Poll - Active vs. Passive preamp

I've built at least 15 passives of various kinds since giving up on a CAT SL-1 Signature with its truly horrible volume control, resistors on a rotary switch but not "true ladder", and recently built a TVC based on Stevens & Billington TX-102 transformers, a la Bent Audio. I thought I'd never improve on that, and maybe I still haven't, but I'm writing this to sing the praises of Vishay resistors, TX2352's from Texas Components, looking more "naked" than the Vishays I'd seen before. To save money, I did a shunt type, which I'd always rejected, but I realized that at fairly high attenuation levels, even -14 db, say, the "size" of the passive, Input to Output plus Output to Ground, changes little, and I certainly heard nothing bad. What I did hear was really good, and whether it beats the TVC in my system will take me a long time to decide, if indeed there's any clear verdict. Expensive with Vishays, but still miles below the cost of the S & B transformers. Anyone want details? Email me if you like.

Paul, that's not a "view," that's the way it works. You restated my point (albeit more succinctly) about buffering and all controls being passive so we evidently agree.

So why is a resistor volume control in your supratek "killer" and you dismiss them if they are in a separate box? The reason is that the designer optimized the drive and load on it. If you would do the same with a "passive" preamp you would get the same or better results.

Granted, most audiophiles don’t have the technical background or expertise to do this on their own and they therefore often get miserable results. It’s like trying to drive 85dB speakers with a 2 watt amplifier and declaring SET amps are no good. Like Amfibius they blame the passive preamp when it is actually the implementation.

Passive for delicate purity, active for dynamic realism.

Hi Herman,

Did we possibly have this conversation once before? :) I think we're arguing about semantics (if we're arguing at all).

What I stated is that the Supratek linestage itself is impressive - I'm not sure how the VC sounds on it's own. ;)

It's really two different flavors - in my system. A bit more transparency vs. a bit more body. The fact that this TVC is 'different but equal' to this near world-class active linestage is rather bloody impressive, that is for sure.

Paul, I don't consider it an argument. I think you understand what is going on. What I would argue with are statements like "Passive for delicate purity, active for dynamic realism." This shows a lack of understanding about how the volume control is integrated into the system.

My system is not perfect but I can't imagine a system more dynamic. It's not because I do or don't use a passive, it is because what I do have is well implemented. I tried a passive with 10K Zin and it sucked the life out of my system because my phono stage has a relatively high Zout. Most active stages would sound much better because they have a much higher Zin, and many would conclude that active stages are better based on this very limited sample, but when I inserted a 100K passive it was magical.

A poorly designed active stage will not be dynamic just like a passive one won't work well if used in the wrong way. Since all volume controls are passive the whole discussion is kind of silly anyway.