Looks to me like they are well within the 20% tolerance stated. Tracking is rarely guaranteed to better than 1dB either, and might be as bad as 2dB. (I am not sure anyone guarantees great tracking in tone control pots)
If you need better matching stepped controls with closely matched resistors are what you need.
There should be no myth around Alps pots, you simply get what you pay for - and they have a whole range from dirt cheap to hideously expensive; all are still subject to the limitations of the technology employed to make them.
If you need better matching stepped controls with closely matched resistors are what you need.
There should be no myth around Alps pots, you simply get what you pay for - and they have a whole range from dirt cheap to hideously expensive; all are still subject to the limitations of the technology employed to make them.
Maybe Dynaco had the right idea where the pots had a dead spot in the middle to guarantee the flat position was really that. Otherwise I prefer systems where I can separately position the knobs to take care of any slight error. Pot matching is never going to be perfect and stepped arrangements seem like overkill for tone controls. How about adding an extra trimpot to force a match at center?
Assuming an active Baxandall tone control with no range limits, 5.3k+4.7k when it should be 5k+5k will give 1dB boost or cut at the appropriate frequency extreme. Adding a range limit will reduce this, but perhaps not by much. Perhaps what is needed is an end trimmer?
However, unless there is a centre detent the resetting accuracy makes all this rather academic.
Alternatively, limiting the control range to +-6dB could halve(?) the error.
However, unless there is a centre detent the resetting accuracy makes all this rather academic.
Alternatively, limiting the control range to +-6dB could halve(?) the error.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.