Pots that are LESS than Perfect

[onplane]

I’m starting a new thread on pots, because some of the others are so long that I can no longer follow AND I have a somewhat specific question.

As many of you know, I’ve recently passively bi-amped (original xovers are intact inside the speaker) my AR3-a’s and have NO intention of returning to a single amp configuration. I just love the “new” sound.

In any event, I do have one minor problem. About once a month I have to fiddle with the mid-range pot on the left speaker as it totally cuts out. I move it back and forth a few times, and the sound always returns.

So, I’ve been reading in this forum about the various options to clean, repair or replace those blasted pots. Then, I just read Rod’s post wherein he said, “I bypassed the pots with the thought that I could always go back in later and change that.”

That’s what triggered this thread, because now I’m thinking that this would be the ideal solution for me. (For everyone else, I think JoeB has the perfect answer!) For me, the pot on the mid-range has really been replaced by the volume control on the amp driving the mid-range/tweeter. I mean, I HAVE to decide how much high frequency content I want all of the time.

Then the pots on the tweeters are already at or near max.

So, what is the downside if I just shunt all the pot wipers to max side??

Regards,

Jerry

[Carlspeak]

>I’m starting a new thread on pots, because some of the others

>are so long that I can no longer follow AND I have a somewhat

>specific question.

>

>As many of you know, I’ve recently passively bi-amped

>(original xovers are intact inside the speaker) my AR3-a’s and

>have NO intention of returning to a single amp configuration.

>I just love the “new” sound.

>

>In any event, I do have one minor problem. About once a month

>I have to fiddle with the mid-range pot on the left speaker as

>it totally cuts out. I move it back and forth a few times,

>and the sound always returns.

>

>So, I’ve been reading in this forum about the various options

>to clean, repair or replace those blasted pots. Then, I just

>read Rod’s post wherein he said, “I bypassed the pots with the

>thought that I could always go back in later and change that.”

>

>

>That’s what triggered this thread, because now I’m thinking

>that this would be the ideal solution for me. (For everyone

>else, I think JoeB has the perfect answer!) For me, the pot

>on the mid-range has really been replaced by the volume

>control on the amp driving the mid-range/tweeter. I mean, I

>HAVE to decide how much high frequency content I want all of

>the time.

This should be a one time set up assuming you don't change the room or speaker placement within the room.

>

>Then the pots on the tweeters are already at or near max.

>

>So, what is the downside if I just shunt all the pot wipers to

>max side??

I don't see a down side being that you have separate volume control with your bi-amped set up. The speaker pots become redundant.

>

>Regards,

>Jerry

>

Remember, it's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

[onplane]

Carl,

I solved the pot problem ... they are GONE!! That is, they are still on the AR's, but totally bypassed.

Observations:

1. No significant difference in sound

2. the speakers appear to be more symmetrical (I had little adjustment left on the pots due to corrosion)

3. HUGE difference in sensitivity

Removing the pots is something I would NOT recommend UNLESS you are bi-amping. I just can’t believe how little voltage it takes to drive the mid-range and tweeter with the pots removed.

In my opinion, there is just no way you could bring the AR-3a’s back into balance if you removed the pots and had a single amp. The mid-range/tweeter would way over power the woofer and no EQ could ever bring it back in line.

Regards,

Jerry