Poll - Active vs. Passive preamp

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.

I have enjoyed both (recent actives CAT SL1, Lamm LL2, and Placette Active). I tried the Placette Passive and it was remarkably good and competed with the CAT and Lamm - a great deal for the price - dead silent and transparent. I then tried the Placette Active - no gain, but buffered - an it was clearly superior to the passive, at least to my ears. I then decided to get back to tubes (Joule 150 MKII). The Placette Active is a great linestage, but I guess I just crave the sound of tubes in the pre, perhaps not as transparent, quiet, etc, as the Placettes, but with my speakers and very neutral CAT JL2s, the active tubes seem necessary for me. I did want to try the Bent passive, which I have heard very good things about. In the end, I enjoyed my system with all these pres, and difficult to think in terms of which is "best". No easy answers. You have to try and see how you repsond to the equipment in your system, with your music.

i started with actives; the Levinson #38S and #32. then after buying the Tenor OTL monoblocks with integrated resistive based passive and hearing it in comparison to the #32....i went with the Placette resistive based passive RVC to get remote control. i had very short interconnects from the Placette to my Tenors and over a three year period tried 'many' actives and passives; the Bent TVC 'Silver, an autoformer based passive, the Silver Rock, the Lamm LL2, CTC Blowtorch and others. while every one of those preamps was very good to excellent; the Placette was equal or better than any to my ears in my system.

finally; 18 months ago i came across the darTZeel NHB-18NS battery powered active preamp; which was clearly superior to the Placette in every way.....even in areas of noise floor and transparency.

to my ears; a battery powered active pre has the best of active combined with the strengths of passive. it does not add warmth but it does sound sweet and full bodied.

Currently using a passive - specifically a Sonic Euphoria PLC... (TVC for the uninitiated).

I think all this back and forth on passive vs. active (even subjects such as bass reflex vs. sealed, floorstanders vs monitors, etc) are all based on really 2 major issues:

1. Product Quality/System match
2. Subjective taste

Well, ok, also relative cost...

I've noticed on my system since the switch to passive is not only the famed "purity" or "transparency" offered but I noted a fuller, closer to "3-dimensional" effect of the images - especially in the midranges (even in my inadequate room).

I have heard excellent active and passive; I don't think there is a clear winner and it's up to a "try then buy" technique for this (and frankly for all things audio)...

Not to hi-jack this thread, but has anyone noted this "thicker, more accurate 3D body" effect in TVCs? Is this only for TVC passives or is it reflected in resistive passives as well? What about unity gain actives?

Just curious...

Audio Agnostically yours,
DeeCee