08-08-2015, 07:55 AM
Gary's explanation is a simple and obvious one but I can't see any benefit from doing it.
Did the 10K fader measure 10K end to end at all settings? That certainly won't be true if law bending resistors are fitted.
So a chain of reasoning that's goes nowhere at the moment. A professional fader needs an accurate log law, not the horrible 2 part track on an ordinary pot. You can't readily grade the resistivity of the track by changing its composition, at least I don't think you can. You can do it by changing the width of the track. Alternatively you can use law bending resistors. None of this really explains Mark's conundrum.
A slightly wild idea is that the track is a bit like the teeth of a comb. The bulk of the track is vaariable width to give the correct law.Then "teeth" stick out from the track to make a sort of multiway switch, remeniscent of the old stud faders. The teeth would add resistance in series with the wiper giving the effect seen.
Did the 10K fader measure 10K end to end at all settings? That certainly won't be true if law bending resistors are fitted.
So a chain of reasoning that's goes nowhere at the moment. A professional fader needs an accurate log law, not the horrible 2 part track on an ordinary pot. You can't readily grade the resistivity of the track by changing its composition, at least I don't think you can. You can do it by changing the width of the track. Alternatively you can use law bending resistors. None of this really explains Mark's conundrum.
A slightly wild idea is that the track is a bit like the teeth of a comb. The bulk of the track is vaariable width to give the correct law.Then "teeth" stick out from the track to make a sort of multiway switch, remeniscent of the old stud faders. The teeth would add resistance in series with the wiper giving the effect seen.
www.borinsky.co.uk Jeffrey Borinsky www.becg.tv
