Stewart,

If you don't understand *system* design, then you shouldn't be messing
with passives.

I guess I just don't see the value of passive audio gear. I appreciate that
reducing the number of devices in the chain is always a good idea when all
else is equal. But in this case all else is decidely not equal. An active
output can drive cables with no HF loss, and the low output impedance
reduces or avoids altogether RFI and other interference problems. An active
input can be balanced to reduce hum and RFI. Further, the obssession some
people have to avoid adding 0.001% distortion seems silly given that all
loudspeakers have 100 times more distortion. And any room you're likely to
put speakers in has a response that varies by 20-30 dB throughout the entire
low end.

Which makes it a basic lie - it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output buffering can
still legitimately be considered passive. Not to defend Manley. I have no
use for tubes either. :-)

--Ethan

On 14 Jan 2004 08:36:40 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

In article writes:

I appreciate the advice, but as I said before I only have a digital
multimeter at my disposal. It sounds like I'd have to bench the amp
and connect it up to a tone or sine wave generator to do what you
suggest. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 14 Jan 2004 08:36:40 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

In article writes:

I appreciate the advice, but as I said before I only have a digital
multimeter at my disposal. It sounds like I'd have to bench the amp
and connect it up to a tone or sine wave generator to do what you
suggest. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 14 Jan 2004 08:36:40 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

In article writes:

I appreciate the advice, but as I said before I only have a digital
multimeter at my disposal. It sounds like I'd have to bench the amp
and connect it up to a tone or sine wave generator to do what you
suggest. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 14 Jan 2004 08:36:40 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

In article writes:

I appreciate the advice, but as I said before I only have a digital
multimeter at my disposal. It sounds like I'd have to bench the amp
and connect it up to a tone or sine wave generator to do what you
suggest. Am I interpreting you correctly?

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:43:48 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Stewart,

If you don't understand *system* design, then you shouldn't be messing
with passives.

I guess I just don't see the value of passive audio gear. I appreciate that
reducing the number of devices in the chain is always a good idea when all
else is equal. But in this case all else is decidely not equal. An active
output can drive cables with no HF loss, and the low output impedance
reduces or avoids altogether RFI and other interference problems.

I have no such problems in my system.

An active
input can be balanced to reduce hum and RFI.

True, but very few domestic hi-fi systems use balanced connections.
Further, a passive controller can also be made balanced, indeed Audio
Synthesis used to make just such devices, the Passion 8 and
ProPassion.

Further, the obssession some
people have to avoid adding 0.001% distortion seems silly given that all
loudspeakers have 100 times more distortion. And any room you're likely to
put speakers in has a response that varies by 20-30 dB throughout the entire
low end.

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system, I'd like as not
use a modern integrated amplifier.

Which makes it a basic lie - it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output buffering can
still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

Not to defend Manley. I have no
use for tubes either. :-)

Actually, they can work extremely well in a pre-amp! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:43:48 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Stewart,

If you don't understand *system* design, then you shouldn't be messing
with passives.

I guess I just don't see the value of passive audio gear. I appreciate that
reducing the number of devices in the chain is always a good idea when all
else is equal. But in this case all else is decidely not equal. An active
output can drive cables with no HF loss, and the low output impedance
reduces or avoids altogether RFI and other interference problems.

I have no such problems in my system.

An active
input can be balanced to reduce hum and RFI.

True, but very few domestic hi-fi systems use balanced connections.
Further, a passive controller can also be made balanced, indeed Audio
Synthesis used to make just such devices, the Passion 8 and
ProPassion.

Further, the obssession some
people have to avoid adding 0.001% distortion seems silly given that all
loudspeakers have 100 times more distortion. And any room you're likely to
put speakers in has a response that varies by 20-30 dB throughout the entire
low end.

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system, I'd like as not
use a modern integrated amplifier.

Which makes it a basic lie - it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output buffering can
still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

Not to defend Manley. I have no
use for tubes either. :-)

Actually, they can work extremely well in a pre-amp! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:43:48 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Stewart,

If you don't understand *system* design, then you shouldn't be messing
with passives.

