The Marco-boy main system, as of August 2020

[Marco]

You could have an active zero gain pre like the DCB1 built into the case - no lack of drive or softness with one of those.

Interesting idea, and one that could work. This is far from an urgent project though (just floating some ideas about, really), so I won't be rushing into anything. As usual, when I've decided to go ahead, extensive research will be undertaken, and the processing of as much relevant info as possible will be carried out before a choice is made.

In any case those issues with passives are due to compatibility with the power amp, not the passive itself. Plenty of integrated amps use passive pre-amp stages but because they are properly matched to the power stage there's no issue.

Yes, so they say, and in certain circumstances that may be true.

However, I've used umpteen different passives in my system with the Copper amp, which is even more sensitive than a Quad 306, and high-efficiency speakers (95db Tannoys), and where on paper a passive should thrive, yet (aside from LDRs), when used the soundstage collapses and they *always* sound soft/veiled/'padded out'/lacking in 'drive' and dynamics (even receiving a 2v digital signal), *in comparison* [that bit is crucial] with the best active designs.

Therefore, given the above and the type of system I've tried passives in, I'm struggling to see what the 'compatibility issues' would be?

Don't get me wrong, the sound isn't dreadful or anything like that, with passives, just not up to the high standards I'm used to from top-notch active designs. You have to remember the benchmark I've got as an active preamp...

My modded Croft, in today's market, would likely retail for around £8-10k - it's a very capable, highly-optimised design, which allows serious insight into recordings, and a truly wide-open window onto the music, so that's what any passives are up against.

Interesting though, that LDRs, some of them despite not sounding anywhere near as good as the Croft, don't suffer from a lack of said 'drive', and consequently don't sound soft, so there must be something in their design that negates this.

They're powered by the mains supply, so perhaps that's part of it?

Marco.

[Marco]

Yes, I've experienced the sound lacking in substance when using a passive with some power amps, but not with the 306 or any of my other current amps. Even the cheapo Little Bear unit sounds just fine as does my home made ALPS item.

Sure, Geoff, as have I, and trust me, even with the 306, an active design still sounds better. I always have high hopes for passives, as the theory as to why they have the potential to be better makes perfect sense, but for me never bears out in practice.

With passives, I can be hoodwinked into thinking I've got a good sound going on, then I swap them for the Croft, and it's game over!

However, let me be crystal clear: I'm NOT saying that passives, as a genre, are soft and veiled sounding - far from it - but as ever, it depends on what you're used to, what your benchmark is, in terms of an active - and so where the 'bar is set', sonically, in that respect.

Many people won't have heard what a high-end active preamp can do; that's one where the bulk of the money has been spent 'under the hood', so it's understandable why they'd be perfectly happy with a passive that's at least as good (or better) than the active designs they've heard, at a price point they can afford.

And btw, I certainly haven't spent £8-10k on the Croft. It cost me £2.5k when I bought it, and I've spend around another £1.5k modding it, and from experience I know that it would ably compete at that price level in today's market, as the money's been spent where it matters, hence why I've made that comparison

Marco.

[walpurgis]

Is the Croft unity gain or does it raise levels?

As the signal from sources is complete there's obviously nothing missing, making me a bit suspicious of active pre-amps that sound 'better'. I'm not saying they don't, but they can only do so by adding something to or otherwise altering the original unadulterated signal. Presumably changing it from what it should be.

[Marco]

In terms of your question about 'raising levels', Geoff, I don't know. That would be one for Glenn Croft to answer, someone else who knows, or perhaps Anthony.

I know what you mean, and in some circumstances that may be true, but I'm experienced enough to know that's not what's happening with the Croft (or rather why I prefer how it sounds, compared with passives); I believe it's more fundamental than that.

