There’s an unspoken battle raging on The Gear Page forum about which is the best “popular” attenuator on the market. Yeah, everyone claims theirs is the most transparent, and frankly, that’s true for very low levels of attenuation. But for really cranking down on the volume, my money, of course, is on the Aracom PRX150-Pro. To me, not only is it the most transparent attenuator based upon head-to-head comparisons of some of the popular attenuators done by me and others, and also being the safest with its input AND output impedance matching, it is also the most cost-effective attenuator out there. Don’t believe it? Well, the numbers don’t lie. When you consider the versatility of input/output impedance selections vs. cost of the unit that the PRX150-Pro offers, it’s simply no contest.
Let’s have a look at the numbers shall we?
| Attenuator | Price | # Impedance Combos. | Cost/Imp. Combo |
|---|---|---|---|
| THD HotPlate | $329.00 | 1 | $329.00 |
| Alex’s Attenuator | $350.00 | 1 | $350.00 |
| Faustine Phantom | $799.00 | 3 | $266.33 |
| Aracom PRX150-Pro | $650.00 | 16 | $40.56 |
Clearly, based upon the number of impedance matching selections, the PRX150-Pro is the clear winner in terms of value. Even if the Aracom unit only had three impedance matching selections, it still will have 9 different available input/output impedance selection combinations, and each combination would only cost $72.11; still far below the competition!
Furthermore, let’s say the PRX150-Pro didn’t have output impedance matching, reducing its impedance matching combinations to 4. It still outperforms the competition in terms of value at $162.25 per selection!
Let’s compare the PRX150-Pro with the Alex’s attenuator for example. People love the Alex’s attenuator, and I understand it works great. But you have to get 4 of those units to match the impedance matching capabilities of the PRX150-Pro. In absolute cost terms, yes, the PRX150-Pro costs more. But with respect to value, well, you can’t hide from the numbers. The same thing applies to the THD HotPlate (though I have other reasons not to like this product). As for the Faustine Phantom, it has more versatility than the Alex’s by far, but it’s also very expensive, and it is unclear whether or not you’ll get one in a timely fashion. Some people have been waiting for theirs for several months.
Sometimes you have to spend more to get much more, and in the case of the Aracom PRX150-Pro, you’re getting A LOT more!
Disclaimer: I will say this again that I am not an employee of Aracom – I’m a faithful customer because of the superior product Jeff produces.
Guitar Gear 
Dude . . . . you grt free gear in exchange for this? This is nothing more than a . . .”I’ll rate your gear . . if you give me a homey hookup ” page. LAME
No. I BUY my gear, my friend. Or I take the time out of my very busy schedule to go and evaluate gear personally. That’s why I put a disclaimer at the bottom of my review stating clearly that I’m a faithful CUSTOMER.
Thanks for stopping by!
Just kidding . . . Im just tired , lonely, and HUNGRY !!!!
You’ve got to be kidding.
For $75-$100 (25w or 50w) you could pick up a Weber MiniMass and it sounds as good as any of these. Even the fancy high wattage models are less than the stuff in this blog post. Multiple impedance settings…bulletproof and transparent. Been using them for years and they’re great.
http://www.tedweber.com/atten.htm
No, Lorenzo, I’m actually NOT kidding. If these lower-priced attenuators solved the transparency problem, high-end attenuators wouldn’t exist. But the plain fact of the matter is that they don’t. They do suffice to take a slight edge off the amp, but when used to bring an amp down to bedroom levels, they suck tone so much that they’re not usable.
I suggest you read this great article on attenuator technology: http://www.aracom-amps.com/info/attenuator.html
i agree with goofydawg. i have a dr z power soak and a 1987xl reissue marshall plexi running thru a 1960ax with greenbacks. the low volume tone sucks no matter how i arrange the attenuator and/or pedals to try and get better tone. im not saying im gonna go byuy a $700 attenuator,but i do agree that if the low volume tone sucks on a $350 one,then it will def suck on a $100 one.
Late to the review but the Weber mini mass is HORRIBLE when attenuating way down to “bedroom” levels. This is where the Faustine, Ultimate, or Alex are worth every penny.
