Active vs Passive Pre amps

David, If you initially evaluated the Ref 3 and preferred your passive, I don't think that would be the correct move. As I read your post, the driver for you is better resolution in volume control, and perhaps better dynamics.

Usually, the stepped controls have finer resolution in the middle settings, with courser resolution at volume extremes. If the sensitivities and gains of your components allow you to stay in the 10:00 - 2:00 area on your volume controls, and you still don't have enough volume resolution, then you might want to narrow your search to infinitely variable potentiometer designs. As I am sure you are aware, there is a reason why so many good preamps used a stepped volume control rather than an infinitely variable potentiometer.

As a long time lover and advocate of passives, I can heartily recommend the Coincident Statement Line Stage as an active preamp that will satisfy your preference for neutral, detailed, and transparent presentation. It can be very sweet, but would never be described as lush, rich, etc. Israel Blume likes to say it sounds like nothing. It uses a stepped volume control, so you might want to shoot Israel an email to discuss your current equipment with respect to volume control resolution.

David,
I believe it's all a matter of personal tast. I agree with Brownsfan comments totally however for peace of mind you might want to once again demo a preamp in your home. I would think the dealer that you purchased the ARC Reference 75 power amp would be more then willing to bring out a preamp to demo or let you borrow one.

in reality it's very simple math instead of science:

passive volume control will vary resistance from valueA to valueZ where we can assume Z will be the the highest so to control the output voltage.

active volume control(active preamp) will have stable or fixed output impedance to supply variable input voltage to your amp.

by all possible and impossible means it means that supplied stable output impedance is preferable for best amplifier performance.

than you can do the rest of science to decide.

I have been on both sides of the active/passive debate over the years. I love the purity of passives and have never felt the need for more gain, or an expanded soundstage. On the other hand, I appreciate the added body, weight and drive an active can supply.

A year ago, I tried a Music First Baby Reference, the most expensive preamp I had ever had in my system. I felt, as Sam Tellig apparently did, that this was at last the preamp I'd been searching for, so I bought it. It was and is considerably better in my system than a number of other excellent passives I'd tried, including various Placettes, TVC and autoformer units from Bent, and the Lightspeed Attenuator, not to mention going direct from DAC to amp (for digital).

I think I might be able to do as well as the MF (perhaps better, I really don't know) with a truly great active, but I think I'd need to spend well north of $10K to get there without giving up what the MF does so well.

"in reality it's very simple math instead of science:"

That's what I used to tell my professors in college. Unfortunately, they never saw it that way.

" I know you are supposed to lose dynamics with a passive pre."

That's not always the case. A lot of it depends on how good the output is on your source.