I guess I just don't see the value of passive audio gear. I appreciate that
reducing the number of devices in the chain is always a good idea when all
else is equal. But in this case all else is decidely not equal. An active
output can drive cables with no HF loss, and the low output impedance
reduces or avoids altogether RFI and other interference problems.

I have no such problems in my system.

An active
input can be balanced to reduce hum and RFI.

True, but very few domestic hi-fi systems use balanced connections.
Further, a passive controller can also be made balanced, indeed Audio
Synthesis used to make just such devices, the Passion 8 and
ProPassion.

Further, the obssession some
people have to avoid adding 0.001% distortion seems silly given that all
loudspeakers have 100 times more distortion. And any room you're likely to
put speakers in has a response that varies by 20-30 dB throughout the entire
low end.

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system, I'd like as not
use a modern integrated amplifier.

Which makes it a basic lie - it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output buffering can
still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

Not to defend Manley. I have no
use for tubes either. :-)

Actually, they can work extremely well in a pre-amp! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:43:48 -0500, "Ethan Winer" ethanw at
ethanwiner dot com wrote:

Stewart,

If you don't understand *system* design, then you shouldn't be messing
with passives.

I guess I just don't see the value of passive audio gear. I appreciate that
reducing the number of devices in the chain is always a good idea when all
else is equal. But in this case all else is decidely not equal. An active
output can drive cables with no HF loss, and the low output impedance
reduces or avoids altogether RFI and other interference problems.

I have no such problems in my system.

An active
input can be balanced to reduce hum and RFI.

True, but very few domestic hi-fi systems use balanced connections.
Further, a passive controller can also be made balanced, indeed Audio
Synthesis used to make just such devices, the Passion 8 and
ProPassion.

Further, the obssession some
people have to avoid adding 0.001% distortion seems silly given that all
loudspeakers have 100 times more distortion. And any room you're likely to
put speakers in has a response that varies by 20-30 dB throughout the entire
low end.

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system, I'd like as not
use a modern integrated amplifier.

Which makes it a basic lie - it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output buffering can
still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

Not to defend Manley. I have no
use for tubes either. :-)

Actually, they can work extremely well in a pre-amp! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.


Which makes it a basic lie -- it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output
buffering can still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.


Which makes it a basic lie -- it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output
buffering can still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.


Which makes it a basic lie -- it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output
buffering can still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.


Which makes it a basic lie -- it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output
buffering can still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message


I guess I just don't see the value of passive audio gear.

Cheap, simple, convenient if used with reasonable care.

Case in point the NHTPro PVC. I use one basically because my NHT A10 monitor
system power amp has no volume control of its own. Yes, there's a volume
control on the sound card I drive it with, but sometimes its just easier to
use a real physical volume control than rummage through windows to find the
software version.

I use my other PVC for odd attenuation needs around the shop.

I appreciate that reducing the number of devices in the chain is always
a good idea when all else is equal. But in this case all else is
decidedly not equal.

An active output can drive cables with no HF loss,

Not a problem if you put the attenuator reasonably close to the active load.

and the low output impedance reduces or avoids altogether RFI
and other interference problems.

Two words: balanced I/O.

An active input can be balanced to reduce hum and RFI.

Right, and the A10's power amp has balanced inputs.

Further, the obsession some people have to avoid
adding 0.001% distortion seems silly given that all loudspeakers have
100 times more distortion.

Agreed, OTOH, when I use a PVC to test equipment over a range of input
levels, its zero THD feature has some merit.

And any room you're likely to put speakers
in has a response that varies by 20-30 dB throughout the entire low
end.

Agreed again.

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message


I guess I just don't see the value of passive audio gear.

Cheap, simple, convenient if used with reasonable care.

Case in point the NHTPro PVC. I use one basically because my NHT A10 monitor
system power amp has no volume control of its own. Yes, there's a volume
control on the sound card I drive it with, but sometimes its just easier to
use a real physical volume control than rummage through windows to find the
software version.

