moving on from Emotiva UMC-200 pre/processor

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.

"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."

"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."
"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."

So I was right. How on earth can you claim to have experience from May until now? Well I guess 24 years ago, you would be the man to talk to. lol. I'll give you some credit. Why don't we change any experience to any relevant experience.

"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."

And this is where we get to the heart of the matter. I knew it was coming but I just couldn't decide if you were and EE or a psychologist. You knew everything all along and were just waiting for the right time to drop it on us, and therefore win the argument by default. All due to your superior intellect and education. You are, after all an EE.

Let's try something different. I've done my best to answer your questions, now see if you can answer one of mine.

You state that you "mastered priciples of sound propagation and materials science". Can you back that up? Since we're on the topic of preamps, tell us how you would design the best preamp, be it active or passive? If you really are a master it should be light work for you. (I know. You're probably waiting for the pattens on your state of the art designs to come through, so you can't divulge any proprietary information until that happens.)

You miss the point that I am not asking YOU any question at all directly but was opening up a topic for discussion in a forum. I think my questions are good topics for discussion with people who really want to contribute rather than argue or just promote themselves (remember I NEEDED to list my experience for you - i did not want to do that but you seemed to need the info). Clearly I'm opening up the topic in the wrong forum though. I know mine are not home theater questions. That's fine - I'm still curious about how people might respond so I'll probably try to open the topic elsewhere.

I make no claims to being an expert about audiophilia which makes all this more fun for me. I do have the experience as mentioned albeit almost all of it was 20+ years ago. I'm learning about changes since then and remember a lot of things that don't seem to have changed at all.

For what it's worth I most certainly did master the subjects I mentioned and many more I studied. Does that surprise you? I'd guess that at least half the members on audiogon have studied engineering and science and am absolutely certain that many also have graduate degrees in these disciplines. I make no claims to being the smartest or most experienced or most accomplished here. I don't care if I'm not even of average intelligence here, but I am proud of what I've learned and accomplished. I've put in a lot of work and have often done well like many others here I'm sure. I have no idea how to design the best pre-amp - why in the world would i know such a thing and why would you ask that question? Can I figure out how to design the best pre-amp? I don't know, but I certainly know how to start to find out how if I wanted to. I've learned quite a bit about pre-amp design over the past 2 weeks. Is that unexpected? Does it matter?

I need to move on from this - you seem to just want to argue so I don't see any resolution and doubt you really want to discuss the topic I was trying to open up. No hard feelings. Thanks for the discussion, but let's just go our separate ways please.

ZD542, I NEVER said I liked the ANY mode, neither active nor passive, regarding the adcom 750 pre! I merely stated that the active section was more dynamic and weighty over the passive.. didn't care for any part of that preamp, actually!
I'm now thinking that a great deal of that may have been due to the source components and interconnects used, byenlarge. Dunno..gonna need to experiment w the whole passive approach n compare.