An excuse to Getting over the “feel” of rotory encoder is a false sense of security. What has the quality of “feeling” ie rotational mechanical dampening has to do with SQ and the way it last?
The mechanical feel of the volume knob doesn't have anything to do with the sound quality. The size of the pot or the volume knob have noting to do with sound quality either. Aesthetics also have no impact on the sound quality. Yet, these are the main points of critique of the HP-1 (including in this thread). Humans are not rational critters. That's one of the reasons I'm studying psychology.
If you Google digital volume you’ll see a stack of volume control products and they are not expensive. However you can pay $300-500 for a stepped attenuators with gold contacts!
About 10-12 years ago, I designed a preamp that used the PGA2320. I still have it. It works quite well. The PGA2320 is a bit noisy, but better options are available that I could use instead.
If you're going for an electronic volume control, I think it makes sense to take a full step and include a remote control. That opens up another can of worms. I have yet to find a manufacturer or vendor that offers a nice remote control handset. Again, the quality of the remote has nothing to do with the sound quality but everything to do with the user experience (which will impact their perception of the sound quality).
You have to wonder why Greats like Nelson Pass uses a Muse volume control chip in his top of the line Preamp. That speaks volumes.
Not really. Have you looked at the performance of the Pass gear? JFET buffers with 0.1-1% THD at line level. Not my cup of tea. Then again, he's made a small fortune selling that gear and I haven't, so what does that tell you?
Also, the argument that volume pots degrade sound quality doesn't hold water. As you can see from Amir's measurements, it's perfectly possible to get good performance even with a volume pot in the signal path.
Tom