Passive/Active preamps: pros and cons....

If your system is passive friendly (amp with high gain, low input sens., appropriate source, and reasonably efficient speakers) then there are absolutely no drawbacks at all to my ears in using a transformer based passive attenuator. I have a custom preamp using S&B trannies and it has bettered many other preamps, mostly tubed and a couple of passives, in my system. It has the body and weight of a tubed device, but the transparency you expect of a passive. And hands down the best bass of any active preamp I have heard.

Oz

I think the previous response has it nailed.
One option though, when faced with the same question I picked up the channel island $250 list passive and gave it a try. If you don't like it you shouldn't lose much on resale. I found it a quality component and playing with it was a good learning experience.
FWIW, my system ended up in the 'mostly sounds better but lost dynamics' catagory and I went looking for an active that otherwise sounded like a passive.
Good luck! (And no I ain't in cahoots with Channel Island.)

If you are going the passive route, I highly recommend the Placette RVC for you. If you need more inputs, then get the 3 input version (PLC). I went from an Audiolab 8000C which is an active pre to the Placette PLC and the Placette was by far better than the Audiolab. It sounded better and didn't lose dynamics. With the Placette, you don't have to worry about the whole impedence matching as much just a long as you have a solid state source and a decent amp. I've tried a Belles Hot Rod and Audiolab amp and haven't any problems yet. If you are concerned about if you are source and amp are good match, give Guy Hammel a call. He is very helpful and knowledgable. He has a 30-day trial period so if you don't like the RVC, you can return it to him.

HI.
I'VE USED THE PLACETTE PASSIVE, BENT AUDIO W/SILVER S&B TRANSFORMERS, EVS ATTENUATORS AND TWO ACTIVE PREAMPS, THE ARC SP 10 & FIRST SOUND DELUXE MKII.
BETWEEN THE TWO PASSIVES, THE BENT AUDIO PROVIDED FULL & IMPACTFUL BASS-THE PLACETTE WAS WHERE DID IT GO. THE PLACETTE WAS A LITTLE BETTER ON THE TOP END. THE BENT AUDIO WAS BETTER IN LAYERING.
WHEN COMRING THE BENT AUDIO TO THE FIRST SOUND, MOST AREAS WERE REMARKABLY CLOSE, DETAIL RETRIEVAL WAS BY FAR BETTER WITH THE BENT AUDIO. DETAILS THAT WERE OBSCURED BY THE FIRST SOUND WERE CLEARLY HEARD WITH THE BENT AUDIO.
I FELT BASS RESPONSE WAS EQUAL.
AT FIRST, I FELT THE BENT AUDIO WAS COMPRESSING THE SOUND,
SOMEWHAT RESTRICTING IT WHEN COMPARING TO THE FIRST SOUND, BUT LATER I REAILZED THAT THE FIRST SOUND HAD A FINE GRAIN RIDING ON THE SIGNAL THAT MADE IT SOUND MORE LIVELY (SOME WOULD CALL MORE DYNAMIC).
ALL COMPARISONS WERE MADE USING SAME RCA TYPE IC'S.
WHEN I WENT BALANCED, THERE WERE SMALL "BUT I WOULDN'T GO BACK TO RCA" IMPROVEMENTS.

Agree with Ozzy, passive in a system that takes advantage of it's (passive) advantages is very hard to beat.

I had a passive (using S&B trannies) also and the sound quality was steller in every area.

A system/room change led to much less than ideal conditions for the passive so I sold it and moved back to active.

I wound up going to my first tubed active pre-amp (Audioprism Mantissa) as I could not find an active SS design I could afford... or listen to for very long...outstanding mid-range quality will spoil you and is something the passive brought to my system...much like the almost passive Mantissa does.

Dave