Force XL volume control question please...

NewBuyer · « **on:** 4 Jan 2007, 04:34 am »

I am interested in trying some resistor-based passive attenuators (Endler attenuators) at the inputs of my Force XL sub, just to see if it made any difference to the resulting sound. It sounds great already, just raw curiousity driving me here, since these Endler's sound soooo good with stereo amps.

It would be best to do this test, while using a volume setting as close to unity gain as possible (i.e. no gain or attenuation, just pass-through), so the resistors would be doing all the attenuation.

Mike, can you please recommend what volume setting on the Force XL's level-dial, that would most closely correspond to this?

Also, what are your thoughts about the idea in the first place - is it worthwhile?

Mike Dzurko · « **Reply #1 on:** 5 Jan 2007, 12:58 am »

Quote from: NewBuyer on 4 Jan 2007, 04:34 am

I am interested in trying some resistor-based passive attenuators (Endler attenuators) at the inputs of my Force XL sub, just to see if it made any difference to the resulting sound. It sounds great already, just raw curiousity driving me here, since these Endler's sound soooo good with stereo amps.

It would be best to do this test, while using a volume setting as close to unity gain as possible (i.e. no gain or attenuation, just pass-through), so the resistors would be doing all the attenuation.

Mike, can you please recommend what volume setting on the Force XL's level-dial, that would most closely correspond to this?

Also, what are your thoughts about the idea in the first place - is it worthwhile?

I wouldn't do it, all you'd be doing is adding one more thing for the signal to pass through. The Force XL already has a pre-amp built in and you'd just be adding the passive controls in front of that. Just like if you already had a great pre-amp and added the passives. IF you want to try it, what the heck, run the Force XL volume wide open . . . And, if you try it, let us know how it works out!

drcruz · « **Reply #2 on:** 17 Mar 2007, 05:50 pm »

NewBuyer,

Are you still out there? Did you ever try this? I'm REALLY interested if this worked out for you.

griller · « **Reply #3 on:** 17 Mar 2007, 07:13 pm »

This really confuses me and I'm already too confused

Why would you want to add another volume control in front of the subwoofers own volume control? How can that help anything?

drcruz · « **Reply #4 on:** 17 Mar 2007, 10:38 pm »

Well...

Instead of an active pre-amp, I would like to try a passive volume control, here are a couple of reasons I'm interested in a passive volume control...

Go Here:

http://www.high-endaudio.com/RC-Linestages.html#ClA

Page search for the word "passive"

Go Here:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/musicfirst2/tap.html

The tap is a Transformer Volume Control unit (TVC)

And Here:

http://www.10audio.com/placette.htm

The Placette is a Resistive Volume Control unit

But I'm mostly curious about this one below which is also a Resistive Volume Control unit.

http://www.tweakaudio.com/Ultimate%20Attenuators.html

NewBuyer · « **Reply #5 on:** 19 Mar 2007, 02:17 am »

Quote from: drcruz on 17 Mar 2007, 05:50 pm

NewBuyer,

Are you still out there? Did you ever try this? I'm REALLY interested if this worked out for you.

Hi drcruz, actually no I have not yet tried it. I would be more interested in trying it (just for fun, since this sub already sounds fantastic), if I knew roughly what position of the volume control on this sub corresponded to preamp unity-gain (i.e. no added preamp gain or attenuation).

Mike if you are interested, would you like to speculate where that position on the volume dial would be? I imagine that running the volume wide open would involve the sub adding a great deal of preamp gain to the incoming signal, is this correct?

Mike Dzurko · « **Reply #6 on:** 19 Mar 2007, 01:09 pm »

Quote from: NewBuyer on 19 Mar 2007, 02:17 am

Quote from: drcruz on 17 Mar 2007, 05:50 pm
NewBuyer,

Are you still out there? Did you ever try this? I'm REALLY interested if this worked out for you.

Hi drcruz, actually no I have not yet tried it. I would be more interested in trying it (just for fun, since this sub already sounds fantastic), if I knew roughly what position of the volume control on this sub corresponded to preamp unity-gain (i.e. no added preamp gain or attenuation).

Mike if you are interested, would you like to speculate where that position on the volume dial would be? I imagine that running the volume wide open would involve the sub adding a great deal of preamp gain to the incoming signal, is this correct?

The volume control on the sub is an Alps pot . . . . all it can do is attenuate the signal, so wide open would be where you'd want to set it . . .

griller · « **Reply #7 on:** 19 Mar 2007, 10:28 pm »

Sure, I can understand using a passive pre-amp or just volume controls in front of an amp to replace the preamp. I just don't understand how adding another volume control in front of an existing volume control can possibly improve anything. Well I guess it would improve the bottom line of whoever sells the additional volume controls

drcruz · « **Reply #8 on:** 19 Mar 2007, 10:46 pm »

griller,

the reason I would even consider it was more of conveniently putting all the volume resistor pots in the same enclosure (2 pots for the 2 amp channels and 2 pots for the subs - like I said it'd be for convenience), especially because my Force volume pots are on the back. BUT...I've been doing some thinking about my personal set up, I can't see any problems w/ turning my subs around and having the volume pots conveniently in the front (other than asthetics).

griller · « **Reply #9 on:** 22 Mar 2007, 08:25 pm »

Thanks, remote volume, now that makes sense!