Title: 'Lightspeed attenuator' vs digital attenuation? Post by: Matt E on May 12, 2010, 02:42:48 pm I saw this nice looking DIY schematic 'Lightspeed attenuator' that uses optocouplers to attenuate the signal and my soldering iron started to get itchy, when I had the thought that maybe the digital attentuation inherent in XXHighEnd was as good/better. Any thoughts?
I have to admit that I am probably going to have to build one of these babies because the 'Legit' volume increments in XXHighEnd are too large for my system - in one step it goes from quite quiet to waking my children up, although I guess there is always soundproofing. Title: Re: 'Lightspeed attenuator' vs digital attenuation? Post by: Telstar on May 12, 2010, 06:06:08 pm I saw this nice looking DIY schematic 'Lightspeed attenuator' that uses optocouplers to attenuate the signal and my soldering iron started to get itchy, when I had the thought that maybe the digital attentuation inherent in XXHighEnd was as good/better. Any thoughts? I have to admit that I am probably going to have to build one of these babies because the 'Legit' volume increments in XXHighEnd are too large for my system - in one step it goes from quite quiet to waking my children up, although I guess there is always soundproofing. Any connectors or cable on the signal path will be worse than a lossless digital attenuation, period. But I also agree with you that the steps in xxhe are too broad. That's the only way he could make it lossless, so it's a give or take. the lightspeed requires that the source and amp are ALREADY matched in impedance, otherwise you'll need a buffer (i.e. more components along the way). Title: Re: 'Lightspeed attenuator' vs digital attenuation? Post by: PeterSt on May 12, 2010, 06:19:14 pm Hey Matt,
Quote because the 'Legit' volume increments in XXHighEnd are too large for my system - in one step it goes from quite quiet to waking my children up, although I guess there is always soundproofing. This can only be because you have to attenuate more than 48dB (always bad) or you have a 16 bits DAC. Otherwise you must be wrong somewhere ... ? Peter PS: Please put your settings etc. in your signature, so it may be clear in a glance for us the next time, ok ? thanks. Title: Re: 'Lightspeed attenuator' vs digital attenuation? Post by: Matt E on May 14, 2010, 05:35:55 am Peter,
I haven't got time to put my settings in my signature at the moment, but I do use a 16-bit DAC. Matt |