4.254.231.96
| '); } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } // End --> |
In Reply to: RE: No, Not Really !! posted by Donald North on October 09, 2009 at 08:18:27
Two different worlds here.If you've got an active preamp driving it and you have excess gain from an extra stage in your amp, then you'll not notice the attenuator losses.
What I've found is that taking that 3rd stage out of an amplifier and replacing it with a single one of high gain, doesn't yield quite the total gain of most 3 or 4 stage amps, but that is a moot point because those amps can't compare in overall fidelity to music and what some refer to as "jump factor"-- rhythm, pace and accurate event timing.
The simple two-stage amp simply walks all over amps with more active stages.
If you then merely add the 3rd stage back-- say, into an active preamp, then you're back to the same topology-- too many active stages.
So, if you're going to run the simple 2-stage amp and use a passive attenuator for a volume control, you will definately notice losses which occur in that attenuator.
I've noticed that, and since I'm not willing to go back to too many amp or preamp stages, I have built an attenuator that really rocks-- has almost unmeasurable signal losses or signal changes in character.
This approach has produced a system that excels in dynamics, correct rhythm, pace and event timing, and fine introspection into music's many attitudes, player's intentions and intents during a musical performance.
Today, the difference is just too great. I could never go back.
---Dennis---
Edits: 10/09/09Follow Ups:
Post a Followup: