A concept that is symmetrical between the operating voltage halves, i.e. complementary, is an almost perfect beginner's project.
A SYMM is trivial, including, of course, the well-known construction proposal by Jean Hiraga. Even if you estimate the resistance values, i.e. proceed intuitively, the circuit will work. Success is almost always guaranteed.
An emitter circuit followed by a collector circuit, that's all there is to it. The learner doesn't have to bring much to the table - and yet the ball always lands in the goal, a self-reinforcing feedback, ideal.
For me, SYMM is a collective term and an ideal playground. You can drill a SYMM, but you shouldn't complicate it - unfortunately this happens too often.
It covers almost all the basics, so it's also ideal for @cumbb to dive into the first semesters (no offense meant
).
I would start with this template to go into detail and administer the steroids. There is no way I would start with an idea like 'HeadSea' if I were still a student.
kindly,
HBt.
A SYMM is trivial, including, of course, the well-known construction proposal by Jean Hiraga. Even if you estimate the resistance values, i.e. proceed intuitively, the circuit will work. Success is almost always guaranteed.
An emitter circuit followed by a collector circuit, that's all there is to it. The learner doesn't have to bring much to the table - and yet the ball always lands in the goal, a self-reinforcing feedback, ideal.
For me, SYMM is a collective term and an ideal playground. You can drill a SYMM, but you shouldn't complicate it - unfortunately this happens too often.
It covers almost all the basics, so it's also ideal for @cumbb to dive into the first semesters (no offense meant
).I would start with this template to go into detail and administer the steroids. There is no way I would start with an idea like 'HeadSea' if I were still a student.
kindly,
HBt.
Oh dear,
you've put it really nicely - and as a joke or tease it might be quite funny, but it doesn't get us a single step forward on the charts.
Can you at least tell us the results of the homework assignment from your perspective, would you be so kind? Do you recommend a simple unipolar power supply that shares both channels simultaneously? If you answer this question with a YES, please explain why.
Many thanks in advance.
Dear @cumbb,
I'm trying to build you a bridge, but you have to want to step on it and cross over. We can all make fun of ourselves, don't you think? Now is the time to stop this nonsense.
It would be easiest if the rest of us were allowed to know what would not be a 08/15 amplifier for you - in concrete terms.
regards,
HBt.
I'm trying to build you a bridge, but you have to want to step on it and cross over. We can all make fun of ourselves, don't you think? Now is the time to stop this nonsense.
It would be easiest if the rest of us were allowed to know what would not be a 08/15 amplifier for you - in concrete terms.
regards,
HBt.
The 2SC1345 in another section of the preamp actually
Attachments
That must have been #129.
For those who would like the full ServMan (17.5MB, to large to attach here), drop me a pm.
No, no and another no. You're derailed completely.
Your perception of the reality is not the reality, but only your perception of it, and therefore not the reality.
I own 3 4650's and a 5650, all with working V-fet's and they're all happy in their sockets.
Now that my train has completely derailed and reality is completely distorted, I ask myself ... But let's leave that. One can only guess what you have in mind.
Just let us know when your construct is working properly, or leave it.
We don't need to say another word about your circuit idea, not even in passing.
This case is closed.
I would like to leave it at that.
By the way:
the service manuals are freely available on the Internet
.friendly,
HBt.
Yes,
in the cascode, also a well-known Lego brick. What's so special about it now?
Another simple approach that I personally like and don't want to embezzle.
DLH-Amplifier
And of course the last one ...
monolithic SuperSYMM as X-Amp
for free inspiration!
DLH-Amplifier
And of course the last one ...
monolithic SuperSYMM as X-Amp
for free inspiration!
Last edited:
For your information:
I have activated the ignore function for two users. Everyone's patience wears thin at some point, including mine, and it never ends well.
I am only interested in a constructive exchange at eye level - and not in manipulative and intimidating games.
This thread can be closed by the moderation team for all I care.
I have activated the ignore function for two users. Everyone's patience wears thin at some point, including mine, and it never ends well.
I am only interested in a constructive exchange at eye level - and not in manipulative and intimidating games.
This thread can be closed by the moderation team for all I care.
Last edited:
The endless difficulty here is what is "know" to be "below audible levels" and what "technical measurement" needs to be made has changed with the passage of time and will it seems continue to change.
I see no reason to believe we now know "everything" about what a audible impairment is and how to quantify it.
I also see no compelling evidence that we now fully understand the impact on any one listener of each type and combination of impairment on listening enjoyment.
So for me the goal for improved reproduction still has a very long way to run on our journey. That is good as the journey can be a large part of the joy.
