Poll - Active vs. Passive preamp

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.

Herman, you discount my admittedly overly simplification, then you make an example of your system where you corroborate my statement.

Some active preamps are poorly designed and should be routed around. That should go without saying. I have heard a Wadia CDP, and a APL run the amps themselves, acquitting themselves quite nicely. At the time I was using a Pass Aleph preamp. It could be used passively, or actively. Both options added little to the mix positively or negatively. I would say then go with passive if you need the switching or get a CDP with volume control.

My present very rare active preamp is a powerful argument for active preamps. It adds tremendously to the final product.

Mural, I'm not sure how I corroborated it since my system uses a passive and is very dynamic. I discounted your statement because there are many systems with active stages that are delicately pure and many systems with passives that are very dynamic. I believe mine is both.

TVC - DIY

However, the rest of the system is selected for my sonic tastes and compatability. Go balanced or go away. Sorry if that sounds rude but it is vital to get the voltage out of the source and input impedance of the amp. With the proper setup, there is no loss in dynamics. Neither is there exageration and euphonics. The same applies to RVC's. Essentially, through a passive, the source drives the amp directly, although a TVC includes galvanic isolation.

This argument is getting tiresome but a passive can't be just plugged into any system and be expected to perform. There has to be planning.

Talk Thunder 3.1b - $4500 (4.2V XLR/2.1V RCA/ <100 ohms)
TVC - $600 in parts from "Gentleman" John Chapman.
Dual bridged Plinius SA-100 mk3 - $4500 each. (over 30 dB/ 47KOhms)
Genesis 350's - $30K, including 1600W bass amp. (20Hz flat/ 91dB/4 Ohms)
Various cables, room acoustics and electrical.
LP's not currently in use because of wood floor. Even the CDP will skip on bass notes when I crank it.
I listen to Blues, Jazz, Jump/Swing, 70's/80's Rock and even some Cajun.

I've tried various active pres and some TVC based passive units (the Bent TAP and a Bent Silver NOH). I agree with Ngjockey - John Chapman is one of the best people I have ever had the pleasure to do business with. He defines integrity, and is sympathetic to the "hobbyist" in all of us. He makes a great product and I wish him the very best.

In the end though, I have been blown away by the Gill Audio Alana (much more expensive than the TAP). To me, only the copper TVC BENT TAP was close. There is definitely some sort of magic with the Alana.

You can check my virtual system for my other bits of gear.