That's
My friend John is an instrument engineer I will be down the pub with him tonight . He uses the That's transistors as the only ones he can . They exceed spec considerably . John also said use this chip .
If wanting low noise for a non critical application 3 x 5534 can be used in paralell . This causes statistical noise cancellation and approximates to a halving of noise . I have done it with MC 33079 which worked very well and no problems . It is noticeably quieter . 33079 is OK without feedback arm cap . DC offset about + 0.15 V doing that from memory .
John is the one who said about 5534 replacing the chips in mixing desks . He knew it would provoke me . I come across 5534 a lot . Little tricks can make friends hi fi sound better . 10 K ( to 3 K depending ) pull up resistor from output to V- and 10 nF directly across the chip +/- ( ceramic cog ) . 10 minutes work and a happy friend . If only chip holders were mandatory this conversation wouldn't happen .
I have some wire ended EF86 valves . Never used then because removing valves is preferable to soldering them in .
My friend John is an instrument engineer I will be down the pub with him tonight . He uses the That's transistors as the only ones he can . They exceed spec considerably . John also said use this chip .
If wanting low noise for a non critical application 3 x 5534 can be used in paralell . This causes statistical noise cancellation and approximates to a halving of noise . I have done it with MC 33079 which worked very well and no problems . It is noticeably quieter . 33079 is OK without feedback arm cap . DC offset about + 0.15 V doing that from memory .
John is the one who said about 5534 replacing the chips in mixing desks . He knew it would provoke me . I come across 5534 a lot . Little tricks can make friends hi fi sound better . 10 K ( to 3 K depending ) pull up resistor from output to V- and 10 nF directly across the chip +/- ( ceramic cog ) . 10 minutes work and a happy friend . If only chip holders were mandatory this conversation wouldn't happen .
I have some wire ended EF86 valves . Never used then because removing valves is preferable to soldering them in .
No wonder so many '70 LPs produced and cut (pre-listen machines had same electronics as VU models) on stock Studers sounded so terrible.
Studer improved their line amps by 1981 by adding more idle current, but that design was still sub-optimal.
John, please tell us more about that "Ultramaster". I've seen you mentioning it a couple of times. What was so special about it?
(No need to give away trade secrets, by the way.
)Best,
EDIT - Why Willi refused to take your circuit? What were his words?
Last edited:
Let me first say is that the 'Ultramaster' was not made with IC's in the primary audio stages, but a discrete design, similar to what I just posted. This makes the PRIMARY difference in sound quality, compared to other 30 ips full track analog tape recorders.
Willi, conversed with his engineer in his own Swiss dialect, so that I could not understand and follow the discussion, but he was 'pissed'.
Willi, conversed with his engineer in his own Swiss dialect, so that I could not understand and follow the discussion, but he was 'pissed'.
For everyone, let me put out something, that may seem a little bit of history, but important in the context of what is being discussed here.
Back, 40 years ago, the Grateful Dead had 2 analog tape recorders. One, used only on special occasion, such as making a future record, was the 16 track Ampex with 15 ips and 1/2 track, using 2" wide tape.
The other was a semi-professional Sony running at 7.5ips, 1/2 track, using 1/4" tape, that continuously recorded at every concert, and this became the tape library for the GD, and was produced in the 100's. Today, these 7.5ips recordings are often transcribed to CD and DVD with some success.
Why do these analog recordings, made under 'marginal' circumstances never thought to be seriously useful to the public, sound OK?
It is because it is the 1'st generation!
Even Nakamichi recorders could generate significant subjective results when used in a live recording situation.
So, I think that noting the 'subjective' quality of a first generation recording, does not prove that 'better' cannot be done.
Back, 40 years ago, the Grateful Dead had 2 analog tape recorders. One, used only on special occasion, such as making a future record, was the 16 track Ampex with 15 ips and 1/2 track, using 2" wide tape.
The other was a semi-professional Sony running at 7.5ips, 1/2 track, using 1/4" tape, that continuously recorded at every concert, and this became the tape library for the GD, and was produced in the 100's. Today, these 7.5ips recordings are often transcribed to CD and DVD with some success.
