Discrete Opamp Open Design - Page 122 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > Analog Line Level

Analog Line Level Preamplifiers , Passive Pre-amps, Crossovers, etc.

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25th September 2012, 03:42 PM   #1211
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcarso View Post
Jan, although he does discuss the example of 500mH and 6.7k*, Bob stops short in his actual preamp design of realizing the 75us entirely at the cartridge. Last sentences of 4th paragraph pg. 137 LA #4: "There is also a S/N penalty. Perhaps a compromise is in order."

Based on the model presented for the V15, 370mH in series with 830 ohms, the appropriate value for an external resistor to realize a 75us tau would be 4.103k ohms (a total R of 4.933k ohms). That value using a real resistor adds significant thermal noise, particularly at high frequencies, and also causes some attentuation.

Cordell's compromise is a load of 18k ohms, and he compensates in the stage response.

Brad

*Note that the article does not mention that the 6.7k is the total resistance, as the example is just for 500mH with no internal resistance.
We will come back to this I promise you.
But you guys want to go back to grounding, I don't want to hijack this.

jan
__________________
I won't make the tactical error to try to dislodge with rational arguments a conviction that is beyond reason - Daniel Dennett
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7!
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2012, 03:50 PM   #1212
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott wurcer View Post
Joachim do you have any references on this stuff (I'll check the patent)? I would take the suspension to primarily damp the 8.5 Hz arm/cart resonance. I still don't believe the tip mass resonance gets any benefit of motor "braking".
Inclined to agree (in the absence of data ). The coupling between cantilever etc. and motor is probably not that great.

Van Raalte in LA #3 "Correcting Transducer Response with an Inverse Resonance Filter" shows no electrical-mechanical interaction. The mechanical resonance is represented by a two-pole lowpass filter with a low-Z output, which in turn drives the cartridge equivalent electrical circuit (see pg. 83, Fig. 11). I suspect that's an oversimplification, but perhaps a small one.

Van Raalte gives appropriate credit to van Maanen* for discussing the compensation approach in an article from 1980. It would be nice if someone would translate that from the Dutch.

This "New Old Thing" of overdamping the cartridge is interesting, but so far I haven't read any reports of how it sounds, and I tend to view second-guessing of cartridge designers with some trepidation. Particularly when theoretical transient response results are presented as if they must entail better sound on the face of it, things cry out for actual listening. With really good test records at least the confounding variable of a change in frequency response can be determined.

Brad

*Signaalprocessor voor Magneto-dynamische Pick-up elementen", Radio-Elektronica 80, 19, pp. 39-53 (1980).
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2012, 03:51 PM   #1213
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by janneman View Post
We will come back to this I promise you.
But you guys want to go back to grounding, I don't want to hijack this.

jan
Maybe a new thread on overdamped cartridge loading? The grounding discussion is already off topic to some extent.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2012, 04:03 PM   #1214
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcarso View Post
Inclined to agree (in the absence of data ). The coupling between cantilever etc. and motor is probably not that great.

Van Raalte in LA #3 "Correcting Transducer Response with an Inverse Resonance Filter" shows no electrical-mechanical interaction. The mechanical resonance is represented by a two-pole lowpass filter with a low-Z output, which in turn drives the cartridge equivalent electrical circuit (see pg. 83, Fig. 11). I suspect that's an oversimplification, but perhaps a small one.

Van Raalte gives appropriate credit to van Maanen* for discussing the compensation approach in an article from 1980. It would be nice if someone would translate that from the Dutch.

This "New Old Thing" of overdamping the cartridge is interesting, but so far I haven't read any reports of how it sounds, and I tend to view second-guessing of cartridge designers with some trepidation. Particularly when theoretical transient response results are presented as if they must entail better sound on the face of it, things cry out for actual listening. With really good test records at least the confounding variable of a change in frequency response can be determined.

