I would think the Placette has to be substantially better than the Creek, because of its superior volume control (attenuator). The attenuator is the main reason for sonic degradation in passives and in all preamps. I had the McCormack TLC-1, which is a very good unit and considerably more expensive than the Creek and presumably better sounding than the Creek. But, when I replaced the McCorm. with a Reference Line Preeminence One, with a stepped attenuator, the improvement was UNBELIEVABLE. Some have written that the Reference Line is about the same as the Placette. Ergo, Placette is better than Creek.
Placette vs. Creek remote volume controllers?
I'm going the "minimalist" route with one of my two systems. Presently a Creek OBH-10 volume controller serves as my preamp into a Pass Aleph 30. This $250 unit seems to get the job done nicely but I do have to wonder if the 4 times as expensive Placette unit would be a sonic upgrade for me. One problem I have with the Creek is gain matching with the Aleph 30--there are some occasions when I could use a few more dB than the Creek will get me at its max setting. Please let me have your views. Thanks!
- ...
- 14 posts total
There are no active circuits in the signal path of the Placette Passive or Remote Volume Control, only in the Active linestage. There is a separate transformer for the remote control and LED lights on the RVC and Passive, and also source switching on the Passive. There would be no point to replace the power cord for the low voltage transformer since it has no effect on the sound and there is no IEC connection provided. The Active linestage has a removeable cord and chassis mounted IEC to power the discrete Class A output amplifiers. There is also a headphone jack from these amps and is the main reason I have thought about the trade-up program. You should verify this by contacting Guy Hammell at Placette or reading the Q&A on the site: http://www.placetteaudio.com/ |
- 14 posts total