Who is using passive preamps and why?

I agree and I guess it comes down to how we answer the question, what is the best preamplifier? The one does nothing )very little) to the signal or the one that sounds best to us for whatever reason. In discussing this with Ken Stevens of CAT, he felt a preamp should have the tone color of water - none; that is the job of the preamp, if you want tone color, find it somewhere else in the system or you end up with band aids to complement the various colorations within the system, but the preamp should be as neutral as possible, that's why I think the passive approach is a step in the right direction, if it works nice with your equipment. The Goldpoint is such a piece, and frankly, I don't sense any rolloff or lack of dynamics compared with my Joule and Atma-sphere pres, but it does not sound like them either.

I am using a Diy Passive at the moment as I am comparing different designs of Power Cables on my CD Player. Although I enjoy listening with my active, it is warm and colored. It is however, refreshing to have the clarity,transparency and detail of the passive at present. It is a much more elegant sound.
Cambridge Audio CD Player Output 2 Volts
.5 meter Virtue Audio Nirvana IC to Passive
Passive is wired with OCC-OFC Silver Wire and signal goes straight to a Dact-type 10K Attenuator.
Same 1 meter Nirvana IC from passive to an Audio Research VT50 input 100K.
Speakers are modified monitors and Powered Sub.
Active preamp is a heavily modified Audio Research SP 14.

I know this whole issue is a matter of taste, and will never be resolved, but I will say this for the passive argument. I had this long discussion with Roger Modjeski of Music Reference and RAM Labs - that is, a fella known as one our our great designers of equipment and a tube lover. I asked him, point blank, when I was considering buying his $135 Pot-in-a-Box if it were not possbile for any active preamp to be better, he said no. Now I know there are many of us that love our actives, I do, but he is one pretty qualified person to talk about preamps since he can design whatever he wants, and he does love tubes, but in his view a passive does what a preamp should do IF it is in a good source to amp environment. It at least made me feel that a passive isn't just a cheap solution to volume control, but for some might be as good as it gets for a preampifier (in the right system).

Rrog, well its true I thought the thread outlived its usefulness I am glad it didn't stop there otherwise I wouldn't have learned about the Lightspeed which in my opinion is extremely unique in its design. Thus the thread has produced what I orinally was seeking to begin with, something new and innovative.

Clio09,

I think there is something to the perceived soundstage depth argument postulated by your sound engineer friend. Much like finding the "correct" volume for any given recording, I often find myself shifting my chair slightly forward or back (maybe 3-4" either way) to find the correct listening perspective for any particular recording where center images snap into focus, and the soundstage expands nicely in all three axes. Given the wide array of monitoring positions and speaker locations used by mixing engineers while twiddling the pan pots, it would seem logical that reproducing any perspective of depth and width would vary based upon these unknowable factors (not that stereo isn't a complete contrivance anyway). While I don't agree with shoving speakers against a wall unless they're designed for it, the discussion is an interesting one.