"mour quiet" in s.e.x.?

[Jim R.]

I may have the name wrong, but would the new stepped attenuator be suitable for use in the s.e.x. 2.1? MMeaning, if the steps are close enough together to use in a headphone amp, could this possibly work in the s.e.x.?

Note: I'll be building my s.e.x. on a 10" x 12" chassis and will have plenty of room, and will be machining my top plate myself, so no squeezing things in where they're not meant to go.

Mostly concerned about the steps being appropriate for a headphone amp. Cans are HD-600s and Oppo PM-3s (fairly sensitive at 102 dB and about 55 ohms.

Thanks,

Jim

[Rocketman248]

I've used a Submissive in front of a S.E.X. 2.1 for a while and it worked just fine.  I'm sure you could figure a way to incorporate it into the chassis.

[Jim R.]

Thanks for your feedback, but after thinking about. it I've just decided to stick with a continuously variable volume control.  I've had a headphone amp with a stepped volume control in the past, and I was never really satisfied with it. When I listen to cans I just need the volume to be just so.

I do really appreciate your feedback though,

Jim

[Doc B.]

That's interesting, as I have found the our stepped attenuator to be a marked improvement from the stock attenuator in the Crackatwoa, and I consider it an important part of the sound of the Mainline and Neothoriator. Maybe all stepped attenuators aren't the same.

[Jim R.]

Well, I can't disagree with you as I've never heard any of the above -- either with or without the stepped attenuator. The main problem is. that I already have some very nice attenuators (the Audio Note 100k is going in the s.e.x.) and I just don't have the scratch for this one -- yes, this did all change from the time I first asked the question.

I also don't want a bunch of holes in my top plate should I prefer the AN attenuator.

No criticism of your attenuator intended, just have to go with what I have right now.

Maybe one of these days I'll be able to try it out in another, different kit.

-- Jim