After doing the rounds, I'm leaning towards the McCormack TLC-1.

This preamp has got a passive out. However, according to a Stereophile
article I read, this unit still needs to be powered up to use the
passive out.

My question is: why?

Or am I just overdue for EE 101? :-)

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
After doing the rounds, I'm leaning towards the McCormack TLC-1.

This preamp has got a passive out. However, according to a Stereophile
article I read, this unit still needs to be powered up to use the passive
out.

My question is: why?
Probably just a relay that has to be powered to switch into bypass mode.

Or am I just overdue for EE 101? :-)
Don't let bullies kick sand in your face

Robert Morein wrote:
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

After doing the rounds, I'm leaning towards the McCormack TLC-1.

This preamp has got a passive out. However, according to a Stereophile
article I read, this unit still needs to be powered up to use the passive
out.

My question is: why?

Probably just a relay that has to be powered to switch into bypass mode.

Or am I just overdue for EE 101? :-)

Don't let bullies kick sand in your face

Any experience with this unit? I am undecided between this and a Rotel
RC-995.

In all likelihood, I will not use the McCormack in passive mode, so in a
direct comparison it is about $100 more expensive than the Rotel. Plus,
the Rotel has a remote.

Schizoid Man said:

In all likelihood, I will not use the McCormack in passive mode, so in a
direct comparison it is about $100 more expensive than the Rotel. Plus,
the Rotel has a remote.

The only way a pre without a remote would be conceivable is if you're sure
it'll always be within easy reach. Unless you like sprinting to mute the
system when the phone rings.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Schizoid Man said:

In all likelihood, I will not use the McCormack in passive mode, so in a
direct comparison it is about $100 more expensive than the Rotel. Plus,
the Rotel has a remote.

The only way a pre without a remote would be conceivable is if you're sure
it'll always be within easy reach. Unless you like sprinting to mute the
system when the phone rings.

**You just gotta learn to kick that Pavlovian impulse. If I'm doing
something (anything) and the 'phone rings, I'll ignore it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson said:

The only way a pre without a remote would be conceivable is if you're sure
it'll always be within easy reach. Unless you like sprinting to mute the
system when the phone rings.

**You just gotta learn to kick that Pavlovian impulse. If I'm doing
something (anything) and the 'phone rings, I'll ignore it.

Must do wonders for your social life.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Schizoid Man said:

In all likelihood, I will not use the McCormack in passive mode, so in a
direct comparison it is about $100 more expensive than the Rotel. Plus,
the Rotel has a remote.

The only way a pre without a remote would be conceivable is if you're sure
it'll always be within easy reach. Unless you like sprinting to mute the
system when the phone rings.

You know, that's an interesting point. What the world needs is a device
that can output a remote code when the phone rings. It would be inserted in
the phone line at either end of the phone cord, and programmed to output the
code for PAUSE and MUTE when the phone rings. When you hang up, it repeats
the process to return you to where you were. Since it's a learning remote,
it can output any 2 codes, making it useful for people who have other things
they want it to do. Come to think of it, such a device could be designed to
output a complete macro.

The real problem with such a device is that fewer and fewer people use land
line phones. It wouldn't work with a cell phone unless it was in a cradle.

Norm Strong

wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Schizoid Man said:

In all likelihood, I will not use the McCormack in passive mode, so in a
direct comparison it is about $100 more expensive than the Rotel. Plus,
the Rotel has a remote.

The only way a pre without a remote would be conceivable is if you're sure
it'll always be within easy reach. Unless you like sprinting to mute the
system when the phone rings.

You know, that's an interesting point. What the world needs is a device
that can output a remote code when the phone rings. It would be inserted in
the phone line at either end of the phone cord, and programmed to output the
code for PAUSE and MUTE when the phone rings. When you hang up, it repeats
the process to return you to where you were. Since it's a learning remote,
it can output any 2 codes, making it useful for people who have other things
they want it to do. Come to think of it, such a device could be designed to
output a complete macro.

Zenith had such a system on their color TVs in the early 1980s.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

After doing the rounds, I'm leaning towards the McCormack TLC-1.

This preamp has got a passive out. However, according to a Stereophile
article I read, this unit still needs to be powered up to use the passive
out.

My question is: why?

Probably just a relay that has to be powered to switch into bypass mode.

Or am I just overdue for EE 101? :-)

Don't let bullies kick sand in your face

Any experience with this unit? I am undecided between this and a Rotel
RC-995.

