Attenuators may be the hill I'll die on... I'm always advocating people use them to get bedroom-volume amp sounds, even out of totally high-wattage amps. I advocate for this, cause I use attenuators all the time and have always gotten great tone out of them (after I take like the 3 minutes necessary to tweak it to sound good). I don't really know why attenuators get such a bad rep, and it often seems like many people who decry attenuators are also advocating for master volumes being installed in their amps. This doesn't really make sense to me - why attenuate the signal before one of the most crucial amplification stages, and take away all of the power tube distortion, instead of attenuating after the power tube AND output transformer, right at the last possible stage before the signal hits the speaker. Seems like if you're trying to keep your amp as close as possible to how it sounds loud, the later is the way to go. People tend to say that attenuators cause brightness-loss and suck tone. But: 1. Most good ones have knobs to make up for the brightness loss a little. 2. IMO, tone suck is not that bad, if you avoid turning your attenuator down close to 0. You should keep your amp still mildly loud, just not painfully loud. 3. Master volumes cause brightness-loss too, and for the exact same reason as attenuators! IDK, I've A-B tested one of my amps that has an MV on a switch. I tried with an attenuator, getting the amp to a good listening level while the MV was switched out, and then I got to the same level using the MV and with the attenuator switched off. While the MV-tone was ice-picky and harsh, the attenuator tone was smooth and warm. Is there something I'm missing to this debate, why MV might be in any way better than an attenuator?