Are passive preamps better?

Albertporter...You criticize a lack of "enhancement from the original signal." Wouldn't that be *distortion* of the original signal? Pleasant perhaps, but not "transparent".

FWIW, because of Johns comments, I must say that I've used passive's with tube amps and can't say that I ever found anything about them that made them preferrable to a good active amp.

Its too easy to lose the sources dynamics because of poor matching of cables and IC's with a passive, and like every thing else in the hobby, everything between the source and speakers is either additive or subtractive. There ain't anything that is just neutral to the source, if for no other reason that you can never know what the source sounds like with out adding equipment to decode the contents of the recording. Doesn't that initial playback equipment define neutrality.

Has anyone actually listened to the recording over the studios playback system to get a fix on what it should sound like? Perhaps a recording engineer might, or some one at the recorded event might, beable to rely on aural memories if they actually heard it, but I doubt it

I doubt that anybody would recognize 'true neutrality to the source' in audio equipment so why not add an active pre-amp to those things one might use to dial in their version of neutrality or replication of the sound of a 'live' or 'close to live' event. Do what sounds good/realistic/neutral to you! Thats what everybody else is doing. Even the guys that wear hair shirts, even though they would proclaim otherwise! :-)

Newbee, I didn't mean to insinuate that those with tube amps would prefer a passive preamp. I've owned tube and SS amps and have always preffered active preamps myself. What I was saying is that I have noticed that most of the fans of passive preamps are using tube amps. It's very rare to find a fan of passive preamp with SS amps. Just something that I've noticed.
Since Lynne is using a SS amp, I would think a active preamp would be the obvious choice. To more directly answer the question:

Does a passive preamp with transformers so that its impedence can be matched with an amplifier have the potential to provide better sonics than a line preamp?

I would say yes, the potential does exist. However cable, source and amp matching would still make it very difficult to realize better sonics. IMHO.

Cheers,
John

Jmcgrogan2 - you hit something there. Tube amps typically have very high input impedance, much higher than the typical SS amp, and this is why passives work better with them.

However, in almost all cases at least, a very good active pre will eclipse any passive. The passives all somehow lose body and drive.

Another vote for active. I've owned a couple of passive units which sounded so "clean and open" on initial hook up I was impressed. But ultimate lack of drive and dynamics always caused me to return to an active unit.

There is one significant value to owning an inexpensive passive unit (can be assembled with <$15 for a stereo pot, two pair of female RCA jacks, some wire and a small box) -- that is to test the transparency of any "active" preamp under audition. A good unit should be as open sounding (lacking in distortion) as the test mule passive box.

Also, I agree with Sam Tellig that a "passive preamp" is an oxymoron term.