ALL forms of audio equipment, passive or active, add (or substract) something from the audio signal, which deviates from true accuracy, such is the nature of the beast, as despite what some folk think, NOTHING is truly 'transparent', so of course the Croft, or indeed any passive design, isn't exempt from that, but there's something else going on, I believe electrically, which I'm sure there'd be a technical explanation for, not just differing levels of distortion or coloration.

Marco.

[Macca]

Many people won't have heard what a high-end active preamp can do; that's one where the bulk of the money has been spent 'under the hood', so it's understandable why they'd be perfectly happy with a passive that's at least as good (or better) than the active designs they've heard, at a price point they can afford.

And btw, I certainly haven't spent £8-10k on the Croft. It cost me £2.5k when I bought it, and I've spend around another £1.5k modding it, and from experience I know that it would ably compete at that price level in today's market, as the money's been spent where it matters, hence why I've made that comparison

Marco.

Surprised that you would link price with quality, that's a bit 'What Hi*Fi'.

The very best pre-amp possible, even in a super-bling case, shouldn't retail for more than three grand. A ten grand pre-amp is a complete waste of money, not a benchmark.

[Marco]

Lol - then you haven't understood properly what I've said. To an extent I agree, but sometimes (I admit not often) very expensive pieces of audio equipment are expensive for the RIGHT reasons (where the money has been spent where it matters most), and IME in that respect, with amplifiers, there's more to be had beyond the £3k mark.

Take Anthony's Soul Monoblock amps, for example, which (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here) retail for around £20K. You wouldn't believe the engineering and know-how that's gone into those, including many aspects of their unique design - and that COSTS - for all the RIGHT reasons!

Same as the Copper amp, at a lower level. There's a reason why it costs £5k to build one from scratch, and also a reason why it couldn't be done to the same standards for £3k. High-end [that's 'high-end' for the RIGHT reason) preamps are the same, the best ones which are arguably harder to build, in terms of preserving the integrity of the all-important music signal.

So.... Yes, often price is no guarantee of sonic excellence, but in the hands of the RIGHT designer, who truly knows their stuff, throwing enough cash in their direction can often reap some very genuine rewards!

Marco.

[Beobloke]

The very best pre-amp possible, even in a super-bling case, shouldn't retail for more than three grand. A ten grand pre-amp is a complete waste of money, not a benchmark.

The very best preamp I've ever heard retailed for £4,995 when new, and that was 33 years ago. Mind you, it does have a reasonable feature count...

http://www.thevintageknob.org/yamaha-CX-10000.html

[Marco]

WOW - some serious engineering in there!

Wonder what one would cost today - if indeed anyone were even able to build one? £30k?

Marco.

[Macca]

Lol - then you haven't understood properly what I've said. To an extent I agree, but sometimes (I admit not often) very expensive pieces of audio equipment are expensive for the RIGHT reasons (where the money has been spent where it matters most), and IME in that respect, with amplifiers, there's more to be had beyond the £3k mark.

Take Anthony's Soul Monoblock amps, for example, which (and he can correct me if I'm wrong here) retail for around £20K. You wouldn't believe the engineering and know-how that's gone into those, including many aspects of their unique design - and that COSTS - for all the RIGHT reasons!

Same as the Copper amp, at a lower level. There's a reason why it costs £5k to build one from scratch, and also a reason why it couldn't be done to the same standards for £3k. High-end [that's 'high-end' for the RIGHT reason) preamps are the same, the best ones which are arguably harder to build, in terms of preserving the integrity of the all-important music signal.

So.... Yes, often price is no guarantee of sonic excellence, but in the hands of the RIGHT designer, who truly knows their stuff, throwing enough cash in their direction can often reap some very genuine rewards!

Marco.

They are power amps though not pre-amps, big difference in terms of what is required.

[Macca]

The very best preamp I've ever heard retailed for £4,995 when new, and that was 33 years ago. Mind you, it does have a reasonable feature count...

http://www.thevintageknob.org/yamaha-CX-10000.html

Not just a pre-amp though is it? You've got all the parametric EQ and stuff in there too. I want one.