "sound", but you seem to have the opinion that such laws exist. It's a simple (but meaningless) statement to say that most equipment will contribute its own "sound", but another entirely different statement to profess that all equipment has a "sound" that is noticeable." (those are your words), maybe you should hold yourself to the same standard.

Now, about the part where I don't know objectively about all equipment and my apparent opinion, blah, blah, blah... Great. I couldn't agree with you more. Its silly to even mention it. It's impossible, no one can do it. Why bring it up? The only answer that makes sense is that you just don't know any better because of your lack of experience.

Last, can you point out some examples of my overconfident, know it all approach?

"Both active and passive components have an effect on the signal. Its just a matter of what and how. With regards to passive preamps, they will all sound different from each other. How much of a difference they sound from each other can only be taken on a case by case basis. Also, the difference, will mostly be subjective. Alot to me may not be alot to you."

"In context of this discussion, its the alot worse, possibility that's of concern here. This is also where the arguments become most subjective."

"Here's my personal view on when to go with an active preamp or a passive (Include in passive category sources like CD players/DAC's that have a built in volume control. Components like that allow you to eliminate an active preamp)."

"But you need to keep in mind that this is my own personal, subjective judgement. There are plenty of people who feel the same way and use the $3000 rule of thumb. Many, however, do not."

"If you'll remember, Avgoaround said he preferred the active setting on the $1500 Adcom preamp, I mentioned. There's nothing wrong with that. Some people just prefer an active, no matter what."

"I also know other people on this web site that won't use an active preamp at any price. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. Its just personal preference."

I don't know about you, but it looks to me like I'm pretty clear about what my personal opinions are from fact, and keeping the objective and subjective separate.

At this point, if you are still going to still insist on objective proof, you should realize by now, in many cases, its not even relative. Even if you can measure some tiny difference in a lab there's no guarantee that you'll be able to hear it in absolute terms, have the potential listening skills to hear it or have a system that is able to realize the differences regardless. So, in the end, the most impotent thing you can really rely on, is the experience you gather from working with this type of equipment. That's how I do it and I make no apologies. Not only that, I'm done wasting my time trying to help you. Just to put things into perspective, if Avgoaround was able to fix his personality issues and have a normal discussion, with me, and some of the others, he could do so. You're no where near qualified to have a discussion at this level, so when people try and take the time to help answer your questions, don't be a jackass.