Passive preamp vs. powered

If you are happy with the sound, that is all that is important. The one thing I have noticed, is that many, if not all folks that have tried the passive route (I have used Placette, K&K SB102, Bent Tap)seem to go back to actives, especially to tube preamps.

I have owned, built, and heard many passive preamps, and they all shared the advantage of clarity at the expense of dynamics. You pays your money......

If the designer of the preamp line stage has done his homework, that preamp will sound better than any passive made. Passives cannot control the interconnect cable and that is one thing that a good line section **can** do (although not all preamp designers realize that what I just said is possible, so you will see a lot of variance as a result).

You may have noticed that as you turn down the volume of your passive, there is a loss of bass and punch. Any preamp made will prevent **that** although with most you will still have to be careful about the interconnect cable. A good preamp design will free you of even the choice of cable and its length!

Thanks Ralph that is one point that I never would have ever considered;is it the extra resistance and capacitance of the cable that the passive has a problem with?

The clarity of passives is very impressive at first, it sounds so different than actives in that regards that it is very alluring. But after several tries, I ultimately decided that active stages provided a better listening experience for me. I don't know why that would be technically so, passives seem to have such a minimalist appeal to them, but something always seemed to be missing for me (output impedance, gain, sensitivity, input impedance, and cable capactance were not limiting factors); others love passives for what they don't do to the signal so you just have to listen and make your choice. You will find folks who will be in one camp or the other on this. Count me in for the active crowd.