Do these so called T-amps have any of the following adjustments so that one can adjust them as per requirements:-
1. Dead time adjustment
2. Feedback options like post filter
3. Various types of compensation schemes
4. Scalable power options
5. Adjustment for EMI behaviour
6. preference of components such as comparator, gate driver etc
No, these chips are just pre-programmed consumer oriented black boxes.
Whereas the semi-discrete class-d designs offer you with much more flexibility to fine tune the design according to one's liking and it also helps in provoking useful discussion regarding many parameters involved in designing the amp.
Now if we get a seperate section for class-d engineering based discussion, i think it would be good as it will maintain the SNR of forum
Quality matters not quantity
I would object to you starting your own forum under the digital section then as it would have more in common with that than anything else.
Saturnus, I hope you can appreciate that the response you just gave is indicative of a stark lack of knowledge on the subject matter; Class D amplifiers are not digital, neither are their design issues.
panomaniac:
As you've been up to your eyeballs in T-amp affairs since this forum's inception, having tried to write the wiki for it, got your T amp FAQ as the first sticky and so forth, it's understandable you failed to notice who actually started the forum and why. Too bad those are the little repetitive oversights that ruined an otherwise good forum.
I can assure you Bruno Putzeys, who petitioned for this forum, is a very unlikely T-amp user, as are the other people who were around at the time supporting his motion, and learned a lifetime from him. You know, the people who actually fought and argued for a technical discussion forum, that aren't here anymore? Woe their worn coattails, or do you suppose your trite FAQ is the equivalent of a single one of Bruno's posts? It's not. Clearly you should be content with it in present form when it so perfectly suits your self and limited interests.
"Get used to it"? The last time this topic came up when mostly everyone that was worthwhile left, the myopic reach around resolution was the sticky "design issues" thread, which some two years later is such a reservoir of indepth knowledge that any noob can skim it and acquire his discrete term project. What problem? At least in present form, people can pretend to be helpful while plugging their own products and services, and if you prevented their doing that there'd be nobody left answering anything at all.
What was the best input cap for a T-amp, anyway? Surely you all came to some agreement. If that's too off topic we can start a new thread.
panomaniac:
As you've been up to your eyeballs in T-amp affairs since this forum's inception, having tried to write the wiki for it, got your T amp FAQ as the first sticky and so forth, it's understandable you failed to notice who actually started the forum and why. Too bad those are the little repetitive oversights that ruined an otherwise good forum.
I can assure you Bruno Putzeys, who petitioned for this forum, is a very unlikely T-amp user, as are the other people who were around at the time supporting his motion, and learned a lifetime from him. You know, the people who actually fought and argued for a technical discussion forum, that aren't here anymore? Woe their worn coattails, or do you suppose your trite FAQ is the equivalent of a single one of Bruno's posts? It's not. Clearly you should be content with it in present form when it so perfectly suits your self and limited interests.
"Get used to it"? The last time this topic came up when mostly everyone that was worthwhile left, the myopic reach around resolution was the sticky "design issues" thread, which some two years later is such a reservoir of indepth knowledge that any noob can skim it and acquire his discrete term project. What problem? At least in present form, people can pretend to be helpful while plugging their own products and services, and if you prevented their doing that there'd be nobody left answering anything at all.
What was the best input cap for a T-amp, anyway? Surely you all came to some agreement. If that's too off topic we can start a new thread.
I would object to you starting your own forum under the digital section then as it would have more in common with that than anything else.
Can you tell me what is the connection between Digital and the Class-D?
OK, T&L. I did admit that I was not sure. Yeah, I was wrong. Do feel sorry for the Class-D elitists? - no. (since your PM is turned off, you have mail)
There is still a lot of very good Class-D engineering talk here. Glad to se it. There is also, unfortunately, a lot of talking down. Even former T-amp folks have left the building, so I don't see that the pure engineers are the only ones drifting away.
Are the pure class-d discussions actually getting hurt or crowded out by the T-chip fans? I don't see it. The threads themselves seem to be pretty well separated. It seems to me that there is a de facto separation already in place. So what is the real problem?
