Poll - Active vs. Passive preamp

I'm running an "Extreme" passive. I'm using a pair of shotgun style attenuators which reside between my interconnects and the amp. That way, I can avoid having to add another pair of interconnects to my system (extra capacitance - not good with passives) and still have the volume control. I only have one source so, I don't need switching.

Active preamp (Cary SLP-05).

I have found that impedance matching becomes absolutely critical if you have a passive pre. Also, every system using a passive pre I have heard cannot reproduce big orchestra properly. I max out the volume control and still cannot get enough orchestral dynamics.

Using Red Wine Audio Sig 30 as a single input integrated amp, which makes the answer to your question - passive. I have Zu Definitions. Total MSRP irrelevant.
I tried a Legend Von Gaylord full octal tube preamp for a few days and found it to be profoundly different but not necessarily preferential. Just boxed it up to return it this morning. It was interesting but .........
In my quest for simplicity I am apt to leave well enough alone.

I'm using an active tube preamp (Audioprism Mantissa), before the Mantissa, I used a passive TVC (Bent Audio).

Different systems, same results....I'm happy.

Dave

Thanks for the responses.

I should've been more specific and said "TVC" as that's what I really meant. To me, at least, resistor passives are ALWAYS unacceptable - dynamics, gone!

Of course for the TVC (or any passive) impedance matching is the key. I take that as a given - if you don't have an amp Zin/source Zout ratio of at least 50:1, and preferably better, don't even bother with a TVC. At least, don't expect it to be able to compete with state of the art tube preamps.

I current have at least 100:1 with my digital source, but don't know the Zout specifically of the graham slee phono stage - they don't publish it. But I'm sure it's low, probably way under 1K.