The Best DAC is no DAC

I think a potentiometer Is not the best way to achieve a volume control in that place.

If you want a potentiometer, it must have a constant input impedance - eg a shunt ladder stepped attenuator.

If you use a simple potentiometer, every time you change volume you change the LPF -3dB frequency.

I don't think I said it was the best way, just that I did it - it actually worked very well.

I'm adding an analogue volume control to my current project and will be using a balanced 'U' shunt attenuator between the LP filter and the buffer input.
 
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I think a potentiometer Is not the best way to achieve a volume control in that place.

If you want a potentiometer, it must have a constant input impedance - eg a shunt ladder stepped attenuator.

If you use a simple potentiometer, every time you change volume you change the LPF -3dB frequency.

Shunt attenuator (1 resistor) changes the LPF -3dB frecuency, ladder attenuator (2 resistors) not changes the LPF -3dB frecuency.
 

Attachments

  • shuntattenuator2.gif
    shuntattenuator2.gif
    7.2 KB · Views: 503
  • Ladder Attenuator.png
    Ladder Attenuator.png
    27.8 KB · Views: 481
Last edited:
Shunt attenuator (1 resistor) changes the LPF -3dB frecuency, ladder attenuator (2 resistors) not changes the LPF -3dB frecuency.

Now I'm confused. Thinking about this, wouldn't a 50K potentiometer always be a 50K load? Merlin's second diagram looks just like a potentiometer to me too - I'm assuming each pair or resistors always add up to the same total resistance so switching between pairs of resistors changes the potential divider ratio, just like a wiper in a pot?

Somebody educate me please
 
Last edited:
See attachment - regular potentiometer.

The best way is, of course, the ladder one.

EDIT:
With regular potentiometer R1 and R2 vary with volume changes, so Zin from source is:

R1+R2*RL/(R2+RL) = not constant.

EDIT2:
It is not a big problem due to the LPF (relative) high frequency.
Even if you change a little the Rin, frequency is always high enough to regular operation.
 

Attachments

  • Potentiometer_with_load.png
    Potentiometer_with_load.png
    3.7 KB · Views: 459
Last edited:
See attachment - regular potentiometer.

The best way is, of course, the ladder one.

EDIT:
With regular potentiometer R1 and R2 vary with volume changes, so Zin from source is:

R1+R2*RL/(R2+RL) = not constant.

EDIT2:
It is not a big problem due to the LPF (relative) high frequency.
Even if you change a little the Rin, frequency is always high enough to regular operation.

Thanks iperv, I think your equation is the information I was missing. I'll run some values through that a bit later so I can see what is going on.

Ray
 
Member
Joined 2007
Paid Member
@vladimirb0b:

Quote:
Originally Posted by gentlevoice View Post
Hi Ray,

Just a brief comment: The formula for the cut off frequency for an RC circuit is 1 / (2*pi*R*C). Thus e.g. if the 22 uF capacitor in the JLSounds example looks into 10 kohms input impedance (e.g. pre-amplifier or amplifier) the cut-off frequency would be 0.7 Hz. With 2.2 uF the cut-off frequency is 7.234 Hz.
If I understand, what you are describing is a CR, not RC circuit. Gain should be close to zero unless you have a resistor in that path that would form a divider with the input impedance. If it didn't the audio signal would be lost any time there is a sizable capacitor parallel to the signal before any big resistance at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

v

Hi ... It is a CR circuitry where - to my knowledge - the 47k resistor to ground and the input impedance of the subsequent circuitry (amplifier / preamplifier or ??) forms a parallel impedance. The capacitor in series with the signal then has a varying impedance depending on frequency (high pass) and thus sets a lower cut off frequency.

To my knowledge the formula for calculating this is identical to the formula for an RC filter (?) ... The difference being that the ordering of the active components leads to either a low pass (RC) or a high pass (CR) filter ...

@Ray: Thanks for the tip on the RC filter internet calculator. As it is I actually have set up an excel spreadsheet to calculate various calculations that I often need - including the RC filter results. But I appreciate the consideration ;-)

Cheers from Denmark,

Jesper