Lightspeed Attenuator a new passive preamp - Page 477 - 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 7th August 2012, 10:07 AM   #4761
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
All of those things are certainly considerations with a circuit of this sort, and the d.c. offset does change with pot rotation but not by much.

I have used it with 5534 and 072 types of op amps and with low impedance's, in my case a 1k input resistor and a 10k pot no oscillations could be induced, this is of course with a proper layout unity gain compensation and low stray capacitance.

The pot has its ends connected from output to inverting input and one end of it is connected to the wiper so that if the wiper does go open the maximum gain can only be ten, in a audio pre amp you would use a 5k pot but mine is used in a test set up.

If you want to d.c. couple it you would use a d.c. offset servo and this of course is always advisable since the source may have a d.c. offset.
rcw
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2012, 10:08 AM   #4762
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by wlowes View Post
Has there been anything measured that explains the great sound that results from the lightspeed attenuator?
No, there hasn't. There have also been no controlled listening tests to demonstrate any superiority or, for that matter, any audible differences between a conventional circuit and the LDR circuits.
__________________
And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2012, 10:20 AM   #4763
diyAudio Member
 
JOHN BALI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Near the Mountain
Hi George,
how about this one?

Thank for your inspiration

Regards
Attached Images
File Type: gif One pot LSA.GIF (2.2 KB, 306 views)
__________________
Thank you, I wish you happy
peace & G B U
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2012, 10:54 AM   #4764
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryelands
OK - but that's still a guess, not "evidence".
As I said, I have offered as much evidence as those who like LDR attenuators. However, a symmetric non-linear resistor (e.g. LDR) will generate odd-order distortion if there is no DC bias, and if the non-linearity is smooth then the distortion will be dominated by third-order for most reasonable signal levels. The only part of that sentence which is a "guess" is the word 'symmetric'; as this is the best case you would be wise not to argue with it, because an asymmetric non-linear resistor would almost certainly generate more distortion. The remainder is just standard knowledge.

Quote:
my point about the non-equivalence of the two subject populations has still to be refuted.
The two groups are both humans listening to audio systems. It is unlikely that 60 years is enough time to radically change the performance of the human auditory system. If some people preferred distortion then, it is likely that some people prefer distortion now. What do we find today? Some people prefer circuit topologies which produce non-negligible amounts of low-order distortion.

Quote:
good idea to find these things before quoting them, not after
As I was not writing a scientific paper I did not consider it essential to provide full referencing for all my statements. Can you give the exact source for every opinion you hold?

Quote:
Best not to patronise.
I have no idea what you mean by this.

Quote:
My "negative attitude" is, as explained, to those who argue from authority, especially from the spurious authority of having passed an examination in something or other in one's early twenties.
I too deprecate arguing from authority. Far too often on here we get the opposite: arguing from ignorance. However, someone with a recognised qualification in a particular subject ought to know more about aspects of that subject than someone with no such qualification, especially if the latter has already demonstrated their confusion. In that sense the authority is not "spurious". Of course, there are EEs who have forgotten what they learnt and some EEs who perhaps misunderstood what they were taught, and even a few who were taught wrongly.

Arguing from truth is the best option, but even that doesn't work with some people if they lack even basic knowledge. Whether people like it or not, electronic engineering is based on facts. Ignorance of them or denial of them does not render them false.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2012, 06:44 PM   #4765
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Scotland
Quote:
As I said, I have offered as much evidence as those who like LDR attenuators.
Maybe - but, as your point is that they offer no evidence, it doesn't do much for your case. You supported Ian Miller's snide claim that those who liked LDR-type volume controls were, for all practical purposes, George's groupies by adding that they have a fondness for a little distortion when listening to recorded music and were in any case predisposed to dislike electrical engineers. My point is that your argument not only doesn't hold water but betrays an ignorance of the ABC of psychology every bit as profound as the ignorance of electronics you claim to detect in "audiophiles".

(Just for the record, my guess is that Miller's engineering qualification is not in electronics and that he is, as far as audio goes, a hobbyist, same as the rest of us. Nothing wrong with that of course.)


Quote:
The two groups are both humans listening to audio systems.
Dear, oh dear. Where to start? You haven't even demonstrated that they are listening to comparable systems or sources. Perhaps you think that doesn't matter but, as Moir's claim - or, to be accurate, what you think was Moir's claim - relied by definition on the performance of tube amplifiers and (at a guess) the best LPs of fifty-odd years ago, you're making the mother of an assumption. Not only is your recollection of his work hazy but you haven't a clue what amplifiers or sources are preferred by current owners of LDR devices. I suspect, for example, that those (such as me) who use good-quality transistor amplifiers would not have fallen into his "distortionophile" group.

This really is very basic psychology ("standard knowledge" even) that, in your words, "you would be wise not to argue with". Though I fear you will.


Quote:
It is unlikely that 60 years is enough time to radically change the performance of the human auditory system.
Of course not - no one is suggesting it has at the physiological level. But if you think there are no socially, culturally and historically-determined parameters in perception (not just audition), you really do have a lot to learn. For a simple but pertinent example, a glance at the literature shows that some musically knowledgeable folk in the era of the 78rpm disc argued that audio reproduction was so life-like that it couldn't, behind the proverbial curtain, be distinguished from a live performer. Today, seriously to advance such a notion would be to invite ridicule. Perceptions - but, emphatically, not the physiology of audition - do change.


