Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site
In the Forum: Playback Listening
In the Thread: About the Audio Neutrality.
Post Subject: Ockham's attenuatorPosted by Paul S on: 4/8/2007
I am not sure I follow the TV analogy...
I think that the best course where any sort of voltage divider/attenuator is concerned is to do it without messing up the audible results, of course, but also to keep it as "neutral", "transparant" and "simple" as possible, following Romy's (and Ockham's) line of thinking. Why add any more [variables] than necessary? In the case of a TVC/step-down one certainly ought to plan around and implement an adequate [passive] mitigation strategy against possible band pass attrition at likely settings, and also consider the resultant numbers based on un-buffered lines. However the same must be said for simple resitance, and in that case it appears to make sense to add a buffer to a resistance-type attenuator in order to get around possible attrition loses resulting from the R method, which means adding an active device to the circuit. I have tried various tubed and SS driven buffers with mixed results. Also, I can hear that different resistors "sound different" in various circuits, including attenuators. I have not fiddled around much with step-down transformers, per se, apart from the TAP, in its role as a voltage divider. In my bid for "neutrality"/"transparancy" I decided to try the one [passive] method I had not tried before, and reports have been posted. Since I have not yet tried/compared an op-amp-buffered R-type passive (so-called "active"), I will try that next. One way or the other, I need a master volume control.
IMO, the idea that there is some sort of mysterious additive that will stabilize the mix is not so much wrong in practice as is in this context ("neutrality") just another unknown and baffling (to me) variable, like Flogiston or Orgone.
Best regards,
Paul SRerurn to Romy the Cat's Site