Poll - Active vs. Passive preamp

I recently added a Sonic Euphoria transformer-based passive, and have noticed no lack of dynamics or gain. Clarity and transparency to the source are what I hear and enjoy. Have had fair active pres before (BAT VK 30 w/six-pac upgrade), and I am now hearing my system the best it has been. Using upgraded Marantz DV 8300, Genesis Digital Time Lens, Musical Fidelity A3/24 DAC, Aragon 3002 (300wpc) amp, driving Dynaudio
Contour 5.4 speakers. All electronic components upgraded by David Schulte. From what I'm hearing, I wonder why more people don't use passive pres. Mine is here to stay. Thanks, Dan

Passive (TVC) and, occasionally, active. Passive is in the system.
My cdp & phono output stages are quite powerful even though the amps are an average load, and I don't suffer from

...A bit more transparency vs. a bit more body.

as Paulfolbrecht notes above.
But then, I bi-amp my speakers -- maybe that makes a difference.

What is the downside, if any, to adding a buffer stage to an passive attneuator? A buffered passive preamp? And along those lines between a tube buffer and SS buffer? Between a buffer and a trandformer or autoformer passive?

Active: dynamics ++, bigger soundstage, better bass, more warm and involving sound (due to better midbass and lower midrange).
Passive: dynamics -, smaller soundstage, leaner bass, less warm, less involving sound. But there is greater transparency and slightly better resolution of detail.
Don't ask me why, but these are my findings.

Chris

Depends. I've used both with success over the years. If I had to fall off the fence, I'd lean towards active.