Not to go overboard after only 2 days of operation, but the Bent TAP (transformer-attenuator [passive] pre-amp) is a pip in my system.  It is as "neutral" as anything I am familiar with, compared to by-pass (with CD).  I love having a useable remote [for the first time]!  The TAP "passes" bass very well, indeed, and it allows the pitch, timbre, weight and scale of well-recorded music full play, along with excellent "timing", from an orchestra ramping up to a mere gesture of a glissando.  It not only handles all frequencies and volume settings in my system but it "allows the personality and intent" of performers to come through (how's that for a reach?).  Basically there is not much to say because I feel very strongly that I am "listening through" the TAP to everything else in the system.

The Bent drives just 6 feet of IC to the ML2s in my system, but it does so without a hitch.  It does have an automatic, "inaudible" 6 dB gain once "unity gain" is selected/arrived at, although I will not need/use this (transformered) boost in my present system.

It has all kinds of nice features, including a mute, balance, phase option, and ground configuration options.

This unit is ABSOLUTELY SILENT in my system.

bentaudio.com

Best regards,
Paul S

Yes, you are right it is rather my negative prejudges and I should not proud about it. It perfectly possible that Bend is a fine performer…. Still, it is a transformer and no mater what you do is a band-pass filter. It is still inductance at the bottom and capacitance at top. It is still not pure respective load despite that actually all that be need it to have a regular voltage divider as the function of this thing is juts to attenuate. (in fact a whole active stage of buffer also ridicules from purity perspective).

Do not get me wrong I do not question to Bent performance but I learned that over my years that as soon I see people claim an “absolute transparency for passive preamps” then I eventually recognize people with bookshelf speakers. 

Regardless, any other considerations (constant impedance, bass, HF, granularity override and many other) there is one that were I feel an good active is more interesting then any passive: dynamics.  From what I have seen the Hummel’s buffer supersede a dynamics of “straight wire” and it made me “converted”. I do not really “promote” Guy’s here but I rather promote the idea and since it is free to try I think it might be beneficial to try.

I have to admit I did see in my life a transformer that overage and increase dynamics of “straight wire”. It was not the B&S transformer and it was a different application.  In fact the B&S transformer in the very same application did very fine job but DID NOT increased dynamics. If THIS line-level B&S transformer does the “straight wire decompression tricks” then it is very good. If not then it should be looks further. Eventually you will be the one who judge…..

George wrote:

Recently I had a brainstorm (very small) and bounced it off Guy (who is a terrific person to talk to) and he thought it would be worth trying. Since I was driving such a relatively long length of RCA cable (thus subject to noise pickup) I thought why not run the Active with no attenuation (full strength signal) and put a passive Placette right next to each amp. Actually I bought RCA male/male couplers and plugged the Placette right into the amp.

Well, the Placette active does not really cares if you have any attenuation before it as it runs I’m sure, in class A1 and full-opened anyhow. The only reasons why it “might be” useful to put attenuation it the power amp input is to implement current loading of that 8 meters interconnect. Some cable (most all of them) response to current loading very positively. This all should lead Guy to think in the direction that he should make power amp input kits. This kit might have a pair of his passive attenuators and a common for both channel IR detector and switching processor. You see, George, in what you propose I see a problem. Sine you have 8 meters interconnects I presume that it a relatively large room with speakers positioned relatively far. This way your common remote control will drive two Placette passive units located a few meter away.  I think it is perfectly possible (since it is it IR control) that one of the sensors will not pick the signal right the way and you have unintentional balance between the channels set off….so, they both should be driven form a common sensor…. That will make to run another 2 x 8 meters cables… sure it is all accomplishable…. How much are you wiling to pay… just to try?  :-)

George wrote:

Note that I have inverted the usual order of attenuation then output to output then attenuation. Guy told me this has no disadvantages and should in my case increase the signal/noise ratio. This also allows the the sources to see the constant impedance of the Active and allows the strong outputting Active to drive the Passives which don't have to drive very much at all.

Actually I very much disagree with you and with Guy on it. if you have buffer and then, right after it the attenuator, then it defeats all purpose, from my point of view.

George wrote:

If I had known of this setup originally I could have bought an active output unit without the volume control stage from Guy and then simply added two passives at not too much more than the standard Active. If I still like this setup after 6 months I will probably sell my Active and replace it as stated just to simplify things.

There are some disadvantages in what you propose. However, you do not use multi-amping, have the ONLY one source and have the ONLY one amp then it might be OK. Still, to my ears, even with 1M cable the Placette active sound better then Placette passive. The Placette passive has that “sleepy sound” that all passive preamps do… A few years ago I took 3 meter cable, drove it from BiDat (direct coupled with 38R output impedance) and begin to slice the cable, soldering the very same 3 db voltage divider at the begins on the cable AND then  at different locations of the cable length. The result was absolutely unambiguous: each single inch of cable AFTER THE DIVIDER made Sound more and more inept…

George wrote:

I have always been meaning to ask you why a step-up transformer for a cartridge can be acceptable but a transformer elsewhere is considered detrimental.

