Are passive preamps better?

The most important factor when considering a passive is to look at the impedance match between your source and your amplifier. A passive simply muddles things up - unless your impedance match has a lot of leeway built in, a passive simply will not work.

I have never heard a passive setup which impressed me. Quite often, the system would run out of volume when more is needed. This is especially true for classical music which is mastered at a relatively low volume.

I am using a Preeminance 1A passive ahead of Atma-sphere M-60 II.3 with the best results in my system to my ears thus far. The actives I have used (Cary, Sonic Frontiers, BottleHead, Musical Fidelity) imparted a color to the sound peculiar to each preamp that I only noticed due to the tranparency of the passive.

I would equate it to prefering water to drink over soda. Water is quenching and ulimately satisfying where as soda is great at first but leaves you with a thirst and an after taste that may not be pleasant.

I've owned both and definetly prefer my active pre.

Told you (see my first comment). But the comment made above - "music came alive" - pretty much describes why ultimately I preferred an active, even if it does not provide the same "see through quality" you get with passives. You will not find the answer from this thread, you will have to try good examples of both. I agree with the comment above that a budget passive is likely to sound better than a budget active.

I prefer active preamps. I've tried a few passives, but they never seem to work for me. That being said, I've noticed that many who like passive's also have tube amps. I cannot say that I have tried a passive with tube amps, so it may be a possibility.

Cheers,
John