So I did try all those different potentiometers

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Konnichiwa,

carlosfm said:
Whyzzat that everybody with standalone passive "pre-amps" always end up spending big money on interconnects?:D

Big Money?

My best Interconnect can be made per 1m pair for under £7/$14.

For that you get goldplated fine silver (99.995%) wire, "zero connector" RCA Plugs and Airdielectic with phantastically low capacitance to boot.

Takes less than 15 Minute per pair with a modicum of practice.

Big Money?

Sayonara
 
I know, Peter.
I was talking about a standalone passive pre, because of this post:

rdf said:
I've used a Bourns 10k's in a passive (with hot and ground switching pgm selector) for ten years now and never felt the need to change it. My impression is the pot does have a sound, midly subtractive and benign but no where near the effect I hear by changing out a coupling cap or interconnects. I'd be curious if anyone else here uses or has experience with them.

Of course, the quality of the interconnects makes much difference here.
This doesn't happen with a good active pre, with a low impedance output.
I use 50 ohms output impedance on my pre, which btw has good output current, and testing interconnects with this is a fantasmagoric experience.:D
 
So Peter,

What "IS" sonic neutrality and do you really believe that it exists? i don't believe it exists at all in the audio world. So everythiong we listen too is going to have its own sonic signature.... its all a matter of if you like the sonic signature of something and can live with it or not.

Mark
 
highbias said:
So Peter,

What "IS" sonic neutrality and do you really believe that it exists? i don't believe it exists at all in the audio world. So everythiong we listen too is going to have its own sonic signature.... its all a matter of if you like the sonic signature of something and can live with it or not.

Mark

Yes, I agree and I don't think sonic neutrality exist. There used to be comparisons to straight wire, but in reality, even 2" of wire have the sound of its own, IME.

So, whatever seems like your 'thing' is your escape from lack of neutrality.
 
Originally posted by carlosfm


Whyzzat that everybody with standalone passive "pre-amps" always end up spending big money on interconnects?


I make my own tape-type low capacitance cables. Normally around $20 CDN, or in international currency a case of beer. On second thought, measured in those dollars..
Passives aren't necessarily operating high impedance. It's system dependent. My amp is a Mullard 3-3 in protoype (waiting forever for Allied to ship the ASC caps) which has very high input sensitivity on the order of 100 mv. The pot usually sits around 10 on a scale of 1000 (10-turn vernier dial.) That works out to 100 ohm output impedance for a 10k pot, purely resisitive.
I find a passive's biggest flaw is the relatively low impedance load it presents to source equipment. My old tube phono pre, for example, doesn't appear to like it much.

Originally posted by Nuuk


An attenauator using 1% metal films will give you better channel matching than virtually any pot!


The fault lies with source material. In my room recordings with naturally recorded ambience snaps into focus with the smallest L/R tweaks. The 2 dB adjustment typical of a rotary discrete is too course for many recordings. The affect can be especially amazing on those with synthetic space like matrix surround movies or the Q-Sound on Roger Waters' "Amused to Death". The latter, in my case heard through a pair of small full range drivers, the correct balance permits the sound field to wrap slightly behind the listening chair on both sides and rise over your head on some effects.
You'd also be surprised how linear some wirewounds can be sourced. The MH-22B on the page below is available in 0.25% versions, for a price. Not that I think the extra money will be audible. :)

http://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=1063.pdf

Hmmm, it looks as if I'm the only one using ten-turns.
 
metalman said:
Peter,

you mentioned that all the other pots weren't up to the performance of a stepped attenuator, but how close was the PEC to one?

Terry

The other pots didn't have the resolution the stepped attenuator was offering.

OTOH, the stepped attenuator didn't have the musicality that PEC pot offers. The resolution of PEC is equal or better than other pots.

Please be warned that PEC is not neutral. It has certain signature, which you either like or not. A friend of mine, who prefers Nobel, calls it "mushy" sound, but I was not bothered by that at all.

When changing from stepped attenuator to PEC carbon pot, my first impression was: "Wow, this sounds like real music" ;)

PS: As mentioned previously, I wanted to reduce that certain coloration, and added a parallel Vishay (nude) S102 resistor (between IN and OUT pins on the pot). Although it helped a bit, it also took away that certain musicality and rightness to the sound. I removed the resistor.
 
stepped compared to carbon:

I don't find the linear version mushy at all, nor wanting for detail, but I will order some 50K log to compare. Another interesting thing is even at low listening levels it has dynamics, similar but not quite as good as TVC.

Overall in my headamp I'd rate as follows:
1. TVC
2. PEC
3
4
5 stepped attenuator
6
7
8
9
10 Alps Blue.

Brian
 
The fault lies with source material. In my room recordings with naturally recorded ambience snaps into focus with the smallest L/R tweaks. The 2 dB adjustment typical of a rotary discrete is too course for many recordings. The affect can be especially amazing on those with synthetic space like matrix surround movies or the Q-Sound on Roger Waters' "Amused to Death". The latter, in my case heard through a pair of small full range drivers, the correct balance permits the sound field to wrap slightly behind the listening chair on both sides and rise over your head on some effects.

So what you are saying is that you have separate controls for left and right channel to get your balance correct with different material.

If I ever wanted to go back to fiddling with two controls each time I played a different piece of music (which I don't), I would still do it with a stepped attenuator as it is not poblem to make one (or two in this case) with 1 db steps. ;)
 
The other pots didn't have the resolution the stepped attenuator was offering.

Peter, you are not alone here, but people in this thread have nonchalantly compared pots to 'the stepped attenuator' as though the latter was a fixed reference, like the gold standard!

There are many variations of stepped attenuator depending on design, switch type, and type of resistors used.

OTOH, the stepped attenuator didn't have the musicality that PEC pot offers.

I find stepped attenuators using all MF resistors do lack a bit of musicality but put some carbon fim types on the input and things improve a lot. ;)
 
analog_sa said:


Interesting list Brian. I wonder why the stepped attenuator is so low down the list. Are the resistors metal films? Is it possible the carbon pots sound better than any fixed value resistor? Even carbon composition?

My expreience is with SMD and Dale types, maybe not the best-of-breed. There is no doubt the stepped has greater transparency, but compared to the linear PEC, not that much. The stepped att thin-down the music, to my ears. The PEC linear is much more musical. So in totality, I rate the PEC much higher. I'm sure others may hear it differently.
For me it's a gobsmacker because I reckoned carbon pots to be fluffy, diffuse and noisy sounding.

Brian
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.