I would be most grateful for your opinions about the need for balance controls.
I have never built any audio equipment without a balance control somewhere, but most of this work was done many years ago.
It seems to me that today, with the consistency of the equipment and so forth, it might be possible to skip balance controls entirely. I know that some manufacturers do this.
I'm working on a tube preamp and I'll be using a stepped attenuator, so the volume control should be very well balanced. It may be that the amp topology is highly relevant. If so, I will post my tentative design.
I have some noble balance controls with M-N tapers that work perfectly, but even so, I'd like to eliminate the extra work and space requirements.
Thanks very much for your help. I searched a bit and didn't find a discussion about this, but if there is, please point me to it.
I have never built any audio equipment without a balance control somewhere, but most of this work was done many years ago.
It seems to me that today, with the consistency of the equipment and so forth, it might be possible to skip balance controls entirely. I know that some manufacturers do this.
I'm working on a tube preamp and I'll be using a stepped attenuator, so the volume control should be very well balanced. It may be that the amp topology is highly relevant. If so, I will post my tentative design.
I have some noble balance controls with M-N tapers that work perfectly, but even so, I'd like to eliminate the extra work and space requirements.
Thanks very much for your help. I searched a bit and didn't find a discussion about this, but if there is, please point me to it.
Hi,
Oh boy....
I don't need a balance control, it can only degrade the sound but I sure as hell expect equal gain from both channels.
After musicality, imaging means everything to me, otherwise you could just as well built a PA system...
IOW Alex, you don't need to worry...
Line, phono? What kind of gain are we looking at here?
Cheers,
Oh boy....
I don't need a balance control, it can only degrade the sound but I sure as hell expect equal gain from both channels.
After musicality, imaging means everything to me, otherwise you could just as well built a PA system...
IOW Alex, you don't need to worry...
Line, phono? What kind of gain are we looking at here?
Cheers,
It's a simple line-stage that will convert unbalanced to balanced so that I can drive power amps that take a balanced input. Since many CD players these days can put out more than .5Vp I only need a gain of two to get the 1Vp that I need to drive the power amps. In fact, if it weren't for the balanced requirement, I could possibly even use a simple passive control. OTOH, I want to experiment some with the preamp stage and may build a few different kinds before this is all over.
I know that balanced o/p CD players are available, but none of the ones that I've seen are in my price range.
It uses a simple split load phase inverter and some follwers. Nothing special at all except that I'll probably include a tone control stage that can be completely swithed out.
I know that balanced o/p CD players are available, but none of the ones that I've seen are in my price range.
It uses a simple split load phase inverter and some follwers. Nothing special at all except that I'll probably include a tone control stage that can be completely swithed out.
Hi,
If you experience balance problems, I doubt you will...you can always adapt the stepped attenuator to closer tolerance steps at the positions you most frequently listen.
Also, it wouldn't be that hard to put a xformer at the CDP output IMHO...
I like to tackle the problem at the source ISO using a bandaid...no offense, just an idea.
Cheers,
If you experience balance problems, I doubt you will...you can always adapt the stepped attenuator to closer tolerance steps at the positions you most frequently listen.
Also, it wouldn't be that hard to put a xformer at the CDP output IMHO...
I like to tackle the problem at the source ISO using a bandaid...no offense, just an idea.
Cheers,
Haven't used a "balance control" for a long time. It does seem daft to add something that may degrade performance in any way. However, a preamp that I have, does it in a way that does not:
As well as the volume control, each channel has another attenuator that is detented at 0dB. it is therefore possible to reduce the gain (for testing image position etc), but in normal operation, the signal passes straight through.
As well as the volume control, each channel has another attenuator that is detented at 0dB. it is therefore possible to reduce the gain (for testing image position etc), but in normal operation, the signal passes straight through.
I don't know how hard it is, but I've given it a little thought and haven't come up with a design yet. Combining SE designs seems like it would require double the number of pots, but I may be missing something.
I know that many people don't like tone controls, but I like to have the option because I often use it. That's why I make it so I can switch them out along with their associated gain stage.
I know that many people don't like tone controls, but I like to have the option because I often use it. That's why I make it so I can switch them out along with their associated gain stage.
runeight said:
I'm not a great fan of tone controls, but in this instance, I'd probably go SE (for simplicity) with a Tx at the ouut to give balance, and isolation.
If you want to do something differential, apply the tone controls bridged between phases; one set of pots and not extra cctry over std diff gain stages.
fdegrove said:
And I do have equal gain. However there are a lot of discs in my collection that have a volume imbalance between the channels, and I'm not going to complicate/degrade my TVC based 'control unit' to add in a balance control, nor do I let the imbalance get in the way of music I enjoy.
But I don't consider it that important. It's a nice affect but one I see is ultimately fruitless to pursue. When I lock in all the ther aspects of my system's performance, the imaging comes of it's own, but it's not an aspect I doggedly pursue. Personally, I would much rather listen to a single mono fullrange system (dynamically and FR) than a set of mini monitors with superb imaging, and all the dynamic expression of a wet fart.
I want to know why they're on stage rather than where they are on it.
Yes, maybe better than what I've been thinking.
Brett, I' ve noodled on this some, but I haven't figured out how to do it. If you've got a way, I would really like to know. Even if I don't build it, this problem has me stumped.
This is what I came up with too, but I'm not fond of it.
Frank, you're a gem.
I've always worked them out (and I haven't done it for a loooong time*) the same way I would for a 'balanced L' or 'U' attenuator, but with the components being impedances not resistances. All the designs I did previously were cut only, not boost, and for more than one frequency band, it requires a bit of juggling of component values. Simulating it should bring some better results.
http://www.uneeda-audio.com/pads/
I still think the SE with OPT is the best option, esp if your source is SE.
*used in a bass amp.
Hi,
Not so here, unless these are worn out records I'd bought second hand...
I don't want to sound pedantic on this but ever since I started using tangential tonearms this channel balance problem magically disappeared.
Anti-skating? I don't know...
Well, if the spatial clues weren't recorded properly in the first place then no, no system's going to bring them back.
To properly render the ones that were recorded you'd need a system that is at least phase coherent within the recorded frequency in the first place and preferably way beyond.
Brings us back to musicality, doesn't it?
But what if one could have all of the above combined, bar the wet fart?
No need to believe me but I heard systems exactly like that 15 years ago already...systems based around open baffles, horns the size of a small room, DHT triodes that predated me at least ten years and so on...
Systems that, all things considered were flawed too but made music...
All of which has become out of reach of the mere mortal....
Me? I can understand why some us go back to the basics; music is meant to be something to enjoy, not something to ponder about.
Cheers,
Not so here, unless these are worn out records I'd bought second hand...
I don't want to sound pedantic on this but ever since I started using tangential tonearms this channel balance problem magically disappeared.
Anti-skating? I don't know...
Well, if the spatial clues weren't recorded properly in the first place then no, no system's going to bring them back.
To properly render the ones that were recorded you'd need a system that is at least phase coherent within the recorded frequency in the first place and preferably way beyond.
Brings us back to musicality, doesn't it?
But what if one could have all of the above combined, bar the wet fart?
No need to believe me but I heard systems exactly like that 15 years ago already...systems based around open baffles, horns the size of a small room, DHT triodes that predated me at least ten years and so on...
Systems that, all things considered were flawed too but made music...
All of which has become out of reach of the mere mortal....
Me? I can understand why some us go back to the basics; music is meant to be something to enjoy, not something to ponder about.
Cheers,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.