Just to clarify - you're not quoting me here, although I agree that
the ideal would be a gain pot and a bypass switch (or neither!).
Mike
--- In motm@y..., "jhaible" <jhaible@d...> wrote:
> > If it has a bypass switch then it needs a gain control.
> >
> > If it doesn't have a bypass switch then it doesn't need a gain
control.
> >
> > It's ridiculous to have one without the other. No one does that.
>
> No one ?
> Hmm, I did exactly that, it works great, and as my prototype is the
only
> unit in existence, I could even conclude that it works to 100% ! (;-
>)
>
> Ok, this was spoken tongue-in-cheek, please don't take it seriously.
> (And I always run my final mix thru a compressor.)
>
> Now, more seriously: I see all your points, and I see reasons for
all
> three versions:
> Switch and Gain control - most comfort, most panel space, most
expensive.
> None of these - cheaper, less panel space
> Switch only - good if you want to remove it quickly from the signal
chain,
> without taking care of level matching. (For
instance,
> because
> you have a lot of other gain pots in the
signal
> chain.)
>
> And there are two more options:
> Gain control and no switch - that's one I cannot find any use for
(but
> someone
> else surely will)
> Gain control which adjusts itself with a motor pot, according to
some
> criteria
> like peak level or RMS level - now ∗that∗ would be the
ultimate
> solution, wouldn't it ? (;>)
>
> JH.