Joachim,
thank you so much for your answer.
I didn't know that you had given it the name of MasterPiece.
I will look info on the forum under that name an other names and I will put all the starting material together and I can start working on it.
I have to say that all your designs are incredible and thank you (and to all the other guys who are taking part in these projects) for sharing all the info.
I will have to go through the 600 pages again and find the material and I willl post it so that it can start.
Talk with you soon.
thank you so much for your answer.
I didn't know that you had given it the name of MasterPiece.
I will look info on the forum under that name an other names and I will put all the starting material together and I can start working on it.
I have to say that all your designs are incredible and thank you (and to all the other guys who are taking part in these projects) for sharing all the info.
I will have to go through the 600 pages again and find the material and I willl post it so that it can start.
Talk with you soon.
The masterpiece is only a rough concept and there is not too much to work from, I spent a little time putting it in my simulator, and could not make it work..Something makes it floating around and it not possible to have the two branches balanced out with no offset.
I also think that you need to have the two legs single-ended at the riaa correction otherwise the tolerances of the components in the riaa compensation may lead to high distortion. sorry but I don't see the benefits of a total balanced unit. Maybe a balanced input to reduce noise-hum pickup from the arm/cable, this must then be weighed against the additional RBB noise from the input..
I also think that you need to have the two legs single-ended at the riaa correction otherwise the tolerances of the components in the riaa compensation may lead to high distortion. sorry but I don't see the benefits of a total balanced unit. Maybe a balanced input to reduce noise-hum pickup from the arm/cable, this must then be weighed against the additional RBB noise from the input..
Last edited:
thanks miib.
Well you are a master in simulation and if you were not able to make it woek it will be hard for me to do better
Looking at the circuit, it actually look it could work.
Have you simulated the circuit below (from post 5029)?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/154210-mpp-503.html#post2886319
Looking at Paradise V1/2 it looks like an amazing circuit.
The only note I would have from a sonic stand point is that the big electrolytic cap on the signal path might have an impact on the sound.
Am I missing something?
Well you are a master in simulation and if you were not able to make it woek it will be hard for me to do better
Looking at the circuit, it actually look it could work.
Have you simulated the circuit below (from post 5029)?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/154210-mpp-503.html#post2886319
Looking at Paradise V1/2 it looks like an amazing circuit.
The only note I would have from a sonic stand point is that the big electrolytic cap on the signal path might have an impact on the sound.
Am I missing something?
This is about the Mini-ATL's See:http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/154210-mpp-282.html#post2964735
There is a resistor parallel to be(R3/R10 http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/154210-mpp-282.html#post2964735) of the BC337/327 (Rbe), this resistor sets the current through the zener diode to Vbe/Rbe. If the current is increased then the voltage across the zener will also increase. Doubling the current will increase the voltage across the zener by about 0.1Volts (depending on the zener).
To fix the 11.4V regulator you need to add a parallel resistor of about 1.2K. So add a potentiometer of 2K parallel to Rbe of the 11.4V regulator and adjust for 11.7V. That will do the trick and it will not influence the quality of the regulator.
Let me know how/if it worked.
There is a resistor parallel to be(R3/R10 http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/154210-mpp-282.html#post2964735) of the BC337/327 (Rbe), this resistor sets the current through the zener diode to Vbe/Rbe. If the current is increased then the voltage across the zener will also increase. Doubling the current will increase the voltage across the zener by about 0.1Volts (depending on the zener).
To fix the 11.4V regulator you need to add a parallel resistor of about 1.2K. So add a potentiometer of 2K parallel to Rbe of the 11.4V regulator and adjust for 11.7V. That will do the trick and it will not influence the quality of the regulator.
Let me know
how/if it worked.
Last edited:
This is about the Mini-ATL's See:http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/154210-mpp-282.html#post2964735
Don’t worry, this is mostly harmless
Mostly Harmless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don’t worry, this is mostly harmless
Mostly Harmless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
The version 2 paradise is the best sounding circuit out there....if implemented correct it can better any commercial circuit. See the AC-coupling in the input as a clamp holding the voltage spread on the input transistor, as the signal is not really passing though, If it had impact like a bypass cap, the sonic reports would not be the way they are. The circuit is unigue as it lowers distortion with higher frequency, It's one stage + a buffer stage and has no caps in the signal-path, yet no offset problem and no drift in the output...It's simple and elegant and took all (most) the brainpower of the design group to put together. Off course there could be alternations ans improvements, but to be honest they will be more cosmetically than performance improvements. Stefano I strongly recommend you get in on the group-buy when that will be ready..
Last edited:
I will absolutely build it when the group by starts.
I could even re-emulate the layout on my SW and build one now (as I am so anxious to try this wonderful circuit), but that would be a waste of resources as it been worked by hansen already.
I am amazed at how much work was done to create this circuit and like you said all the team took part to this implementation which is remarkable, no (or almost) commercial design could be a match for all this work IMHO.
Regarding the AC coupling, I would probably just make the note, to try a couple of different caps of different quality just to see if it has an impact on the sound.
In my little experience, whenever I would try the solution of the extra "zero" (a high capacitor value) on the feedback path (classic way of stabilize the DC offset) the sound was significanlty degraded in my case.
Maybe this cap serves for another purpose and has a different impact.
I was also wondering among all the fantastic designed offered by Joachim and all the team here, if anybody had a chance to compare the paradise V1 or 2 against the Starless or the Truth design and how they compare.
I could even re-emulate the layout on my SW and build one now (as I am so anxious to try this wonderful circuit), but that would be a waste of resources as it been worked by hansen already.
