Passive preamp vs. powered

Phaelon, quite simply, it sounds to me as if you are after the truth. That is very different from not liking imaging, its all about getting as close to real as possible. Part of the issue of course is hearing recordings made in the spaces that you commonly hear performances in.

A pet peeve of mine does have to do with imaging. In a system that properly retrieves ambient information, the ambient information will make the musicians seem less distinct in the soundfield. So a system that does that might get docked because a lessor system that is unable to retrieve the ambient cues has the images portrayed in a stark fashion. But the system that can portray the ambient information is the one that I would say is 'better', because it has the organic quality that is what you hear in real life.

BTW this is one of the areas that I find a good line stage to outshine any of the passives- PVC or TVC- that ability to reproduce all the low level detail, all the ambient information. However, I have seen a lot of passives beat out active line stages that are not up to snuff, so its no surprise to me that a lot of people might be convinced that passives are ultimately better.

Phaelon, hearing everything on the disc can sound so natural, it never draws your attention to the detail, as it becomes part of the whole package. Blocking out detail detracts from the trueness of every part of the performance, every singer, and every player.

You all make good points. Ralph, I think that's a very interesting observation - that the retrieval of ambient information effects the perception of truthfulness relating to imaging.

I think I know what ambient information means, it puts the instruments within a specific space or venue. So ambient information provides that additional sense of instruments in a particulat environment, not simply localization within a soundstage. If that is what it means, then it makes sense to me how this allows for some of sense of "truthfullness".