To use the same wire as the average output transformer seems to me ideal . OFC is cheap as transformer wire . Advice . Be very gentle with cable . Cryo treatment is not complete nonsense . Mostly it can be avoided as a problem . Handling cables is much like packing clothes to go on holiday . Can be done . This includes resistors etc . SMD might have an advantage here .
Most wire for small things has been effectively OFC since 1930 . If not it brakes in the winding machine . Pick-ups come to mind . OFC if I am correct was an aircraft requirement ? It is more resistant to vibration fatigue . Nordost if my information is right started as aircraft cable . PTFE for light weight at elevated temperature with fatigue resistance . Joe certainly caught on to a good idea .
Most wire for small things has been effectively OFC since 1930 . If not it brakes in the winding machine . Pick-ups come to mind . OFC if I am correct was an aircraft requirement ? It is more resistant to vibration fatigue . Nordost if my information is right started as aircraft cable . PTFE for light weight at elevated temperature with fatigue resistance . Joe certainly caught on to a good idea .
In a slew of countries belonging to the developing or undeveloped groups. Which is like 70% of mankind.
Especially true of previously state run economies; most manufacturing facilities there are hoplessly out of date and usually quite run down.
Graham Naughty ( spelling ) liked nickel better . Interesting as in my engineering work the resistance trade off would be compensated by corrosion resistance . Not too expensive in 1.5 mm dia I guess ( work not audio ) . Poor mans gold ? $6.6 / Lbs copper $3.3 .
In engineering the mechanical properties of OFC are respected . The production of OFC would not be for Audiofools exclusively .
An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Low Noise Design Schematics See Popa's notes (this is his website) for the HPS 4.1 and a table of e sub n. Note his remarks about putting enough current through the device so that rbb' dominates the noise.
The 2N4403 was good in its day but is nowhere near as good as the really low rbb' parts. Sadly the good Toshiba ones, 2SA1316 and 2SC3329 are long-gone. They managed about a 2 ohm rbb' as well as high beta.
That is very interesting . He says about small power transistors . The base spreading resistance is low ( Rbb_ ) as has often been said . Thanks . A week of reading there . I wonder what a big power transistors might be like .
Many SMD look good .
I say 2N4403 ( 1 ) as they are like the Saturn 5 . How did they do it way back then ? Perhaps I answer my own question , the space race .
Many SMD look good .
I say 2N4403 ( 1 ) as they are like the Saturn 5 . How did they do it way back then ? Perhaps I answer my own question , the space race .
The funny thing about 4403s were that they were optimized for switching and never for low noise. In fact it was something of a dark secret for a while (we're talking circa 1970) that they worked so well for low-impedance circuits as front end devices. BTW the Motorola ones were the good ones, and the JEDEC spec was loose enough that other manufacturers made devices labelled as 4403s that weren't near as good.
A friend of mine boosted his reputation significantly as a relatively new employee at TRW when he made a preamp with 2N4403s for a very low-impedance infrared sensor, and it was markedly better than the one the reigning preamp guru there had managed.
A friend of mine boosted his reputation significantly as a relatively new employee at TRW when he made a preamp with 2N4403s for a very low-impedance infrared sensor, and it was markedly better than the one the reigning preamp guru there had managed.
Yes, EUVL was accused of stealing Leach's design (except implementing it with big JFETs). He defended himself and also pointed out that Leach could not be consulted for his blessing as he was dead. There's a thread in here about it, as applied to the conversion to a voltage of a "current-output" DAC.
As such I like it for one salient feature, that of intrinsically zero input current. There's a somewhat similar circuit published a while back by Rossiter in audioXpress which provoked an LTE from me and led to a brief correspondence.
I like Popa because he gets in there and builds things, although I have a few disagreements with his interpretations (expressed in another LTE, this to Linear Audio after his piece in Volume One, which was really the second issue).
It is fundamental and an excuse not to use LTP ( > 3 dB ) . Even Douglas Self said worth doing in power amps . Some Italian ( ? ) guy analyzed the balance of noise in the Blameless amps and found by raising some resistor values he could actually reduce noise . Exactly as That's corporation so well explain .
I know you have used JFET input . That can be a very reasonable thing to do . Some are excellent and very tolerant of how you choose to use them . A DC servo required no doubt as Vgs is not a given parameter unlike Vbe .
Samuel Groner found Doug's current mirror ballasting resistors a little low for best S/N. I think he published on it (I correspond with him frequently).
I posted this elsewhere . To me it is wonderful reading . I suspect it predates Black in references given . TELEFUNKEN GMBH as you would expect give full details . Voight is different and added below . 1924 !!! Dear Geoff Horn .
So good to have the first ever thoughts on something we still debate . See how it calls feedback anti-regeneration .
That is useful . You know how I bang on about loss of information in amps . Here they suggest amplification is regeneration . That isn't just positive feedback . That is a useful refocus . In other words each stage is a birth . If they didn't mean that I certainly infer it . Statements of the bleeding obvious ?
Samuel Groner . I remember .
Modulation distortion correction - TELEFUNKEN GMBH
http://www.stereophile.com/content/future-without-feedback-letters-page-3
So good to have the first ever thoughts on something we still debate . See how it calls feedback anti-regeneration .
That is useful . You know how I bang on about loss of information in amps . Here they suggest amplification is regeneration . That isn't just positive feedback . That is a useful refocus . In other words each stage is a birth . If they didn't mean that I certainly infer it . Statements of the bleeding obvious ?
Samuel Groner . I remember .
Modulation distortion correction - TELEFUNKEN GMBH
http://www.stereophile.com/content/future-without-feedback-letters-page-3
Last edited:
Having read my patents with pictures I see it is transmitting . No problems as the words are very interesting and physic don't change for anyone .
If I had known about Geoff knowing Paul Voight I would have pestered him . I remember Geoff building some speakers . I asked to listen " a poor thing but mine own " was the sort of answer I got . I underestimated Geoff ( He live almost next to Tolkin although he at the cemetery ) , he lived 3 miles from me . So many questions I would have asked .
If I had known about Geoff knowing Paul Voight I would have pestered him . I remember Geoff building some speakers . I asked to listen " a poor thing but mine own " was the sort of answer I got . I underestimated Geoff ( He live almost next to Tolkin although he at the cemetery ) , he lived 3 miles from me . So many questions I would have asked .
- Status
- Not open for further replies.