Is no preamp really better that a good preamp?

No money in them ask me, he makes 10 x the profit making actives, why add passive to the range and effect sales of the actives, it's called business strategy, and he's a very wealthy man because of it.

If passive is superior, why can't you charge 20x of an active? In this stupid hobby where audiophiles pay CRAZY $ for a piece of wire, you can make it work.

One example is produce one above the top of line XS. If passive is truly superior, it will sell with a BIGGER margin.

YPSILON offers a passive and active PST-100.

Regarding the lengthy technically oriented post which Ralph provided yesterday, I of course agree 100%. At the same time, though, I believe his post is not at all inconsistent with mine that preceded it, in which I said:

If:

1)The output stage of a source component can drive whatever power amp is being used and the associated interconnect cables without compromise, or, alternatively, at least as well as whatever preamp might be inserted between those components, AND

2)The volume control in the source component, assuming it has one, is EITHER:

(a)As transparent in the range of settings that would be used in the no preamp configuration of the system as it would be if set for use with a preamp (i.e., at or near max in typical cases), OR

(b)As transparent as the volume control that is provided in whatever preamp might be introduced into the signal path,

then it seems to me that the only way inserting a preamp into the signal path can result in sound quality that is subjectively preferable would be by producing an output that is less true to the source material (i.e., less accurate) than the signal that is provided to it by the source component.

And it would seem, on paper at least, that in the specific case of Rustler's PS Audio DAC both of the criteria I listed above should be met. Essentially, the output section of his DAC **is** a preamp, or so it would seem.

Which means, IMO, that if he finds insertion of a preamp to result in improved sonics, chances are the sonic effects of the preamp would be compensating for an issue elsewhere. Which is not to say that there would be anything necessarily wrong with introducing a preamp as a solution, but the possibility should be considered that changing something else in the system, perhaps the power amp, might be a more optimal solution.

Best regards,
-- Al

JonJon2020: No worries,...no offense taken, was only expressing a preference given my being thrown into the fray :-)

As to Nelson Pass' designs: brilliant man who is a definite asset to the audiophile community. I do not however buy the argument that not producing a passive preamp is 'business strategy' simply as stated above. If a passive preamp is superior to an active and yet may be a loss leader for a company (for a period of time presumably), and if that company makes a wealth of other gear that could potentially offset such a loss-leader product in the line up (again for a strategically chosen period of time), then belief should not be cast aside and he should produce such a product for which such a strong opinion is offered. If it is as good as it gets so to speak, word will spread, people will buy it and any potential loss will be put behind them. I agree with Knghifi's comments above. If it's a better product, people will buy it....

Little baby polar bear is asking his big mom polar bear same annoying question all over again:
-Mom is it true that I'm polar bear?
-Yes! you are my son just like me -- polar bear!
-Mom, Mom, seriously am I REALLY polar bear?
-Yes, but why you always keep asking?
-It's f..n freezing here mom!

Knghifi,
Nice, very common sense observation. People will ultimately spent their money on what they believe sounds best to them.