Is my preamp useless?

Slanski- Glad you're still here! I used to own a BAT and would never talk them down. The question of passive vs. active has been the focus of much of the discussion, engendered by your comments about how much attenuation you are employing, which indicates excessive overall system gain, which has sparked the discussion about passive "pre-amps". You may also know that Georgelofi is designer/builder of the Lightspeed Attenuator aka LSA. He has very generously made his design available to the DIY community and also sells finished product. Obviously, he is a strong advocate of passive pre-amps and as many have stated, the LSA may be the biggest "bang for the buck" item currently available in high end audio. However, that does not guarantee that it is the best product to help realize your goals for your system. Maybe yes, maybe no. Another, similar option would be a tube buffer w attenuator/volume control. Others w more technical knowledge than me can tell you why that might be an appropriate option under certain circumstances.

Zd- I've never heard a Placette. It has some distinct features that would appeal to many (remote and/or input switching) but it's 2 - 2.5X the price of the LSA. Have you ever heard one? Regardless of George's proselytizing, it's a damn good product. The fact that he has made the circuit publicly available and provides support for DIY'ers makes me think he deserves some slack.

+1 Frogman. If the OP is still around, remember that Frogman is a musician who is intimately familiar with what real instruments sound like and is fully committed to maintaining the tonality, drive and emotional impact of a performance. I think the takeaway message is try it, you might like it. If you do, you're way ahead of the game. If you don't, then you might want to consider a lower gain active.

And w respect to Nelson Pass' quote- I agree completely w Larryi. And of course there are lots of people who have systems that do not meet the criteria for using a passive. For example, George's LSA (a great product, I own one) does not have source switching or a monitoring circuit. All passives have limitations with respect to matching upstream and downstream components. If you are of the camp that believes that eliminating the need to attenuate the source signal is the "ne plus ultra" of system building, then go passive. If you have other criteria, then go with them. Think of system-building as a design exercise (which of course it is). There are always design trade-offs. ALWAYS. Even in "cost is no object" kit. Your final design will be based on how you value the different elements involved in each trade-off. If cost:performance ratio and transparency are your most important design criteria then an LSA might be the way to go, and then you need to base the rest of your design around that element. If a control center providing source switching and RIAA equalization in one package is your primary criterion, but you also really value transparency and channel tracking at low volume, you might want to consider a full-function pre w a phono stage and a TVC. If you have to have source switching, an RIAA equalization circuit and a remote, then you're probably going to want an active w a motor driven volume control. Add transparency to the list and it's going to have to be a very high end active. Etc, etc.

George- It's call hyperbole:
hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
noun: hyperbole; plural noun: hyperboles

exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.