Hi I'm not an actual amp designer, but I play one in academia
"Mr. Cheever cites Matti Otala's work on TIM, but sadly appears to not to be cognisant of the fact that TIM, SID have been demonstrated to be a red herring of the Monster variety"
And yet you started a thread advovocating(?) very high slew rate
amplifiers.
Output stages with gain Enhance Slew rate
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=168372#post168372
"In view of the brevity of my observations made earlier in the thread, Nelson's objections may, prima facie, appear valid. However, any reservations held in this regard will now be shown to be illusory."
In other words you are saying that someone who actually designed and sold some of the most highly aclaimed amps for the last 25 years is mistaken?
"Mr. Cheever cites Matti Otala's work on TIM, but sadly appears to not to be cognisant of the fact that TIM, SID have been demonstrated to be a red herring of the Monster variety"
And yet you started a thread advovocating(?) very high slew rate
amplifiers.
Output stages with gain Enhance Slew rate
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=168372#post168372
"In view of the brevity of my observations made earlier in the thread, Nelson's objections may, prima facie, appear valid. However, any reservations held in this regard will now be shown to be illusory."
In other words you are saying that someone who actually designed and sold some of the most highly aclaimed amps for the last 25 years is mistaken?
Re: Hi I'm not an actual amp designer, but I play one in academia
More deliberate misrepresentation from Mr dieckman......or is it mr pass????
see post #18 here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14482&perpage=15&pagenumber=2
I see you still have difficulty with your spelling Mr Dieckman.
The rest is juvenile froth for which i, and i am certain others on this forum have no time.
You still appear incapable of debating an issue on its merits, merely resorting to sophistic word-play in a vain-glorious, and desperate attempt to save face, even when its clear to all and sundry that the urgument is irrevocably lost.
Fred Dieckmann said:
More deliberate misrepresentation from Mr dieckman......or is it mr pass????
see post #18 here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14482&perpage=15&pagenumber=2
Fred Dieckmann said:
I see you still have difficulty with your spelling Mr Dieckman.
The rest is juvenile froth for which i, and i am certain others on this forum have no time.
You still appear incapable of debating an issue on its merits, merely resorting to sophistic word-play in a vain-glorious, and desperate attempt to save face, even when its clear to all and sundry that the urgument is irrevocably lost.
Re: Fred D who are you asking for measurement details from, sorry i don't understand
...No.....the design posted by PMM at the begining of this thread does not consist of three voltage gain stages.
I think you'll find that it is infact made up of an input voltage gain stage, followed by a transadmittance stage, and then a transimpedance stage.
Fred Dieckmann said:
...No.....the design posted by PMM at the begining of this thread does not consist of three voltage gain stages.
I think you'll find that it is infact made up of an input voltage gain stage, followed by a transadmittance stage, and then a transimpedance stage.
Re: Re: Fred D who are you asking for measurement details from, sorry i don't understand
I am afraid you got the wrong guy. Actually, i didn't know I
had posted anything at all in this thread. I had to check now,
of course,
and indeed I had posted, but no schematic or anything close
to it.
mikek said:
I am afraid you got the wrong guy. Actually, i didn't know I
had posted anything at all in this thread. I had to check now,
of course,
and indeed I had posted, but no schematic or anything close
to it.
Deliberate misrepresentation? No, a just a few deliberate questions.
"More deliberate misrepresentation from Mr dieckman......or is it mr pass????
see post #18 here:"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...15&pagenumber=2
Why? Do you think slew rates that high are beneficial? Was it a statement pointing out the desirability of high slew rates? Was it an opportunity to post block diagrams? Was it to introduce the topic so people could discuss the merits and drawbacks of such an approach?
As Jan Didden asked, "Are you going to make a point, or did I already miss it?"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?postid=168372
"The rest is juvenile froth for which I, and I am certain others on this forum have no time.
You still appear incapable of debating an issue on its merits, merely resorting to sophistic wordplay in a vainglorious, and desperate attempt to save face, even when its clear to all and sundry that the urgent is irrevocably lost"
You seem quite willing to pass value judgments on schematics and ideas presented by others, and usually without much detail on the reasons behind statements. When to elaborate on the value judgments or rational for the schematics you post, I get mainly references to AES articles rather than straight forward explanation as to the reason for your post. You have been doing better as of late and perhaps might state the premise of your post as you make it, rather than in hindsight, when asked what exactly your point was. Perhaps this might curtail the lengthy aftermath for which "others on this forum have no time," a curious observation considering the amount of time you have to devote to these exchanges. No one is forced to read anything here that they do not wish to and there is an ignore all post by button for that purpose. Please do not confuse me with Mr. Pass, as the insinuations dishonor the work and my, and many others respect for his work, and the generosity of the knowledge and experience he has shared on the forum. You will win no friends here as some might think you really mean it and are not just attempting to be humorous. There are many here whose sense of humor as not as well developed as yours.
Speaking of humor ........... I am delighted with the label of vainglorious. This is sublime irony from an individual who is willing to dismiss the opinions of hundreds of people who formed them through the experience of years hard work, study, open minded listening, to defend the opinions and theories of ivory tower academic AES members. I will try harder to deserve that moniker. You have given me a whole new arsenal with your use of the following terms. That are sure to come in handy at some future date for discussions on the forum. I am sure that they are de rigor at tea with the Queen but must drive some of the non native English speakers and members of proletariat on the forum toward the solace of drink.
