boji
Well-known member
Would anyone mind confirming that the below remains balanced?
The reason I am thrown into doubt is from an old post from Ian:
https://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=70339.msg899621#msg899621
"With the 1K pot method the load impedance is fairly constant but the source impedance varies with the pot position with a maximum when the pot is close to half resistance. It is also unbalanced. With a 1K pot, the source impedance will be a lot lower than a true 600 ohm source so there is no need to worry about HF losses unless you have very long cables..."
However I moved on his latest advice when implementing:
https://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=31472.msg783462#msg783462
"I think that is where you are misunderstanding. You can do a pot on the secondary of the transformer without unbalancing it. It is what in the past I have called the 'Neve trick'."
Edit: Apologies Ian, if it sounds like I'm putting you on the spot! Just want to be extra sure before I let go of doing a bridged-t pad.
The reason I am thrown into doubt is from an old post from Ian:
https://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=70339.msg899621#msg899621
"With the 1K pot method the load impedance is fairly constant but the source impedance varies with the pot position with a maximum when the pot is close to half resistance. It is also unbalanced. With a 1K pot, the source impedance will be a lot lower than a true 600 ohm source so there is no need to worry about HF losses unless you have very long cables..."
However I moved on his latest advice when implementing:
https://groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=31472.msg783462#msg783462
"I think that is where you are misunderstanding. You can do a pot on the secondary of the transformer without unbalancing it. It is what in the past I have called the 'Neve trick'."
Edit: Apologies Ian, if it sounds like I'm putting you on the spot! Just want to be extra sure before I let go of doing a bridged-t pad.