[Whitigir]

Neither my T2 nor Grounded Grid has any noises at max volume. I used it that way when my DAC has volume attenuation on it own. So, KG is the legend!

 

[astrostar59]

Neither my T2 nor Grounded Grid has any noises at max volume. I used it that way when my DAC has volume attenuation on it own. So, KG is the legend!

Interesting. Is the pot at the output or the input on your GG? My only concert running the amp at full output is clicks and pops via the mains or something coming into the headphones. I can see the logic otherwise, though many DACs that use software attenuation are not great, loosing resolution and dynamics. I prefer a tradition pot if possible. Though the TotalDAC digital volume is very good.

 

[walakalulu]

Completely agree on the importance of the dac. I tried a dcs, Chord and ARC before settling on the latter. They all sounded quite different into the 009’s.

 

[Whitigir]

Interesting. Is the pot at the output or the input on your GG? My only concert running the amp at full output is clicks and pops via the mains or something coming into the headphones. I can see the logic otherwise, though many DACs that use software attenuation are not great, loosing resolution and dynamics. I prefer a tradition pot if possible. Though the TotalDAC digital volume is very good.

Input, these can be bypassed by not using any attenuation in the amp. I think Micheal does not use it in any of the KG designs that he has made

 

[tigon_ridge]

Input, these can be bypassed by not using any attenuation in the amp. I think Micheal does not use it in any of the KG designs that he has made

Since no one has asked yet...what is the advantage to this implementation in combination with DAC-only attenuation, vs attenuating via the volume pot?

 

[astrostar59]

Since no one has asked yet...what is the advantage to this implementation in combination with DAC-only attenuation, vs attenuating via the volume pot?

If you have a traditional (resistor) style pot on your DAC, no / little difference, but the capacitance in the interconnect my affect it a bit. So IMO set the DAC to full signal output.
If your DAC has digital attention, the same story, except many DACs attenuation with this method can be suspect, loss of resolution and dynamics.

I believe the BHSE for example has the pot at the input? So best us the pot on the amp IMO.

 

[SeaWo|f]

If you are building amps for yourself or are commissioning them and have a good collection this can save you a lot of money.

Rk50s and high-end steppers don't cone cheap.

 

[astrostar59]

If you are building amps for yourself or are commissioning them and have a good collection this can save you a lot of money.

Rk50s and high-end steppers don't cone cheap.

I had an excellent 41 stepped attenuator in my Carbon, great sound and nice positive action, no clicks. It cost around 220 euros. The RK50 is good, but can be equalled for less IMO.
And lately we have more relay based attenuators with remote control coming through, also great quality.

 

[JimL11]

Since no one has asked yet...what is the advantage to this implementation in combination with DAC-only attenuation, vs attenuating via the volume pot?

If you have a traditional (resistor) style pot on your DAC, no / little difference, but the capacitance in the interconnect my affect it a bit. So IMO set the DAC to full signal output.
If your DAC has digital attention, the same story, except many DACs attenuation with this method can be suspect, loss of resolution and dynamics.

I believe the BHSE for example has the pot at the input? So best us the pot on the amp IMO.

It depends. With digital attenuation, there is the concern of whether you lose bits as you attenuate.

An attenuator at the output of a DAC could be a bad idea depending on the implementation. For example, suppose you have a tube output DAC with a 100k pot (since the tube can't adequately drive a 5k pot for example) at the end into a cable of average capacitance, say 100pf, coupled with a tube input stage on your amp, which adds another 100pf, for a total of 200pf. Now, worst case scenario with the pot at -6db down, the output resistance is 25 kilohms, and in combination with the 200pf load, this forms a low pass RC filter which is -1 dB at 16 kHz and -3dB at about 32 kHz. Of course, some cables are higher capacitance - for example an old MIT cable I measured at about 250pf, which drops the -3 dB point to 18 kHz. Granted this is something of a worst case scenario, but it shows what can happen if you have an inappropriate combination of pot and cable.

Amps generally have their volume pots at the input, so all they have to contend with is the capacitance of the input stage. For volume controls of 100k or less, this is generally not an issue, although is you have a wideband amplifier, you can measure differences in the frequency response which vary with the pot setting if you go high enough.

