|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.51.211.143
In Reply to: RE: I tend to disagree posted by waj4all on May 15, 2011 at 14:01:17
Are you trying to convince me and others that passive linestages are inferior in the lower-midrange? Or are you asking for our input? I already gave you mine.
Let me just say that I stand by my findings and don't feel the need to change my mind because some Arthur Salvatore had a recent revelation, or a change in taste.
It is a gross generalization to think that all passive linestages are inferior in the lower-midrange. It can also be said that the lower-midrange performance varies among even the best ACTIVE linestages in ACTIVE vs ACTIVE comparisons.
What I am fundamentally saying is that a properly setup system with a passive linestage can sound incredible and if someone perceives ACTIVE linestages as producing "better" lower-midrange performance, "in his system", that doesn't mean that I will come to the same conclusion for my system. I don't feel the need to agree with this generalization, nor have I heard it in my system.
Yes, there are preamps that will color the lower-midrange making it more prominent and perhaps more appealing to some but that doesn't necessarily make it "better".
Follow Ups:
AbeCollins
R.C. Lang
Nope! Absolutely not! I've learned, from what I've seen at this forum, not to try to convince anyone of anything. This is not the place for it. That'd be like walking into a shooting-gallery with a target on one's back. No thanks. I've come to realize that many audiophiles are very set in their ways, some would tend to want to string you up from the nearest tree, if you disagree with them - I really don't need that.
As to the reproduction of music, I've heard people talk about different tastes in such reproduction. For instance, I know there're some who love a bright and 'airy' treble, or thunderous bass, or upper-midrange detail, etc, etc, and their systems reflect those preferences - nothing wrong with that - it's what they like, But I've also seen people go so far as to differentiate between 'my realism' and 'your realism' So far as I know, realism is absolute - in every aspect. As for realism in music-reproduction, there can only be one absolute standard - live music - there is no accommodation for preferences, if realism is the goal. But I've also found that in very many instances, realism is not the goal. The goal in such instances is a nice sound which caters to ones tastes and preferences - nothing wrong with that either. But why be affronted when confronted with the notion that one's preferences may not be conducive to the achievement of realism in music-reproduction? Measure it against the absolute standard.
For me, I measure my own system against that absolute standard. And I do whatever it takes to approach that goal as closely as possible. I don't care about fads, or electronic measurements, or catchy phrases, or trying to impress others with my gear. For many years, there has been a 30-piece acoustic band/orchestra which has played (and still plays) every few months, or so, on premises adjoining my backyard - this is the standard by which I measure my own system, in a quest to approach that goal. In the process I have done away with so-called 'state of the art' speakers (Spendor BC1's, at the time, turned away from Apogees too) and, yes, pre-amp less system operation (I'm telling no-one here to do the same). Yes, much of my equipment may be 'decent', but they're all connected to a DIY speaker-system which some may want to call a stack of crap, I wouldn't care one iota, as long as it, and my other choices, take me closer to the goal -and they do - much closer than those Spendors or pre-amp less, for instance. Am I telling you to do the same? No way!
In the process of participating in this thread, some of my opinions may be made apparent. But am I trying to convince people here to see things my way? Again I say - no way! I have a site where all my views on such issues can be freely accessed - not here. My focus with this thread is merely to gauge opinion and the experiences of others. Limited snippets of my own opinions may become apparent, in the process, but certainly not with a view to convince anyone here of anything.
Thanks for asking!
Oh, I almost forgot; 'Frontal-attack'? What attack? The premise is a question! Uninformed? Well, I suppose one could use a system for close to ten years, and still be uninformed about it - an idiot, for instance. You may have a point there! And bye the way, the ideal passive pre-amp is no pre-amp, nothing. Pre-amp less is the ultimate state of the art for 'passives', No 'passive' unit can be better than nothing. The only reason for a physical 'passive' unit is to provide a means of attenuation (thus the cause of the only differences between them) but the ultimate (in 'passive') is no pre-amp - nothing, and no name-brand passive unit can be better than that - nothing. Didn't you know that? Or are you 'uninformed'?
"I've come to realize that many audiophiles are very set in their ways, some would tend to want to string you up from the nearest tree, if you disagree with them."
I've tried no-passive, several passive linestages, and several active linestages so I hope you don't place me in that "set in their ways" category. Nope, not me. I've played with various combinations and have listened for myself.
"The only reason for a physical 'passive' unit is to provide a means of attenuation (thus the cause of the only differences between them) but the ultimate (in 'passive') is no pre-amp - nothing, and no name-brand passive unit can be better than that - nothing. Didn't you know that? Or are you 'uninformed'?"
Given that you cannot run "nothing" in a real world system the comments above make no sense at all. Would you ever run your CD player directly into a power amp if it didn't have a built-in volume control (variable attenuator) of some sort ? I hope not.
Given that you cannot run full-out w/o an attenuator, then it stands to reason that the attenuation must come in the form of attenuating components either within the CD player or an outboard passive linestage.
What's the difference? Could be a big difference depending on the quality of the internal attenuator components or the external attenuator. There are sonic differences among attenuators whether they be internal or external. Just the same, there are sonic differences among the different brands of external passive linestages.
Hey AbeCollins,
Did you really say all this? - "Given that you cannot run "nothing" in a real world system the comments above make no sense at all. Would you ever run your CD player directly into a power amp if it didn't have a built-in volume control (variable attenuator) of some sort ? I hope not.
Given that you cannot run full-out w/o an attenuator, then it stands to reason that the attenuation must come in the form of attenuating components either within the CD player or an outboard passive linestage.
What's the difference? Could be a big difference depending on the quality of the internal attenuator components or the external attenuator. There are sonic differences among attenuators whether they be internal or external. Just the same, there are sonic differences among the different brands of external passive linestages."
I wouldn't even grace that with a response. I couldn't - even if i tried. Forgive me, I'm not trying to be rude - I just can't stop this infernal laughing - sorry. Really now! Just look at what you've said, think about it, and if you still can't see how ridiculous it is, then I certainly can't help you.
Bye the way, as a child, I sometimes watched Sesame-Street. I once witnessed Ernie selling Bert a bag of 'air'. For real - paid a good price too, Bert did. LOL
Should we send Ernie 'round to your place - prehaps?
...was there an internal attenuator in your source unit or not? It's a simple question. Abe is right, it would be a rare setup that would allow a source unit to directly drive an amp w/o any volume control whatsoever. If this was your situation then let us know what that system was. If what Abe said is so foolish and laughable then it should be easy to tell us what you think is so stupid about his post and really make him look like a fool...otherwise the only person who looks like a fool is you.
Go back and read your ridiculous post (very last paragraph) that I was responding to. And now that I have shown how stupid it was, all you can do is laugh rather than reply intelligently. How very convenient. I've seen children "caught in the act" do the same thing.
It's clear to me that you have very limited experience and understanding of passive attenuation and how to properly apply it in a system. Instead you read about it in some rag and expect others to agree with your conclusion.
Now go back and read your very first post. I'll quote an excerpt here:
...."Re; Stereo-Mojo & The Audio Critique as several seem to be adopting similar views on the subject [passive vs active linestages]. The full article from which the above was exerpted (is mainly about the Audio Critique) and is at my link below. Any similar experiences, here?"
I provided my personal experience and backed it with examples and I don't agree. So now you want to argue because you didn't get the response you wanted.
I call this a "TROLL"
N/T
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: