Modern Linestages

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.

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

Nope, no passion here with this, it just Ohms Law, Kirchoffs Law, and the maths that goes with it.
The passion comes as a result of listening to the music through the purest most transparent form of controling volume there is, and there's no voodoo at all involved.

Cheers George

Atmasphere, thanks for taking a try at my question. I realize it is not a trivial inquiry. I find it refreshing that while you design what I consider a very expensive expensive linestage that you don't see any technical or sonic need to come out with an ultra expensive product.

On another note -- I find the argument that a linestage is needed to correct for the source component's imperfections a very un-audiophile like line of reasoning. For if the source requires correction, then why stop at a linestage? Why not insert a device with graphic/parametric EQ, phase compensation, reverb, compression, harmonic overtone generator, etc.? And you can't use the old signal purity argument since you've already argued that a multi-gain stage device with signal switching and volume control is required anyway.