Yeah maybe. I don't even think my current jung regulators are being used close to their potential.
But my vreg blows the jung version into the dust in simulation which is at least cool to talk about.
I have doubts that even the jung reg is audibly better than worse alternatives but I figure it's safest to use the best that I can use even if its potential cannot be realized.
Well I originally started the thread to seek potential design partners in my area.
Since I haven't found any it seems to have drifted off topic a bit.
I would murder someone to share my designs on this site. All the third party feedback would be amazing.
If I flunk on the business side I'll just post it all on here.
So you think you can get everyone to agree about what sounds "real"... good luck!
I do sims like that all the time. SPICE has ideal R's, L's, and C's and usually temperature is invariant unless you have a fancy commercial simulator. Then you match N and P devices perfectly to each other so by subtraction the remainder is numerical noise. Now any circuit topology that relies on open loop cancellation of Vbe errors has no distortion at all.
With PA's once you include T as and independent variable things turn to poop very fast.
Yeah I know. The results are consistent when I mismatch parts and parasitics added in to the circuit. There's nothing reasonable I can do to it that will ruin the results.
I don't design based on parts matching anyway, it's unreliable in real life to ever expect it to work as well as you want.
I'm aware of how spice is not to be believed at face value.
The real life results are least below 140db, that's all I can confirm in a real circuit with my equipment.
I don't design based on parts matching anyway, it's unreliable in real life to ever expect it to work as well as you want.
I'm aware of how spice is not to be believed at face value.
The real life results are least below 140db, that's all I can confirm in a real circuit with my equipment.
Last edited:
You won't get any better from anyone else so I wouldn't waste your time confirming this fairly useless spec. Unfortunately this thread will probably get tired without any resolution.
I used to help field solicitations from garage shop inventors for my company, not one ever panned out. Some were fun though like the guy that had a simple treatment to remove all noise from op-amps. As usual he was not going to reveal anything so we sent him some and said do your thing on them and we'll see, never heard from him again.
Well that's a lot happier than some of the things one of my former employers asked me to do which involved helping to burst bubbles they thought might infringe on their patented technology.. 
My advice to the OP is to avoid any hyperbolic claims and simply state that measured performance exceeds the limits of conventional test equipment like the QA401 available to him.
Simulations in Spice that demonstrate reality defying results are simply not credible as there are so many limitations with the software, models, and even at times the math employed. You are not running software that has been validated and proven unfailingly truthful in your application. Your understanding and acceptance of the results makes you look naive at best, something you want to avoid.
You can market the technology in two ways I can think of, you can market it as a rational result of solid engineering and promote it based on the fact that parametrically it is in the superior category - maybe even allude to the fact that it should provide a near exact amplified version of the original using some limited audiophile vernacular...
OR
You can descend into the chicanery and hyperbole that is high end audio these days - regardless of the merit of the actual equipment discussed.
Either approach is likely to find you some followers if you try it hard enough.
Scott knows me fairly well (we're friends and neighbors) and I am one of the failed designers others have alluded to here. I really do hope you find the right ingredients for success and that your ideas have technical and audible merit. You have a lot of work ahead of you.
Find someone who can find money and believes in you, a very tall order.
Suggestions have been made that you need to get people to hear your stuff. If you have not already joined the local diy circles you should look for them or start your own. You can post on the forum to start a club in the area.
My advice to the OP is to avoid any hyperbolic claims and simply state that measured performance exceeds the limits of conventional test equipment like the QA401 available to him.
Simulations in Spice that demonstrate reality defying results are simply not credible as there are so many limitations with the software, models, and even at times the math employed. You are not running software that has been validated and proven unfailingly truthful in your application. Your understanding and acceptance of the results makes you look naive at best, something you want to avoid.
You can market the technology in two ways I can think of, you can market it as a rational result of solid engineering and promote it based on the fact that parametrically it is in the superior category - maybe even allude to the fact that it should provide a near exact amplified version of the original using some limited audiophile vernacular...
OR
You can descend into the chicanery and hyperbole that is high end audio these days - regardless of the merit of the actual equipment discussed.
Either approach is likely to find you some followers if you try it hard enough.
Scott knows me fairly well (we're friends and neighbors) and I am one of the failed designers others have alluded to here. I really do hope you find the right ingredients for success and that your ideas have technical and audible merit. You have a lot of work ahead of you.
Find someone who can find money and believes in you, a very tall order.
Suggestions have been made that you need to get people to hear your stuff. If you have not already joined the local diy circles you should look for them or start your own. You can post on the forum to start a club in the area.
You might be surprised. Take a look at Jack Walton's regulator article in Volume 4 of Linear Audio, which shows the results of a blind test of a host of different regulators.
Come on now, I wouldn't even try to put together one of your line tracking TT setups.
This good friendly advice, if you really are serious drop the unverifiable claims if only for the reason that they are probably not realizable and get some impressions from people that care about what they listen to. You might be surprised at how varied what is considered "hi end" is. Also don't be disillusioned about any new sound catching an actual popular mass market wave, Bose and Sonos will not be unseated and it's not about the quality of the reproduction.
That might work on a private basis especially with someone that has no interest at all in making or selling anything. It does not work on a corporate basis and current practice is to not do NDA's in most cases. The scenario is this, someone comes in with an idea with a broad claim like, design techniques for low noise. You have a meeting under NDA and realize there is nothing there for you. Then any time in the future you release a new low noise product he sends a pack of lawyers to determine if you stole his ideas.
Well, if it was just me, I'd agree. But the mass market eats that stuff up.
I never said I trusted spice results. You guys did.
The regulator simulation was comparative within spice so relatively speaking it is a useful comparison.
The claimed distortion of my power buffer was specifically stated as the "theoretical" distortion which is a number very clearly laid out by the design for reasons you wouldn't know unless you know what the design is.
Will real life be as good? Of course not, but this is where reading comprehension comes in to play, something that the average person is sorely lacking.
I would never make such claims as a marketing tactic, but this is an engineering forum.
I have someone sponsoring me actually, It's the only reason I've been able to get this far. I feel really bad about taking his money though, I try to keep it limited.
I didn't know that was a thing.
Tempting. I think the merit has proven itself on the breadboard, novelty is variable across the designs. Some of it is old obscure concepts, some of it is stuff that I came up with that may or may not have existed before. I sure am happy with the sound and performance though.
That being said, many minds are greater than one. I would love to have feedback.
One thing I am 100% sure of is that my current amp destroys almost all if not all of the headphone amps on the market in sound. I was blown away at what passes for sound quality at the last 2 canjams I went to, and for the prices they sell it at...
That's why I like headphones, it's much easier to tell how good an amp truly is without the factors involved in speaker systems IMO.
Yeah but I don't understand why you guys keep thinking I'm trying to market to you. I am just telling you what I know about what I've made. Well, as much as I can without posting a schem.But we don't.
Some just lie and say identically zero distortion, trust me it will make no difference in a mass market product at all, not even a little. I don't know where you got that idea, in any case the industry standard is the Audio Precision and its standard suite of tests. There are already cell phone headphone amps that almost push its limits. IME no other test protocol no matter how much better would find any acceptance in the market, that's just the reality of it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.