Romy wrote:

I see a problem. Sine you have 8 meters interconnects I presume that it a relatively large room with speakers positioned relatively far. This way your common remote control will drive two Placette passive units located a few meter away. I think it is perfectly possible (since it is it IR control) that one of the sensors will not pick the signal right the way and you have unintentional balance between the channels set off….so, they both should be driven form a common sensor….

Romy wrote:

However, you do not use multi-amping, have the ONLY one source and have the ONLY one amp then it might be OK.

Romy wrote:

The result was absolutely unambiguous: each single inch of cable AFTER THE DIVIDER made Sound more and more inept…

George wrote:

The remote is not a problem. Using a Xantech distributer, repeaters, and electric eye you can configure the two passive remotes in a foolproof, or nearly foolpoof, manner for about $75-100 total. Since I already had the basic Xantech gear the additional cost was some $15. The problem is that if you have the Placette exposed to both Xantech control and and direct line of sight from the remote the Placette will receive signals from two sources. However, Xantech makes an IR cover for just this purpose for $3 that prevents the Placette from receiving direct commands from the remote. So far I have not observed any difference in the level settings of the two passives when hooked up in this manner.

George wrote:

Guy thought this was overkill and insisted the passive can drive several feet of cable without loss..........

Romy the Cat wrote:

However, what is wrong with exercising anal retentiveness within the subjects of Absolute Audio if the entire audio as an occupation is a Mecca of anal retentiveness?

I am thinking again about “detail” in the context of this thread.  The issue is which, what sort and/or how much/many detail “should” we be able to hear at any given volume setting?

I have been guilty of enjoying details, etc. I knew were more obvious than they should be according to a given volume setting, relative to the putative/supposed volume of “the original performance”.  I don’t always want my music played back at “live” volumes, yet I crave certain cues.  It may be that I want something between “realistic” detail and “interesting” detail, given parity with other aspects of playback, and none of this to be confused with "neutral".

I still have too much work to do with my front end to conclude anything about the TAP and Shastakovich, but I just want you to know, Romy, as I sail by the window at the 54th floor), so far, so good…

Perhaps, Romy, you can comment on the Symphony # 10, Svetlanov/USSR Symphony/Melodia, to help with my bearings.  I have only heard this performed live once in my life, many years ago.

My a-musical woes, mentioned briefly above, were traced to the ML2s' fading drivers.  This report is written after the 6N6Ps were repalced.  As it turns out, the TAP did not figure into the problems, and minor system changes do not effect things as markedly now as when the bad drivers were messing with the sound and the music both.

Based on CD bypass and comparing CDs with "the same" LP the TAP is as much like "nothing" as I have experienced to date.  Since I had futzed with my phono source, unwittingly trying to compensate for the ML2s' fading drivers, I had to re-tune the system starting with CD as a basis once I'd discovered my mistake and replaced the bad 6N6Ps.

I am pleased with the TAP's "neutrality" in my system, which features short ICs, low impedance feeding the TAP and (apparently) high-enough input impedance into the ML2s.  Basically, there's not much to tell about the TAP.  Music gets through/comes across fine, so any subtractive effect I might be missing is not wrecking the music.  The TAP does not "overload" from anything I have fed it.  It makes NO sound of its own, even cranked wide open.  One caveat might be that studio "techniques" are now utterly apparent, albeit this does not interfere with the music in my system.  Although the TAP does not "highlight" engineering hijinks or poor recording, it does seem to render this sort of stuff as apart from the music, and I like this.

I am not "recommending" this component, just reporting, and in this case results are positive.  You can link from the BENT Audio website to a white paper on the S&B 102 [TVC] if you want to run the math and/or are concerned about possible effects of impedance/loads, etc., or if you are simply one to do your homework.

Best regards,
Paul S

Romy the Cat wrote:

Sure, there is nothing wrong with a transformer-attenuator if it has a pure restive load but as we know it is never the case. If we need a drop voltage elsewhere then we use resistors, right? We do not we use transformer-attenuators everywhere else instead resistors. Why then we need suddenly it use a transformer-attenuator as a volume control?

It goes without saying that the transformer attenuator has a LOT of problems, LOADS of problems with impedence etc.  It is a terribly flawed thing.  BUT every audio part is a compromise.  The real question is whether despite these audible flaws (which will present additive distortions in coloration and timbre I expect), the transformer attenuator has fewer of the additive and subtractive distortions that resistor-based solutions have. 

I haven't listened so I can't speak eruditely about it, but I hope perhaps Romy has had the opportunity to have heard these transformer attenuators and can comment on how they sound in an optimal setting?

Adrian