Are passive preamps better?

Hi All,
I am FOR the passives and not against.
There is a simple principle here - the less is more.
An additional circuit is not a benefit to the whole.
The thing is that the output of many of the sources is not
designed to drive the power amplifier directly.
Then there is the problem of impedance matching and that is why some passives use transformers.
A good tube phono pre-map having a cathode follower stage at the output will drive.
So a selector and ladder volume control (Elna, Goldpoint) at the output will be sufficient for a power amplifier with relatively high input impedance and low input sensitivity (0.5V - 1V).
Why add another circuitry in between?
Let's say that the output tube of the phono is 12AX7 and the input tube of the power amp is 12AX7 as well.
Then these circuits probably match very well.
Some do not.
'Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler' - Albert Einstein.

I hear you Aleko. What is interesting about the theory is that so many folks who have tried passives at some point go back to actives, mostly tubed. I like them both passive (rsistor and tranformer based)and tube actives, but as Guy Hummel of Placette once said to me, and I'm paraphrasing, a thousand theories as to what should sound good aren't worth one good listen.

Very low input sensitivity might allow noise to enter.

Unsound...You got that backwards. Low sensitivity means that, to be heard, a signal needs to be strong. Noise pickup is a weak signal.

In theory I totally agree with you Aleko. However, when using my ears as a guide, I've consistantly found that active preamps sound more musical to me. IMS, IMHO, YMMV.

Cheers,
John