Volume Controller for BX5A Deluxe
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:26 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 6

ccbass

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
May 22, 2010
Posts
242
Likes
15
What's the easiest way to control volume for the M-Audio BX5a Deluxe monitors?
 
Macbook pro - toslink - DACMagic - Balanced XLR - Balanced XLR/TRS
 
I hear a passive volume control?
 
Would that go after the XLR out from the DACMagic?
 
 
I want to keep this as cheap as possible without sacrificing SQ. 
 
Jul 17, 2010 at 7:59 AM Post #2 of 6
The TC Electronic Level Pilot should do it for you.  It's about $80.  The cables it comes with have balanced XLR connections.  It is a passive volume knob.  You would connect it between the output of your DACMagic and the input of the monitors.
 
Jul 17, 2010 at 8:11 AM Post #3 of 6


Quote:
The TC Electronic Level Pilot should do it for you.  It's about $80.  The cables it comes with have balanced XLR connections.  It is a passive volume knob.  You would connect it between the output of your DACMagic and the input of the monitors.


Do you own it?
 
Where can I buy it in the USA?
 
edit//  Amazon for $79, I see.
 
Jul 17, 2010 at 2:48 PM Post #4 of 6
I don't own it.  I use a Mackie Big Knob which is a full monitor control station with an active volume knob.  It's also about $300 rather than $80.
 
If all you need is volume control and no input/output switching the Level Pilot does the job.  It's designed for use with studio monitors in exactly the situation you have.
 
Passive volume control means no active components that will color the sound.  Active volume controls have op-amps and stuff that can color the sound.  Pick your poison.
 
Jul 17, 2010 at 10:12 PM Post #6 of 6
Since the DACMagic appears to support 24-bit digital inputs (I don't have one, just looked up the specs), and most music is 16-bit, you could upsample in your player to 24-bit and use digital volume attenuation. Unless you lower the volume very significantly, you shouldn't lose any information. Good software like foobar can do a good job at both - although I can understand wanting to avoid this sort of digital solution, it may be worth a comparison once you get a passive analog attenuator to compare the results.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top