From mikek's post:
vainglorious
sophistic
sundry
irrevocably
oxymoron
profoundly mediocre (an example of the previous term?)
prima facie
rigorous
ergo
n'est pas
proverbially
viability
disdained
fallacious
reiterate
conspicuously
intellectual
fatally flawed
fulsome
legend
juvenile
Please do view all of this as an attempt to start an urgument (your spelling not mine) but as an chance to reflect on your advice.
"More deliberate misrepresentation from Mr dieckman......or is it mr pass????
see post #18 here:"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...15&pagenumber=2
Why? Do you think slew rates that high are beneficial? Was it a statement pointing out the desirability of high slew rates? Was it an opportunity to post block diagrams? Was it to introduce the topic so people could discuss the merits and drawbacks of such an approach?
As Jan Didden asked, "Are you going to make a point, or did I already miss it?"
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?postid=168372
"The rest is juvenile froth for which I, and I am certain others on this forum have no time.
You still appear incapable of debating an issue on its merits, merely resorting to sophistic wordplay in a vainglorious, and desperate attempt to save face, even when its clear to all and sundry that the urgent is irrevocably lost"
You seem quite willing to pass value judgments on schematics and ideas presented by others, and usually without much detail on the reasons behind statements. When to elaborate on the value judgments or rational for the schematics you post, I get mainly references to AES articles rather than straight forward explanation as to the reason for your post. You have been doing better as of late and perhaps might state the premise of your post as you make it, rather than in hindsight, when asked what exactly your point was. Perhaps this might curtail the lengthy aftermath for which "others on this forum have no time," a curious observation considering the amount of time you have to devote to these exchanges. No one is forced to read anything here that they do not wish to and there is an ignore all post by button for that purpose. Please do not confuse me with Mr. Pass, as the insinuations dishonor the work and my, and many others respect for his work, and the generosity of the knowledge and experience he has shared on the forum. You will win no friends here as some might think you really mean it and are not just attempting to be humorous. There are many here whose sense of humor as not as well developed as yours.
Speaking of humor ........... I am delighted with the label of vainglorious. This is sublime irony from an individual who is willing to dismiss the opinions of hundreds of people who formed them through the experience of years hard work, study, open minded listening, to defend the opinions and theories of ivory tower academic AES members. I will try harder to deserve that moniker. You have given me a whole new arsenal with your use of the following terms. That are sure to come in handy at some future date for discussions on the forum. I am sure that they are de rigor at tea with the Queen but must drive some of the non native English speakers and members of proletariat on the forum toward the solace of drink.
From mikek's post:
vainglorious
sophistic
sundry
irrevocably
oxymoron
profoundly mediocre (an example of the previous term?)
prima facie
rigorous
ergo
n'est pas
proverbially
viability
disdained
fallacious
reiterate
conspicuously
intellectual
fatally flawed
fulsome
legend
juvenile
Please do view all of this as an attempt to start an urgument (your spelling not mine) but as an chance to reflect on your advice.
Re: Re: Re: Fred D who are you asking for measurement details from, sorry i don't understand
my apologies christer...the design was posted by PMM...correction duly noted. cheers.
Christer said:
I am afraid you got the wrong guy. Actually, i didn't know I
had posted anything at all in this thread. I had to check now,
of course,
and indeed I had posted, but no schematic or anything close
to it.
my apologies christer...the design was posted by PMM...correction duly noted. cheers.
a rose by any other name...............
"...No.....the design posted by Christer at the begining of this thread does not consist of three voltage gain stages.
I think you'll find that it is infact made up of an input voltage gain stage, followed by a transadmittance stage, and then a transimpedance stage."
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=194100
All three of these stages do exhibit voltage gain.......... Which you can easily verify with Spice or the instrument below if you actually have ever used one.
"...No.....the design posted by Christer at the begining of this thread does not consist of three voltage gain stages.
I think you'll find that it is infact made up of an input voltage gain stage, followed by a transadmittance stage, and then a transimpedance stage."
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=194100
All three of these stages do exhibit voltage gain.......... Which you can easily verify with Spice or the instrument below if you actually have ever used one.
Attachments
.....An useless and a uncalled for suggestion?
Use an in place of a when it precedes a vowel sound, not just a vowel.
Do you have an urge to start an (or is it a?) argument?
http://www.thespuff.com/literature/Lynch/LynchsGrammerGuide
Use an in place of a when it precedes a vowel sound, not just a vowel.
Do you have an urge to start an (or is it a?) argument?
http://www.thespuff.com/literature/Lynch/LynchsGrammerGuide
Grabbing the bull be the horns rather than other end
This confirms my suspicions about the scope probe. Please explain how the two long tailed diff pair stages (Q11,12,13,14) and (Q15,16,17,18) don't have voltage gain. I would really like to know..... You are looking at AEM 6000 schematic? Since you couldn't recall who posted it, maybe you also forgot which schematic as well ........
Is this your idea of "intellectually rigorous"?
I hope not.
This confirms my suspicions about the scope probe. Please explain how the two long tailed diff pair stages (Q11,12,13,14) and (Q15,16,17,18) don't have voltage gain. I would really like to know..... You are looking at AEM 6000 schematic? Since you couldn't recall who posted it, maybe you also forgot which schematic as well ........
Is this your idea of "intellectually rigorous"?
I hope not.
Re: Re: Deliberate misrepresentation? No, a just a few deliberate questions.
As an afficionado of embellished verbiage, I conjecture you intended to employ the word specious?
mikek said:You do not, i now take it, have an intellectually rigorous, or even merely intuitively sound response to my refutation of your spacious misrepresentation?
As an afficionado of embellished verbiage, I conjecture you intended to employ the word specious?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.