I use my other PVC for odd attenuation needs around the shop.

I appreciate that reducing the number of devices in the chain is always
a good idea when all else is equal. But in this case all else is
decidedly not equal.

An active output can drive cables with no HF loss,

Not a problem if you put the attenuator reasonably close to the active load.

and the low output impedance reduces or avoids altogether RFI
and other interference problems.

Two words: balanced I/O.

An active input can be balanced to reduce hum and RFI.

Right, and the A10's power amp has balanced inputs.

Further, the obsession some people have to avoid
adding 0.001% distortion seems silly given that all loudspeakers have
100 times more distortion.

Agreed, OTOH, when I use a PVC to test equipment over a range of input
levels, its zero THD feature has some merit.

And any room you're likely to put speakers
in has a response that varies by 20-30 dB throughout the entire low
end.

Agreed again.

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message


I guess I just don't see the value of passive audio gear.

Cheap, simple, convenient if used with reasonable care.

Case in point the NHTPro PVC. I use one basically because my NHT A10 monitor
system power amp has no volume control of its own. Yes, there's a volume
control on the sound card I drive it with, but sometimes its just easier to
use a real physical volume control than rummage through windows to find the
software version.

I use my other PVC for odd attenuation needs around the shop.

I appreciate that reducing the number of devices in the chain is always
a good idea when all else is equal. But in this case all else is
decidedly not equal.

An active output can drive cables with no HF loss,

Not a problem if you put the attenuator reasonably close to the active load.

and the low output impedance reduces or avoids altogether RFI
and other interference problems.

Two words: balanced I/O.

An active input can be balanced to reduce hum and RFI.

Right, and the A10's power amp has balanced inputs.

Further, the obsession some people have to avoid
adding 0.001% distortion seems silly given that all loudspeakers have
100 times more distortion.

Agreed, OTOH, when I use a PVC to test equipment over a range of input
levels, its zero THD feature has some merit.

And any room you're likely to put speakers
in has a response that varies by 20-30 dB throughout the entire low
end.

Agreed again.

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in message


I guess I just don't see the value of passive audio gear.

Cheap, simple, convenient if used with reasonable care.

Case in point the NHTPro PVC. I use one basically because my NHT A10 monitor
system power amp has no volume control of its own. Yes, there's a volume
control on the sound card I drive it with, but sometimes its just easier to
use a real physical volume control than rummage through windows to find the
software version.

I use my other PVC for odd attenuation needs around the shop.

I appreciate that reducing the number of devices in the chain is always
a good idea when all else is equal. But in this case all else is
decidedly not equal.

An active output can drive cables with no HF loss,

Not a problem if you put the attenuator reasonably close to the active load.

and the low output impedance reduces or avoids altogether RFI
and other interference problems.

Two words: balanced I/O.

An active input can be balanced to reduce hum and RFI.

Right, and the A10's power amp has balanced inputs.

Further, the obsession some people have to avoid
adding 0.001% distortion seems silly given that all loudspeakers have
100 times more distortion.

Agreed, OTOH, when I use a PVC to test equipment over a range of input
levels, its zero THD feature has some merit.

And any room you're likely to put speakers
in has a response that varies by 20-30 dB throughout the entire low
end.

Agreed again.

In article writes:

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.

Not when there's a capacitor in series with the input.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.

Not when there's a capacitor in series with the input.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.

Not when there's a capacitor in series with the input.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.

Not when there's a capacitor in series with the input.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

On 15 Jan 2004 00:05:42 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

In article writes:

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.

Not when there's a capacitor in series with the input.

That will only have effect below 20Hz, and should not have an f3 point
above 2Hz.

Most multimeters will show a 'flash' reading of the true input
resistance, which will then creep higher as the capacitor charges.
However, your point is well taken. Personally, I would *never* design
an amp with an open capacitor on the input, as this can cause *major*
speaker damage if disconnected and reconnected 'hot'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 15 Jan 2004 00:05:42 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

In article writes:

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.

Not when there's a capacitor in series with the input.

