Amp/Preamp Asylum

Looking for a new Amp or Preamp? If you're after tubes, post over here.

Return to Amp/Preamp Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Source line attenuator question - Placette

68.54.136.2

Posted on July 22, 2014 at 06:44:26
airtime
Audiophile

Posts: 11287
Location: Arizona
Joined: February 4, 2003
I plan on getting the Placette volume controller sometime later this year. Mainly for my newer solid state setup. However, I have a question:

I have one vintage setup that I use most of the time. Can I also use the Placette volume control as a line attenuator without the "bad" side effects of signal rolloff (seems to be mostly treble in my case) and loss of dynamics?

Or would I hear still hear some of these effects even with the Placette? I've tried various passives. Even some high end controls. And the results are always the same to varying degrees. Heck if it works I'll get two!!



charles

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Source line attenuator question - Placette, posted on July 22, 2014 at 08:34:31
Jack G
Audiophile

Posts: 9739
Joined: September 24, 1999
As others have said before, if the rest of your system is up to it there will be no loss of treble and no loss of dynamics. If your amp has a high input impedance, high sensitivity and/or high gain, and short cables you should be OK. I actually gained treble extension after switching to the Placette. I was pleasantly surprised. They do have a decent return policy, and a lifetime guaranty.
As a side note, I really like the programmable remote it comes with. The volume control is preprogrammed for you, but I programmed it to control the functions of my digital source too.
Jack

 

RE: Source line attenuator question - Placette, posted on July 22, 2014 at 11:08:27
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46278
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002

As Jack G alluded, how well a passive attenuator will perform for you is very system dependent. Having the right combination of components is more important when using a passive vs an active linestage.

In my opinion, an ideal setup for a passive should include the following:

- A source component with strong robust signal and higher than typical output voltage. For example, my Cary CDP output 3-Volts RMS on it's RCA jacks which is more than typical. And it was inherently a very dynamic, rich, warm, and robust sounding CDP.

- Use low capacitance short interconnects in and out of the passive.

- Power amp should be high gain and require not a lot of signal to drive it to full power output.

- Speakers should be somewhat sensitive so you don't have to crank the Placette Passive all the way up for loud listening. I ran mine just a bit beyond midway and still had room to go for great dynamics.

I've had the Placette Passive Linestage in a couple different systems. In one it sounded wonderful, in another the dynamics were a little soft. In all cases the Placette was extremely transparent.

The only definitive answer I can offer is that component matching for so called 'system synergy' is much more critical when using any passive attenuator vs an active linestage.

YMMV.

P.S. the Placette Passive Linestage that I had was electrically identical to the Placette Volume Control you are considering. The only real difference is that the Placette Linestage handles three input sources as it is comprised of 3 Placette Volume Controls 'tied together' in one chassis.

My Cary 306/200 CDP & Placette setup from over a decade ago.
I was running the Tannoy Definition D500 speakers and I -think- I was using the AES/Cary SixPac EL34 tube monoblocks back then.


Enjoy!


 

RE: Source line attenuator question - Placette, posted on July 22, 2014 at 14:38:06
georgehifi
Manufacturer

Posts: 143
Location: Oz
Joined: January 25, 2004
Hi Charles and Jack, there are a couple parameters that should be observed when using passive preamps including my product or tube premps that many of which have high output impedance.

1: Source output volts should equal or be higher than power amps input voltage sensitivity for full output. Which most are.

2: The source's output impedance should be 1kohm (1000ohms) or lower, Which most are.

3: The poweramps input impedance should be 47kohm (industry standard) or higher. Which most are.


If these things are met with a passive preamp, which 99% of system will be, you will get the most transparent and dynamic way of getting the source's music signal to the poweramps. Without any added distortions and colourations that active preamps give.

Here is a quote from Nelson Pass on passives

"Nelson Pass,
We've got lots of gain in our electronics. More gain than some of us need or want. At least 10 db more.
Think of it this way: If you are running your volume control down around 9 o'clock, you are actually throwing away signal level so that a subsequent gain stage can make it back up.
Routinely DIYers opt to make themselves a "passive preamp" - just an input selector and a volume control.
What could be better? Hardly any noise or distortion added by these simple passive parts. No feedback, no worrying about what type of capacitors – just musical perfection.
And yet there are guys out there who don't care for the result. "It sucks the life out of the music", is a commonly heard refrain (really - I'm being serious here!). Maybe they are reacting psychologically to the need to turn the volume control up compared to an active preamp."

Cheers George

 

Source line attenuator , posted on July 22, 2014 at 16:38:57
airtime
Audiophile

Posts: 11287
Location: Arizona
Joined: February 4, 2003
Again, I wanted to know about using this a source attenuator and not as a passive preamp.

charles

 

What's the difference ?, posted on July 22, 2014 at 18:37:03
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46278
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002

Am I not understanding what you're trying to do?

Are you trying to attenuate the output signal of a source component before it reaches a power amp?



 

RE: Source line attenuator question , posted on July 22, 2014 at 19:29:55
bare
Audiophile

Posts: 1879
Joined: April 14, 2009
One could also Gasp! DIY a passive using a stepped attenuator, a box and a few RCA terminals. You would have to forgo the Remote tho :-)
Then spend the considerable sums saved for use in properly matching the source to the Attenuator/amp.

 

I have yet to hit midway on mine. , posted on July 23, 2014 at 05:02:53
Jack G
Audiophile

Posts: 9739
Joined: September 24, 1999
One reason I didn't bother with W4S's passive/active pre.
Jack

 

RE: What's the difference ?, posted on July 23, 2014 at 07:49:16
airtime
Audiophile

Posts: 11287
Location: Arizona
Joined: February 4, 2003
Does the back of the volume controller have RCA jacks?

The mulitple input version seems to have a different jack on the rear of it?

charles

 

RE: What's the difference ?, posted on July 23, 2014 at 08:21:42
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46278
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002

Again, are you trying to attenuate the output signal of a source component before it reaches a power amp?

Here's the back of the Placette Remote Volume Control:

Here's the back of the Placette Passive Linestage:




 

RE: What's the difference ?, posted on July 23, 2014 at 08:38:44
airtime
Audiophile

Posts: 11287
Location: Arizona
Joined: February 4, 2003
I would like to use it between source and power amp on one setup - classic passive setup.

And on my primary setup - between source and PREAMP input on my vintage gear. Basically a IR volume controller on this on.

 

RE: What's the difference ?, posted on July 23, 2014 at 08:43:15
AbeCollins
Audiophile

Posts: 46278
Location: USA
Joined: June 22, 2001
Contributor
  Since:
February 2, 2002

It should work fine on both setups. You might need to adjust the PREAMP volume UP a bit, then use the Passive Volume Controller with remote to help attenuate the signal.



 

Excellent nt, posted on July 23, 2014 at 09:01:58
airtime
Audiophile

Posts: 11287
Location: Arizona
Joined: February 4, 2003
.

 

Page processed in 0.020 seconds.