Passive preamp vs. powered

I would like to add that building a volume control that sounds the same at all levels is expensive and/or difficult. Just stick a pot in the front of your system and listen. This is a good reason to use a digital volume control when you can.

this hobby is very subjective. i own a passive and three active tube preamps. i won't say one is superior to another. rather they sound different.

there is too much hype and so-called knowledge expressed which is unjustified.

just listen and make your own decisions. this dictum applies to other issues in audio as well as the subject of the thread.

Few active preamps are as good as a good passive. The best active ones are better but cost much more. The current issue of HIFICRITIC tests three active preamps. The Aesthetix Calypso got a score of 20 with current production tubes, 26 with NOS ones. The Bryston BP26 got a rating of 16; the Roksan PR15B scored 20. The control passive was 30. On the other hand something like the CJ CT 5 would be 70 or above so active is better if you have the money but not all expensive ones are worth it. On yet another hand not all systems will work well with passive so proceed with caution whatever you do.

All passive models I have listened to have been a disappointment ultimately. The Adcom is clean, but the stage is so much smaller, and flat, the Creek is almost as clean, but also small sounding, but both very clean and uncolored, and others have been of a similar genre. I would rather have a bit of color from an active line amp and get the size, drive and control in the bass. My choice is a good tube line amp/preamp with 12AX7 or 6922 /7308 drivers. Try all you can....jallen

The manual for my AR PH3-SE states that it will not perform its best with a passive preamp.