Modern Linestages

Onhwy61, if you want my opinion, keeping in mind that our preamps have a patented direct-coupled balanced output...

We solved a major problem facing tube preamps with that patent. It means that we can build a tube preamp that is flat to 1 Hz and can drive 32 ohm headphones directly, without additional circuitry for the headphones (other than the connector). So its my opinion that when you get into preamps that have that sort of price tag, you a paying for eye candy- really nicely machined, nicely finished and often very thick metal work to house a circuit that otherwise might be found in a preamp that costs 1/2 or 1/3 as much.

However such a budget does allow for more ornate switching schemes for the volume control and inputs and perhaps a few other things...

Now in our case we are already using custom materials for our circuit boards (to reduce dielectric effects of the board material) which is also extra thick (for the same reason). We have custom-built resistors, V-Cap Teflon caps, custom-built wire, proprietary regulators, the whole thing is balanced differential from phono input to line stage output with only 3 stages of gain in that path. In fact we set up the standards for how you connect a phono cartridge (which is a naturally balanced source) to a balanced input. We figured out how to do differential equalization and deal with a host of other issues, simply because no-one had done anything like this before we did. And that patented output does allow such cable control that if you set things up right, you will not be able to hear the difference between a cheap cable and a very expensive one (and it can drive over 100 feet of cable with no problem)! Overall its a pretty tweaked out preamp that has been refined over a 22-year period. So I don't think I could do your question justice with a casual answer.

Grannyring you go on that a good active preamp can mystically make a system sound "better", yet you deny the fact here and in other posts that it will be coloured or adding distortions to change this sound for the "better" You cannot have it both ways Grannyring.
The prefect preamp has be always touted as being a "straight wire with gain" this says no colourations and no distortions and to be "true to the source". A properly implemented passive comes closest to this, and direct connection from source to poweramp is a "straight wire but with no gain" as it is not needed.
If you think your source "sucks" then change it for the better, don't try to band-aid fix it with a $30k preamp.
The best quote in audio history was made by Ivor Tifenburm of Linn Sondek fame, "the most important part of a system to get right first is the source".

Cheers George

Georgelofi, Why would you say, "A properly implemented passive comes closest to this," I don't know how you would ever prove this. The only proof that I can imagine would be for music going into passive and active units compared with that coming out and an assessment of differences.

I might also note that you imply generic differences but you add "properly implemented." How would we ever know this? I have had six passive units now over about a 30 year period. I only once had two at the same time and they sounded in many ways different. In fact I strongly believe that until my present BMC unit, those earlier unit shared only a sense of purity and a lack of dynamics or pace. Which was properly implemented? One was only a silver transformer with multiple taps.

Similarly, I have had many, many active units and have never hear two that sounded alike. Some manufacturers have gone to extremes in pursuit of "proper implimentation." Some sounded better than others, but generically none were as smooth as passive units and all were more dynamic.

TBG back a few posts
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1313773451&openfrom&51&4#51
is the way one would make sure he/she has properly implemented a passive.

Cheers George

George, I like your passion and I do see things differently it seems.

A $30,000 digital source front end is also not perfect and is flawed. All gear is flawed falling short of absolute fidelity because they attempt to recreate the real and natural thing.

A passive that is true to the $30,000 source in front of it may or may not be part of a complete audio system that sounds more like the actual voice or instrument.The resulting sound of the complete system is all that we can compare to the real thing.

The combined strenghts and character of each stereo component come together to deliver the resulting sound. Since every single part or component in the system is flawed, fidelity can only be judged by the sum result of the parts. The sum result will also be flawed-always.However, some systems will deliver more fidelity to the instrument or voice compared to others.

My point is all components are flawed and have limitations. An active preamp that improves the resulting fidelity of a system is not so much coloured as it is needed. A passive may be truer to the front end source, but in the end, passes on the particular personality of that source with it's flaws and the flaws of the passive. Yes, I think passives have some flaws.

Saying an active is more coloured etc... is pointless to me when in fact all components are flawed.

It is possible for both actives and passives to be part of total systems that deliver the best fidelity possible in today's systems. My experiece suggests that goal is more easily achieved with actives, but that is only my experience.

I happen to think actives help a total system recreate the power, impact,dynamics and nuances of the real thing and don't see these things.as colourations, but as needed ingredients to the finished high fidelity soup.