Modern Linestages

Let's just say several on that thread left no room for such reasoning and maintain a passive under ideal circumstances is the gold standard - period. No room to think different.

I think you're being a bit unreasonable with this statement Bill. Sure your opinions were questioned and judgements refuted. That happens in these forums. IIRC there was a robust discussion of the philosophical meaning of "true to the source" and it was clear your definition was different than than majority, but there were others in your camp as well.

I'd venture to say that all of us on the thread you referenced have started out our audiophile lives with active preamps. Some of us have had many come in and out of our systems. That some of us now prefer passive preamps for their simplicity and sound comes from our own comparisons and formulation of opinions. Our convictions were just as passionate in regards to what we prefer (and what is our gold standard) as are yours when it comes to discussing your Dude preamp, your preferences, and your gold standard. When you spoke of no room for reasoning, if that is truly what you felt then I'd say it cut both ways. As you stated yourself, you took your ball home, nobody forced you too.

Getting back to this topic, Unsound said it best. If you believe in simplicity one might consider building their system to maximize the potential to use a passive preamp. It's really not that hard to do and certainly cheap enough to try. Whether its the sound your prefer is another matter altogether.

Grannyring: "I like this topic and would love more open minded discussion."

Me too. So far so good. Start a power cord thread and I've seen more peace and harmony in an Oakland Raiders parking lot after a game. :-)

I've had this comparison in my head for a long time: Music in your home will never be like the real thing. A photograph will never be like the real thing. If I can do something to the photograph that will make it seem more real or, bottom line, something that makes me like it more....done deal.

I've heard critism of SETs that say that their 2nd harmonics are adding distortion to the sound. Well, when the music is stripped during the recording and playback process, I wouldn't mind "adding" something back as long as it were pleasant to my ears (more consonant, less dissonant). I actually think it would be more accurate overall. I don't care that a scope says, "this amps (or preamps) output signal more resembles the input signal". I do care if my ears like what they hear.

Good thoughts Onemug, This is why I don`t get emotional or upset on these threads. I accept the fact we all hear differently,have different perceptions and priorities etc. If Clio09 feels passive is better, why sould I care that`s his choice. I just know what sounds better to"me" and we both can be very pleased individuality. I just don`t like when people take a religious like zeal to convince others what`s superior, and then become very defensive in their stance. It`s not that serious.

I have never seen the merits of arguing the virtues of passive versus active line stages and have had many of each. Presently, I have a BMC DAC! PRE which is the BMC dac with a passive insert to use as a line stage. It has two RCA inputs and one balanced input and only a balanced output. This all works with their amps to allows what they call Current Injection Analog Signal Processing.

All that I can really say is that this passive unit in this innovative circuit sounds great. I hear no compressed dynamics nor none of the purity of sound both of which I associate with passive units. All that I can say is that the total system sound exceeds any that I have had heretofore.

A line stage has 4 functions:

1) control volume
2) select input
3) add any needed gain
4) control the interconnect cable at its output

Of these, it is the the last that is the least understood. Audiophiles are very used to auditioning interconnects, and so do not think about what the benefit would be if the interconnect's artifact is eliminated.

You cannot eliminate this artifact with a passive; in fact you cannot *avoid* cable artifacts if a passive is in use. This has nothing to do with the quality of the passive control nor the quality of the cable. It has to do with the capacitive and resistive interactions of the source, the control, the capacitance of the cable and in the input impedance of the amplifier being driven.

The lower the source impedance, the lower the volume control impedance and the lower the amplifier input impedance, the less artifact the cable will have. However this set of parameters is almost impossible to meet due to the low impedances that are actually needed.

This is why a *quality* line stage will often be considerably more neutral when compared to a passive control, regardless of the quality of the passive.

Now I realize that this statement may be controversial to some, if this is the case for you I exhort you to examine the emphasis on the word 'quality' above.