Last edited:
For me this is not the important question.
The important question is "does the experience of sound created cause pleasure, enjoyment and a emotional response in the listening experience.
This applies to both live and reproduced listening experiences equally. A poor concert you walk out of and a poor hifi you turn down.
Your listening goal is further to the left of sounding like live music, both of those being subjective. A system merely measuring well is positioned to the right, with that being objective. So, it’s the same question - subjective, versus objective system priority. Just substituting how it makes you feel, for does it sound like live music.
That's the point <-> The consequence of this is that the listening room must now be designed and constructed in such a way that reproduction (actually reconstruction) would be possible in principle.
It's not the amplifier technology (itself), in my opinion the field of construction is sufficiently clear and researched (if you want to use that term).
The determining factor is the room and (in the minimum requirement) the stereo loudspeakers, the pair. It should be clear that a good illusion achieved with only two loudspeakers (two channels) can only reflect the live experience to a limited extent.
You /we may need a multi-channel system and a completely different type of recording and editing.
We know the field, and yet the achievable effects are only impressive - they don't move me.
In some cases, old (perhaps 75 years old) mono recordings are very impressive and moving, whereas current, modern master recordings are rather disappointing across the board (and put a strain on the nerves due to constant stress).
#
My concern is classic, on the one hand there is the construction of the transducers (loudspeakers) and the minimalist amplifier design (as little as necessary, but as much as necessary)...
For this we need key data, a fairly sharp definition.
This is hopefully the current consensus - and less a technical, technical or engineering question than a biological, medical or psychological question. In a broad sense, a purely physiological one. Dependent on the sensory receptor, the transmission and evaluation (brain), and consequently the reflection in the consciousness.
The ability to hear plays the biggest role here - and its limitations.
Well, achieving live playback using technology fails. But there are other categories that the ear opens up: cleanliness, for example, homogeinity, flow, clarity, contour, corporality, balance of colors and many others.
To all: to begin with, place your speakers 0.5 meters apart. And listen. And now move them 0.6 meters apart. And listen. And so on. Until the sound image tears apart - then move back into the "interaction". The majority of compact speakers will be between 70 and 90 cm apart, the very large (home audio) ones very very rare over 1.5 meters. This is regardless of the listening distance. If you want a big stage, you have to get closer to the speakers instead of tearing the stage apart.
This is how, for example, homogeneity and contour, corporality comes into play;-)
The vast majority of stereo signals - or multi-channel signals - are mono.
To all: to begin with, place your speakers 0.5 meters apart. And listen. And now move them 0.6 meters apart. And listen. And so on. Until the sound image tears apart - then move back into the "interaction". The majority of compact speakers will be between 70 and 90 cm apart, the very large (home audio) ones very very rare over 1.5 meters. This is regardless of the listening distance. If you want a big stage, you have to get closer to the speakers instead of tearing the stage apart.
This is how, for example, homogeneity and contour, corporality comes into play;-)
With regard to questions of faith, I deliberately outlined two representatives in the opening post - but the differentiation is not quite so simple, there are too many other perspectives and interests to consider in the analysis.
My suspicion tends more and more in the direction that it is not technical construction issues and solutions that divide the subject group, but deficits or defects in the individual member of the respective group classification itself.
A completely natural, but psychological problem, in part already pathologically formed.
#
We can rationally get to the bottom of everything else via measurement technology and correlations -> clearly explain and thus name the technical-physical causes and their differences.
My suspicion tends more and more in the direction that it is not technical construction issues and solutions that divide the subject group, but deficits or defects in the individual member of the respective group classification itself.
A completely natural, but psychological problem, in part already pathologically formed.
#
We can rationally get to the bottom of everything else via measurement technology and correlations -> clearly explain and thus name the technical-physical causes and their differences.
Last edited:
The experience of a live experience and sitting in a room listening to a recording isn't the same as a live event. Never will be.
Playing a recording should be a pleasure. It can bring you back to when your buddies girlfriend was looking at a blown up condom on a string and saying "Look at the pretty ballon." (Supertramp concert in the early 70's).
However, to do this, it is necessary to specifically address the technology solution used and to disclose it.
Two examples from the camp were:
(a) Jean Hiraga's Class A representative and (b) John Linsley Hood's world-famous construction proposal.
Room acoustic measures, which also include the positioning of the pair of loudspeakers or similar, are not my concern in this thread; this would also be the wrong subforum for that.
Unfortunately, the prototypes/members of the opposing comparison turned out to be completely unsuitable for this. Sorry, but that is an objective statement and should not be misinterpreted as a personal attack.