Poll - Active vs. Passive preamp


Thought it might be interesting to see who's using a passive vs. active linestage. List your total system value and/or components as well.

Have been enjoying a Supratek for about 8 months now. It is indeed a killer unit. Today, for kicks, I put the Prometheus TVC back in the system - it is pretty astounding how good it sounds at 1/10th the cost. I was very impressed (again). I'll withhold further comments.

I'd previously concluded that almost all really good higher-end systems use an active linestage. I wonder how true that statement is.
paulfolbrecht
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.
Does buffering the "passive" address the issues of soundstage and dynamics? I would think with no need for gain, that they typical passive "flaws" are due to impedance mismatches between source and amp - or is there something else going here with power reserves that act like torgue in better driving the signal?