Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Audio Discussions
In the Thread: Another light for the LS tunnel: transformer-attenuators?
Post Subject: Name two good active pre-ampsPosted by Paul S on: 3/13/2007
Please do not get the idea that I ever "ruled out" active pre-amps or came to the TAP through some sort of object worship. I really couldn't care less about how the job gets done. Active is fine, as long as the results are there. I am NOT a "passive guy", and I do not "look to passive" for answers. In fact, I never thought long or seriously about passive attenuation in lieu of a "normal pre-amp" until you started crowing about the Placette. Since I certainly do not need another gain stage (and since the Placette "active" I was bidding on went to someone else), I gave the TAP a try. What the Hell? It's YOUR fault!
Obviously there must be some sort of "losses" involved in an attenuation device, if only because that's pretty much the nature of the beast. I want to hear for myself the differences between the passive unit(s) and the active (gain-type) pre-amps I've struggled with for so long.
Of course, you may be referring to the Placette as "active", but, again, the beating heart of that unit is passive.
You have futzed around with buffer stages. I have no serious experience with a plain old buffer stage, mainly because I have always paid attention to cables and kept my cable runs short, and I never "felt the need". I never thought about or tried a buffer "just to do it" because, I suppose, it just seemed like one more thing to go wrong. That old pre-supposition again. But if you say they smoke, I'll stick one in there at some point.
This logic is faulty, especially in audio, I know, and the proof is the "extra" gear required to boost a LO MC with a transformer. Makes no "sense", does it?
Active; passive; Class D: bring it on.
Best regards,
Paul SRerurn to Romy the Cat's Site