Active Placette pre sound better than Passive?

Redwoodgarden, I have heard both the passive and active Placette, my reference is the active which replaced a Mark Levinson reference 32 which cost $10000.00 more, and I would say the active is about 15% to 25% better then the passive. But, that last 15% to 25% in audio can make a real difference if you can hear it in your system.

The Active does not have any added gain unless you order it that way. Guy can probably modify your passives (or an Active) to have more attenuation.

Jax2 there's really no problem. It's just that I'm wondering if a good thing could sound better. I keep hearing that actives sound better than passives. Because I have to attenuate the Pre an additional 20dB, I don't think there's a problem with the output of the CD player.You're right about the interconnects. I have to be very careful with the position of the 1M interconnects or I'll get hum and buzz. Getheleadout I'm looking for an unbiased opinion. Guy has treated me very well, but I'm just after a second view. Teajay I have a Mark Levinson 334 amp which is not reference level. I also have Khorns and LaScalas. Is this good enough to get the extra 15% to 25% from the active preamp?

In theory, you will only get better results fm the active IF the buffer it has helps transfer energy into the amp (i.e. if it "MATCHES" better).

Also, to give my biased opinion, none of us here can help you in this case UNLESS we're playing the same source and load components (and the pre, in between, of course).

I would expect the placette people would know best, as they have obviously researched their product extensively.

IMO, the ML 334 is a very nice and honest product, BTW. I like it a lot.

Redwoodgarden, my hunch, looking at your total system, is yes, the Active would offer a sonic improvement over your passive. I'm sure Guy would setup an audition and if I got my facts right, you get the full value of the passive towards the Active if you trade up.