In all likelihood, I will not use the McCormack in passive mode, so in a
direct comparison it is about $100 more expensive than the Rotel. Plus,
the Rotel has a remote.

I would prefer a unit with discrete output devices. Does either unit specify
this?
The advantages of a passive remote are in the range of barely positive to
very negative, depending upon whether the output stage of the player is a
good one.
A good preamp can be a tremendous asset, by allowing the player outputs to
"coast".

Robert Morein wrote:


Any experience with this unit? I am undecided between this and a Rotel
RC-995.

In all likelihood, I will not use the McCormack in passive mode, so in a
direct comparison it is about $100 more expensive than the Rotel. Plus,
the Rotel has a remote.

I would prefer a unit with discrete output devices. Does either unit specify
this?
The advantages of a passive remote are in the range of barely positive to
very negative, depending upon whether the output stage of the player is a
good one.
A good preamp can be a tremendous asset, by allowing the player outputs to
"coast".

Gain is gain. There are obvious and clear advantages to putting it in
the player, instead of in a second box with one more set of
interconnects and another power supply. Since power amplifiers work at
the same input voltage levels as most electronic units-CD players,
DACs, tape machines, tuners, etc-put out (else the "passive preamp"
would be not just a misnomer but an impossibility) the three box
solution makes no sense anymore now that turntables are not only not
the primary, but increasingly nonexistent sources.

A good universal player with a good rugged drive mechanism, a low
impedance well designed output section (which I will concede might be
just as well solid state, as per Hamm et al, the undisputed authority
on such matters until Arny publishes otherwise in JAES or other peer
reviewed publication), a volume control and perhaps even a remote
control well constructed, driving the power amplifier directly is the
obvious best solution.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:


Any experience with this unit? I am undecided between this and a Rotel
RC-995.

In all likelihood, I will not use the McCormack in passive mode, so in
a
direct comparison it is about $100 more expensive than the Rotel. Plus,
the Rotel has a remote.

I would prefer a unit with discrete output devices. Does either unit
specify
this?
The advantages of a passive remote are in the range of barely positive to
very negative, depending upon whether the output stage of the player is a
good one.
A good preamp can be a tremendous asset, by allowing the player outputs
to
"coast".

Gain is gain. There are obvious and clear advantages to putting it in
the player, instead of in a second box with one more set of
interconnects and another power supply.

Sure, and if the CD player has a good output stage, I agree. BUT, a passive
preamp does have a notable disadvantage: high and variable output impedance.
The leads to the amplifier should be very short, because a passive pre is an
extremely poor line driver.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:50:58 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
After doing the rounds, I'm leaning towards the McCormack TLC-1.

This preamp has got a passive out. However, according to a Stereophile
article I read, this unit still needs to be powered up to use the passive
out.

My question is: why?
Probably just a relay that has to be powered to switch into bypass mode.

This reminds me, why do I have to have my Marantz PM8200 switched on
in order to record to minidisc through the tape out? With every
previous amp I could record with the amp switched off.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:50:58 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
After doing the rounds, I'm leaning towards the McCormack TLC-1.

This preamp has got a passive out. However, according to a Stereophile
article I read, this unit still needs to be powered up to use the
passive
out.

My question is: why?
Probably just a relay that has to be powered to switch into bypass mode.

This reminds me, why do I have to have my Marantz PM8200 switched on
in order to record to minidisc through the tape out? With every
previous amp I could record with the amp switched off.

Perhaps it has an active buffer amp for the tape out. This is considered
desirable, because it isolates the circuitry from "rectification effects"
that backfeed intoa preamp without a passive buffer, when the recorder is
turned off, UNLESS the recorder has FET inputs, in which case this does not
happen.

Sorry about the German

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
After doing the rounds, I'm leaning towards the McCormack TLC-1.

This preamp has got a passive out. However, according to a Stereophile
article I read, this unit still needs to be powered up to use the passive
out.

My question is: why?

**It is possible that other stuff within the 'preamp' requires power. Remote
controls, muting circuits, etc. Personally, I reckon that a GOOD active
preamp will win any contest with a passive preamp hands down. Passive
preamps have a number of disadvantages, which are obviated by decent active
preamps:

* High output impedance. Not only will the output impedance be high, but, in
most cases, will vary according to the volume control position.
* Zero gain. This may or may not be an issue, depending on the system.
Flexibility is limited with passives, however.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
After doing the rounds, I'm leaning towards the McCormack TLC-1.