That will only have effect below 20Hz, and should not have an f3 point
above 2Hz.

Most multimeters will show a 'flash' reading of the true input
resistance, which will then creep higher as the capacitor charges.
However, your point is well taken. Personally, I would *never* design
an amp with an open capacitor on the input, as this can cause *major*
speaker damage if disconnected and reconnected 'hot'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 15 Jan 2004 00:05:42 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

In article writes:

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.

Not when there's a capacitor in series with the input.

That will only have effect below 20Hz, and should not have an f3 point
above 2Hz.

Most multimeters will show a 'flash' reading of the true input
resistance, which will then creep higher as the capacitor charges.
However, your point is well taken. Personally, I would *never* design
an amp with an open capacitor on the input, as this can cause *major*
speaker damage if disconnected and reconnected 'hot'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 15 Jan 2004 00:05:42 -0500, (Mike Rivers)
wrote:

In article writes:

Well, yes. Your digital multimeter doesn't have an input impedance
scale does it? It's not the same as resistance in most cases, in case
that's what you were dreaming about.

Actually, it pretty much is, in most cases.

Not when there's a capacitor in series with the input.

That will only have effect below 20Hz, and should not have an f3 point
above 2Hz.

Most multimeters will show a 'flash' reading of the true input
resistance, which will then creep higher as the capacitor charges.
However, your point is well taken. Personally, I would *never* design
an amp with an open capacitor on the input, as this can cause *major*
speaker damage if disconnected and reconnected 'hot'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:38:58 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

Which makes it a basic lie -- it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output
buffering can still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:38:58 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

Which makes it a basic lie -- it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output
buffering can still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:38:58 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

Which makes it a basic lie -- it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output
buffering can still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:38:58 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

Which makes it a basic lie -- it's *not* passive.

As Paul explained, a passive device with input and output
buffering can still legitimately be considered passive.

No, it can't, since the buffering is *active*, and can contribute
noise and distortion, just the same as if it had gain.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

I considered "system" to be sufficiently ambiguous to justify my comment. Yes,
orthodynamic speakers are pretty much resistive, but Divas are not the sort of
speaker you drive with an integrated amp -- just on general principles. They
"deserve" separates, if only for reasons of snobbishness.


You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.

I was using EQ as a generic term for a change in frequency response (which
includes crossover functions).

The Vendetta moving-coil preamp (which brings the signal up to line level) uses
passive EQ for the HF equalization, followed by active EQ for LF. John Curl told
me he had a hell of time getting the first stage quiet enough without feedback.
But you can turn the volume control on the amp following the Vendetta "all the
way to 11" and only a little bit of hiss is audible.

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

I considered "system" to be sufficiently ambiguous to justify my comment. Yes,
orthodynamic speakers are pretty much resistive, but Divas are not the sort of
speaker you drive with an integrated amp -- just on general principles. They
"deserve" separates, if only for reasons of snobbishness.


You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.

I was using EQ as a generic term for a change in frequency response (which
includes crossover functions).

The Vendetta moving-coil preamp (which brings the signal up to line level) uses
passive EQ for the HF equalization, followed by active EQ for LF. John Curl told
me he had a hell of time getting the first stage quiet enough without feedback.
But you can turn the volume control on the amp following the Vendetta "all the
way to 11" and only a little bit of hiss is audible.

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

I considered "system" to be sufficiently ambiguous to justify my comment. Yes,
orthodynamic speakers are pretty much resistive, but Divas are not the sort of
speaker you drive with an integrated amp -- just on general principles. They
"deserve" separates, if only for reasons of snobbishness.


You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.

I was using EQ as a generic term for a change in frequency response (which
includes crossover functions).

The Vendetta moving-coil preamp (which brings the signal up to line level) uses
passive EQ for the HF equalization, followed by active EQ for LF. John Curl told
me he had a hell of time getting the first stage quiet enough without feedback.
But you can turn the volume control on the amp following the Vendetta "all the
way to 11" and only a little bit of hiss is audible.

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

I considered "system" to be sufficiently ambiguous to justify my comment. Yes,
orthodynamic speakers are pretty much resistive, but Divas are not the sort of
speaker you drive with an integrated amp -- just on general principles. They
"deserve" separates, if only for reasons of snobbishness.


You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If the EQ is
obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it is passive EQ.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.

I was using EQ as a generic term for a change in frequency response (which
includes crossover functions).

The Vendetta moving-coil preamp (which brings the signal up to line level) uses
passive EQ for the HF equalization, followed by active EQ for LF. John Curl told
me he had a hell of time getting the first stage quiet enough without feedback.
But you can turn the volume control on the amp following the Vendetta "all the
way to 11" and only a little bit of hiss is audible.

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

Right. 4 ohm mostly resistive with is common with ribbons and 4 ohms way
reactive which is common with moving-coil speakers are two different things.
The resistor is way too easy, which is why I test amps with a loudspeaker
simulator that tries to be highly reactive and have low impedance magnitude
in the same frequency ranges.

I considered "system" to be sufficiently ambiguous to justify my
comment. Yes, orthodynamic speakers are pretty much resistive, but
Divas are not the sort of speaker you drive with an integrated amp --
just on general principles. They "deserve" separates, if only for
reasons of snobbishness.

Hold that thought: "snobbishness". The hidden agenda in power amp design is
the nature of music signals themselves. The peak-to-average ratios are 8 dB
or more even for highly-compressed, highly clipped so-called music. By law
in the US we rate consumer home stereo amps with signals that have a
peak-to-average ratio of 0 dB. That means that by law just about all amps,
even $79 100 wpc receivers, are wildly overbuilt if used with even a
modicum of common sense.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If
the EQ is obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it
is passive EQ.

That's one way to look at it.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.

I was using EQ as a generic term for a change in frequency response
(which includes crossover functions).

I think we all agree that EQ also includes pre-emphasis and de-emphasis.

The Vendetta moving-coil preamp (which brings the signal up to line
level) uses passive EQ for the HF equalization, followed by active EQ
for LF. John Curl told me he had a hell of time getting the first
stage quiet enough without feedback.

You're preaching to the choir here. If you searched google you'd find a
number of posts from Pinkerton alluding to the same issue. You'd also find a
link to a very nice schematic of his personal phono preamp.

20 dB of passive Eq applied to a pre-emphasized signal that tends to rise in
amplitude often implies some fairly significant sacrifices in terms of
dynamic range. On balance, the vinyl record itself is usually if not always
so noisy that handling signals derived from it with modern electronics is
usually not much of a serious challenge. Things get a little dicier with
low-output MC cartridges, but IMO that's a case of unnecessarily trying to
make things hard for yourself.

But you can turn the volume
control on the amp following the Vendetta "all the way to 11" and
only a little bit of hiss is audible.

Lat time I looked, "all the way" was more like 5 o'clock. Is the Vendetta
volume control mounted oddly?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

Right. 4 ohm mostly resistive with is common with ribbons and 4 ohms way
reactive which is common with moving-coil speakers are two different things.
The resistor is way too easy, which is why I test amps with a loudspeaker
simulator that tries to be highly reactive and have low impedance magnitude
in the same frequency ranges.

I considered "system" to be sufficiently ambiguous to justify my
comment. Yes, orthodynamic speakers are pretty much resistive, but
Divas are not the sort of speaker you drive with an integrated amp --
just on general principles. They "deserve" separates, if only for
reasons of snobbishness.

Hold that thought: "snobbishness". The hidden agenda in power amp design is
the nature of music signals themselves. The peak-to-average ratios are 8 dB
or more even for highly-compressed, highly clipped so-called music. By law
in the US we rate consumer home stereo amps with signals that have a
peak-to-average ratio of 0 dB. That means that by law just about all amps,
even $79 100 wpc receivers, are wildly overbuilt if used with even a
modicum of common sense.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If
the EQ is obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it
is passive EQ.

That's one way to look at it.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.

I was using EQ as a generic term for a change in frequency response
(which includes crossover functions).

I think we all agree that EQ also includes pre-emphasis and de-emphasis.

The Vendetta moving-coil preamp (which brings the signal up to line
level) uses passive EQ for the HF equalization, followed by active EQ
for LF. John Curl told me he had a hell of time getting the first
stage quiet enough without feedback.

You're preaching to the choir here. If you searched google you'd find a
number of posts from Pinkerton alluding to the same issue. You'd also find a
link to a very nice schematic of his personal phono preamp.

20 dB of passive Eq applied to a pre-emphasized signal that tends to rise in
amplitude often implies some fairly significant sacrifices in terms of
dynamic range. On balance, the vinyl record itself is usually if not always
so noisy that handling signals derived from it with modern electronics is
usually not much of a serious challenge. Things get a little dicier with
low-output MC cartridges, but IMO that's a case of unnecessarily trying to
make things hard for yourself.

But you can turn the volume
control on the amp following the Vendetta "all the way to 11" and
only a little bit of hiss is audible.

Lat time I looked, "all the way" was more like 5 o'clock. Is the Vendetta
volume control mounted oddly?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

Right. 4 ohm mostly resistive with is common with ribbons and 4 ohms way
reactive which is common with moving-coil speakers are two different things.
The resistor is way too easy, which is why I test amps with a loudspeaker
simulator that tries to be highly reactive and have low impedance magnitude
in the same frequency ranges.

I considered "system" to be sufficiently ambiguous to justify my
comment. Yes, orthodynamic speakers are pretty much resistive, but
Divas are not the sort of speaker you drive with an integrated amp --
just on general principles. They "deserve" separates, if only for
reasons of snobbishness.

Hold that thought: "snobbishness". The hidden agenda in power amp design is
the nature of music signals themselves. The peak-to-average ratios are 8 dB
or more even for highly-compressed, highly clipped so-called music. By law
in the US we rate consumer home stereo amps with signals that have a
peak-to-average ratio of 0 dB. That means that by law just about all amps,
even $79 100 wpc receivers, are wildly overbuilt if used with even a
modicum of common sense.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If
the EQ is obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it
is passive EQ.

That's one way to look at it.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.

I was using EQ as a generic term for a change in frequency response
(which includes crossover functions).

I think we all agree that EQ also includes pre-emphasis and de-emphasis.

The Vendetta moving-coil preamp (which brings the signal up to line
level) uses passive EQ for the HF equalization, followed by active EQ
for LF. John Curl told me he had a hell of time getting the first
stage quiet enough without feedback.

You're preaching to the choir here. If you searched google you'd find a
number of posts from Pinkerton alluding to the same issue. You'd also find a
link to a very nice schematic of his personal phono preamp.

20 dB of passive Eq applied to a pre-emphasized signal that tends to rise in
amplitude often implies some fairly significant sacrifices in terms of
dynamic range. On balance, the vinyl record itself is usually if not always
so noisy that handling signals derived from it with modern electronics is
usually not much of a serious challenge. Things get a little dicier with
low-output MC cartridges, but IMO that's a case of unnecessarily trying to
make things hard for yourself.

But you can turn the volume
control on the amp following the Vendetta "all the way to 11" and
only a little bit of hiss is audible.

Lat time I looked, "all the way" was more like 5 o'clock. Is the Vendetta
volume control mounted oddly?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message

Yes, no argument there. If I ever changed my system,
I'd like as not use a modern integrated amplifier.

To drive Apogee Divas? Thou jesteth.

Note that I said change the *system*. BTW, Divas are a pretty much
resistive 4 ohm load, not nearly so difficult to drive as many modern
boxes. There's so much mythology in 'high end' audio! :-)

Right. 4 ohm mostly resistive with is common with ribbons and 4 ohms way
reactive which is common with moving-coil speakers are two different things.
The resistor is way too easy, which is why I test amps with a loudspeaker
simulator that tries to be highly reactive and have low impedance magnitude
in the same frequency ranges.

