Sy has some impressive backup:
Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science - YouTube
Richard Feynman explaining the relationship of theory and experimentation.
Feynman Chaser - The Key to Science - YouTube
Richard Feynman explaining the relationship of theory and experimentation.
There's nothing to learn just by looking at the schematic and it's not my design. Preamps are basic stuff, the devil is in the details. Experiment for yourself, that's the only way to learn. I can assure you Broskie knows the Aikido is not a big deal but it's his design. Love your offspring, others may love it too.
Farce
My particle detector senses that someone is attempting to blow smoke up my skirt.
Did someone say that there were absolutes involved here? I do not recall the likes of Schottky, Nyquist, Moullin or for that matter anyone here speaking of absolutes. I do recall discussion of standard deviations and the flow of discrete chunks called electrons.
Perhaps with the now decades of collected data and today’s stochastic statistics we can make order out of chaos.
The input stage of the Aikido was around a long time before it was given an name and made popular.
DT
My particle detector senses that someone is attempting to blow smoke up my skirt.
Did someone say that there were absolutes involved here? I do not recall the likes of Schottky, Nyquist, Moullin or for that matter anyone here speaking of absolutes. I do recall discussion of standard deviations and the flow of discrete chunks called electrons.
Perhaps with the now decades of collected data and today’s stochastic statistics we can make order out of chaos.
The input stage of the Aikido was around a long time before it was given an name and made popular.
DT
Last edited:
It is true, without going into epistemological issues, a formal science like physics, works that way AFAIK.
I find no contradiction with what Richard Feynman said, was not my mentor, but I read The Feynman Lectures on Physics.
I even found a small error, which surely was due to Spanish translation.
Well, I think we are getting bogged down.
Let me recap what this thread is NOT about:
(1) theory vs. experiment in science (they are both essential: one doesn't trump the other).
(2) criticizing Broskie or his amps. They are as reasonably well designed and function as well as most other designs.
Now lets recap what the thread IS about:
(1) Why Broskie's 'Aikido' B+ noise cancelling circuit is a failure.
(2) Why the circuit doesn't and cannot do what is claimed for it.
I intend to demonstrate my thesis on theoretical grounds, not experimental.
The reason this is more than adequate,
is that the theoretical grounds I am using are well-understood,
and non-controversial.
I'm not claiming any secret insights or magical effects.
I'll be instead going over familiar ground,
in a way that shows exactly why the Broskie technique is ineffective.
I will also repeat what I said previously, in case it was missed:
There is no indication from the responses so far,
that anyone except Wavebourn has a clue what is wrong
with both the circuit and the historical analysis/claims for it.
Let me recap what this thread is NOT about:
(1) theory vs. experiment in science (they are both essential: one doesn't trump the other).
(2) criticizing Broskie or his amps. They are as reasonably well designed and function as well as most other designs.
Now lets recap what the thread IS about:
(1) Why Broskie's 'Aikido' B+ noise cancelling circuit is a failure.
(2) Why the circuit doesn't and cannot do what is claimed for it.
I intend to demonstrate my thesis on theoretical grounds, not experimental.
The reason this is more than adequate,
is that the theoretical grounds I am using are well-understood,
and non-controversial.
I'm not claiming any secret insights or magical effects.
I'll be instead going over familiar ground,
in a way that shows exactly why the Broskie technique is ineffective.
I will also repeat what I said previously, in case it was missed:
There is no indication from the responses so far,
that anyone except Wavebourn has a clue what is wrong
with both the circuit and the historical analysis/claims for it.
Surely the ultimate test is - as always - does it perform in the real world situation. My experience is that it matches the performance of the Vacuum State FVP5 which uses a slightly more sophisticated output stage.
The principle as described by Broskie is quite straightforward - inject a tiny bit of noise (ripple) into the output to cancel the noise at the plate. I cannot see how it fails to do that to the PS noise ripple - as others have stated he makes no other claims for the circuits noise performance.
It seems its got quite fashionable to criticize Broskie for imagined slights against the "art of HIFI" when in fact all he does is explore interesting topologies in ways which are accessible to the average Joe - for that we can only thank him.
Shoog
The principle as described by Broskie is quite straightforward - inject a tiny bit of noise (ripple) into the output to cancel the noise at the plate. I cannot see how it fails to do that to the PS noise ripple - as others have stated he makes no other claims for the circuits noise performance.
It seems its got quite fashionable to criticize Broskie for imagined slights against the "art of HIFI" when in fact all he does is explore interesting topologies in ways which are accessible to the average Joe - for that we can only thank him.
Shoog
Last edited:
Please nazaroo, can you stop putting up long posts which say almost nothing, and state your argument. Stop telling us how wonderful and accurate and insightful it will be, and instead JUST SAY IT! I have not seen anything yet to give me any confidence that you have something useful to say, but I have seen hints that you might be falling back on the usual myths of time delays etc.
If you don't give us some meat soon, some of us will get bored. Or is that your intention: to bore away the scientists/engineers so that you then have freedom to impress the gullible? We are now approaching 50 posts yet we are still waiting for the show to begin.
If you don't give us some meat soon, some of us will get bored. Or is that your intention: to bore away the scientists/engineers so that you then have freedom to impress the gullible? We are now approaching 50 posts yet we are still waiting for the show to begin.
Last edited:
I wouldn't call it preamp for noobs
It does have two special features that aren't needed; at least one dual triode per channel and improved PSSR. It looks like this helps talk about theory. I'm wondering how many dual triodes phono or even mic preamp needs per channel if built ala Aikido? 4-6? Making good layout, psu and adding some decoupling where needed seems like cheaper and better solution.Also, most people need very little to no gain from preamp. So having too much gain and attenuating it just adds noise.
Not really. The FVP (and RTP) have horribly poor power supply rejection, which is why Allen needed a very sophisticated regulator.
So, Naz, let's get on with your predictions. I have some limited time in the lab this weekend.
Different purpose - but more sophisticated design objective.
The circuits themselves are not directly comparable - but the end performance is almost exactly the same. As such I would say if someone where deciding which to build - then the Aikido would probably get my vote - for reasons of ease of construction and relative cheapness.
Shoog
oh, this means the ridicouling stops
well, I am glad to hear that part is over
you are much too kind, master, thank you
well, I am glad to hear that part is over
you are much too kind, master, thank you
Yeah.
I bet he's good at essay writing. The art of filling up pages without saying anything interesting or new is often seen at Universities
I myself understand what Nazaroo is saying, and I'm average.
It's nice to have some new insight to some "common" projects. I was interested to learn that the hype that surrounds the Aikido, is just that hype.
In my opinion, he has already stated his argument. The Aikido only attempts to reject hum at a specific frequency, and is basically empty in it's PSRR claims.
He explained in terms that even I can understand, how it fails, how the divider is circumvented in a half dozen ways.
I think that is significant.
I don't see whats wrong with critiquing audio on an audio forum.
The fact that it ruffles feathers of the usual suspects has merit.
If we can pick out the weeds, it's easier to see the roses.
It's nice to have some new insight to some "common" projects. I was interested to learn that the hype that surrounds the Aikido, is just that hype.
In my opinion, he has already stated his argument. The Aikido only attempts to reject hum at a specific frequency, and is basically empty in it's PSRR claims.
He explained in terms that even I can understand, how it fails, how the divider is circumvented in a half dozen ways.
I think that is significant.
I don't see whats wrong with critiquing audio on an audio forum.
The fact that it ruffles feathers of the usual suspects has merit.
If we can pick out the weeds, it's easier to see the roses.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.