In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The main advantage of a stepped attenuator is the tracking
accuracy. You will certainly hear a difference.

You're getting image problems with a normal decent stereo pot? Perhaps you
need to go to M&S as was used in the days of stud attenuators on pro desks
to prevent image waggle...

There are people who will tell you a resistor is a resistor is a
resistor. They also think a saxophone is a saxophone is a saxophone.
Listen, compare, and make up your own mind.

Hmm.

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I'm old enough to well remember stud faders used in broadcasting -
built regardless of cost (balanced faders would probably cost over 1000
quid if available today). And the regular need for cleaning them.
Conductive plastic was a welcome invention...


Blimey!, I've still got some of them around somewhere, made by Painton
IIRC signal box levers I thing we used to call 'em..

Quadrant types weren't balanced though - it was only the older vast round
ones from Type A desks.

I remember those cylindrical ones. In fact I think I may have a couple of
them at home in the UK. When I was a teenager, we sometimes used to
hang around a small local studio.. The owner had a six channel mixer,
either Grampian or Vortexion, with carbon pots. When they got noisy,
he used to take the back of the pot case, and rub the carbon track with
a soft led pencil. It was a low tech wonder-cure.

Iain

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The main advantage of a stepped attenuator is the tracking
accuracy. You will certainly hear a difference.

You're getting image problems with a normal decent stereo pot? Perhaps you
need to go to M&S as was used in the days of stud attenuators on pro desks
to prevent image waggle...

Did some tests in M+S just a while ago. It has been a very long time since
I tried it last. I still have a matrix.

I have no problems with pots. We use 60 pos stepped attenuators:-)

Iain

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
You're getting image problems with a normal decent stereo pot? Perhaps
you need to go to M&S as was used in the days of stud attenuators on
pro desks to prevent image waggle...

Did some tests in M+S just a while ago. It has been a very long time
since I tried it last. I still have a matrix.

With M&S any pot mismatch results in a width variation which is far less
noticeable than image wiggle.

I have no problems with pots. We use 60 pos stepped attenuators:-)

You don't mind the severe image wiggle when you operate it?

--
*Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article .com,
Andy Evans wrote:
I do believe stepped attenuators beat the rest - including Alps blue
and Black Beauties (I've used both).

I'm old enough to well remember stud faders used in broadcasting - built
regardless of cost (balanced faders would probably cost over 1000 quid if
available today). And the regular need for cleaning them. Conductive
plastic was a welcome invention...


Blimey!, I've still got some of them around somewhere, made by Painton
IIRC
signal box levers I thing we used to call 'em..

And I had a load of P&G faders and gave them away too!....

Maybe Dave was referring to the BBC *rotary* stud faders.
Mechanical works of art they were, with a knob the size of a saucer.
The fader assembly fitted into a cylindrical case a bit like a shell-case,
and latched with a comforting "click"

Iain

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , tony sayer
wrote:
In article , Iain
Churches writes


The main advantage of a stepped attenuator is the tracking accuracy.
You will certainly hear a difference.

Or at least, you *might* hear a difference if - for example - the
balance tracking of the two items being compared differ enough to be
noticable.

Try a long fade with a rotary pot compared with a stepped attenuator,
say an API, TKD or Studer 60 step. Not difficult to differentiate
between them.

In what terms? Do you mean their stereo tracking accuracies differ? ...or
what? Difficult to comment on the above as it is a rather vague and
sweeping a statement.

If you are referring to differences in channel level tracking then I did
indeed note that in my posting, so I am not sure what point you are wanting
to make here.

However I had thought your original comments about 'resistors' were in the
context of a discussions of the use of the (alleged) 'sounds' of different
attenuators in a domestic audio system.

I can see that a large number of accurate, fine-resolution steps would be
very useful for working in a recording studio, or in similar circumstances
where input level ranges may be high. However this tells us nothing about
any 'sound' differences between different types of pot/resistor/attenuator.
Nor does it mean such a 60 step attenuator would be needed in a domestic
audio system. Hence your mentioning it may confuse or mislead some readers
who are unaware of the different requirements between pro recording and
domestic replay.

