Thank you for your nonsense. So I'll repeat what has already been said for those who missed it.
The statement about impedance is from the AES standard. A loudspeaker's rated impedance is twice the minimum impedance.
Have you ever measured an audio power amplifier? I have never seen one that perfectly doubles maximum power going from 8 ohms to 4 ohms. Do you have one with a regulated power supply?
Sorry Ed, I'll only answer questions which are phrased to my liking.
Since you didn't ask politely, you did not earn an answer.
You're not an engineer, are you..you don't qualify for technical answers.
You see? Your not the only one who can play childish games. Bring your standards up.
jn
"Personally I prefer friendly banter. But I do recognize some don't read the entire post and others are humor impaired. As to who I am, if you haven't bothered to google it, around 3 million folks or more each year listen to one of my sound systems. I have been doing it as a career for more than 40 years. I do every so often write a paper, popular article or give a lecture. (Some lectures for interested parties, others undergrads and every so often doctoral and post doc.) My minor contributions include changing loudspeaker specs from 1W/1M to 2.83V/1M,and a bit about measuring distortion in resistors and solder joints. Being in a university town I get to do lunch with a bunch of well informed folks and every so often I run things by them and then post tidbits here. (it is fun to watch the critiques resulting.)"
Fantastic appeal to authority!
On this forum, you are what you say. So far, from what I had read, it is a complete waste of time.
Fantastic appeal to authority!
On this forum, you are what you say. So far, from what I had read, it is a complete waste of time.
in bob's "vinyltrak" design, i think the first gain stage was discrete; open loop with jfet inputs.
2nd stage was monolithic op amp.
mlloyd1
2nd stage was monolithic op amp.
mlloyd1
Last edited:
Ed why can't you seperate the hobby aspects of this from work, where did anyone ever criticize your professional accomplishments? I could make up the same litany (but in my case it's 3 million people at any given moment
) but it is appeal to authority and an insult to the other contributors. If you want to challenge basic physics at the level of first principles do it on your off time and be prepared to take some broadsides.
Good book, I have it. The two-D techniques are directly applicable to 1-D problems. Dick might also want to search for blind deconvolution for some stuff that appears to be magic.
My mistake I was confusing Gary Galos with Bob Cordell's ! Thanks for pointing out the error!
Ed why can't you seperate the hobby aspects of this from work, where did anyone ever criticize your professional accomplishments? I could make up the same litany (but in my case it's 3 million people at any given moment
If you want to challenge basic physics at the level of first principles do it on your off time and be prepared to take some broadsides.
Scott,
The litany was answering a pointed question. I have refrained from mention more including some stuff I think you are aware off.
As to challenging first principles, I spent 3 years on just the first tests and five more figuring out what the results said. I have reviewed it with a few folks and my failure is I can't explain it so folks like you get it.
If I didn't know better I would suspect you of trying to twist my analogies.
I will however pose another of what I think is a simple question. If I have an op amp with a 1 nv/sqrt(Hz) noise rating at frequencies of interest and feed it from a 10 ohm source to the non inverting input and have a 62 ohm and 620 ohm resistor forming the feedback network, what will the output noise be? (Hint around 1nv for 62 ohms and 400pv /sqrt(Hz) for the 10 ohm one.)
Last edited:
I know this post is a bit old but I just saw it.
I'm not sure I agree with this thought. Understanding the fundamental building blocks is a neccessity, but from there relying on some of the theories to date might be more of a hinderance than an advantage. Applying common practices and intuitive acceptance of some concepts might tend to pre bias the outcome of a design by designing in limitations based on "solid" theories... It is human nature to use what we know and build on the works of others but it is not always on solid ground.
Mike
They come pre-twisted. Explaining things with analogies from one physical system to another are bound to fail in the long run. The problems in making a 20dB amplifier with conventional feedback that maintains 1nV noise has been discussed at length in many places. I don't need any hints.
I have tried. If I have the time to do a proper paper I will.
The op amp problem is not meant as a design problem. It is a question as to how noise adds.
This is very good. Think I'll buy this one for my library.
Unfortunately for much of recorded music, it would be 'blind-deconvolution'. And with LP much harder... cutters, compression, cartridge, playback gear etc. BUT, with digital recording/playback systems there is a chance to get back [closer] to the source. Removing the effects of compression will still be a big point to look at.
THx-RNMarsh
!!!!!!!!!!METAPHYSICS NOT SPOKEN HERE !!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!METAPHYSICS NOT SPOKEN HERE !!!!!!!
Not quite sure what you're getting at, but it was an honest observation, comment, whatever. Jan stated we couldn't get to an improved state of the art if we didn't follow the same path that got us where we are. It struck me as an odd comment and I felt compelled to respond.
I know better, and debated responding, but did. I guess I ought to know what metaphysics implies before I'm bold enough to post here...
Mike
!!!!!!!!!!METAPHYSICS NOT SPOKEN HERE !!!!!!!
Not quite sure what you're getting at, but it was an honest observation, comment, whatever. Jan stated we couldn't get to an improved state of the art if we didn't follow the same path that got us where we are. It struck me as an odd comment and I felt compelled to respond.
I know better, and debated responding, but did. I guess I ought to know what metaphysics implies before I'm bold enough to post here...
Mike
I dont mind someone's stlye of writing. It dosnt have to fit a convention or form. Some info may well be known by some/all but often a new piece comes thru if not just a different view on the subject. Patience and diversity is a good thing. Keep explaining Simon7000.
Personally, the IC output stage is the weakest point.... probably always will be due to small size (internal/external thermal issues). Some offer an external buffer to help overcome the problem(s) associated with the output stage. however, some IC amp makers offer high ampere/power outputs/packaging. But many of those are not suitable for audio in other ways (noise etc). For perfection, a custom discrete circuit gets closer to the best possible results.
But in a 'digital' home system with higher I/O impedance and voltage levels, IC's are harder to beat. What are the IC limitation(s) in a digital home system (not LP based)? What new problems are there for the all-in-one IC amp?
THx-RNMarsh
THx-RNMarsh
Personally, the IC output stage is the weakest point.... probably always will be due to small size (internal/external thermal issues). Some offer an external buffer to help overcome the problem(s) associated with the output stage. however, some IC amp makers offer high ampere/power outputs/packaging. But many of those are not suitable for audio in other ways (noise etc). For perfection, a custom discrete circuit gets closer to the best possible results.
But in a 'digital' home system with higher I/O impedance and voltage levels, IC's are harder to beat. What are the IC limitation(s) in a digital home system (not LP based)? What new problems are there for the all-in-one IC amp?
THx-RNMarsh
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Mike, not to split hairs, but that's not what I said. My point was that in order to make a breakthrough in a specific area you need to know the basics and state of the art in that area.
This was in response to a post where it was said that any person ignorant in the field could come up with a breakthrough, or even had the advantage there by not being 'hindred' by knowledge.
I still stand behind this.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.