Passive vs. active preamps

If you already have an active preamp that you're very happy with, then there's no harm in building a passive one, especially if you can do it on the cheap. I don't expect that you'll discover anything about passives that isn't already known, however. IF YOUR SYSTEM IS ALREADY TOO DYNAMIC (if that's possible), then a passive preamp might "tame" this. It will very likely sound more "transparent" than most affordable active preamps, and if "detail retrieval" is what you want more than "realistic dynamics", then GO FOR IT...I'm a firm believer in active preamps.

I have both active and passive preamps and drive monoblocks with short interconnects. Carl eber above nails the difference. My only caveat is that a passive attenuator like http://www.tweakaudio.com/ or and Adcom costs A LOT less than a reference preamp. So in my opinion if you are upgrading over time I would use the passive as a way to stretch my dollars.

I've often thought about building a passive preamp, but so many items are going thru my system now that I couldn't spare the time. Then there are my speaker projects...

If you decide to build a passive, I have advice since I have a design for one that sounds better than the line stage of a CAT SL-1 III. Get a pair of Shallco "true ladder" attenuators from The Parts Connection (part of Sonic Frontiers) and four good RCA jacks--I use Kimber Ultraconnects--and a simple chassi of some kind, do internal wire with fine Litz wire (not Kimber AGSS, for example--I used that first), plan on switching inerconnects to change from CD to tuner or other source. You'll love the transparency if your sources hve good enough outputs.

Sounds pretty good, but "better than an SL III" is kind of a glib assertion. What's super duper is if your CD player already has a volume control.