Best preamp is no preamp: always true?

Matrix: your "theory" or "experience" should I say would then lead me to believe that even the best CDP may benefit from having its signal "transformed" via an active PREAMP to tighten up the bass and also increase gain before getting into the AMP. That makes sense to me but is somehow against some well-circulated opinions that a true "Class A" (as in Top notch) PRE is no PRE at all or Passive. Thanks

Thanks. So now the ultimate question: it seems that there is a strong measurable factors rationale behind the use of the appropriate active PRE, namely impedance, gain, etc. Does this mean that it is safe to shop based on measurements that "match" the rest of my system to short-list a few PREs or is it a case of meaningless measurements and the "perfect" match is purely based on listening?
Thanks, this is a great source of info for a newbie like me.

S23chang: I think it will come down to that!
I looked upon the specs of my source and my amp and I see no particular problem with gain (out 2v, in 0.4v), nor impedance (out 325, in 35k). I guess I am free to listen to any preamp then, active or passive!!!!

Can you explain to me why you fell that 2V is not enough for passive if the amp has, for example, 0.4V input sensitivity? I trust your experience and will likely go active but that puzzles me a little.
Thanks

Actually, I have been reading and hearing more and more that CDP into AMP direct is very very seldom a good idea. I think you guys have highlighted gain and impedance issues as possible cause. What would be a typical sound "default" of a direct CDP to AMP? too harsh a sound (digital glare) or, opposite, slow/fatty mid-range ? or it varies?
Thanks

Bill: thanks for sharing your experiences. My question now is why? is it because an active preamp "massages" the signal that comes out of the CDP (for example, it cleans the mids, tightens the bass) therefore making it a "better" CDP (even with top notch CDP)? or, there is something that the PRE does to the operations of the AMP itself - say it allows the amp to operate within a more efficient or "comfortable" range? I know this may sound a silly question but it would seem to me that looking at the sequence of gear in the system, a PRE improves the input signal fed to the AMP rather than magically improving the AMP. However, I often read about the PRE-AMP combo as if both were co-dependent, almost independent of the source.

Thanks a lot guys, I am surprised to see that there seems to be a consensus around active PREs that easily...so, when people talk about passive PREs and how it maintain the integrity of the original signal "no more, no less", could it be that it is in fact "less" (degradation of signal)and also a little bit of audio snobbery to KISS when in reality the signal needs to be restored by some active mechanisms?