Passive Preamps

The passive preamps I've tried, lack 'drive', 'dynamics', 'soundstageing'-- relative to active preamps,to such a degree that the music is, by comparison uninteresting to me. To explain...
I'll never forget the first, at the time I experienced what I considered a great preamp, the conrad johnson Premier 3. It had such terrific tonal shadings, low level resolution, adding to soundstage placement--as well as bass drive. Even the dryness/richness of the double reeded instruments on large orchestral works, came through with such a visceral sense.
Then lets come forward in time to the Gryphon L1 (I believe was the model number) circa 1991--possessing two rather heavyweight outboard power supplies, one per chanel--a true dual mono unit. That remarkable beautiful and musically superior preamp(at that time) the very best control over amps that I had ever heard. It was so remarkable, that I could pair it, with the really inexpensive $595 Adcom GFA-555 and shock audiophiles out of their chairs. It was truly remarkable piece.
The point of noticing this is that the passives were the antithisis of this kind of potential.
If I can, I'll finish by saying that, if music were a canvas, a painting, a great preamp makes the work, a Monet, full of life and shadings and wonderful vivid colors--with passives being, to me, the polar opposite, a rather mundanely done water color--washed out, lacking that snap and pop of reality and excitement.
As always, I haven't hear everything, someone may very well have had a much difference experience.
Good listening to all.
This is a great question BTW.
Larry

I am hamstrung by 'honor' not to mention comments by several well known designers with whom I've had this discussion. Passive, versus...
In fairness the one's who gave long dissertations, (over a few friendly glasses of adult beveridges) invariably also designed Active preamps to mate with their amplifiers.
It's funny, at the CES over the past 27 years you meet the most interesting people. Virtually all claim to have the consumer or the 'best sound' at the root of thier recommendations--or we could even ammend that to be 'most accurate' or least colored.
For all of us who actually listen, we know that, for a group interested in making the smallest 'change' possible, we seem to have a rather diverse opinion of what 'change' really is....
No one, especially me, doubts the veracity of the comments of the designers, yet I think that one quick story (and there are witnesses) about a conversation in a bar in Munich three years ago.
While discussing designing, I asked a collegue this question as clearly as possible. "During design, what point do you begin to evaluate the sonic differences in the parts, (caps, etc)?
The designer looked at me with a straight face and said, "I don't". "If I've done my job correctly I don't need to listen."
(Enter Steve Martin) "Well excuuussee meeeeee!"
Me personally, I can't imagine not making a 'sonic evaluation' along the way, during a design. Without giving a 3000 word diatribe here, let's just say that cap "X" by reputation sounds 'soft' or laid back, and cap "Y" a little brighter, and we have several of those combinations in the design. MOST designers, if not all, that I've spoken with, make SOME allowance or listening moment during this process to insure that, either 'good or evil' has been created.
This designer stood his ground.
He left shortly thereafter, and I was alone with the other 10 or 12 people, and couldn't help but ask, "Do any of you feel this way?" "Do you design without listening to the 'parts' along the way?"
The verdict that night was unanimous. "Everyone listens to the interim design."
That, could explain why everyone but the one designer is right and everyone else is wrong, or, of course, visa versa.
Now, as to the principle question, Passive versus, active.
Out of (by memory 7 designers of note) not one single designer preferred passive. Again, they all made an active, therefore had reason to prefer it. However, from a business standpoint, they had the option to make the best passive they could design, versus the best active, and all chose to build the active.
You decide.

I vote active, EVERY TIME...perfect, no, better, to my ears, yes.

Good Listening,
Larry

TVAD,
I'm thinking of the 6 Blind Men and the Elephant...all different perceptions.
If I heard your particular passive with your system I may do a complete 180 in my thinking. While I've been exposed to probably more gear than most people I tend to come of as preachy--god I hate when I do that. But for me to categorically say that passives aren't as good is pretty dumb headed of me. In my experience, with the combinations I've heard, I've always prefered an active--I may need more and different comparisons to be won over.

As a designer, redesigner, inventor, yada, yada, we all face choices--and unfortunately, depending on what world you live in financially--those choices seem to revolve around price/cost of production, that is if you're trying to create a resaleable piece of audio goods, (or maybe Saturn Vehicle for that matter).
In the world of passives, I believe the 'choices' to be different than in the active product.
I can't get past that first time exprience with the Gryphon, or Premier 3 from cj. Those experiences were both what I call 'Hallmark' moments. I heard and experienced musical information that I had never heard before--not slightly, but dramatically. Were those differences 'exaggerations' of reality, or from what was actually placed into the original source? Of course, there's no way to know.
My gut, (I haven't had my 'guts ears' tested lately) tells me from a strictly musical or visceral standpoint that the excitement quotient was off the scale. So the question would be for a listener like me would be, 'does neutrality' completely colorless reproduction give me that same 'rush'? I don't think so. So maybe my internal listening mechanism, my internal reference of music tends to like the 'spectacular side of the experience.' If that's the instance I deferr to others who prefer the passive.
But the one comment that seems to mitigate the conversations here, is the one which talks about, 'up to a certain dollar amount' the passives do very well.
That may mean to me, at least, that when choices of internal parts starts to become serious, serious, expensive...therein lies the advantage of the active.
In other words, if we're not making dollar but sound choices, the active can be better. But then, the question, "Since when, when all things are equal, doesn't more money create a better product?"

Good listening.
Larry