Indeed - that kind of dawned on me later this afternoon as I was out walking, but thanks for the confirmation. Must say I definitely prefer the less 'blingy' versions (i.e. the Khozmos)Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon_LDT
Printable View
Indeed - that kind of dawned on me later this afternoon as I was out walking, but thanks for the confirmation. Must say I definitely prefer the less 'blingy' versions (i.e. the Khozmos)Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon_LDT
In comparison with the best active pre-amp I have heard which is Barry's Mark Levinson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
I don't recall hearing another active pre-amp that I would swap my passive for, lets put it that way.
It isn't easy to describe sounds in words but necessary on an audio forum, so I would expect that to be taken in good faith rather than used as an example of faulty logic. I stand by my assertion that the 'softening' can be ameliorated by careful matching. For e.g the Tisbury passive I found to be very soft, unacceptably so, yet other people have not found that to be the case in their systems.
Should also point out that people using an integrated amp may very well be listening to a passive pre-amp although they are completely unaware of it. Do you think you could identify which integrateds use a passive pre just by listening to them? It wouldn't be easy would it?
For me it (and using a digital source) it sounds closer to the 'control room' sound. So I'd agree it can be 'stark'. That's the sort of sound I go for, personally, although I'll grant that I tend to be in the minority. For me the appeal is not the cheapness since if I was unhappy with my passive I could afford to buy a top end pre on the secondary market, and I would. I listen to enough music to justify the cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by montesquieu
And having compared my passive to top end passives and actives I've not heard sufficient improvement to think it is worth bothering to change it. In fact only the ML came across as slightly better, the rest were either indistinguishable or just different.
Should point out all my comments reference a digital source. I find a good passive eliminates the 'glare' people blame on digital but which I suspect is actually caused by the ropiness of most active pre-amps. Vinyl seems to be unaffected by this, for reasons I can only guess at (at the moment, I'm working on it. Somebody, somewhere certainly already knows why this is).
Not heard a passive that has been as good as the actives ive heard, but there are many on both sides of fence ive not heard.
Not also the Croft? You seemed to love it every time you've heard it:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Then we'll have to agree to disagree [and i'm with Anthony here], particularly if the "softening" concerned is as a result of signal degradation, which I contend it is.Quote:
It isn't easy to describe sounds in words but necessary on an audio forum, so I would expect that to be taken in good faith rather than used as an example of faulty logic. I stand by my assertion that the 'softening' can be ameliorated by careful matching.
Marco.
I think you'd change your mind pretty quickly on that if you heard the ML in question, or the Croft, in your system. However, that's one we can visit at the bake-off we discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Marco.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco
Your Croft is very good indeed, but I have not preferred it in the 3 times we have baked off now - it's different but not preferable (to me). The ML I have not baked off against but it does the job exactly the way I prefer it done. I don't need to hear it in my own system to be sure of that. Also you can buy the ML which is not the case with your Croft, as isn't really a Croft anymore, is it?
Having been in control rooms, not as an audio engineer but as an occasional session musician in my youth, I'd say a control room is a workplace and would not typically provide the sort of sound I would want in my living room. Any more than I'd want my kitchen to resemble an operating theatre. But I guess it takes all sorts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macca
Me neither, *unless* that's how the recording in question is meant to sound. All I want is to extract, as faithfully as possible, the musical information embedded onto whatever source material it is I'm listening to, with as little 'signature' as possible, of the equipment used, superimposed onto that sound:)Quote:
Originally Posted by montesquieu
Marco.
Completely agree it is entirely down to what the individual wants. (Incidentally I like 'operating theatre' style kitchens too :) ).Quote:
Originally Posted by montesquieu