Brad

*Signaalprocessor voor Magneto-dynamische Pick-up elementen", Radio-Elektronica 80, 19, pp. 39-53 (1980).
Van Maanen*, in his Vol 4 Guest Editorial sort of sideways refers to an A/B test he did on this with listeners deciding within 30 secs that the overdamped/eq'd case was clearly better sounding. But without further info it's hard to know what exactly was tested, of course.

jan

*"The case for subjective listening tests", H van Maanen, Vol 4
__________________
I won't make the tactical error to try to dislodge with rational arguments a conviction that is beyond reason - Daniel Dennett
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7!
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2012, 04:06 PM   #1215
RNMarsh is offline RNMarsh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
RNMarsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 2457 Cascade Trail; Cool, CA. 95614
Before leaving the subject -- I designed a simple 4 transistor MC pre-preamp circuit that used complimentary grounded base input... with gnfb the input Z (cart loading) was very low. Cartridge going direct to emitters for input. The distortion from the cartridge was lowered. Sounded great. [published circuit topology in TAA about a million years ago] Thx-RNM

Last edited by RNMarsh; 25th September 2012 at 04:08 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2012, 04:38 PM   #1216
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by janneman View Post
Van Maanen*, in his Vol 4 Guest Editorial sort of sideways refers to an A/B test he did on this with listeners deciding within 30 secs that the overdamped/eq'd case was clearly better sounding. But without further info it's hard to know what exactly was tested, of course.

jan

*"The case for subjective listening tests", H van Maanen, Vol 4
Yes, hard to know indeed. We know frequency response is audible, even under the stresses of DBT. The test signals he mentions for example in LA Vol. 4 that were easy to use to distinguish the differences between MM and MC cartridges are pathological ones ("two single period 18kHz tone bursts, separated by a half cycle" ).

The statement is made that in blind A/B testing the listeners noted the improvement in 30 seconds, which does not sound like only the effect of phase response. And as well, for the overdamped versus normal comparisons, how many copies of a given LP were used by the good Doctor to ensure that changes to the medium per play were small and of negligible importance, when his listeners started evaluating the mechanical resonance compensation? I guess I'd better learn Dutch. He gives a link to these: Temporal Coherence .

Having said that, I think overdamped as an option is here to stay. Let the listeners decide. It's highly nontrivial, since the appropriate values for damping R, loading C if any, and subsequent EQ, are cartridge-specific.

Also, van Maanen supposes that no scientific comparisons have ever been made between MM and MC. As I remarked previously, there was a small test done at NRC many years ago, and when the three cartridges were equalized for frequency response (not via overdamping etc. which was not explored), the listener preferences became mostly a wash. When the identities of the cartridges were revealed there was much soul-searching, since some had bad-mouthed the V15 in advance. They did not know the identities going in, but most were completely convinced that MC was per se better. Of course the associated electronics were cited as the confounding effect, by those desperate to maintain their preconceptions.

I'm working on Toole to at least include the articles in a Opera Omnia
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2012, 04:44 PM   #1217
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Scott, i have not found the patent yet but here it is mentioned at least.Phono Pre-Amplifier P-75 mkII
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2012, 04:45 PM   #1218
bcarso is offline bcarso  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canoga Park, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNMarsh View Post
Before leaving the subject -- I designed a simple 4 transistor MC pre-preamp circuit that used complimentary grounded base input... with gnfb the input Z (cart loading) was very low. Cartridge going direct to emitters for input. The distortion from the cartridge was lowered. Sounded great. [published circuit topology in TAA about a million years ago] Thx-RNM
Similar to the Marshall Leach design? Actually if GNFB was included it would be a departure from ML. Roughly what year in TAA?

The ML design, which at times was not credited properly, had the feature of a floating power supply, a device to eliminate any net d.c. flowing in the cartridge. It's lived on here and there, sometimes operated at too-low currents for good noise performance. The JFET common-gate versions are in another thread or two in here.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2012, 04:51 PM   #1219
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Tominari Noboru, Inventor, Tokyo, JP

Tominari had 12 patents, one of them must it be.
  Reply With Quote
Old 25th September 2012, 05:07 PM   #1220
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Concerning measurements, this may be interesting.Amplitude And Energy Correction ? A Brief Summary : Noise & Vibration Measurement Blog
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discrete OPAMP audio-gd Vendor's Bazaar 27 20th September 2012 04:02 PM
discrete opamp help blackpowderaudio Parts 0 16th December 2009 03:46 PM
THAT transistor headphone amp (250ma discrete opamp) design sanity check. Russ White Headphone Systems 19 13th December 2007 12:52 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:40 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2