Passive pre VS active pre

I never thought that the passive ones sounded that good, and they were never able to play very loudly. Plus, they cost just as much but have less stuff inside, so I kinda feel like they are less economical. They also are very sensitive to cables. You should check out the Stereophile site (did I actually say that?), there is an archived article about building your own passive preamp that lists the positives and negatives of passive vs. active. It suggests that you put in an active buffer. OK, that's logical.

Thankyou for your advice and info. I have mannaged to borrow
a passive unit from a friend; sonicly to my ears it seams to
affect the bass in slight softening or a less tight and
dinanmic sound, but the midrange seems more focest. Ah this hobey is driving me mad!!

You'll get pro and con advice on what will sound best, and if your gear looks promising as regards Abstract7's very sensible comments, I'd advise getting a few Holco resistors and four female RCA connectors and putting together a series of fixed attenuation networks to approximate a passive preamp at a setting you can use with some source material. This assumes you can solder, that's all. If you want details on the attenuation network, use "Member Lookup" to contact me and I'll supply them. It's very easy, and you can see for yourself whether you lose dynamics or suffer from whatever else the active preamp fans will warn about.

You need to watch the output impedance of your source equipment and input impedance of your amplifier. An active pre will take almost any source without problems, because it has a very high input impedance. Then it goes through the gain stages and output is based on the volume control. With a passive pre you only add impedance to the source signal. So if your source signal is very low (or very high impedance) you may not be able to play that source at realistic volumes.