| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio Discussions » Another light for the LS tunnel: transformer-attenuators? (27 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (27 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  The ultimate buffer – light in the end of a tunnel..  A few minor corrections...  Audio Discussions  Forum     36  387706  04-28-2005
  »  New  Passive transformer based preamp..  Re: Thorsten's preamp idea...  Audio Discussions  Forum     41  466261  10-22-2005
06-27-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,052
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 26
Post ID: 4674
Reply to: 4670
… Putting the attenuator after the gain stage

 morricab wrote:
…. putting the attenuator AFTER the gain stage has negative consequences for the sound….

Well, yes and no. In the new 6 channels version of Super Milq I will be use 2 stepped attenuators: for Injection Channel and for the Tweeters. Both of them will be line level, sitting between the input jack and the first stage grid, so essentially the resistors will be driving a few inches of cable – not a big deal at all, particularly cince I do not need in both channels any LF…

Surely the advantages to roll off voltage at line liven are very obvious, and do not forget that you have the tubes ruining at lover grid current – always helps… However, I would propose that the line-level advantages are inversely-proportionally to frequency. When we have any more or less LF driver then it has a lot of reactance that is being return back to amplifier. A speaker acts like a motor-generator sending the waves across the cable. Many aspects of dumpling in place in there and when we put a resistor (regardless of its location) then the resistor begins to play in this game. I, for instance, clearly hear change in sound when I put .3dB divider on my LF section.

However, with HF the effect is different. The tweeter reactance back to amp is negligible, dumping is way less critical and the presents of a resistor at speaker level is not so critical. I will still go for line level though in my case…

Rgs, Romy


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
11-07-2009 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,577
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 27
Post ID: 12177
Reply to: 4674
Thinking About the "Optimum" Pre-Amp
fiogf49gjkf0d
As with everything audio, one has to put it in context in order to evaluate it.  In my case, the ML2s have a reasonably "high" and stable input impedance, the TAP TVC has a reasonably low (and totally stable) output impdance, and my cable runs are short.  This in itself creates an effective "buffer", and the "inductance" presented by the TAP in this case is truly negligible with respect to frequency response.  Also, despite all the wire, the thing has relatively low ESR, so in this case it does not "write its own curve" with a reactive load (which it does not see, in my case).

Still, if people asked me, then I would "recommend" the Placette, if only because it is effectively BUFFERED, and for most of the dimwits out there this will probably prove to mean more than other things they merely think would mean something.

Shoppers: Take Note.

Paul S
Page 2 of 2 (27 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  The ultimate buffer – light in the end of a tunnel..  A few minor corrections...  Audio Discussions  Forum     36  387706  04-28-2005
  »  New  Passive transformer based preamp..  Re: Thorsten's preamp idea...  Audio Discussions  Forum     41  466261  10-22-2005
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts