|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Pass Labs This forum is dedicated to Pass Labs discussion. |
|
Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.
Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving |
|
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#91 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
|
Everything is now illustreted & explained here:
My new multichanel passive balanced pre-amp, battery/solar powerd, remotecontrol.
__________________
_______ Brian |
|
|
|
|
#92 | ||
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: south
|
Peter Daniel said in post #3 and #22 about the single-pot balanced volume control--
Quote:
Quote:
1. How do you calculate the optimal value for a (normal) volume control at the input to your preamp? I have heard 25-50K mentioned for the BZLS input. How/why? 2. How do you calculate the optimal value for a (normal) volume control at the output to your preamp? I have heard 5-10K mentioned for the BZLS input. How/why? 3. With the single-pot method of volume control of a balanced amp, no part of the pot is grounded, or placed across the amp's input or output. How do you work out the right value for this pot? Thanks, Grant |
||
|
|
|
|
#93 | |||
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Netherlands
|
Hi Grant,
The options to adjust the volume of the BZLS really freak you out, don't they? Apparently, the simplicity of the line-stage makes it more difficult to decide upon the 'right' level-control ![]() Anyway here are my observations: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hope this helps, Fox |
|||
|
|
|
|
#94 | |||
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: south
|
Quote:
Quote:
Grant |
|||
|
|
|
|
#95 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Netherlands
|
Quote:
Fox |
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Budapest
|
Fox!
It was simulated - where? A, B or C (post 72)? I think that A, but nearby the input (C) would be maybe fine with a higher value, too -? Could you possibly simulate it? Laci |
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Netherlands
|
Hi Laci,
I simulated the circuit at A (post 72) but contrary to the picture, after the 100K resistors. Attenuation before these resistors does not work. According to my simulations, attenuation at the input (C) should work well with a 10k-pot. A 20k-pot should also work but does result in an increase of the signal in comparison to a 10k-pot. This implies that with a 20k-pot the range between 10k and 20k does not alter the signal level. So the conclusion seems justified that with a 10k-pot the most accurate level-attenuation is possible because the whole range of the pot can be used. Hope this helps, Fox |
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Budapest
|
Hi, Fox,
Thanks for the explanations! 10 k much more fine for me. But, if you could, just one premium simulation: I suppose, the rule were to use log pots. Is this the only truth, or linear ones could be applicable, too? - eventually applying supplimentary items? I think this alternative solution could be interesting for many diyers having lin pots in their drawers. Regards, Laci |
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Netherlands
|
Hi Laci,
Linear-pots can also be used. However, the attenuation will be heard in a counter-intuitve manner because the way we hear the difference between loud and less loud is on a logaritmic scale. Somewehere I read that putting a resistor parallel to a linear pot results in a good aproximation of a logaritmic one. For instance, when you put a 20K resistor parallel to a 20k-pot, you would have a 10k-pot that behaves sort of logaritmic. Good luck Fox |
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Account Disabled
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
|
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but...
I'm having a big problem with putting the pot between the two lines of a balanced channel, as the simulation gives me an attenuation curve that is opposite from what audio taper is supposed to be. Most of the attenuation happens for pot settings that are lower than the series resistors it follows. The attached image shows my situation; R4 is the pot, with the DAC output represented by the sources on the left, and the buffer on the right. Using a pot of just a few K gives a more normal curve, but the maximum volume is a third of the original, and with no voltage gain stages after this it's no good. I know there was a way to use a shunt resistor to fake a log law, but that does not work in this configuration. I can't figure out how to do this, so I hope someone can help. |
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Balanced volume control question | andyjevans | Tubes / Valves | 1 | 5th December 2005 04:12 AM |
| Balanced volume control? | MWP | Chip Amps | 2 | 1st November 2003 05:36 AM |
| Aleph P 1.0 balanced volume control | Grip | Pass Labs | 6 | 2nd October 2002 12:10 PM |
| Balanced Zen volume control | Pete Fleming | Pass Labs | 39 | 30th August 2002 07:06 PM |
| balanced volume control | diy student | Solid State | 2 | 16th January 2002 12:23 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |