|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Mar 23, 2014 14:38:21 GMT -5
Could you use the control freak to tame the large steps in volume of the usp-1 remote? I had to take my usp-1 out of service in my TV room because the remote volume had too large a change in volume. It was alway to loud or too soft. Could I use a Control Freak between my usp-1 and upa-200 to tame this behavior? I was thinking that by reducing the gain at the amp I could make the volume changes a bit finer on usp-1 remote. Anybody try this? As posted a couple of pages back, I'm contemplating inserting a CF between an ERC-3 and a USP-1. I also have a TT connected to the USP-1 but it's not as sensitive on the volume control, so the CF isn't needed for it. Hence locating the CF between the USP-1 and an XPA-5 isn't really an option. I have previously used pro attenuators but I needed them on a job so took them out and I haven't replaced them. I didn't noticed any sound quality degradation, just a volume reduction. I could go back to using fixed value attenuators but they cost as much as a CF which has the advantage of variable attenuation. So I could balance perfectly the volume between the inputs. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by clearear on Mar 23, 2014 19:35:33 GMT -5
Is the FC the same as a passive preamp?
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 24, 2014 8:03:25 GMT -5
How would I hook this up between xda1 and am4's? XDA-1 to control freak, to airmotiv 4. You can't mess it up. If there is an input and output just follow those. Could you use the control freak to tame the large steps in volume of the usp-1 remote? I had to take my usp-1 out of service in my TV room because the remote volume had too large a change in volume. It was alway to loud or too soft. Could I use a Control Freak between my usp-1 and upa-200 to tame this behavior? I was thinking that by reducing the gain at the amp I could make the volume changes a bit finer on usp-1 remote. Anybody try this? Absolutely. This will do just that. |
|
|
|
Post by aduncanson on Mar 24, 2014 9:06:39 GMT -5
Could you use the control freak to tame the large steps in volume of the usp-1 remote? I had to take my usp-1 out of service in my TV room because the remote volume had too large a change in volume. It was alway to loud or too soft. Could I use a Control Freak between my usp-1 and upa-200 to tame this behavior? I was thinking that by reducing the gain at the amp I could make the volume changes a bit finer on usp-1 remote. Anybody try this? Absolutely. This will do just that. Well, the Control Freak would allow you to obtain intermediate volumes that your pre-amp remote steps over, but only when you are using the Control Freak. If your pre-amp remote only allows, say 1 dB steps, you are still going to be stuck with that 1 dB resolution when using the remote. You would have to go to the Control Freak and fine tune the volume whenever you wanted it to be perfect. Adjusting the gain at the power amp would have the same limitation. |
|
|
|
Post by aduncanson on Mar 24, 2014 9:40:35 GMT -5
I guess if one owns an XDA-1 with the lossy digital volume control, this is kind of needed... Nice, make us pay more for what should have been included in the first place. I recently added a Firestone Audio Bravo DSP re-clocker with 96kHz USB capability to my XDA-1. If I add this (as I am tempted), I will have spent most of the cost of an XDA-2 upgrading my XDA-1. Oh well, these are just sunk costs. And now I have gone and ordered it (the balanced version) for use between my XDA-1 and my Fostex powered monitors which function as an improved sound system for my Blu-ray/broadcast TV system. I've found myself reluctant to crawl behind the monitors to adjust the gain when I switch sources or discs to keep the XDA-1's attenuation near the minimum. I hope that this will make me more likely to turn on the Emotiva-Fostex set up rather than simply default to built in speakers for ordinary TV viewing. Now maybe a small sub... Oh yeah, I had also connected a Schiit Magni headphone amp to the XDA-1's single ended output so one might observe I had already invested the price of an XDA-2 in upgrading my XDA-1 (except that the Magni was being replaced in my desktop system and not going to be used otherwise at the time.) By the way, I like the Firestone Bravo with the XDA-1. It seems to clean up streaming radio, lending it a more credible presence. I also like that the Firestone, unlike the XDA-2 or DC-1, needs no special driver so that I can immediately connect any computer that is presented to me. |
|
|
|
Post by clearear on Mar 24, 2014 10:00:21 GMT -5
Is the Control Freak the same as a passive preamp?
|
|
|
|
Post by aduncanson on Mar 24, 2014 10:15:35 GMT -5
Is the Control Freak the same as a passive preamp? Some passive preamps, like the Adcom SLC-505, include extensive source switching and a balance control. This only offers volume, and so might be the barest essential of a passive preamp. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 24, 2014 10:18:58 GMT -5
Is the Control Freak the same as a passive preamp? Yes. Well, if you want to get into semantics passive pre-amps can be more complicated than a control freak and have all kinds of features and passive circuitry. But the CF is a passive volume control which can be called a passive pre-amp. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Mar 24, 2014 13:58:01 GMT -5
Yeah, the term passive preamp is really an oxymoron, as 'passive' and 'amp' are rather contradictory. We've come to accept that a device that serves to connect, select, and control the volume without amplifying is called a passive preamp, but to call the Control Freak one is a bit of a stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by clearear on Mar 24, 2014 14:31:16 GMT -5
Thanks. I have an Axiom passive pre, perhaps the only thing that's different is that it's encased. It doesn't have any more features than the Control Freak.
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 24, 2014 15:07:50 GMT -5
Thanks. I have an Axiom passive pre, perhaps the only thing that's different is that it's encased. It doesn't have any more features than the Control Freak. Stick with the axiom. I would  |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Mar 24, 2014 21:53:47 GMT -5
Absolutely. This will do just that. Well, the Control Freak would allow you to obtain intermediate volumes that your pre-amp remote steps over, but only when you are using the Control Freak. If your pre-amp remote only allows, say 1 dB steps, you are still going to be stuck with that 1 dB resolution when using the remote. You would have to go to the Control Freak and fine tune the volume whenever you wanted it to be perfect. Adjusting the gain at the power amp would have the same limitation. Thinking about this made my brain ache................. The volume steps on the USP-1 remote are perfectly OK for my Denon TT when it's used as the source. But those same steps appear to be too rapid for the ERC-3 when it's used as the source. So I think the problem may well be not the steps themselves but the base volume from where the steps start. In the case of the ERC-3 as the source, the very first step (up from zero) can be a bit too loud depending on the CD being played. Just one or two more steps, an easy flick on the volume button, can get rather loud very quickly. Then there is the whole linear versus logarithmic potentiometer question. If I can get the CF to control the volume from the ERC-3 to match the volume from the TT then I'll be happy. I just need to work out what cables I need to add to the CF order to help justify the freight. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Golden Ear on Mar 24, 2014 22:45:05 GMT -5
Well, the Control Freak would allow you to obtain intermediate volumes that your pre-amp remote steps over, but only when you are using the Control Freak. If your pre-amp remote only allows, say 1 dB steps, you are still going to be stuck with that 1 dB resolution when using the remote. You would have to go to the Control Freak and fine tune the volume whenever you wanted it to be perfect. Adjusting the gain at the power amp would have the same limitation. Thinking about this made my brain ache................. The volume steps on the USP-1 remote are perfectly OK for my Denon TT when it's used as the source. But those same steps appear to be too rapid for the ERC-3 when it's used as the source. So I think the problem may well be not the steps themselves but the base volume from where the steps start. In the case of the ERC-3 as the source, the very first step (up from zero) can be a bit too loud depending on the CD being played. Just one or two more steps, an easy flick on the volume button, can get rather loud very quickly. Then there is the whole linear versus logarithmic potentiometer question. If I can get the CF to control the volume from the ERC-2 to match the volume from the TT then I'll be happy. I just need to work out what cables I need to add to the CF order to help justify the freight. Cheers Gary This is the problem I have on USP-1 on any CD player. It get very loud even very slight adjustment in the dial. The remote is just hard to control. I used an in line attenuator but made the music soft to my liking. I wonder if this control freak will have same effect like the inline attenuator. I'm thinking putting it between CD and preamp. Right now, unbalanced were sold out. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Mar 24, 2014 23:03:55 GMT -5
Thinking about this made my brain ache................. The volume steps on the USP-1 remote are perfectly OK for my Denon TT when it's used as the source. But those same steps appear to be too rapid for the ERC-3 when it's used as the source. So I think the problem may well be not the steps themselves but the base volume from where the steps start. In the case of the ERC-3 as the source, the very first step (up from zero) can be a bit too loud depending on the CD being played. Just one or two more steps, an easy flick on the volume button, can get rather loud very quickly. Then there is the whole linear versus logarithmic potentiometer question. If I can get the CF to control the volume from the ERC-3 to match the volume from the TT then I'll be happy. I just need to work out what cables I need to add to the CF order to help justify the freight. This is the problem I have on USP-1 on any CD player. It get very loud even very slight adjustment in the dial. The remote is just hard to control. I used an in line attenuator but made the music soft to my liking. I wonder if this control freak will have same effect like the inline attenuator. I'm thinking putting it between CD and preamp. Right now, unbalanced were sold out. I noticed the "out of stock" on the unbalanced, not too concerned. To justify the freight I'll add an X Series speaker cable (XPA-100 to sub) and a 4 metre XLR cable (USP-1 to XPA-100). I'm also measuring up to see if a pair of ASM Bases (wedgies) will work with the Airmotive 4's in home office. That should make for a decent shipment making the freight worthwhile as long as I can wait for the CF and XLR cables to come back into stock. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by aduncanson on Mar 25, 2014 9:34:23 GMT -5
Thinking about this made my brain ache................. The volume steps on the USP-1 remote are perfectly OK for my Denon TT when it's used as the source. But those same steps appear to be too rapid for the ERC-3 when it's used as the source. So I think the problem may well be not the steps themselves but the base volume from where the steps start. In the case of the ERC-3 as the source, the very first step (up from zero) can be a bit too loud depending on the CD being played. Just one or two more steps, an easy flick on the volume button, can get rather loud very quickly. Then there is the whole linear versus logarithmic potentiometer question. If I can get the CF to control the volume from the ERC-3 to match the volume from the TT then I'll be happy. I just need to work out what cables I need to add to the CF order to help justify the freight. Cheers Gary Ah, that changes things. (And you did intimate this before, but I picked up on another part of what you wrote.) If the volume resolution is suitable for your phono, then it should be suitable for your CD as well. I would expect that the preamp's volume control would make a uniform change (in dB) with each step, but there is no guarantee of that, and there might be good reason for it not to be uniform near either end of the scale. Perhaps the CD player is coming in at such a high level that the volume control is near the lower end where steps maybe more coarse. In this case the Control Freak would be a potential solution, though a fixed attenuator might be preferable in theory. The big advantage of a variable attenuator like the Control Freak is that you won't have to establish the right degree of attenuation by buying and testing various sizes of attenuators. Being cheap myself, (although the savings would be small) and wanting to avoid using a more complex variable attenuator where only a fixed one is needed, I would first try 12 - 20dB fixed attenuators. (Unless I really had another application for the Control Freak in the back of my mind...) |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Mar 25, 2014 16:24:35 GMT -5
Thinking about this made my brain ache................. The volume steps on the USP-1 remote are perfectly OK for my Denon TT when it's used as the source. But those same steps appear to be too rapid for the ERC-3 when it's used as the source. So I think the problem may well be not the steps themselves but the base volume from where the steps start. In the case of the ERC-3 as the source, the very first step (up from zero) can be a bit too loud depending on the CD being played. Just one or two more steps, an easy flick on the volume button, can get rather loud very quickly. Then there is the whole linear versus logarithmic potentiometer question. If I can get the CF to control the volume from the ERC-3 to match the volume from the TT then I'll be happy. I just need to work out what cables I need to add to the CF order to help justify the freight. Ah, that changes things. (And you did intimate this before, but I picked up on another part of what you wrote.) If the volume resolution is suitable for your phono, then it should be suitable for your CD as well. I would expect that the preamp's volume control would make a uniform change (in dB) with each step, but there is no guarantee of that, and there might be good reason for it not to be uniform near either end of the scale. Perhaps the CD player is coming in at such a high level that the volume control is near the lower end where steps maybe more coarse. In this case the Control Freak would be a potential solution, though a fixed attenuator might be preferable in theory. The big advantage of a variable attenuator like the Control Freak is that you won't have to establish the right degree of attenuation by buying and testing various sizes of attenuators. Being cheap myself, (although the savings would be small) and wanting to avoid using a more complex variable attenuator where only a fixed one is needed, I would first try 12 - 20dB fixed attenuators. (Unless I really had another application for the Control Freak in the back of my mind...) I had a pair of fixed attenuators in place for a few weeks, but I had a need for them out on a job. Being pro attenuators they had BNC connectors so I had to use BNC to RCA adaptors. As a result they protruded a fair way out the back of the ERC-3, or USP-1 depending on where I had them for testing. Quality fixed attenuators range from $40 to $50 a pair here, so a CF is around the same price. Obviously freight bumps that up a bit, but I also need some cables (short speaker and long XLR) so if I chuck them in with the order it'll help balance that out. The added advantage is I can exactly even out the input volumes (to the USP-1) which is hard to do with fixed rate attenuators. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Mar 25, 2014 17:05:45 GMT -5
I used a passive pre - essentailly a control freak to control the volume on the XDA-1. What I did was I set the XDA-1 to the upper reaches of about 75 and then turned the passive pre-amp down all the way to where it is louder than I would want it. Then I used the remote on the XDA-1 to control the volume. This allowed some leeway with the XDA-1's volume control while still having it in the higher numbers.
It worked nicely. So for instance your TT requires a lot more positive attenuation. That would mean you would simply turn up the USP-1 using your remote for the USP-1. The only negative I can see here is that there may be a bit more noise at higher levels - maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by milsap195 on Mar 25, 2014 17:38:53 GMT -5
Any body here have one yet and can give us a any impressions?
|
|
|
|
Post by aduncanson on Mar 26, 2014 1:27:39 GMT -5
That the attenuators you used before had BNC connectors makes me think that they were intended for RF signals which just adds to the uncertainty of how much attenuation they would actually induce when connected into the typical 47k Ohm input impedance of a power amp. My guess is that their attenuation would have been quite a bit lower than the rated value. This is just one more reason why the adjustable attenuation provided by the control freak could turn out to be very handy. And yeah decent fixed attenuators could cost you more than the Control Freak Best of Luck - Alan |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 26, 2014 10:06:55 GMT -5
I would avoid using RF attenuators for audio. Some RF attenuators are only "flat" over a certain frequency range, which may be nowhere near the audio signal frequency band, and so may cause totally unpredictable alterations in the frequency response of audio signals. RF attenuators also usually operate at specific impedances, and so may actually impose a load which causes normal audio circuitry to distort, and some may not pass audio at all. That the attenuators you used before had BNC connectors makes me think that they were intended for RF signals which just adds to the uncertainty of how much attenuation they would actually induce when connected into the typical 47k Ohm input impedance of a power amp. My guess is that their attenuation would have been quite a bit lower than the rated value. This is just one more reason why the adjustable attenuation provided by the control freak could turn out to be very handy. And yeah decent fixed attenuators could cost you more than the Control Freak Best of Luck - Alan |
|
