A phono switch and loading module for mm and Mc?
While I by no means discount what you need, you are much more capable than the average bear around here. Things that appear “available” to you are likely not available to others. The vast majority here I believe likely have not laid out a pcb themselves, for example. So by not available I’m speaking more as being outside the capability of a beginner, let’s say someone who has put together some of Salas’ boards and maybe an Aleph J or built a few pairs of speakers.
Also I meant “not as thoughtfully designed as could be”. By thoughtfully designed I DONT mean functionally excellent, like, according to an AP unit. I mean thoughtful to the end user. I think perhaps it would be insightful to ask some who maybe have a year or a couple on the forum and don’t have an EE background.
By available I mean PCBs can be bought rather than some hints that you could go build a schematic from. As for the phono switch thing that is something where I am really the only person who would want that level of complexity in a phono stage and even I am having second thoughts about some of the options. The good thing about audio is that the interfaces are fairly well defined, This makes everything modular by definition.
We aren’t remotely close to 10% as functional or organized as the Debian repository.... or choose your flavor. Is diyaudio only for retired veteran EE’s to squabble with each other about negative feedback and show off their big black boxes? Maybe I’m misunderstanding but I was under the impression that this was a community to help all diy audio hobbyists? What is wrong with consideration of how that might be improved?
I suppose the kind of backlash I’m getting from what I thought was a pretty reasonable question comes from the same place of “go _____ yourself. signed, the old-farts-club” that drives people away from this hobby and has relegated it to a worn out punch line.
I’d argue that it’s an order of magnitude easier to assemble a computer to fit your precise use case, including peripheral requirements, form factor, from scratch than a preamplifier, with no prior base knowledge of either. It’s also about twice as future proof. To me that seems unfortunate and unnecessary. And the reasoning I think is as simple as a given project began with the end user in mind (necessarily so for other reasons, but nonetheless in mind).
The whole 15 separate boxes is beyond me and I think unnecessary and speaks to the lack of user friendliness. And also to the fact that it’s an old boys club of guys with big basements or living rooms to cram this stuff in. One box pre. Could even include swappable card slots for phono, tape, Dac, remote, gain stages, everything. One box amp. Maybe a separate power supply if you are feeling fancy. It’s amazing to me that this blows everyone’s mind and is considered unreasonable and stupid to suggest to the point of active trolling and outrage.
Last edited:
But you don't want to be helped. You dismiss the steps taken by others to achieve some degree of competence as a waste of time and demand the fruits of their labours be handed to you on a plate. You want the schematic drawn. You want PCB laid out. You want gerber created. Presumably someone is going to do the listening for you because competently designed does not mean sounds the same. What are you going to bring to the party ? More to the point how does a beginner stop being a beginner by doing nothing ?
Yes, it may surprise you, but this is a pretty closed minded crowd. Someone can be a brilliant audio engineer and still not be interested in social sciences or even respect other disciplines. Somewhat off topic, but what blows me away is the number of members who believe planned obsolescence is an artifact of Chinese ineptitude. I'm an engineer so I see it at work too. Apparently, if it can't be described in a single line equation, then it can be challenged by anyone of any level of knowledge.
If you cannot create this stuff yourself a dismissive attitude towards those with the drive and passion to create this stuff will not get you very far. You don't seem to understand that it is the people with their unnecessary and user unfriendly 15 boxes that you need on side.
I think those with 15 boxes might dream of one. Like I said before, I’m not here to infringe on the free will of others. If they want 15 boxes and are happy, that’s awesome and I support that. But why should that be the only option? Could there be other methods? Also, I’m not an incapable person here. I’ve also learned a lot on my own the hard way. I’m reflecting on my personal experiences, how the experiences of others seem to me and contemplating solutions that might better meet the needs of all parties.
I guess most of the reasonable and friendly folks have jumped ship.
LOL typical grouchy somewhere-on-the-spectrum engineer response. They just got better at shredding after the Phoebus Cartel got dug up. It’s a natural logical extension of any profit seeking producer of goods involved in a capitalist society. How do they explain the ink cartridge chips?
You mean this thread? Yes, I think so. If you mean the forum, as alluded to in your comments about SY, no, I've seen plenty of heavy hitters leave but plenty of new heavy hitters come on board.
There is a definite personality at play, though. I think a lot of the prolific members would have been what we called the stoner crowd in high school, abeit grey haired parents and grandparents now.
I never thought the “stoner crowd” would get so grouchy ;-)
Since this thread has sort of spiraled into the toilet as far as productivity is concerned and my posting is basically in self-defense, I will consolidate my idea into something more clear and formal and post it to see what the general response might be.
If enough have interest we can perhaps assemble a workgroup. It should only require a few different skill sets. I don’t think it will be as difficult, strange, unrewarding or redundant as others have posited.