 

[Rhamnetin]

Speaking of interconnects, are there any low capacitance high quality interconnects that are not very laid back sounding that you guys like with your Stax systems? I am still testing out different ones.

 

[tigon_ridge]

So the answer is: generally no advantage whatsoever, except you save a couple hundred bucks. However, I do want to address the concern about losing resolution due to the compression of dynamic range. I do think that if your DAC already has great dynamic range, at some point the loss in data becomes undetectable by the human brain. It's just like the case in modern cameras that may have better dynamic range than even the human eyes; i.e. you can afford to compress and lose a bit of dynamic range in a photo, because you won't be able to see the difference anyway. In my case, I like to use my software parametric EQ a lot, and haven't noticed any loss of details.

It depends. With digital attenuation, there is the concern of whether you lose bits as you attenuate.

An attenuator at the output of a DAC could be a bad idea depending on the implementation. For example, suppose you have a tube output DAC with a 100k pot (since the tube can't adequately drive a 5k pot for example) at the end into a cable of average capacitance, say 100pf, coupled with a tube input stage on your amp, which adds another 100pf, for a total of 200pf. Now, worst case scenario with the pot at -6db down, the output resistance is 25 kilohms, and in combination with the 200pf load, this forms a low pass RC filter which is -1 dB at 16 kHz and -3dB at about 32 kHz. Of course, some cables are higher capacitance - for example an old MIT cable I measured at about 250pf, which drops the -3 dB point to 18 kHz. Granted this is something of a worst case scenario, but it shows what can happen if you have an inappropriate combination of pot and cable.

Amps generally have their volume pots at the input, so all they have to contend with is the capacitance of the input stage. For volume controls of 100k or less, this is generally not an issue, although is you have a wideband amplifier, you can measure differences in the frequency response which vary with the pot setting if you go high enough.

What are some ways to minimize the input capacitance? Is this why some people prefer to integrate DAC and amp into one unit rather than connecting them by cables? How do cable length, gauge, and constitution affect its capacitance?

 

[tigon_ridge]

Speaking of interconnects, are there any low capacitance high quality interconnects that are not very laid back sounding that you guys like with your Stax systems? I am still testing out different ones.

I can definitely see how in some cases, hi capacitance is desirable, such as to tame high frequencies. I can't hear above 16kHz anyway, and I find that frequencies above 8kHz or so can be quite painful when I'm listening at loud volumes. Maybe these "high quality," super expensive cables are more apt for quiet listening levels.

 

[Rhamnetin]

I can definitely see how in some cases, hi capacitance is desirable, such as to tame high frequencies. I can't hear above 16kHz anyway, and I find that frequencies above 8kHz or so can be quite painful when I'm listening at loud volumes. Maybe these "high quality," super expensive cables are more apt for quiet listening levels.

Yeah I am trying not to tame them. I know that Cardas Clears have very low capacitance, so I will try those. As does Danacables but they can't be borrowed so I'm gonna have to rule them out.

 

[AthenaZephyrian]

I'm about to sell my whole setup to finance stax lol. I'm still not sure it's worth it.

I could afford it if I just got the 3100, but I want to get the Woo Wee converter and a good power amp, for clarity and soundstage. I'm probably gonna get the Parasound Z-amp v3 as a power amp, run through the SMSL M6's quite-respectable DAC. Gonna miss switching between $300 pairs between tracks, rolling op-amps, and staring at my beautiful steampunk little dot.

Does anyone have experience with the Woo and the stock energizer? Are the sound differences worth the money? Anecdotes about the Stax SRM-323 vs 252 ( figure this is a reasonable analog if no anecdotes can be found for the woo)?

 

[mulveling]

Yeah I am trying not to tame them. I know that Cardas Clears have very low capacitance, so I will try those. As does Danacables but they can't be borrowed so I'm gonna have to rule them out.

If you want to minimize capacitance then going for a Phono cable is an easy play, but usually the AWG will be very small as well.

I’ve used and liked silver Audioquest cables - Wind, Fire, and Wild are good, and come up used at big discounts. Not as low capacitance as their Phono cables, but easily low enough to not cause problems.