This preamp has got a passive out. However, according to a Stereophile
article I read, this unit still needs to be powered up to use the passive
out.

My question is: why?

**It is possible that other stuff within the 'preamp' requires power. Remote
controls, muting circuits, etc. Personally, I reckon that a GOOD active
preamp will win any contest with a passive preamp hands down. Passive
preamps have a number of disadvantages, which are obviated by decent active
preamps:

* High output impedance. Not only will the output impedance be high, but, in
most cases, will vary according to the volume control position.
* Zero gain. This may or may not be an issue, depending on the system.
Flexibility is limited with passives, however.

Proper perception of the issue is being impeded by verbiage here.

A "passive preamp" is no such thing at all. It is a
selector/attenuator, acting as a signal switching box and a variable
signal attenuator.

Preamps made perfect sense in the days when the phono cartridge was
the primary first signal source in most any hi-fi system. Even then,
tape recorders and tuners produced plenty enough signal to drive any
power amplifier. The preamp was a "preamp" with the primary source as
well as a signal selector and level control with all sources.

Whatever the merits and demerits of vinyl, and of analog tape even
more so, they are not the primary source for audiophiles today, in most
instances. Optical disk players, outboard DACs and tuners are the only
sources in more systems than not and tuners are getting scarcer as the
quality of broadcast sources gets poorer and poorer except in a few
markets like New York.

Therefore, the optical disk player or outboard DAC should be expected
to have an output of low impedance and high enough in level to drive
any power amp: indeed, it's no more a design burden if one specifies
it must be able to fit into the +4, 600 ohm pro world, especially if
true balanced operation is not specified, because most pro gear today
is not true-balanced. If this is not the case, is the passive
pseudo-preamp at fault or the source unit?

Naysayers will squawk that that's not the way it is. It is obviously
the way it ought to be.

Consider also that putting the volume control on the source unit
rather than the amplifier has a number of merits. It obviates the need
for unit-to-unit level matching and makes switching between a
background and foreground source much easier.

By putting a volume control and multiple inputs on a power amplifier,
it becomes a "line-stage integrated" amplifier. This in today's
perverted market makes it less pricey rather than more, so we have a
marketing issue right up fromt. (McIntosh, to their credit, put volume
controls on many of their power amps: however, there is no switching
and the volume control is a common ganged pot.)

"Bret Ludwig" wrote

Proper perception of the issue is being impeded
by verbiage here.

Yes, but your perception may be in error.


A "passive preamp" is no such thing at all. It is a
selector/attenuator, acting as a signal switching
box and a variable signal attenuator.

True, and as a result most outboard devices like
CD players, tuners, etc. lack enough RMS
voltage to adequately drive power amps. Most
mainstream preamps will output 5-50 volts.


Preamps made perfect sense in the days when
the phono cartridge was the primary first signal
source in most any hi-fi system. Even then, tape
recorders and tuners produced plenty enough
signal to drive any power amplifier.

Really, please site common makes and models
that did this (recorders and tuners).


Naysayers will squawk that that's not the way
it is. It is obviously the way it ought to be.

I think you misunderstand the primary reason
variable outputs are supplied, in addition to fixed
outputs, on input devices (players, tuners,ext.)


Consider also that putting the volume control on
the source unit rather than the amplifier has a
number of merits. It obviates the need for
unit-to-unit level matching and makes switching
between a background and foreground source
much easier.

No, that is the primary reason variable outputs are
supplied at all on players. Most often when you
choose to go with the variable output you
are compromising fidelity for convenience.

"Powell" wrote in message
...

"Bret Ludwig" wrote

Proper perception of the issue is being impeded
by verbiage here.

Yes, but your perception may be in error.


A "passive preamp" is no such thing at all. It is a
selector/attenuator, acting as a signal switching
box and a variable signal attenuator.

True, and as a result most outboard devices like
CD players, tuners, etc. lack enough RMS
voltage to adequately drive power amps. Most
mainstream preamps will output 5-50 volts.

This is true, and they do it more cleanly than all but the most competently
engineered players.
It is a mistake to think a passive pre will result in a cleaner signal path.

Powell wrote:

A "passive preamp" is no such thing at all. It is a
selector/attenuator, acting as a signal switching
box and a variable signal attenuator.

True, and as a result most outboard devices like
CD players, tuners, etc. lack enough RMS
voltage to adequately drive power amps. Most
mainstream preamps will output 5-50 volts.

