Who is using passive preamps and why?

Anthony, if the Lightspeed is as good as it seems, I think it and the RM10 would put ALOT of $10-20K pre/amp combos to shame - IF 35 watts is enouuh power. Looking at the diminutive RM10 (size of a hardcover book) reminds me of that old Steinway piano ad about how they laughed as the fella sat at the piano, till he started to play. Can't wait to give the Lightspeed a try, but the Goldpoint ain't chopped liver either.

What frequencies can "meat on the bone" be found? And are those flesh tones in the source signal, or added later? Or are active tube stages just keeping something from being lost that simply gets sucked up by essentially straight wire connection. Maybe we have a long addiction to distortion, and what it is gone something just seems to be missing.

I remember a conversation I had with Kevin Carter when he was building me a TVC, my first passive. I had made some comment to the effect that passives have the reputation of leaning out the sound. It took him less than a second or two (meaning he didn't even have to think about it) to reply that its active preamps that add something to the sound.

I'm leaning towards the opinion these days that a lot is in the engineering and mixing and that active preamps are more like tone controls. I was hanging out with some audio engineers this past weekend and one guy liked having his speakers against the wall to improve the bass response. I commented that to me that would hinder depth of sound stage and that is why I prefer having my speakers out in the room. His comment was that much of the depth in the sound stage comes from how the recording was done, not where the speakers are placed. I'm not sure I buy that one yet, but considering the number of fine speakers out there that are corner/wall placed, maybe there is something to it.

I agree with the argument that its the lack of distortion that creates the notion that something is missing in the sound. A tube amp should provide all the distortion one needs.

I agree and I guess it comes down to how we answer the question, what is the best preamplifier? The one does nothing )very little) to the signal or the one that sounds best to us for whatever reason. In discussing this with Ken Stevens of CAT, he felt a preamp should have the tone color of water - none; that is the job of the preamp, if you want tone color, find it somewhere else in the system or you end up with band aids to complement the various colorations within the system, but the preamp should be as neutral as possible, that's why I think the passive approach is a step in the right direction, if it works nice with your equipment. The Goldpoint is such a piece, and frankly, I don't sense any rolloff or lack of dynamics compared with my Joule and Atma-sphere pres, but it does not sound like them either.

I am using a Diy Passive at the moment as I am comparing different designs of Power Cables on my CD Player. Although I enjoy listening with my active, it is warm and colored. It is however, refreshing to have the clarity,transparency and detail of the passive at present. It is a much more elegant sound.
Cambridge Audio CD Player Output 2 Volts
.5 meter Virtue Audio Nirvana IC to Passive
Passive is wired with OCC-OFC Silver Wire and signal goes straight to a Dact-type 10K Attenuator.
Same 1 meter Nirvana IC from passive to an Audio Research VT50 input 100K.
Speakers are modified monitors and Powered Sub.
Active preamp is a heavily modified Audio Research SP 14.