Has anyone ganged pots for multiamp systems? What methods are there? I'm thinking of using toothed pulleys and belts, for example: 5.08mm Pitch 6mm Bore 13 Tooth Flanged Synchronous Timing Belt Pulley XL13 | eBay
Thoughts/recommendations please........
Thoughts/recommendations please........
Hi Scott.
How many channels are you thinking of??
If I needed to do it, I would first look at direct gearing together. Two pots (on opposite side of the drive cog) need to be mounted front to front for the same rotation direction.
I have seen pictures of geared/belt driven pots in the past but can't remember if it was on this forum.
The problem with any arrangement is the amount of space that it takes up.
How many channels are you thinking of??
If I needed to do it, I would first look at direct gearing together. Two pots (on opposite side of the drive cog) need to be mounted front to front for the same rotation direction.
I have seen pictures of geared/belt driven pots in the past but can't remember if it was on this forum.
The problem with any arrangement is the amount of space that it takes up.
Linear slider pots (faders) as used in mixing desks are relatively easy to gang up with a bar to connect the sliding part together so they all move as one. I am in the process of constructing such a beast myself, with a motor, belt, pulleys, and so on for remote control.
Hi Levi, only 4 channels so could be done the way you suggest, I hadn't thought of that, thanks. Space isn't too much of an issue, though it seems to me it would require a long extension to fit a control knob, though again, not a problem. I'm interested to know why you think it would be better than pully and belt?
I had Omeg make me a small quantity of 4 gang pots about 10yrs ago. The price was very reasonable but I have no idea whether they still do this.
I have just bought a 3D printer, and the idea is to print the fixing brackets. I need to get my head round 3D modelling software first. I could have used nylon cord like the old radio tuning dials which would have been cheaper, but I got a toothed belt and pulleys. I have one linear track for position feedback along with the Alps logarithmic slimline faders.
I dismantled some Alps blue pots with the idea of turning a suitably long shaft to connect all the wipers, but my friend with a lathe is too busy to turn it. This, too, could work, with spacers to hold the wiper holders in position.
Interesting. I've a motorised blue Alps and a black beauty that I'm planning to couple... I'm hoping the motor would drive them both
That's a thought, I've used their green eco pots, and I think they still will make up specials to order
Alps seem to make some four gang motor pots, but I don't know what values are available.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/ALPS-Engine-RK27114MC-potentiometer-logarithmic/dp/B00KBW7B3G
https://www.amazon.co.uk/ALPS-Engine-RK27114MC-potentiometer-logarithmic/dp/B00KBW7B3G
That sure would be the simple, logical way to go, they even do a six way Alps Rk16816mg 6-way High-end Motor Potentiometer 10k Logarithmic | eBay
It has a "D log" taper specifically designed for surround sound systems apparently, any ideas? https://www.pot4audio.mobi/daten/pdf/RK16816MG.pdf
It has a "D log" taper specifically designed for surround sound systems apparently, any ideas? https://www.pot4audio.mobi/daten/pdf/RK16816MG.pdf
Last edited:
I have just ordered the 6-gang pot. I never saw this before in a search. Maybe this is designed for surround sound receivers. How good is channel tracking? We'll see.
"I'm interested to know why you think it would be better than pulley and belt?"
In a word - simplicity. Two pots geared together is easier to implement. With toothed belts you have to work with the available belt lengths.
If you want motorised pots there may be no need to physically link the pots if the motor power supplies can be synchronised. Maybe by feedback from the changing pot values. Interesting possibilities but mechanical coupling would take less development work.
In a word - simplicity. Two pots geared together is easier to implement. With toothed belts you have to work with the available belt lengths.
If you want motorised pots there may be no need to physically link the pots if the motor power supplies can be synchronised. Maybe by feedback from the changing pot values. Interesting possibilities but mechanical coupling would take less development work.
I have a DCX2496, and I used to have 3 PGA2310 to control the volume. There was a problem though. After a few months use, it would go full volume and blow a tweeter. After the second time, I thought the only way to stop this would be to re build it using proper pots with attenuation. The PGA2310 can give 30dB of gain, and I suspect a fault in the wiring made it so, but infrequently enough to make it impossible to trace.
I did consider this, and actually have most of the bits to put in place a digital volume control.
Then i thought, as long as i'm having to use a microprocessor, i might as well use a metal film resistor array so i have better control of the volume and it would work better with the 12AT7s i'm using as balanced <-> unbalanced converters. Then i thought, b*gger it, i'll use a stepper and lots of multiturn wirewound pots, that way i can adjust the individually with an allen key and a screwdriver from the front. There has been a LOT of phaffage getting it to work nicely.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.