Why do these analog recordings, made under 'marginal' circumstances never thought to be seriously useful to the public, sound OK?
It is because it is the 1'st generation!
Even Nakamichi recorders could generate significant subjective results when used in a live recording situation.
So, I think that noting the 'subjective' quality of a first generation recording, does not prove that 'better' cannot be done.
While the schematic I posted was a 'working schematic' and not super clear, it shows what I find, even today, as a practical minimum to making the most effective sound quality necessary for hi end recording. Of course, better can be done, and has been, but there are certain 'advantages' to this early design, not found in any normal IC, even today.
Let me point a few out:
1. Low noise, fet input. This design can be made to about 1nV/rt Hz WITH a FET input.
2. High speed of 25-100V/us
3. Class A throughout
4. Quasi-balanced VAS.
5. Built in, low noise power supply regulation and isolation from other stages.
Let me point a few out:
1. Low noise, fet input. This design can be made to about 1nV/rt Hz WITH a FET input.
2. High speed of 25-100V/us
3. Class A throughout
4. Quasi-balanced VAS.
5. Built in, low noise power supply regulation and isolation from other stages.
So, John, you designed new playback amps, new record amps and new line amps, I suppose, based on what you've posted before. Did you touched bias oscillator and switching circuitry as well?
Sorry if it sounds like a lot of questions - I am really interested to find out what was done in this field (better tape electronics) in the '70s and '80s. So far I'm only aware of ML version for A80RC (REC/PB), Cello (PB only) and have heard that classical division of Decca had their own design(s). And, of course, your "Ultramaster" and its predecessors for MoFi.
That's not a lot, I would say, compared to number of commercial records released back then. What a pitty.
Sorry if it sounds like a lot of questions - I am really interested to find out what was done in this field (better tape electronics) in the '70s and '80s. So far I'm only aware of ML version for A80RC (REC/PB), Cello (PB only) and have heard that classical division of Decca had their own design(s). And, of course, your "Ultramaster" and its predecessors for MoFi.
That's not a lot, I would say, compared to number of commercial records released back then. What a pitty.
On 1st generation tapes:
I agree completely with John. In my time, I was almost shocked at what my home tape dec picked up, via its own mics in my room of a friend playing classical guitar. And at 7.5 ips. Agfa tape.
Playback produced a complete "being there" experience.
Some years later, in 1980, I repeated the experience, but this time on a better tape deck, a Philips N4520, capable of running at 15 ips, with NAB or IEC eq. Tape Maxell UD-XL II, properly biased, deck heads properly adjusted to reference tape and demagnetized.
That was even more stunning. The friend for whom I made those recordings went on to become one of the greatest local rock stars ever. We sat together in High School, graduating in 1971.
I agree completely with John. In my time, I was almost shocked at what my home tape dec picked up, via its own mics in my room of a friend playing classical guitar. And at 7.5 ips. Agfa tape.
Playback produced a complete "being there" experience.
Some years later, in 1980, I repeated the experience, but this time on a better tape deck, a Philips N4520, capable of running at 15 ips, with NAB or IEC eq. Tape Maxell UD-XL II, properly biased, deck heads properly adjusted to reference tape and demagnetized.
That was even more stunning. The friend for whom I made those recordings went on to become one of the greatest local rock stars ever. We sat together in High School, graduating in 1971.
Attachments
I said "trying."
Not possible , too many SY's and for some reason i never thought of you as being "rap" ..
DVV and T maybe .. you , nah ... Link ... !!!!
Try this (only a few downloads left):
Lee Barber Live - Tin Foil Satellite MS by Stuart Yaniger on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
Lee Barber Live - Tin Foil Satellite MS by Stuart Yaniger on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
Just remember though that paralleling, of devices and/or amplifiers, is only helpful to the extent that one does not have a significant contribution from parallel (i.e., current) noise, and as well can tolerate increases in input capacitance. For nominally 200 ohm sources that's usually a pretty likely-to-be-met condition. For moving coil phono preamps, also likely. For moving iron, usually not, unless the devices/amps have very low parallel noise.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.