Resitor Passive


It seems there is a majority view that TVCs "blow away" resistor based passives. I wonder if anyone out there has come to a different conclusion. It seems that in theory, a high quality attenuator could some benefits over a device sending a signal through a transformer. Interested in any experiences or opinions on the subject. Thanks.
pubul57
Just curious, do you know if Jud Barber uses Alps or Noble volume pots in his preamp designs? I thought my Joule had Noble pots, but I can't remember.
I don't know. The Pot-in-a-Box is Noble - same one used in the ARC SP6 back in the old days. Extremely expensive if manufactured to those standards to day, but I have no idea if, and to what extent, this makes a noticeable difference; of course, I have 50 year old ears.
I'm pretty sure that Jud Barber uses a certain Alps pot. In my LA-150 (version II) the manual said "it was not the highest quality, but it did sound the best".

-Jake
I went back and forth with the resistor-based PiaB and the TVC with SB102s and for my ears, in my system I preferred the resistor based volume control - which I was not expecting since the consensus seems to be with the TVCs. While the consensus is in favor of TVC, Roger Modjeski who makes my amp (RM9SE)is clearly in favor of keeping transformers out of the volume control thinking they cause more problems than they solve. I suspect that in the right combination, simple, high-quality attenuators provide a purer connection to the source.
I'm wondering if there is some synergy between the PiaB and the RM9 that Roger is exploiting? I am thinking of getting an RM10 and if I do may experiment with the PiaB.

On the other hand I've also been chatting to John Chapman about getting the new Bent which he will customize with a built in phono stage circuit that I will supply him with.

Decisions, decisions...