Active Placette pre sound better than Passive?

Teajay I hope your facts are right. I didn't know about the upgrade. Thanks.
Gregm and Getheleadout you talked me into it. I'll call Guy again.

Have any of you chosen the passive over the active because the system did match and did not need the buffering? That is, your system matched well enough that there was no improvment when adding the active buffering? I use a Merlin BAM (bass augmentation module) between my RVC and Amp (the RVC is fed by a DAC with 2.8mv output and 225 ohms). It has 40kohm input and 100ohm output, so I'm not sure what beneifit if any I would receive from the active Placette. Guy wasn't sure I would necessarily hear an improvement given my system. The active is tempting, but like Gregm said, it is not necessarily improvment for every system.

I'm not to good at describing sound. To start with, I subjectively like listening to the RVC as much as the CAT, and since I only have one source and no turntable (my unit includes phono). I felt the CAT was a bit more pre than I needed, especially given the RVC price. I would say the RVC is a bit quiter and even more transparent, with excellent detail retrieval and microdynamic shading, and seperation of sound sources within the soundstage (that is an "artifact" that I like). The CAT is a bit sweeter and perhaps more dynamic (macro). To tell you the truth, I love both. I was especially happy using the RVC as a remote volume for the CAT. I noticed no change in the sound of the CAT with the RVC in use, and I had extremely fine volume-levels to choose from with this set-up. If I don't sell the CAT, I'll probably end up using this set-up, but for now, I don't see the need for both.