Poll - Active vs. Passive preamp

Does buffering the "passive" address the issues of soundstage and dynamics? I would think with no need for gain, that they typical passive "flaws" are due to impedance mismatches between source and amp - or is there something else going here with power reserves that act like torgue in better driving the signal?

I have enjoyed both (recent actives CAT SL1, Lamm LL2, and Placette Active). I tried the Placette Passive and it was remarkably good and competed with the CAT and Lamm - a great deal for the price - dead silent and transparent. I then tried the Placette Active - no gain, but buffered - an it was clearly superior to the passive, at least to my ears. I then decided to get back to tubes (Joule 150 MKII). The Placette Active is a great linestage, but I guess I just crave the sound of tubes in the pre, perhaps not as transparent, quiet, etc, as the Placettes, but with my speakers and very neutral CAT JL2s, the active tubes seem necessary for me. I did want to try the Bent passive, which I have heard very good things about. In the end, I enjoyed my system with all these pres, and difficult to think in terms of which is "best". No easy answers. You have to try and see how you repsond to the equipment in your system, with your music.

What is the downside, if any, to adding a buffer stage to an passive attneuator? A buffered passive preamp? And along those lines between a tube buffer and SS buffer? Between a buffer and a trandformer or autoformer passive?

I think an early version of the Music Fidelity had tube buffer with volume control. This is something Roger Modjeski is looking into, and it sounds like Ralph K. is as well - should be interesting as the theory makes sense. I'll say the active Placette which is essentially a volume control with a very robust buffer stage sounded much better to me than the "nude" RVC. What I don't understand is the technical difference between using a buffer for impedance matching and the use of a transformer/autoformer.

Doesn't seem to be a problem if impedances, output voltages, amp sensitivity, and cable capacitance are right. But they do have to be right and often are not, so gain and buffering usually necessary - I would like do without the complexity of gain, but think buffering will help. Though I hear you, Roger Modjeski has been using an attentuator (Poit-in-a-Box) with his amps for the past 15 years or so.

Voltage does not seem to be the issue with passives (I always got plenty of volume), but current, the ability to drive low impedance and thereby maintain bass drive and dynamics. A buffer seems to address that issue. So is there any justifcation at all for gain other than to step phoni signals? If not, are we not better off without gain devices in our preamps if buffered to handle impedance matching? You may be right though, there may be colorations that are appealing with every active providing some flavor or favourably sounding distortions to the source signal - and nothing wrong with that [?].

That is undoubtedly true with vinyl, but why would that be true with a 3V digital source? Now the active argument seems to be volume, but I get plenty of volume with passives, though not ideal with the M-60s with their sensitivty. But assume a 1V sensitivity on the amp (like my other amp)and a 3V digital source (like my Accustic Arts)why would any gain be of any benefit? Now the need for active buffering is another issue, and I assume it always helps to make the load easy and consistent for the source through the cables to the amp. Why pay for gain? And isn't any gain device less perfect than straight wire to the buffer?