Passive vs. active with the CJ MF-2550?

The PV-1 to now...
Post Reply
rff000
Frequent User
Frequent User
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 9:57 am
Location: Virginia, USA
Contact:

Passive vs. active with the CJ MF-2550?

Post by rff000 »

I'm using the McCormack Micro Line Drive with the CJ MF-2550. The preamp is often rated as very good in passive mode but less so in active and that's been my experience. Since it sounds very good in passive mode, I'm wondering if I could get even better results with another preamp that has an excellent active mode. Do CJ owners of MF-2550 or similar prefer passive or active preamping? The only way I could find out for myself is testing out another preamp. I don't want to risk buying one and finding out I like my present one better. McCormack also mods the MLD but a serious mod would wind up costing as much as a new one.
User avatar
AnotherJohnson
Ultimate
Ultimate
Posts: 5219
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2020 12:29 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Passive vs. active with the CJ MF-2550?

Post by AnotherJohnson »

The CA150 is a unit that combines the power and design of the 2275 (little brother to the 2550), with a unity gain control stage.

I loved mine. But it did require running the volume control in the 50 range for my sources. No problems though.
I thought it sounded far better than it had any right to sound.

As good as it was, I preferred the ET7s1 plus MF2275 combination.

Your preference will depend on your taste, your speakers, your source, and your room.

This is another of those YMMV things. The Idea of a passive preamp sounds great. But in my systems, a great active preamp always wins.

With my 2550 SE, I enjoyed a Krell KSB-7P, an ARC Sp-20, a CJ ET3SE, and a CJ ET7 s1. One of the great strengths of the 2550 is that it is not finicky. It will amplify whatever you feed it, and control whatever load you hook up, and never hiccup.
It’s just stuff. I like mine. I hope you like yours. I probably like yours too.
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4594
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:50 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA
Contact:

Re: Passive vs. active with the CJ MF-2550?

Post by admin »

I have found better sound with active preamps. Maybe that's just because there are a lot more active preamps than passive on the market? As AnotherJohnson says, each system is unique. But this has been my experience.
-admin
Home Theater in Member Gallery
Main stereo: ART Amplifier and ET7s2. 2nd stereo: PV-14L and MV-55. Previously Owned: PF2 preamp, Evolution 2000 Amp, PV-12AL preamp, D/A-2b Vacuum-Tube Digital Processor.
User avatar
roberto
Ultimate
Ultimate
Posts: 2337
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 11:02 am
Location: Costa Rica.

Re: Passive vs. active with the CJ MF-2550?

Post by roberto »

Hola Chicos,

Perhaps I am going to be nailed here with my liking. Some passive preamps work marvellous. This is the case of the DIA-100 by Acurus. This is a great sounding integrated amp. So, there are well design passive preamps, and actives that do not. But I am here with Admin...Conrad Johnson preamplifiers are jewels to use. I'm a tube sound person. Their quality sound is impressive and always having the tube Conrad Johnson signature superb quality sound.

Try the newer models, you might like them as I do...

Happy listening¡
ML CLX BF-210 Stage X Motion 4. CJ 120SE amp ET7V2 pre, Holo May Kte Dac. Mac Pro. Power Cond. BPT Signature+ 3.5, Gaia II Feet. USB Lush^V3. Nordost SPM IC and Spk. Shun Mook, BCanto CD2 CD3. Linn LP-12/Unitrack tonearm/Denon DL103R MC.
Post Reply