Quote:
If some people preferred distortion then, it is likely that some people prefer distortion now. What do we find today? Some people prefer circuit topologies which produce non-negligible amounts of low-order distortion.
Your argument is logically flawed - Group A is contained in Group C and Group B is contained in Group C therefore Group A is identical to Group B. Er, no, it's not. Also, you segued from what you correctly called "an intelligent guess" to regarding an alleged preference for distortion as received fact. To be fair, you seem at least to have dropped your silly point about LDR users being inherently antipathetic to engineers.


Quote:
Can you give the exact source for every opinion you hold?
Of course not but I'd expect to be challenged if I made offensive remarks in a technical forum while relying on sources I hadn't bothered to check. Different thing altogether. Miller asked for citations and you supported him with a couple of snidies of your own and then banged on spuriously about "peer review". Goose, ganders and all that.


Quote:
However, someone with a recognised qualification in a particular subject ought to know more about aspects of that subject than someone with no such qualification, especially if the latter has already demonstrated their confusion.
Quite. My training was as an experimental psychologist. I readily admitted to not properly understanding your point about distortion in resistors; I respectfully suggest that you, in turn, drop the cod psychology.

Incidentally, SY notes that "There have also been no controlled listening tests to demonstrate any superiority or, for that matter, any audible differences between a conventional circuit and the LDR circuits".

That's true but SY might care to look at what John Curl writes about "controlled tests" - he's one of the few electrical engineers I've read in many a year who seems to grasp the issues with "controlled tests". Most engineers, however superb they are in their field, have little or no understanding of what it takes properly to "control" a test. Simply shouting "controlled test" or, worse, "double-blind" is not enough.


Quote:
I have no idea what you mean by this.
You said that "Cyril Bateman was, I believe, employed by one of the capacitor manufacturers". Well, I suppose that's true but it would have been more helpful to recognise that he was also, as a few seconds on Google would have shown, one of those much-respected engineering professionals you claim to respect, not least because it was you who accused me and others of being antipathetic to expertise.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2012, 07:40 PM   #4766
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryelands
I respectfully suggest that you, in turn, drop the cod psychology.
I wasn't aware that I was doing any psychology, cod or otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryelands
as a few seconds on Google would have shown,
As well as not referencing original sources in a web forum discussion, I also do not Google all the opinions I offer or statements I make. Neither, I suspect, do you. I am still somewhat baffled by your stance on this: I was merely trying to point out that Bateman is a serious engineer not some random audiophile with a 'bright idea'. It seems that when you don't disagree with what I say you seem to disagree with the way I say it. This makes discussion difficult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryelands
But if you think there are no socially, culturally and historically-determined parameters in perception (not just audition), you really do have a lot to learn.
On the contrary, this is precisely the point. There is now a social and cultural expectation in audio that certain things are good and certain other things are bad, in some cases despite careful engineering indicating the opposite and in some cases perhaps because careful engineering indicates the opposite. Perhaps as a psychologist rather than engineer you are not always in a position to judge when this occurs (i.e. preference being opposed to engineering).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryelands
That's true but SY might care to look at what John Curl writes about "controlled tests" - he's one of the few electrical engineers I've read in many a year who seems to grasp the issues with "controlled tests".
I think Stuart is well aware of what JC thinks of controlled tests.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2012, 07:52 PM   #4767
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryelands View Post
Incidentally, SY notes that "There have also been no controlled listening tests to demonstrate any superiority or, for that matter, any audible differences between a conventional circuit and the LDR circuits".

That's true but SY might care to look at what John Curl writes about "controlled tests" - he's one of the few electrical engineers I've read in many a year who seems to grasp the issues with "controlled tests". Most engineers, however superb they are in their field, have little or no understanding of what it takes properly to "control" a test. Simply shouting "controlled test" or, worse, "double-blind" is not enough.
If by "grasp the issues," you mean, "is completely in denial or ignorant about human sensory perception and testing," then yes. No-one (least of all me) argues that engineers should be setting up sensory tests without assistance from specialists in that field- this is how I learned. But that's a complete red herring.
__________________
And while they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2012, 12:14 AM   #4768
soongsc is offline soongsc  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
soongsc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Taiwan
He he, these arguments just float around once in a while. One thing that bothers me is that when most people use a different design and hear a difference, regardless whether it's an improvement or not, we tend to attribute it to the change itself and ignore the fact that circuits act as a whole. So if you hear an improvement, and measure an improvement, then it most likely in an improvement. If we hear an improvement but do not measure and improvement, it's necessary to measure the total system rather than just a device. Sometimes nonlinearity or asymmetric in one location compensates for the characteristics in another location. Speaker drivers are most likely to have asymmetric BL curves for example...

If degradation is heard and the measurements of a device show improvement, does this mean we have junk elsewhere in the system? Or have we not measure the right characteristics?
__________________
Hear the real thing!
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2012, 10:06 AM   #4769
DF96 is offline DF96  England
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by soongsc
One thing that bothers me is that when most people use a different design and hear a difference, regardless whether it's an improvement or not, we tend to attribute it to the change itself and ignore the fact that circuits act as a whole.
Yes, wise words.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th August 2012, 11:20 PM   #4770
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Cornwall
Finally finished my new LM4780 amp and PSU and fitted my LightSpeed Attenuator in it. Haven't had much time to listen to it, but it sounds pretty sweet, probably better than my old chip amp I made.

Chip Amp Photo Gallery
__________________
Another project of mine: (a very big one at that!)
http://www.mp3car.com/vbulletin/show...5-pimping.html
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:00 PM.


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