Since this thread has sort of spiraled into the toilet as far as productivity is concerned and my posting is basically in self-defense, I will consolidate my idea into something more clear and formal and post it to see what the general response might be.
If enough have interest we can perhaps assemble a workgroup. It should only require a few different skill sets. I don’t think it will be as difficult, strange, unrewarding or redundant as others have posited.
Right on maaaan.
whoaaaa... like maybe theres some kind of... like... you know... same thing... correlation I think the man calls it... whoaaaaaaaa mind blown here maaaan....
I do this mocking not for hate of hippies just that their lingo is cool sounding but their ideas are unrealistic.
Last edited:
I’m sorry, but you’ve completely misjudged me. Reviewing the rest of the thread might shine light on that for you. I do well at parties and never come empty handed. I could expand on this and offer some kind of rebuttal but as you are of the party-pooper variety, it’s not worth the effort discussing. Seems inevitable that whatever I say you’ll hone in on one line, discount the rest and lay a dig in.
I’ve heard you out, but we simply do not see eye to eye. If you don’t have anything productive to say, I’d like to personally request that you be considerate and refrain.
Last edited:
That's an awfully big bus to be throwing everyone under. You probably should have stopped at your first post of the thread, since you're perhaps being the most closeminded about your own ostensible peers.
FWIW, I am still confused by the modularity comments: namely, most people here on DIYaudio want kits or assembled boards that they can do minor tweaks on. There's an embarrassment of "good enough" designs out there to satisfy all but the most "ideology first, performance afterthought" personalities. A quick look at gain structure can tell you, with simple arithmetic, whether you have excess gain in your system. Some simple questions gets you far. Taking output from one board to another, at line level, is oftentimes a twisted pair of wire away. What's the magic? Assembly tends to be more about packaging than anything else. Have a blast with tweaking things here or there.
I have my RPI/DACs/TI dev boards strewn around, but I'm hoping to eventually get them into a single 4u box. That's 6 channels for an active stereo, since that was another point of contention. Sure, I'm playing with the gain and derating the DAC's to a 1Vrms output (-6 db straight cut in digital), but this is all using tools and boards readily available to everyone. Yes it requires a fair bit of enterprise, but nowhere near the level of doing layout/circuit design/debug. Heck, I feel I'm being lazy!
P.S. I tend only to be snarky with more senior members who should know better (or are flat out delusional) rather than newbies. Ask how many times I've had to explain the TPA325x EVM boards to people, or linked application notes that thoroughly answered the question at hand (along with providing all the correct terminology so someone could google the correct terms and learn from it).
Spaceistheplace: we have very different views on the Linux world of open source. Most anything that's relied on within the OS and accompanying packages is professionally prepared for enterprise that the rest of us are benefactors thereof, not a smorgasboard of individuals with a common goal. The one-off babies of a software developer, much like some of the work done here with a plain focus on making solid modules for this or that, is highly commendable.
And having taught enough software classes to undergrad EE's, let me tell you, there's a LOT of handholding. It was a nice try to try to flip my point on its head, and I have my eyes open plenty (see: aforementioned teaching undergrad EE's, who ostensibly need less help than the public at large). A huge portion of the effort on DIYaudio is towards getting newbies through their projects. The rest is patent esoterica.
You keep telling me that I dont' get your point but then every time you clarify it, it looks like I did get your point. In so many cases what it seems you want is already a feature set that someone can get to with a few clicks. It does require a newbie to build up to bigger and more complex things, which is a huge portion of the pedagogy. That lends itself to the ostensible waste of turning over projects.*
* most everything I build bespoke is to reuse parts scavenged from broken equipment.
I'm not sure there's a way to herd all the cats active on this forum.
Still, if I wanted to achieve something like a modular preamp people could build upon, I'd do it that way. I'd offer a nice enclosure, with pre-drilled panels (front, back, bottom) and some pcb to populate it: a control board, a display, maybe a power supply. Clear documentation on the dimension of the extra pcb you could fit in such as phono, headphones amp, source selection, volume control, tone control, output buffer and so on. Clear documentation also on how to interface with the control board.
If it's well done, some people might bite and design pcb around those specifications to add more features. But it might also end with just one prototype being built.
Still, if I wanted to achieve something like a modular preamp people could build upon, I'd do it that way. I'd offer a nice enclosure, with pre-drilled panels (front, back, bottom) and some pcb to populate it: a control board, a display, maybe a power supply. Clear documentation on the dimension of the extra pcb you could fit in such as phono, headphones amp, source selection, volume control, tone control, output buffer and so on. Clear documentation also on how to interface with the control board.
If it's well done, some people might bite and design pcb around those specifications to add more features. But it might also end with just one prototype being built.
@spaceistheplace
Good luck with this egg-laying wool-milk-sow project.