I am amazed at how much work was done to create this circuit and like you said all the team took part to this implementation which is remarkable, no (or almost) commercial design could be a match for all this work IMHO.
Regarding the AC coupling, I would probably just make the note, to try a couple of different caps of different quality just to see if it has an impact on the sound.
In my little experience, whenever I would try the solution of the extra "zero" (a high capacitor value) on the feedback path (classic way of stabilize the DC offset) the sound was significanlty degraded in my case.
Maybe this cap serves for another purpose and has a different impact.
I was also wondering among all the fantastic designed offered by Joachim and all the team here, if anybody had a chance to compare the paradise V1 or 2 against the Starless or the Truth design and how they compare.
Frans, i connected now the Mini Shunts without trimming to the circuit. It is a buffer-filter i designed for an ESS DAC board by EUVL.
Offset is around 5mV per channel so this buffer is tolerant to unsymmetric voltage.
The buffer is more or less the same we use in the Paradise R2 but done in SMD.
Here is the whole scheebang.
Offset is around 5mV per channel so this buffer is tolerant to unsymmetric voltage.
The buffer is more or less the same we use in the Paradise R2 but done in SMD.
Here is the whole scheebang.
Attachments
Last edited:
Stefan Joachim is the one with the many cicuits so he's the one to comment on the differences.
The paradise circuit is NON-feedback...you can create the Neuman pole by inserting a resistor in the riaa network, as it is here it track the riaa curve beyond 300 KHz, It has a slight lift of app 0.5 dB in the deep base, this is deliberate and within RIAA tolerances, but can objectivity be adjusted by lowering one resistor in the RIAA network..
The problem/challenge in the starlless-Sampler circuit is how to keep the two benches from drifting..Its not to my knowledge possible to servo the two separate balanced outputs.
The paradise circuit is NON-feedback...you can create the Neuman pole by inserting a resistor in the riaa network, as it is here it track the riaa curve beyond 300 KHz, It has a slight lift of app 0.5 dB in the deep base, this is deliberate and within RIAA tolerances, but can objectivity be adjusted by lowering one resistor in the RIAA network..
The problem/challenge in the starlless-Sampler circuit is how to keep the two benches from drifting..Its not to my knowledge possible to servo the two separate balanced outputs.
Last edited:
Yes, a common mode servo is possible. The ones i know are in the signal path though. I use
such an arrangement in the FPS i did for Jan Diddens Linear Audio. It is in Bob Cordells book.
Comparing the Paradise R1 to R2 there are differences. The older version is kind of cozy and inviting. Nothing sticks out as any bad so it is well balanced.
I have several phonos here that sound quite similar with less complicated circuits so i would say that the first Paradise is very good but somehow the very complex circuit may not be necessary.
The new version is much more dynamic, open and exiting. The quality of the bass is extraordinary. There is a lot of punch and drama. It also worked right away so it is much easier to build then the older version. I am definitely recommending the R2.
It is one of the finest stages i heard, no matter how expensive.
such an arrangement in the FPS i did for Jan Diddens Linear Audio. It is in Bob Cordells book.
Comparing the Paradise R1 to R2 there are differences. The older version is kind of cozy and inviting. Nothing sticks out as any bad so it is well balanced.
I have several phonos here that sound quite similar with less complicated circuits so i would say that the first Paradise is very good but somehow the very complex circuit may not be necessary.
The new version is much more dynamic, open and exiting. The quality of the bass is extraordinary. There is a lot of punch and drama. It also worked right away so it is much easier to build then the older version. I am definitely recommending the R2.
It is one of the finest stages i heard, no matter how expensive.
Hear the master's voice.... I don't claim to have golden ears but could not agree more..... It certainly saved me from spending BIG money on worse equipment!
Now the problem is with the turntable and cartridge...
I have ears good enough to be quite certain when i hear something that is out of the ordinary. The R2 is such an ear opener. Better still it can be build without much to spend.
The only exotics are the 2SK170 JFets. I think in the constant current sources they can be replaced with other N-Channels with a small modification to set the idle.
The only exotics are the 2SK170 JFets. I think in the constant current sources they can be replaced with other N-Channels with a small modification to set the idle.
I beg to differ (in a way). In my opinion there is no problem (never bin), all these items in the audio chain are like musical instruments. The chain includes, the original instrument, its surroundings (music hall, cafe ...), the audience (more people is more damping), the microphone, the recording device, the mixing device, the person doing the mixing, the information caring device (LP, CD, tape ...), the playback device (pre-amp, amp), the loudspeakers, the placement of these, the listening position, and the listening surroundings (most probably I forgot some).
There is only one place where the sound is/was like original, and that place is at the start of the chain. There is only one place like home, and that is at the end of the chain. Whatever you do in between it will change the sound, this change can be destructive or it can improve the original (at it’s input). It will never be transparent (even air is not, and a vacuum may be inert, but it does not transmit sound, most probably a massive block of metal will be the best, but there is no room for a listener in there).
My conclusion is, we need not to improve the items in between (in the sense that we are trying to make them pass the original, that will be impossible), we just need to make them sound as we like, and that will be different for each person. Or, as the ATL guys say, improvement is futile
Yes.. shunts can surely sound more detailed and dynamic than batteries.
Sorry for the off topic but I could not help myself: Synergy Aircraft
Sorry for the off topic but I could not help myself: Synergy Aircraft
My conclusion is, we need not to improve the items in between (in the sense that we are trying to make them pass the original, that will be impossible), we just need to make them sound as we like, and that will be different for each person. Or, as the ATL guys say, improvement is futile
I do agree with you.... as long as it sounds as we like.....