Since it doesn’t have any additional boost, passive DI boxes are ideal for instruments with strong outputs such as active bass guitars, keyboards, electric guitars with active pickups, or even a dynamic microphone. In other words, if you want to go directly from the instrument to the mixing console or audio interface, you will need a DI box. Passive DI boxes are fairly simple devices, and it doesn’t come with any preamp or any other additional boost. This is where the DI box came into play, which is still needed in most cases today. However, since the electrical signal from a music instrument is not necessarily compatible with the output signal from a microphone, a special signal converter box was needed. The Radial Engineering Reamp JCR is a passive reamper that allows you to take a prerecorded track and send it back to a guitar or bass amplifier and re-record. electric guitar) into the mixing console. This was done by directly feeding the electrical signal generated by the electronic instrument (i.e. Then someone came up with the idea of skipping the conversion of the electric to acoustic signal through a loudspeaker/microphone. As the first electronic instruments emerged, a microphone was simply placed in front of the sound source, i.e. In the "electronic stone age", only acoustic instruments were recorded with a microphone. I have tried to cover a couple of things, hope I haven’t made it hard to follow.The simplest way to give you a clear picture of when you would need one is to look at how they developed. The signal from the preamp goes into an active crossover network. If they are short then the old “cdp into a couple of resistors(volume control) into the power amp”, (no preamp) may be a great solution. In an active system things are the same until after the preamp stage. If they are long, then perhaps 2 active stages are required. But I think some of the active models can feed two amps at once which is a handy feature. I get the impression listening to others, that interconnects play a bigger part than I gave them credit. Id say passive because they tend to be cheaper and youre likely to have less ground loop/noise issues as you dont have to plug it in. For the very few who have cdp -> buffer -> active preamp, then you must surely ditch the buffer and get a better preamp or cdp (what ever caused you to get the buffer). IMO – each active stage comes with a cost in terms of distortions, so if you have a cd player and an active preamp, then you may (or may not) get better clarity by using a passive preamp. So although this looks like a victory to the Active camp, I should point out that the wonderful system I have now, only has 1 active stage, the preamp. The only bad thing is I have to return it on the weekend. Active home speakers Pros They are often better sound quality. Cons Passive speakers may involve more wiring. They are lighter, so easier to move or wall mount. With a passive, having a source with low output impedance is important, and even if this is the case, asking it to push through 2 sets of ICs and volume controls can lead to a lean, thin sound. Passive home speakers Pros They are usually cheaper. I have a new, improved hi-fi with the ME24. I like tube preamps, but any good amplifier isn't going to be cheap. Well now I can say that the problem was in fact the extremely passive inputs, not the power amp and not the ESLs. ![]() Likewise, Orpheus who has ESLs, was critical of my amp, (how close he was). (Poor man- no wonder he is off wandering). Previously, after listening to my system, A9X said he was still not a fan of ESLs. The bass has never been as good and the dynamics (“separation” “blackness”, etc) are vastly improved. Final check, comparing the ME24 to my passive setup found that the passive has a tiny bit less sibilance up top but this small gain is so insignif, compared to the power and authorithy throughout the rest of the range. ![]() Well the ME pre was just great, cleaner tops and better everywhere, not surprising, being about 4x the cost of the Burson. Then Zaphod offered me an active preamp (does active equal a passive pre + buffer?) – a “refreshed” ME24, which I was hoping might work well with my ME550 amp. The Burson buffer which had much more treble, slightly less bass but some sibilance up top, was a mile better than the valve buffer and “bang for the buck” award, a good improvement for my passive system. ![]() A valve buffer which had no highs and a loose bottom, definitely could use some better valves. So taking his advice, I borrowed a couple of buffers. Recently pursuing some info re a stepped attenuator, again for clarity-sake, Zaphod pointed out that my passive front-end has terrible impedance characteristics.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |