That's how forums work. Some DIY work has to be done by the members so that there *is* information that can be shared. There is not one truth with these amps but quite a few. Building and trying are part of the learning curve. I had some doubts with the inverting topology from the beginning ( although my experiences are *not* with LM3875 ) and it is very amusing to see that most people just built the inverted version without even trying the non-inverting one because some members claimed it was the way to go. Now everyone is changing their amp because some members claim it sounds better
( even more amusing is that some say that the datasheet prescribes non-inverting too ). Along with that there is also the matter of taste that might influence choices. Choices that one has to take in the process. Simply copying others choices might not lead to optimal results for everyone.Don't feel offended please. It wasn't meant that way. BTW it never was a problem for me, it just seemed to me that you missed the posts in the Chip Amps section.
it is very amusing to see that most people just built the inverted version without even trying the non-inverting one because some members claimed it was the way to go.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is precisely why I asked PD; you have made a very good case for my post.
Each to his own without interferring with what others wish to do is also part of the 'rules' of the Forum.
Try searching and making deductions on the Jung regulator!!
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is precisely why I asked PD; you have made a very good case for my post.
Each to his own without interferring with what others wish to do is also part of the 'rules' of the Forum.
Try searching and making deductions on the Jung regulator!!
peter have you tried....
Hi Peter,
I was wondering if you intend on trying regulators and buffers at all. I remember your against going away from simplicity and see your focusing on cases now, but maybe youll try it sometime.
Ive had an interesting experience with regulators and tubes.
Pythagoras and I are using your gainclone as the reference and trying other things using run of the mill parts to see how close we can get to your reference IGC.
What I found was that the LM338K regulated supply killed the bass and soundstage. However with a tube buffer and regulator, the soundstage was huge and bass even worse? Was quite confusing and went back to it several times to make sure I was'nt imagining it. What I want to try is a simple fet regulator and see if that helps the bass and gives me the soundstage I so badly want
Im also readin up on CCS to see if this gives a similar effect. I have no idea how to make them but have a good basic electronics book I intend to read on. BTW if anyone is interested in simple electronics theory try Malvinos Basic electronic principles.
Its good basic grounding and prior reading to any designing good amp guides.
For now Im just finishing off my old alephs I started 18 months ago and hope to get back into chip amps early next year.
Also another idea I had about your anti resonance interest at the moment is resin. If you can mount your chip and caps resitors etc on a brass plate and then build a mould to pour a resin in it, it may give you the desired effect. I know other amp builders have done this in the past but not sure if its for IP reasons or sonics.
Perhaps Keui may know more about this?
Hi Peter,
I was wondering if you intend on trying regulators and buffers at all. I remember your against going away from simplicity and see your focusing on cases now, but maybe youll try it sometime.
Ive had an interesting experience with regulators and tubes.
Pythagoras and I are using your gainclone as the reference and trying other things using run of the mill parts to see how close we can get to your reference IGC.
What I found was that the LM338K regulated supply killed the bass and soundstage. However with a tube buffer and regulator, the soundstage was huge and bass even worse? Was quite confusing and went back to it several times to make sure I was'nt imagining it. What I want to try is a simple fet regulator and see if that helps the bass and gives me the soundstage I so badly want
Im also readin up on CCS to see if this gives a similar effect. I have no idea how to make them but have a good basic electronics book I intend to read on. BTW if anyone is interested in simple electronics theory try Malvinos Basic electronic principles.
Its good basic grounding and prior reading to any designing good amp guides.
For now Im just finishing off my old alephs I started 18 months ago and hope to get back into chip amps early next year.
Also another idea I had about your anti resonance interest at the moment is resin. If you can mount your chip and caps resitors etc on a brass plate and then build a mould to pour a resin in it, it may give you the desired effect. I know other amp builders have done this in the past but not sure if its for IP reasons or sonics.
Perhaps Keui may know more about this?
If you want better soundstage try separare PS for ea channel or built non inverted GC. The non inverted version produces deeper soundstage. As you know, I'm also building commercial version of the amps and after trying the NIGC, it looks that we will be converting all the reamining stock of the amps into NI version. We wouldn't be doing that if it wasn't worth the effort.
I truly don't see any need for a regulated PS. The properly tuned amps sounds fine with a regular supply. The active regulation stage might improve performance in some areas, but bring it down in other. Try batteries, this will be better than a regulator.
As to the resin, I'm not sure. There were threads about potting, and people claimed degraded performance. And if I potted my current amp, I couldn't convert them to inverted version, in case I'll change my mind
I truly don't see any need for a regulated PS. The properly tuned amps sounds fine with a regular supply. The active regulation stage might improve performance in some areas, but bring it down in other. Try batteries, this will be better than a regulator.
As to the resin, I'm not sure. There were threads about potting, and people claimed degraded performance. And if I potted my current amp, I couldn't convert them to inverted version, in case I'll change my mind
hey peter, i happen to remember some conversations between you and millwood - about resistors...etc...know what i mean....
bob bob bob......how do you know...? you are known to try out different "things".....don't stop now....
IMHO regulation will give the best of both worlds.....
(if well executed)
tbla said:
I don't know, but if others tried regulators and batteries in pre stages and prefer batteries, wouldn't there be an analogy for the amps as well.
It is difficult to properly implement the regulation stage, and frankly I'm not that excited of even trying that. I'm also a rather intuitive person and my inside voice tells me don't waste your time on pursuing that
Edit:
Actually I can implement the regulated PS, when it would be a part of a charging sytem. Any suggestions? What are you using for a supply?
From a philosophical point of view in building amps I think I agree with Peter Daniel. Each additional part is a potential problem in itself as well as an additional cost. Many times I've noted that "improvements" by way of addition are usually detriments to the sound. I'm very interested in the inverted vs. non-inverted gainclone arguments both pro and con. Does the gainclone stability increase when used non-inverting? If these points were already discussed can someone point me to the thread(s)? This topic apparently puts two very well respected men and their opinions in conflict. Kuei has been emphatic in the past about the superiority of the inverted schema for all chip amps and not just the gainclone so has Peter's latest discovery brought about a change in opinion, Kuei?
I'm still not sure if Kuei subjectively tested both, similarly built, versions of the amp, or his views are mostly based on experiments he was conducting years ago?
Anyway, I don't see here any conflict of opinions. The opinions mainly depend on taste and system compatibility, which will never be the same.
I conducted more tests today, and my IGC monoblocks sounded very good with TVC transformers. Similarly built, stereo version of the NIGC sounded also very good and it only seemed like this amp had just a bit more of substance, but both detail and soundstage as well as overall presentation seemed to be at the same level. Adding batteries to my new amp raises the bar higher and simply moves the sound into new dimension.
With my older amps, the difference between I and NI is bigger and I can't explain why, but they are also built and implemented in a totaly different way.
Anyway, I don't see here any conflict of opinions. The opinions mainly depend on taste and system compatibility, which will never be the same.
I conducted more tests today, and my IGC monoblocks sounded very good with TVC transformers. Similarly built, stereo version of the NIGC sounded also very good and it only seemed like this amp had just a bit more of substance, but both detail and soundstage as well as overall presentation seemed to be at the same level. Adding batteries to my new amp raises the bar higher and simply moves the sound into new dimension.
With my older amps, the difference between I and NI is bigger and I can't explain why, but they are also built and implemented in a totaly different way.
I agree with Peter on the very small diffrences between the IGC and the NIGC. I was a late comer to the GC game(slightly over 1 year now) and have always used batteries as the P/S.It just made more sense to me as far as a clean source of stable energy.
Just built my first NIGC as a test bed and yes it sounds good,but is it better than my normal IGC, well thats hard to say. after doing several A/B i have to say that the IGC with a pre/buffer is about the same as a NIGC.Now i am not using anything for a passive such as TVC , just shunted 50k pots but they are , lets say, on an equal footing.
ron
Just built my first NIGC as a test bed and yes it sounds good,but is it better than my normal IGC, well thats hard to say. after doing several A/B i have to say that the IGC with a pre/buffer is about the same as a NIGC.Now i am not using anything for a passive such as TVC , just shunted 50k pots but they are , lets say, on an equal footing.
ron
Konnichiwa,
I have not compared the LM3875 in the two connections. I have however worked with a range of Op-Amp's over the years and with discrete Op-Amp structures. And I have found that AS LONG AS A LTP input is present the circuit sounds more like a piece of wire inverted.
Does that means it sounds better? Here I believe we come to matter of taste. Just like passive components, Battery Power supplies and so on.
Sayonara
Peter Daniel said:
I have not compared the LM3875 in the two connections. I have however worked with a range of Op-Amp's over the years and with discrete Op-Amp structures. And I have found that AS LONG AS A LTP input is present the circuit sounds more like a piece of wire inverted.
Does that means it sounds better? Here I believe we come to matter of taste. Just like passive components, Battery Power supplies and so on.
Sayonara
In the old days it used to be said that the measure of neutrality is a piece of wire. By that it was assumed that a wire is better than any active or passive component. But some recent test indicate that even a wire is not totally neutral and when using inferior interconnects or speaker cable a perfectly good active stage can be substantially degraded. Even a short piece of wire makes a difference and whenever possible I prefer not to use wire at all.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.