I considered "system" to be sufficiently ambiguous to justify my
comment. Yes, orthodynamic speakers are pretty much resistive, but
Divas are not the sort of speaker you drive with an integrated amp --
just on general principles. They "deserve" separates, if only for
reasons of snobbishness.

Hold that thought: "snobbishness". The hidden agenda in power amp design is
the nature of music signals themselves. The peak-to-average ratios are 8 dB
or more even for highly-compressed, highly clipped so-called music. By law
in the US we rate consumer home stereo amps with signals that have a
peak-to-average ratio of 0 dB. That means that by law just about all amps,
even $79 100 wpc receivers, are wildly overbuilt if used with even a
modicum of common sense.

You guys are confusing the device with the transfer function. If
the EQ is obtained by a device outside the feedback loop, then it
is passive EQ.

That's one way to look at it.

No one is talking about EQ. You are clearly talking about phono
stages, where passive HF EQ can indeed be beneficial, but that's
another story.

I was using EQ as a generic term for a change in frequency response
(which includes crossover functions).

I think we all agree that EQ also includes pre-emphasis and de-emphasis.

The Vendetta moving-coil preamp (which brings the signal up to line
level) uses passive EQ for the HF equalization, followed by active EQ
for LF. John Curl told me he had a hell of time getting the first
stage quiet enough without feedback.

You're preaching to the choir here. If you searched google you'd find a
number of posts from Pinkerton alluding to the same issue. You'd also find a
link to a very nice schematic of his personal phono preamp.

20 dB of passive Eq applied to a pre-emphasized signal that tends to rise in
amplitude often implies some fairly significant sacrifices in terms of
dynamic range. On balance, the vinyl record itself is usually if not always
so noisy that handling signals derived from it with modern electronics is
usually not much of a serious challenge. Things get a little dicier with
low-output MC cartridges, but IMO that's a case of unnecessarily trying to
make things hard for yourself.

But you can turn the volume
control on the amp following the Vendetta "all the way to 11" and
only a little bit of hiss is audible.

Lat time I looked, "all the way" was more like 5 o'clock. Is the Vendetta
volume control mounted oddly?

Arny,

Cheap, simple, convenient if used with reasonable care.

My first "passive volume control" was 30-40 years ago, when I bought a
four-input Radio Shack passive mixer. Remember those? It was great for the
time, and my budget back then.

An active output can drive cables with no HF loss
Not a problem if you put the attenuator reasonably close to the active
load.

Agreed. I just bought a Jensen transformer for my subwoofer, and they too
made the point that the transformer should be at the subwoofer end of the
wire.

when I use a PVC to test equipment over a range of input levels, its zero
THD feature has some merit.

Yes, since you do professional testing I agree. Then again, I don't think
most audiophiles do much testing!

--Ethan

Arny,

Cheap, simple, convenient if used with reasonable care.

My first "passive volume control" was 30-40 years ago, when I bought a
four-input Radio Shack passive mixer. Remember those? It was great for the
time, and my budget back then.

An active output can drive cables with no HF loss
Not a problem if you put the attenuator reasonably close to the active
load.

Agreed. I just bought a Jensen transformer for my subwoofer, and they too
made the point that the transformer should be at the subwoofer end of the
wire.

when I use a PVC to test equipment over a range of input levels, its zero
THD feature has some merit.

Yes, since you do professional testing I agree. Then again, I don't think
most audiophiles do much testing!

--Ethan

Arny,

Cheap, simple, convenient if used with reasonable care.

My first "passive volume control" was 30-40 years ago, when I bought a
four-input Radio Shack passive mixer. Remember those? It was great for the
time, and my budget back then.

An active output can drive cables with no HF loss
Not a problem if you put the attenuator reasonably close to the active
load.

Agreed. I just bought a Jensen transformer for my subwoofer, and they too
made the point that the transformer should be at the subwoofer end of the
wire.

when I use a PVC to test equipment over a range of input levels, its zero
THD feature has some merit.

Yes, since you do professional testing I agree. Then again, I don't think
most audiophiles do much testing!

--Ethan