In the Aleph L manual, NP goes on to say,
"If you need gain, above the 3 o’clock position the volume control provides 2 dB of gain per step, for a maximum of 10 dB. In this region you will be listening to the active circuitry of the Aleph L.
As an interesting experiment, you may want to try listening to the difference between the straight-through position and the next higher one, seeing how well you can discern the character of the active gain system."
The tenor of his comments seem to speak of the effects o gain stage as producing flavors, granting that even straight through might have a signature too. It always brings me back to Ken Stevens design goals for his (CAT) preamps, he said he wants the "flavor" (his word) to be like water - in his mind, no flavor.
As for gain, I an tell no difference between my 2v and 4v settings on my EMM player, other than I turn back the volume control a bit.
So we are left with. Passives are....
1. Always better than actives
2. Never better than actives
3. Sometimes better than actives
No lover of passives in general or the LSA would argue 1. - that would be foolish and clearly not the case.
It seems hard to argue 2, since some folks with a long history of fine active line stages of considerable merit hear things differently and prefer the passive, their judgment not swayed by a lack of resources or inability to have tried the options.
It does seem 3 is the most likely case and it it raises the question -- if so, when? Under what circumstances. I think this thread has provided enough guidance as to when a passive, and possibly the LSA best of all, will provide a quality of sound comparable to the very best available - for a fraction of the cost - as long as it is not made in Switzerland or ensconced in a 2" inch aluminum case.
