Knghifi, I made the exact same point on this thread a while back. I follow what you are saying and it strikes me as the correct way to look at this. This is a very interesting discussion and the main reason I keep looking at this thread.
I tried the Lightspeed and found my active preamp to be more "accurate" to the recording. I am very intrigued with this debate and hope it continues.
I am certain my preamp is not adding distortion or fuzz or any additional "stuff" unless my hearing is not as good as I think :-)
Things like stage depth, dimensionality, micro details, tone etc... make a stereo system sound more like music and more like a wonderful recording. Not sure distortion of any kind would ever help these things? The active delivered this better in my set up.
I bet a passive does this better in some systems. The reason - because the music that emerges from a stereo system is the sum of ALL the parts.
I tried the Lightspeed and found my active preamp to be more "accurate" to the recording. I am very intrigued with this debate and hope it continues.
I am certain my preamp is not adding distortion or fuzz or any additional "stuff" unless my hearing is not as good as I think :-)
Things like stage depth, dimensionality, micro details, tone etc... make a stereo system sound more like music and more like a wonderful recording. Not sure distortion of any kind would ever help these things? The active delivered this better in my set up.
I bet a passive does this better in some systems. The reason - because the music that emerges from a stereo system is the sum of ALL the parts.