Bypassing A Preamp With Volume Pot In Amp

Ouch!

Please explain your post, Tbg. Are you in favor of active pre amps? Are you in favor of teflon dialectric?

@Salectric - Thanks for letting us know about your upcoming trials. Let us know what you hear or not hear.

C_avila1, sorry I didn't mean to be insulting. What you were suggesting was to minimize interconnects and volume controls. Especially volume controls in my opinion are generally horrible. And while wiring within a metal box is much more immune to RFI and EMI.

So a boom box with all wiring within would be the optimum result of your logic. I don't even like stereo amps much less integrated amps for various reasons.

Tbg - I don't think you read the whole thread. Please read my post and Georgelofi's post from 06-03-14.

My idea with having a passive stepped attenuator in the amp is to eliminate the costs of the pre amp and interconnects while shortening the signal path and ultimately improving sound quality.

Guess what? I tested the idea and it works...for me

If Conrad Johnson makes a boom box, I would love to hear it.

C_avila1, you were right I had not read the entire thread. However, there was a time long ago that I tried passive preamps and even just pots mounted outboard. I decided that as pure as they sounded, they always had poor dynamics and bass.

But there is something about having all interconnects within the rfi and emi shielding chassis except that they would be exposed to the magnetic fields of the other wires. I once heard three preamps that were identical except for the wiring placement within them. They each sounded quite different.

I certainly would not want to discourage anyone from experimenting. Once I hardwired everything in my system from the wall outlet to the speakers. I sounded great but scared me in a lightening storm. I was a pain also as the circuit breaker was my on/off switch.