Passive Preamps


I'm curious about passive preamps. Has anyone tried a passive preamp in their system?
128x128mdeblanc
I am hamstrung by 'honor' not to mention comments by several well known designers with whom I've had this discussion. Passive, versus...
In fairness the one's who gave long dissertations, (over a few friendly glasses of adult beveridges) invariably also designed Active preamps to mate with their amplifiers.
It's funny, at the CES over the past 27 years you meet the most interesting people. Virtually all claim to have the consumer or the 'best sound' at the root of thier recommendations--or we could even ammend that to be 'most accurate' or least colored.
For all of us who actually listen, we know that, for a group interested in making the smallest 'change' possible, we seem to have a rather diverse opinion of what 'change' really is....
No one, especially me, doubts the veracity of the comments of the designers, yet I think that one quick story (and there are witnesses) about a conversation in a bar in Munich three years ago.
While discussing designing, I asked a collegue this question as clearly as possible. "During design, what point do you begin to evaluate the sonic differences in the parts, (caps, etc)?
The designer looked at me with a straight face and said, "I don't". "If I've done my job correctly I don't need to listen."
(Enter Steve Martin) "Well excuuussee meeeeee!"
Me personally, I can't imagine not making a 'sonic evaluation' along the way, during a design. Without giving a 3000 word diatribe here, let's just say that cap "X" by reputation sounds 'soft' or laid back, and cap "Y" a little brighter, and we have several of those combinations in the design. MOST designers, if not all, that I've spoken with, make SOME allowance or listening moment during this process to insure that, either 'good or evil' has been created.
This designer stood his ground.
He left shortly thereafter, and I was alone with the other 10 or 12 people, and couldn't help but ask, "Do any of you feel this way?" "Do you design without listening to the 'parts' along the way?"
The verdict that night was unanimous. "Everyone listens to the interim design."
That, could explain why everyone but the one designer is right and everyone else is wrong, or, of course, visa versa.
Now, as to the principle question, Passive versus, active.
Out of (by memory 7 designers of note) not one single designer preferred passive. Again, they all made an active, therefore had reason to prefer it. However, from a business standpoint, they had the option to make the best passive they could design, versus the best active, and all chose to build the active.
You decide.

I vote active, EVERY TIME...perfect, no, better, to my ears, yes.

Good Listening,
Larry
I use a TVC from Music First Audio and find it exquisite. Its clarity, soundstage and extremely low noise floor are quite remarkable. I recently compared it with a top notch VAC active preamp. The VAC had a bigger soundstage but also was little more colored. Dynamics and bass seemed equal to me.
My first preamp was a McCormick Micro Line Drive paired with its companion Micro series amp. The Line Drive was capable of both passive and active operation with the passive option receiving all the positive reviews. In fact, if I remember correctly, all the reviews I read were careful to stipulate that the enthusiastic recommendation pertained to the passive option only. So, being new to all this, I went passive and never gave it another thought. Nearly a year went by, and I can't recall what made me do it - probably a disappointing cd, but I switched to active. I don't doubt that I lost all the cherished nuances that the reviewers cited, but who cares - I was dancing. Larry is spot-on, and as Tvad pointed out on another thread: "Lrsky has excellent sensibilities when it comes to sound and matching, so I would give his recommendations (whatever they may be) proper consideration"
Wow. A vote by a member for another member for another member. That carries some weight. By the Kevin Bacon theory I'm now 1 against 3.