To go back to the early part of the thread, it may be that if someone
*does* require many fine/accurate steps with well-matched tracking, then
a digital attenuator may make far more sense in a domestic audio system,
and may produce a 'sound' that is indistinguishable for expensive analog
attenuators. That said, I suspect most users would be just as happy with
either a continuous analog pot of good tracking, etc. I doubt most people
would care if their replay level on one day was, say, half a dB different
to on another day. :-)

It is also fairly certain that the better faders will also perform more
accurately for a much longer time.

Comment as above. Also, please put this in the context of using volume
controls of faders in domestic audio equipment.

The reality here is that - in domestic systems - people may not mind much
if over the years the pot/attenuator drifts slightly. They may simply not
notice, or be bothered. May have no effect on the 'sound' so far as the
user is concerned.

FWIW I find it convenient to be able to set a 'known gain' and repeat this,
but this has nothing to do with the sound as such.


By the way, Alps, which you mentioned are not rated very highly, and
seldom seen on prof equipment.

Comments as above. :-) My experience is that they work very well in
domestic audio equipment. I certainly remain quite happy with the ones
in the kit I built 20+ years ago. And when I've checked the performance,
I've not noticed any significant changes. Doesn't seem to have harmed
my enjoyment at all. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


The main advantage of a stepped attenuator is the tracking
accuracy.

Agreed, but at a cost - the steps may not be to your liking.

You will certainly hear a difference.

If you compare a stepped attenuator to a non-stepping attenuator, it is
unlikely that absent test equipment, you'll ever get the two to match
attenuations close enough to have a valid listening test.

There
are people who will tell you a resistor is a resistor is
a resistor.

Bogus straw man argument.

They also think a saxophone is a saxophone is
a saxophone.

Bogus red herring argument.

Listen, compare, and make up your own mind.

Just be sure that you are comparing apples to apples.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


The main advantage of a stepped attenuator is the tracking
accuracy.

Agreed, but at a cost - the steps may not be to your liking.

You will certainly hear a difference.

If you compare a stepped attenuator to a non-stepping attenuator, it is
unlikely that absent test equipment, you'll ever get the two to match
attenuations close enough to have a valid listening test.


Hi Arny.

I am not talking about the cheap and cheerful Yamaha 02R
attenuators which you use. Try a TKD or Studer 60 position,
and forget your toy shop console for a moment:-)

Stepped attenuators are available level matched to 0.25dB and
even when motorised, and offset, can maintain this setting
accuracy throughout their working life.

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


I am not talking about the cheap and cheerful Yamaha 02R
attenuators which you use. Try a TKD or Studer 60
position, and forget your toy shop console for a moment:-)

Just like you Iain to not know that the Yamaha 02R96 panel controls don't
attenuate audio at all. They are programmable human user interface
transducers that control DSP-based functions.

Stepped attenuators are available level matched to 0.25dB
and even when motorised, and offset, can maintain this
setting accuracy throughout their working life.

Seems pretty crude compared to 02R96 main channel and aux channel
attenuators which have 0.1 dB steps, 0.0 dB channel tracking, and 0.0 dB
resettability.

"Arny Krueger"


If you compare a stepped attenuator to a non-stepping attenuator, it is
unlikely that absent test equipment, you'll ever get the two to match
attenuations close enough to have a valid listening test.


** What a Classic " Bogus straw man argument " !!!

PLUS also a " Bogus red herring argument" !!!

Arny has excelled himself - LOL !


For a scientifically valid listening test, levels MUST be matched using
audio test equipment - Arny has publicly stated this fact countless
times.

By definition, a continuously variable attenuator can be set to exactly
match any setting on a stepped one.

Arny is out to lunch here.




........ Phil