Passive Preamps

I've used both, to date I've come to slightly prefer active. Amongst the best passive systems I've heard were those that used the much under appreciated Reference Line pre's and amps. I would certainly consider using a passive pre in the future. However, I think the future will most likely be more about things like digital room correction, cross-overs, etc.. Passive pre's require more total system consideration and ultimately limit options more.

Out of (by memory 7 designers of note) not one single designer preferred passive.

Yes- of course they would - it a simple matter of electrical science. It is the same reason to avoid passive crossovers in speakers.

As you correctly point out - elements (caps etc.) will all add their slight signature to the sound as well as affecting the transfer function between poor impedance matched passive components and this is orders of magnitude more of a problem with passive components.

Good active circuit designs can minimize these issues by several orders of magnitude.

There is no debating these facts.

What people prefer or like to buy is entirely different. However from a perspective that seeks accurate audio reproduction there is no question that active amps are better.

Tholt, not necessarily.

Lrsky votes for an active preamp. I give props to Lrsky's recommendations.

Yet, I own a passive preamp (SMc Audio VRE-1).
Tvad (Threads | Answers)

My point was that Phaelon advocated your opinion, which was advocating Lrsky's opinion. It had nothing to do with what you yourself owned or even personally thought on the matter.