Most power amps will go full output with 1.5V rms. VTL in their book
specify they design for input sensitivity of 775 mV as I recall.



Preamps made perfect sense in the days when
the phono cartridge was the primary first signal
source in most any hi-fi system. Even then, tape
recorders and tuners produced plenty enough
signal to drive any power amplifier.

Really, please site common makes and models
that did this (recorders and tuners).

The Ampex AG440 is the only tape recorder I have much experience with.
It would _drive the snot_ out of our solid state McIntosh amps.


Naysayers will squawk that that's not the way
it is. It is obviously the way it ought to be.

I think you misunderstand the primary reason
variable outputs are supplied, in addition to fixed
outputs, on input devices (players, tuners,ext.)


Consider also that putting the volume control on
the source unit rather than the amplifier has a
number of merits. It obviates the need for
unit-to-unit level matching and makes switching
between a background and foreground source
much easier.

No, that is the primary reason variable outputs are
supplied at all on players. Most often when you
choose to go with the variable output you
are compromising fidelity for convenience.

Because mainstream consumo players have Mickey Mouse variable outputs!

This is becoming a tautology. I am advocating a practice that is not
currently universal, not describing what people now do that doesn't
work as well.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com...

Powell wrote:

A "passive preamp" is no such thing at all. It is a
selector/attenuator, acting as a signal switching
box and a variable signal attenuator.

True, and as a result most outboard devices like
CD players, tuners, etc. lack enough RMS
voltage to adequately drive power amps. Most
mainstream preamps will output 5-50 volts.

Most power amps will go full output with 1.5V rms. VTL in their book
specify they design for input sensitivity of 775 mV as I recall.


Yes, but from practical experience with Sony ES players, I can tell you that
those with 5532 outputs cannot do it cleanly.

"Bret Ludwig" wrote

A "passive preamp" is no such thing at all. It is a
selector/attenuator, acting as a signal switching
box and a variable signal attenuator.

True, and as a result most outboard devices like
CD players, tuners, etc. lack enough RMS
voltage to adequately drive power amps. Most
mainstream preamps will output 5-50 volts.

Most power amps will go full output with
1.5V rms.

If so, give make and models you are referring to.
Most amps choke at those *line level* RMS
voltages.

After reviewing an index of preamp specifications,
of 60 or so manufacturers, the lowest RMS output
I can find is 3 Vrms for a McCormack's
MAP-1/RLD-1.

VTL in their book specify they design for input
sensitivity of 775 mV as I recall.

Power amps are not designed around one
("sensitivity") parameter.

Are you suggesting VTL preamps are
poorly matched to their power amplifer
line? All VTL preamps output (max) at
30 Vrms. Output impedance decreased
as VTL preamp model quality increases
($$$) from 200 Ohms (TL 2.5/$2K) to
20 Ohms (TL 7.5/$13.5K).


Preamps made perfect sense in the days when
the phono cartridge was the primary first signal
source in most any hi-fi system. Even then, tape
recorders and tuners produced plenty enough
signal to drive any power amplifier.

Really, please site common makes and models
that did this (recorders and tuners).

The Ampex AG440 is the only tape recorder
I have much experience with. It would _drive
the snot_ out of our solid state McIntosh amps.

What model year, I'll attempt to look up
specifications in my references (Ampex
AG440/Mac).


Consider also that putting the volume control on
the source unit rather than the amplifier has a
number of merits. It obviates the need for
unit-to-unit level matching and makes switching
between a background and foreground source
much easier.

No, that is the primary reason variable outputs are
supplied at all on players. Most often when you
choose to go with the variable output you
are compromising fidelity for convenience.

Because mainstream consumo players have
Mickey Mouse variable outputs!

What's better than having choices?


This is becoming a tautology. I am advocating a
practice that is not currently universal, not
describing what people now do that doesn't
work as well.

Manufacturers have already designed products
that meet your needs like:
ARC CD3/$5.5K - 5.4 Vrms
Ayre C-5xe/$3K - 4.5 Vrms
Mark Levinson No 390S/$6.7K - 4.5 Vrms

You underestimate the workload that is
put upon a preamp. Just dropping a pot on
an output voltage isn't going to make it.
For myself, I find it easier to discern fidelity
differences when comparing preamps,
unlike power amps. I think that there are
many power amp owners who underutilize
the true capability/accuracy of power amps
with weakling preamps.