The fact the the heaviest lobbying is coming from members with a very high S/N ratio themselves makes it somewhat ironic.
Please have a look up at the top of the page. What does it say? diyAudio. "Audio". Not diyUltraHiFi or diyEngineering or diyTheory. diyAudio. This forum is open to and welcomes everyone.
I concede the point that most of the talk in the T-amp threads is about swaping parts to find what sounds best and finding a good power supply. Your basic mods and tweaks that could apply to any amp. But there is also some good effort being done on output filters. RFI is being delt with and so on.
Bottom line for me. I don't see how the class-d chips threads are hurting the UCD ect threads. And vice-versa.
There is still a lot of very good Class-D engineering talk here. Glad to se it. There is also, unfortunately, a lot of talking down. Even former T-amp folks have left the building, so I don't see that the pure engineers are the only ones drifting away.
Are the pure class-d discussions actually getting hurt or crowded out by the T-chip fans? I don't see it. The threads themselves seem to be pretty well separated. It seems to me that there is a de facto separation already in place. So what is the real problem?
The fact the the heaviest lobbying is coming from members with a very high S/N ratio themselves makes it somewhat ironic.
Please have a look up at the top of the page. What does it say? diyAudio. "Audio". Not diyUltraHiFi or diyEngineering or diyTheory. diyAudio. This forum is open to and welcomes everyone.
I concede the point that most of the talk in the T-amp threads is about swaping parts to find what sounds best and finding a good power supply. Your basic mods and tweaks that could apply to any amp. But there is also some good effort being done on output filters. RFI is being delt with and so on.
Bottom line for me. I don't see how the class-d chips threads are hurting the UCD ect threads. And vice-versa.
let´s establish the TRIPATH section
Hi folks,
I am proud of beeing a separatist ... let´s establish the TRIPATH section.
Mr. Nelson Pass did it also - so why not ?
So guys let´s go with weapons to the capitol and make our complaints to the king. Go for TRIPATHIA - freedom and independence ... Sorry for my emotions - I must have watched too much european history in T.V.
Hi folks,
I am proud of beeing a separatist ... let´s establish the TRIPATH section.
Mr. Nelson Pass did it also - so why not ?
So guys let´s go with weapons to the capitol and make our complaints to the king. Go for TRIPATHIA - freedom and independence ...
Sorry for my emotions - I must have watched too much european history in T.V. whats the definition of class-D
we know its not digital, we have known that for years
so thats not what the "D" stand fore
efforts I have seen here also seem to miss he point
they just seem to explain why ordinary "class-D" and "T-amp" differs
In my book the "D" simply defines the "efficiency class", which would usually be 90%, or higher
I dont know that much about it, but I suppose T-amps fits well into the high efficiency category
"class-D" simply defines new high efficiency amp designs, based on high frequency switching
Thus excludes class-C, class-G, or whatever
Right or wrong ?
we know its not digital, we have known that for years
so thats not what the "D" stand fore
efforts I have seen here also seem to miss he point
they just seem to explain why ordinary "class-D" and "T-amp" differs
In my book the "D" simply defines the "efficiency class", which would usually be 90%, or higher
I dont know that much about it, but I suppose T-amps fits well into the high efficiency category
"class-D" simply defines new high efficiency amp designs, based on high frequency switching
Thus excludes class-C, class-G, or whatever
Right or wrong ?
Looking at the class-D forum right now, the first page gives me threads that are up to two days old. I don't see anything drowning in the flood of class-D chip related discussions.
If anyone feels there is not enough discussions about discrete designs feel free to discuss. It only takes one post to pull your thoughts to the top!
If anyone feels there is not enough discussions about discrete designs feel free to discuss. It only takes one post to pull your thoughts to the top!
And if a person is schooled enough to be part of the "discrete design" crowd, they can surely figure out how to use the search function for any topic not on the front page.
I managed to find the 6 year old thread about lobbying for a class-d forum when I had no clue what the title was or who posted it; and I'm just a class-d wannabe.
I managed to find the 6 year old thread about lobbying for a class-d forum when I had no clue what the title was or who posted it; and I'm just a class-d wannabe.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.