George, I like your passion and I do see things differently it seems.
A $30,000 digital source front end is also not perfect and is flawed. All gear is flawed falling short of absolute fidelity because they attempt to recreate the real and natural thing.
A passive that is true to the $30,000 source in front of it may or may not be part of a complete audio system that sounds more like the actual voice or instrument.The resulting sound of the complete system is all that we can compare to the real thing.
The combined strenghts and character of each stereo component come together to deliver the resulting sound. Since every single part or component in the system is flawed, fidelity can only be judged by the sum result of the parts. The sum result will also be flawed-always.However, some systems will deliver more fidelity to the instrument or voice compared to others.
My point is all components are flawed and have limitations. An active preamp that improves the resulting fidelity of a system is not so much coloured as it is needed. A passive may be truer to the front end source, but in the end, passes on the particular personality of that source with it's flaws and the flaws of the passive. Yes, I think passives have some flaws.
Saying an active is more coloured etc... is pointless to me when in fact all components are flawed.
It is possible for both actives and passives to be part of total systems that deliver the best fidelity possible in today's systems. My experiece suggests that goal is more easily achieved with actives, but that is only my experience.
I happen to think actives help a total system recreate the power, impact,dynamics and nuances of the real thing and don't see these things.as colourations, but as needed ingredients to the finished high fidelity soup.
