|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.141.168.6
In Reply to: Agreed. posted by Larry I on March 9, 2007 at 06:28:26:
Cool. Nice to know I wasn’t the only one hearing the past and present ones the same way. I don’t know why ARC decided to change course, but I definitely think it’s better.Looking at some of your past postings, find you were once in the passive camp. Can you tell me a little of why you switch to actives and general observations / comparisons.
Follow Ups:
I have always preferred actives because they seem to have a more lively sound. Good passives, when used in the right application, sound very sweet and smooth and "nice," but some of the magic sparkle of topnotch active amplification often goes missing.Of course, if one is working around a budget constraint, and if one can configure one's system with short interconnects, and if component impedances are right, a passive may make sense.
I liked the sound from a transformer passive I heard, but the huge steps between adjacent attenuator settings is a BIG negative for me. The "right" volume usually falls in a quite narrow range.
My mistake, for some reason thought you had the placette.
No, but a while ago I owned the Placette Active. I got to try both, and in my system, the Active was more lively and dramatic sounding. Then again, the passive is no slouch and is a whole lot cheaper.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: