Amp/Preamp Asylum Looking for a new Amp or Preamp? If you're after tubes, post over here. |
|
In Reply to: Are active preamps a pointless appendage of a bygone age? posted by L.D. on April 9, 2006 at 10:48:57:
I used a passive preamp for years, starting around 1988. I didn't switch to an active for almost ten years, but there is no way I would use a passive again. The biggest advantage of a passive is low cost. I built mine out of (what were then) the highest quality parts for less than $100.Compared to many active preamps (especially solid-state), a passive is the way to go. There are so many active preamps that add grain, glare, and grunge, which are all no-nos for me. Most passives don't, and that is a huge advantage. (In general, the sins of a passive are of omission.)
On the other hand a top-quality active preamp will give a bigger soundstage, more space around each instrument, more drive and pace, and more low-end authority. And a top-quality active gives up nothing to a top-quality passive (except for price).
So if you are on a budget and don't mind the limitations of a passive, they are a great way to go. But for the very best performance (and flexibility, such as the ability to convert single-ended to balanced) an active is the way to go.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- I've gone back to active - Charles Hansen 04/10/0608:17:18 04/10/06 (28)
- Why do you think this is the case? - mkuller 11:49:07 04/11/06 (21)
- Re: Why do you think this is the case? - Charles Hansen 14:27:07 04/11/06 (20)
- You didn't answer the question... - mkuller 14:50:03 04/11/06 (19)
- Nobody really knows the answer to the question "Why?" - Charles Hansen 19:17:16 04/11/06 (18)
- Re: Nobody really knows the answer to the question "Why?" - anthonyh 10:45:30 04/12/06 (16)
- Re: Nobody really knows the answer to the question "Why?" - LarryI 11:51:15 04/12/06 (10)
- Re: Nobody really knows the answer to the question "Why?" - morricab 01:55:55 04/13/06 (0)
- I too, am still wondering how much gain overkill is necessary (nt) - E-Stat 20:09:06 04/12/06 (8)
- Re: I too, am still wondering how much gain overkill is necessary (nt) - morricab 01:59:05 04/13/06 (7)
- So, how many times must a signal - E-Stat 05:33:03 04/13/06 (6)
- That's what you get for thinking... - Charles Hansen 08:24:53 04/13/06 (5)
- Actually - E-Stat 09:52:19 04/13/06 (4)
- Re: Actually - Charles Hansen 12:06:03 04/13/06 (3)
- Details - E-Stat 12:44:36 04/13/06 (2)
- OK, this makes sense - Charles Hansen 15:21:15 04/13/06 (1)
- I still believe the future is simpler - E-Stat 15:32:01 04/13/06 (0)
- I don't want to be TOO fussy, but the model designation is 'ACT2', :-) ... - jeffreybehr 11:27:24 04/12/06 (4)
- Re: I don't want to be TOO fussy, but the model designation is 'ACT2', :-) ... - anthonyh 12:03:55 04/13/06 (3)
- Mr. Fussy is back. :-) It can't be both Act 2 and ACT2. - jeffreybehr 15:22:13 04/13/06 (2)
- Re: Mr. Fussy is back. :-) It can't be both Act 2 and ACT2. - anthonyh 08:14:28 04/14/06 (1)
- That's what they tell me, too. In fact, Tor, the marketing director... - jeffreybehr 14:11:15 04/14/06 (0)
- Thanks for your response...(nt) - mkuller 10:14:19 04/12/06 (0)
- Re: I've gone back to active - morricab 01:42:37 04/11/06 (2)
- Passive just before the amp. - Ozzie 17:19:08 04/11/06 (1)
- Not the whole story - Charles Hansen 19:19:33 04/11/06 (0)
- Great answer - Larry I 12:15:10 04/10/06 (0)
- Agree! NT - chris keating 08:49:57 04/10/06 (1)
- Yup (nt) - nightdoggy 11:13:23 04/10/06 (0)