moving on from Emotiva UMC-200 pre/processor

"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.

At least 4 problems with your response:

1. You appear to have missed the main point of my post.
2. You're guessing incorrectly about my experience with the subject matter.
3. You aren't being either objective or factual.
4. You continue to approach the subject from an inappropriately over-confident and apparently authoritative point of view.

Fleshing this out ...

1. The point of my post was three-fold: a.) prove that all components necessarily add or subtract something to/from the "sound" & b.) start a discussion regarding "just what IS the sound of the source?" & c.) reopen the topic of what listeners hear and want to hear. You appear to have addressed c.) but ignored the others.

2. 24 years ago I spent hundreds if not thousands of hours listening to high-end audio equipment throughout Los Angeles and the Bay Area. I met and had many discussions with "audiophiles", dealers and manufacturers, went to audio shows, read what I could, and took a lot of time mixing and matching several pieces of equipment in my own system. During my schooling/training as a physicist and electrical engineer I studied semiconductors and circuitry, built simple amplifiers, mastered priciples of sound propagation and materials science. I then sold everything I owned and swore off all of it because I couldn't afford it, and I needed to concentrate on other things. I've been away from high-end audio for 24 years and only since May this year have I even looked to see what was new and what has remained the same. I've never heard of some of these new companies and I'm only now learning about multi-channel systems, hence my questions about multi-channel pre-amps.

3. I'm not sure what to write here but I'll take a stab at it... You don't seem to want to be involved in an objective discussion, or maybe you don't understand what an objective discusssion is. That's hard to believe so I don't think that's what's going on, but you made a mistake by writing "that statement is pure speculation on your part" regarding my statement "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." Do you realize that I'm stating this as a fact which I do in fact know? It is a fact that audio listeners can hear differences between components. It is a fact that some listeners are better than others at hearing differences. It is a fact that I realize this. I don't understand how this can be confusing to you and/or why you would waste time arguing the point.

4. You seem to think you're educating me and twice now I think you state that you're helping me. You appoint yourself as an authority, but I don't find any reason to recognize that self-appointment. I do recognize that you've probably been involved in high-end audio for quite some time and that you've probably listened to a lot of equipment. That means something to me, but not much wrt the current topic. You did help me earlier in the thread wrt a question or two I asked about multi-channel pre-amps. Thank you, but if you read closely you realize that I came to the same conclusion with regard to trying out a separate 2 channel preamp prior to your advice.

my previous post is addressed to Zd542 only. sorry if there was any confusion about this.