Simplistic NJFET RIAA

Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Now listening to the "Wallis Experiment"....

It worked at first try... Low noise, quite high gain (must be near to 60dB), very good tone (my riaa recipe :))

I will let it burn for a while so I can post a serious listening impression.... for now I consider it a success, even with a low quality output cap it is very difficult to point any weaknesses.
 
Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
Yes... one chanel on the "experiment", the other on the paradise.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_3975web.jpg
    DSC_3975web.jpg
    153.5 KB · Views: 248
  • DSC_4009web.jpg
    DSC_4009web.jpg
    167.1 KB · Views: 138
  • DSC_4008web.jpg
    DSC_4008web.jpg
    169.4 KB · Views: 152
  • DSC_4007web.jpg
    DSC_4007web.jpg
    171.5 KB · Views: 155
  • DSC_4006web.jpg
    DSC_4006web.jpg
    171.6 KB · Views: 234
  • DSC_4005web.jpg
    DSC_4005web.jpg
    180.4 KB · Views: 243
  • DSC_4003web.jpg
    DSC_4003web.jpg
    152.2 KB · Views: 246
  • DSC_4000web.jpg
    DSC_4000web.jpg
    180.9 KB · Views: 246
select your pic.
crop it to show the area of interest.
Save it @ the resolution your want us to see.
Compress it using an appropriate .png, .pdf, .gif, etc.
Save it to desktop. I find that easier because it is easy to find the pic file when attaching.

Open your reply.
go advanced.
manage attachments.
browse to find your file.
open. Check the file name that has appeared in the box.
upload.
post reply.

I hope I got that right, it came from memory. (sometimes it works, other times it plays tricks).
 
Last edited:
post8328
640x430pixel pic,
200403B
jpeg
the compression used has very little effect. try a different file compressions. Compare lots of different compression types. Some work very well and maintain image quality ans some are terrible. Each pic type generally responds better to some compressions than to others. I can never remember which suits, so I do at least three and select the one that has good image and small file size. Then use the same compression for the other similar files that need to be attached.
 
diyAudio Chief Moderator
Joined 2002
Paid Member
Yes... one chanel on the "experiment", the other on the paradise.

You get more bench and connector organized I see. The Swiss factor.:) (The bronze guy set its constitutional base for those wondering about the Switzerland located bust pic).

DL160 should rather tax it, especially for scratchier records, this folded input stage is supposedly more dedicated to its nominal carts range, i.e. circa 0.5mV in the the one you made. You did not refer to distortion though with 1.5mV cart. Interesting. Off to a good start then. With the ACE cart should come more to its own and with a bit of run in. The output caps are on pins I see. Planning a "big blue" transplant for assessment?
 
Member
Joined 2006
Paid Member
You get more bench and connector organized I see. The Swiss factor.:) (The bronze guy set its constitutional base for those wondering about the Switzerland located bust pic).

DL160 should rather tax it, especially for scratchier records, this folded input stage is supposedly more dedicated to its nominal carts range, i.e. circa 0.5mV in the the one you made. You did not refer to distortion though with 1.5mV cart. Interesting. Off to a good start then. With the ACE cart should come more to its own and with a bit of run in. The output caps are on pins I see. Planning a "big blue" transplant for assessment?

Yes, I am getting much better with wiring now.... No distortion aparent with the DL160.... First impression:

Slightly dull highs....

Action - reduce high freq cap from 15,8 nF to 15.7nF... now it is starting to sing but I did not reach equilibrium.

My initial assumption was second stage miller around 40pF... now I know it must be way larger.

I read something about cascoding reducing miller by 1/3.... am I right ? If so I can reduce the cap to 15.5nF and possibly get away with it...