difference between an active and a passive preamp?

Not at all, Mezmo. I'm not technical and it made perfect sense. Audioflyer: I was recently sort of in your position. Just a few weeks ago I was posting about my passive pre. As someone who went in blind, I can tell you what I encountered. Once I had it hooked up, the level of transparency people keep talking about was immediately apparent. My cd player was completely wrong, however, because of the impedance issues already mentioned in the thread. There is a loss of that in-your-face sense of detail and some roll-off. Still, I prefer it immensely to my previous solution. I ended up replacing my cd player almost immediately for better impedance. Alternatively, I probably could have gotten a buffer.

I'm not experienced with tubes or even the "tube sound." Some friends of mine more experienced with this have said that I've achieved a bit of a tube sound with the passive--I believe other passive pre users on this site have often reported the same thing. It's been interesting how loud it can get without being uncomfortable. Before, with my active pre, which wasn't a stellar piece of audio equipment anyway (Lexicon DC-1), the high end was just too sharp and fatiguing, especially at high volume. Now, more volume just yields more rich sound.

As has been said, an input sensitivity of 20 k0hms is a bit low. What's the output impedance of your cd player? What's your budget? Knowing nothing else, if you're interested in the passive solution, I'd do what Clio09 said.

Note: I misunderstood your last sentence, Mezmo. No wonder your layman's understanding suited me so well. ;)

Dracule1 said:

source output voltage at least 2V (this also depends on the input sensitivity of your amp)

Can you expand on this?

I have to admit that the common detractors' rant of diminished dynamics rings true for me. For what I put into my system, however, I consider it an acceptable trade-off (for now). Plus, my system isn't perfectly optimized for a passive preamp, like the op's. This brings me back to the, more or less, main point of the thread as expressed in the original post, which is to determine when one should use a passive preamp versus an active preamp given a certain set of non-negotiable pre-existing system components.

This thread seemed to point out an Option C, however: the buffered passive. It seems that if enough gain is provided by the source output and amp(s), then a passive or buffered passive should be sufficient to accurately reproduce the source material. The only issue is impedance and possibly voltage(?). (Based on my reading here, this is my impression). If this is so, then shouldn't optimal dynamics (e.g., "attack") be achievable with a buffered passive, if not a discreet passive? For the proponents of actives, I suppose a more direct question is, what specific attribute of a proper active preamp achieves that vivid "attack" that a passive does not? Is it more than an impedance issue? If so, then what?

In short, it's clear to me that not all systems are passive-friendly, but a buffer rectifies the situation. That is, a buffer seems to be *the* Band-Aid for passive-hostile systems, based on any thread I've found on this subject. Or is it? When is a buffer plus a passive still not enough, and how common might this situation be? If this question deserves another thread, please say so and I will post anew. But this seems like a natural progression from the current conversation following from the op's expressed concerns.

If you look at the designs of a Pass B-1, Burson-160, and Horn Shoppe Truth as examples, these buffered devices are anything but band-aids.

I think we're using the term differently. I didn't intend a pejorative. I meant it the other way: something that easily mends. In fact, based on your response, I must have made myself very difficult to understand in that whole post, so I'll rephrase. I'm not trying to find out how a passive is with my system. I have an older passive and I'm hooked on the direction it's taking me. It's already pretty clear that I would benefit from a buffer. In fact, Almarg was quite patient and helpful in another thread where I was struggling with this. Now, I'm just wondering what the active preamp crowd would say remains unprovided in a merely passive or buffered preamp that a traditional active preamp provides. On other words, I'm not just learning how configure my system; I'm attempting to learn the conversation.

Since this thread has in part become a "passive and buffered pre roundup," I thought I'd throw the Superphon SP100 into the mix. It may be older, but it seems to have some kind of following. Plus, there're currently two available in the Classifieds. Seems to be a passive volume control with a buffer stage.

Audioflyer67, have you looked at the Decware site? I haven't heard their stuff with my own ears, just noticed their reputation. If you're looking to gradually get into tubes and you're starting at just the preamp at present, take a look at this one: http://www.decware.com/newsite/CSP2.html

Until recently, the forum there had a bit of banter. I think Steve Deckart (owner) is happy to talk you with you about your specific needs. It's a fun site to explore and has plenty of interesting articles by Steve. They also offer a tube buffer, tube gain stage, and input selector. Put those together, and you have a versatile 6-input tube preamp.