Poll - Active vs. Passive preamp

No loss of bass or dynamics here with only a stepped attenuator as a pre. The only thing I lost was coloration.

Doesn't seem to be a problem if impedances, output voltages, amp sensitivity, and cable capacitance are right. But they do have to be right and often are not, so gain and buffering usually necessary - I would like do without the complexity of gain, but think buffering will help. Though I hear you, Roger Modjeski has been using an attentuator (Poit-in-a-Box) with his amps for the past 15 years or so.

If your source has enough potential voltage output to drive your amp to it's max wattage: You will lose nothing but coloration. If that's the case: You need nothing but attenuation. That's providing we are discussing a very transparent passive, like the Placette. Source material varies widely though, with regards to recording level. When I had my Placette Linestage, there were some recordings that just did not give me the SPLs that I crave(live levels- Jazz/Blues). Then too: There are many out there that just enjoy the colorations that most pre-amps add to the signal.

Voltage does not seem to be the issue with passives (I always got plenty of volume), but current, the ability to drive low impedance and thereby maintain bass drive and dynamics. A buffer seems to address that issue. So is there any justifcation at all for gain other than to step phoni signals? If not, are we not better off without gain devices in our preamps if buffered to handle impedance matching? You may be right though, there may be colorations that are appealing with every active providing some flavor or favourably sounding distortions to the source signal - and nothing wrong with that [?].

Some systems require gain, some don't. Below unity gain, active and passive, are both an attenuator?

Other features aside, and if you only require attenuation of the signal....you have nothing to "gain" by spending a lot more money for an active preamp.

Dave