You’d actually include the Ultimate in that mix? 🙂 The Faustine and Alex are fine attenuators, but they still pale in comparison to the Aracom. Plus, you can’t get a Faustine Phantom any longer as the company went bankrupt, taking lots of people’s deposits with it.
If you want bedroom level attenuation w/o the tone suckage, rather than spend $650 on an attenuator that will accommodate your 100 watt fire breather, simply spend that $650 on a 5 watt amp you can crank the crap out of.
You ever cranked a 5 Watt amp? It’s still too loud. 1 watt @ 1 meter is as loud as a jackhammer. When I crank my 5 Watt Fender Champ or my 6 Watt VHT Special 6 (they both have 10″ speakers), I get complaints from the family and neighbors. If your amp has a master volume, I suppose it’s possible to keep the output volume down, but you wouldn’t be getting power tube saturation, just preamp tube saturation.
Also, with the high-end attenuators, you don’t get tone suck; especially with the Aracom attenuators.
Anyway, thanks for the input!
Interesting article but I’m not completely sold. Perception of sound will always be different depending on the volume of it… the most “transparent” attenuator to your ear would not be transparent at all. I don’t see the justification in a $600 or $800 attenuator. One option would be to just try a good, cheap, lower efficiency cone (maybe 95db) and see where that gets you. For some people, it might be enough. A little EQ will go a long way in ironing out the tone, and that doesn’t cost a lot of money.
“If these lower-priced attenuators solved the transparency problem, high-end attenuators wouldn’t exist.” What a naive thing to say, don’t you think? We have plenty of expensive, high end stuff that exists for no reason other than that there are delusional people who will pay for it. I’m not for a second suggesting that the expensive attenuators aren’t any better, but there is a very simple “law of diminishing returns,” and I’ve never seen an exception to it when we’re talking about consumer products. The more bucks you shell out, the less each next buck is going to get you. That $600 or whatnot spent on an attenuator could probably be much better invested in other parts of your hardware with a slight downgrade to a cheaper one.
Of course, the difference in quality will be subjective, so maybe to some people (maniacs ;)) it would actually be worth it. Anyway, thanks for an interesting read, and your “cost per impedance…” chart was quite revealing. Any time an article draws you in like this, you know it was a good one. I don’t think people will ever agree on anything as subjective as this… and most people won’t change their opinions easily. To each their own.
“We have plenty of expensive, high end stuff that exists for no reason other than that there are delusional people who will pay for it.” And that too is a pretty naive thing to say, Mikhail. With low-end attenuators, the first thing you notice is a distinct loss of high-frequency and dynamics; almost as if someone threw several blankets over the amp and put a piece of felt on your strings. You don’t get that – or nearly as much of that – with high-end attenuators.
But your point about “transparency” got me thinking. Perhaps all of us who’ve been bandying that term about have gotten it wrong. You’re right; our perception of sound changes with volume, and at least for me, “transparency” was a term that best suited the perception that my basic tone and especially dynamics haven’t changed. “Tone” is one of those difficult things to nail down; and it’s especially difficult to get different people to agree upon what it actually is. 🙂
But the important thing for me is that with an attenuator, as I go down to very low volumes with a cranked amp, I’m expecting the full range of my amp’s voicing and little to no loss of dynamics, and the Aracom units give me what I expect.
You’re also right that for some people, a minimal amount of volume reduction is all they need. But for those of us who require much lower volume levels, but still want to crank our amps, an attenuator is pretty much the only option, and a cheap attenuator just won’t give me the voicing and dynamics that I expect.
And by the way, I didn’t just come to this decision arbitrarily; I used and tested several of the low-end varieties and none did the trick to my satisfaction. They were actually fine if I kept my amp clean, but going into breakup at low volumes just didn’t do it for me. Only the Aracom got me what I wanted. I know you don’t see the justification in spending this kind of money on an attenuator, but perhaps you don’t play in places where volume is a limiting factor. Or perhaps you’re just fine turning down your amp and using a distortion or overdrive pedal to get your cranked up tone. That’s valid as well. But for me, there’s something special that happens with my amps when I’ve got them cranked, and it’s something I haven’t been able to duplicate with a pedal.
In any case, thanks for the insight!