Passive preamp vs. powered

In my case, I never heard a passive preamp that impressed me. Be it the high price Silver TVC's from S&B or any other manufacturer etc. I always find them weak in the "attack" department. Passive preamp to me have that "sleepy" tone and tends to sound "slow" as you increase the volume. Besides, they are not flexible in terms of what electronics to use and with real world cable lengths applications. I mean, why do you have to add a parameter to the whole system equation if you can avoid it.

To me, I do not believe that passive preamps strength is clarity, ever! If it is, then I assume that the one reporting never heard a decent to a very good design active preamp especially those with low output impedance and can drive the amp in use better. I always examine the equipments of the owners reporting the claim and make my conclusion as to what they have or had and build my impression from there.

As always, system matching is the key but for me given the choices, I will never own a passive preamp anymore. FWIW, there are many circuits floating around for tube preamp designs and maybe you can expand your consideration in building one yourself. As you read more about them, you will notice that proven designs that even use NOS tubes like 10Y, 76, 26, 27, etc. are available and users reported lots of good praises about them.

All of the above are just my opinions base on what I heard of course.

Caveat: I own a preamp that uses 76 tubes.

This is typical of the passive vs. active discussions you will find. A real mix of experiences and preferences. One thing I will say, is that every passive I tried offered alot of bang for the buck, they are very good in many ways and hard to beat for the money assuming proper impedance matches, a tube amp is almost always a better choice due to its high input impedance. Ralph knows 10,000x more about this than I do, and I have to believe his position is proabably sound, and it may be that an amp with a built-in passive volume control would provide the best option. I can only say that as much as I wanted to love them, because of their simplicity and price, over time, I prefered my CAT, Joule, or Atma-sphere tubed preamps. The only answer to this, is for you to try it and draw your own conclusions because you never going to get a defintive, conclusive answer - it really is a matter of going with your ears and deciding for yourself. On a budget, I think choosing a passive is a no brainer, and for some, even when money is no object.

Passive preamp + MIT cables with impedance correction = fantastic match.

Very interesting thread. My experience with highly regarded passive preamps vs great tubed active has always been the same.

The passive ones seem to sound more transparent, fast and detailed. After longer listening and comparisons one resounding thing became clear to me time and time again.

The perceived greater detail etc... of the passsive was actually the absence of body, texture and weight.

Threadbare sound can often seem more transparent at first, but in the end the passives lacked the meat of a great tube preamp.

It's a relative thing to be sure.Some passives have meat, body and texture, however not as much as a great tubed active preamp.

In the end the passives I've tried over the years simply lacked the meaty,earthy and substantial weight/authority of an active.

But, this is key. I don't like a thin, fast and detailed sound. I'll give up detail for natural musicality.

So my opinion does not mean actives sound better for all - just to me and what I like my music to sound like.

>All passive models I have listened to have been a disappointment ultimately<

Jallen I would be willing to bet you have never heard a passive device using autoformers or transformers. Maybe Grannyring hasn't either. In an appropriate system one of these types of linestages can whip the pants off far more expensive active preamps. At least that has been my experience.

Shakey