@00940
No need for special enclosure. Use industrial standard for 19 inches (IEC 60297) or all the largely available and cheap stuff like mechanical parts modulo 5.08mm. Go 3U for simple Europe card format. Use a backplane for interconnect. Define slots for the black boxes as MM/MC preamplifier, preamplifier, volume (LDR, ladder, shunt, autoformer), switched I/O (sym., asym.), DAC/ADC with BT aptX HD, microcontroller for control and command (OLED, touch, IR, wireless, app on phone) and at least PSU. Give the black boxes microcontroller intelligence and connect them together using I2C. Write detailled hard and software ICD. I´ve surely forgot something, well I can not think about all details.
See you in ten years for peer review before forum fighting.
JP
Good luck with this egg-laying wool-milk-sow project.
@00940
No need for special enclosure. Use industrial standard for 19 inches (IEC 60297) or all the largely available and cheap stuff like mechanical parts modulo 5.08mm. Go 3U for simple Europe card format. Use a backplane for interconnect. Define slots for the black boxes as MM/MC preamplifier, preamplifier, volume (LDR, ladder, shunt, autoformer), switched I/O (sym., asym.), DAC/ADC with BT aptX HD, microcontroller for control and command (OLED, touch, IR, wireless, app on phone) and at least PSU. Give the black boxes microcontroller intelligence and connect them together using I2C. Write detailled hard and software ICD. I´ve surely forgot something, well I can not think about all details.
See you in ten years for peer review before forum fighting.
JP
That is not my impression. I thought it was a group of people discussing DIY audio. Help often emerges, but that it not the purpose of the site - discussion is the purpose.spaceistheplace said:
Computers are trivially simple to assemble, until you add software. Then you find that card X does not work with driver Y, unless it is at least version Z.99 - but that is incompatible with the Ethernet chip you chose etc. etc. You do seem to make a habit of stating that something is easy, when most of us know it is not.
OK, as I have been dressed down I will refrain from posting non-technical content for as long as I can resist.
I think getting into the software layer is too big. I think it would be smarter to aim small.
There is a successful standardization model from a different hobby to use for ideas: Ntrak from model railroading: About
Basically modules are of a specific physical size, with a construction detail for how they can be interconnected. Similarly, the track can be laid in any manner, but must come to terminate at a specific physical location and detail so they can be interconnected. Power and wiring are standardized as well.
It is a successful standard in model railroading. Hobbyists build their modules at home and they all come together to make a big layout.
Some might say: well, you can already do that if you want with audio. Well, not exactly. You might be able to build a whole bunch of projects into one enclosure. Would you ever be likely to change it? Unlikely, or at least less likely, as you would have to deal with physical reassembly, perhaps some signal conditioning circuitry, and perhaps power supply changes.
I think getting into the software layer is too big. I think it would be smarter to aim small.
There is a successful standardization model from a different hobby to use for ideas: Ntrak from model railroading: About
Basically modules are of a specific physical size, with a construction detail for how they can be interconnected. Similarly, the track can be laid in any manner, but must come to terminate at a specific physical location and detail so they can be interconnected. Power and wiring are standardized as well.
It is a successful standard in model railroading. Hobbyists build their modules at home and they all come together to make a big layout.
Some might say: well, you can already do that if you want with audio. Well, not exactly. You might be able to build a whole bunch of projects into one enclosure. Would you ever be likely to change it? Unlikely, or at least less likely, as you would have to deal with physical reassembly, perhaps some signal conditioning circuitry, and perhaps power supply changes.
The Ntrak is a perfect example.
Again what I’m advocating is standardization. Not across the board, of course, but as an option.
“Standardization or standardisation is the process of implementing and developing technical standards based on the consensus of different parties that include firms, users, interest groups, standards organizations and governments[1] Standardization can help to maximize compatibility, interoperability, safety, repeatability, or quality. It can also facilitate commoditization of formerly custom processes. In social sciences, including economics,[2] the idea of standardization is close to the solution for a coordination problem, a situation in which all parties can realize mutual gains, but only by making mutually consistent decisions. This view includes the case of "spontaneous standardization processes", to produce de facto standards.”
*** all parties can realize mutual gains, but only by making mutually consistent decisions. ***
Again what I’m advocating is standardization. Not across the board, of course, but as an option.
“Standardization or standardisation is the process of implementing and developing technical standards based on the consensus of different parties that include firms, users, interest groups, standards organizations and governments[1] Standardization can help to maximize compatibility, interoperability, safety, repeatability, or quality. It can also facilitate commoditization of formerly custom processes. In social sciences, including economics,[2] the idea of standardization is close to the solution for a coordination problem, a situation in which all parties can realize mutual gains, but only by making mutually consistent decisions. This view includes the case of "spontaneous standardization processes", to produce de facto standards.”
*** all parties can realize mutual gains, but only by making mutually consistent decisions. ***
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.