Balanced attenuator instead of balun

Question

Is it OK to use balanced attenuator for impedance matching instead of balun? I need an attenuator anyway, so why use both?

Original schematic:

^{simulate this circuit – Schematic created using CircuitLab}

New design: skip 4:1 balun, recalculate attenuator resistors considering input impedance 200 Ohm

^{simulate this circuit}

Answer 1

Is it OK to use balanced attenuator for impedance matching instead of balun? I need an attenuator anyway, so why use both?

_{A balun is a word composite. The first three letter (Bal) mean balanced. The last two letters (un) mean unbalanced so, when we use a balun we are converting a balanced signal to an unbalanced signal (or vice versa).}

Given that you are probably using the term incorrectly (I'd call it a transformer), you are quite right that if you need attenuation then you can use a resistive impedance matching network without the transformer.