| jh6you |
Tak, Henrik.
I will re-post BSOZ tonight (our time). Please give me your
input again. I would much appreciate. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Well, Nelson, In order to approach closer to the perfectly equal
output amplitude, I adopted the constant current source (CCS)
instead of the plain resistors for the tails. Now, it seems that I have
rather solid CCS tails. I however decline the CCS for the upper
resistors. It seems that the upper CCS says less words.
The unbalanced volume control will be at the input stage. Indeed,
the volume at the output offers benefits. But, for the
unbalanced-balanced, the volume at the input is deemed better.
Please kindly take a look, and give me one of your icons. |
|
|
| jh6you |
till
No, I did not think about XP much.
The XP must be very nice and professional. Sure, I could copy it.
As I said at the beginning, however I wanted to find a simple
unbalanced-balanced converter for XSOZV2 posted earlier.
It was not easy. And, through the discussions with Nelson,
I learnt that the constant current sources are necessary
to make a good converter. And, I got to have better understanding
about the function of the constant current source. This is a brief
story of my posts about BOSOZ.
I admit that I am sweating through long way even though
there is a short cut, e.g. copying the XP. I might look stupid
(if you think so). But, I believe that you know why I am doing
this way.
;) |
|
|
| till |
| No no, i donīt hink you look stupid, i only thought maybe you would like to have a look at the aleph P to compare, and make a X aleph P or so. |
|
|
| jh6you |
till, thank you very much about the XP.
I am glad to find me not so stupid.
:happy1: |
|
|
| jh6you |
Thank you, Henrik.
I did the download. Unfortunately, the program is not working for me.
Even, I could'nt open the file you attached.
I will try it again this evening. |
|
|
| jh6you |
A blank icon tells me this and that.
Anyhow, thank you very much, Nelson Pass, indeed.
It seems no more technical comments from experts.
I have neither reliable measurement tools nor good sense of
math. So I would like to rely on the air about the specification.
Yeah, it is time for me to kick off my new building of XSOZV2 (R1)
and BOSOZ (R2). I am going to have steel cutting ceremony
this weekend. Weak idea when I could launch them.
Guys on the floor of this thread, thanks for your allowing
me to use a big stage for my dancing. Now its your turn.
I will take just a small part of it.
:) |
|
|
| Nelson Pass |
Your circuit looks just fine.
(Buddha Icon) |
|
|
| Henrik |
jh6you
Letīs go for it!
I am sorry that You canīt open the attached file, I have yust tried, and it works for me.
I presume you have installed the winzip program or similar.
You also need the models used in Your scematic, so here they are.
Unzip (Copy) the files to the SIMetrix program directory, wich could be something like "C:\Program files\SIMetrix41Intro\Models" and in the simetrix menu choose "file/model library/re-build catalog", then You should be able to run the scematic by the F9 after opening the simetrix file. |
|
|
| jh6you |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unzip (Copy) the files to the SIMetrix program directory, wich could be something like "C:\Program files\SIMetrix41Intro\Models" and in the simetrix menu choose "file/model library/re-build catalog", then You should be able to run the scematic by the F9 after opening the simetrix file.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I did as instructed.
But, still meet errors:
***ERROR***Cannot find definition for MOS model IRFP150
***ERROR***Cannot find definition for BJT model ZTX450
I will re-try. |
|
|
| Henrik |
I donīt know whatīs wrong, but the program canīt find the model, You could check the file extension, it should be *.lib.
Alternatively You could use the buildin models.
Mark the mosfet symbol at the scematic so it turns blue, then right-click on it an choose "edit value" and select IRF130, this one is close to irfp150. Do the same with the bipolar, and choose BC337. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Henrik
I could run the program with IRF130 and BC337.
I got the figures.- Lower critical f = 2 Hz (-3 dB)
- Upper critical f = 80 kHz (-3 dB)
The figures were with the following Revision 2 of XSOZV2 R2. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Frequency response.
Looks similar with the bandwidth of Zenlite. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Henrik
Do you have any comments to the above two...? |
|
|
| Henrik |
In my opinion You just got it!
I am buisy for now, so I will not come back before to morrow, then I will try your suggestion in my sim.
All the best! |
|
|
| Henrik |
| Then try to simulate your BSOZ (use irf530 for irf610īs) in connection with Your XSOZ |
|
|
| jh6you |
:hypno1:
Understanding the program is more difficult than finding
out where are my electrons flowing inside the circuits.
Okay, I will do the best to run it after connecting BSOZ and XSOZ.
:) |
|
|
| ralf |
Hi, all
i just have build my SOZ`s and BoSoz`s. They are in beta state.that means, the case for the amps is not finished yet.
This is the chance for me to upgrade to XSoz and XBoSoz.
I have seen and downloaded several schematics and have one question:
After implementing the new schematic -parts to Soz, has the old resistor R7 (1ohm) be bridged or does it stay?
After implementing the new schematic to BoSoz, has the old Resistor R15 (124 ohm to be bridged or does it stay?
If the sound of Soz /Bosoz will be topped through X it would be fantastic...
:bawling:
Thank you all,
regards,
Ralf |
|
|
| Henrik |
Ralf
There have ben many suggestions on how to apply X to the original BSOZ and SOZ.
In my version, posted at page 17, R15 in the BSOZ is replaced with wire in the XBSOZ and R7 in SOZ is also replaced with wire in the XSOZ.
I have described the sonical change from the original circiuts to the X.
I am very pleased with the result, it certainly is an improvement.
But if You deside to make my version, be aware of the very low inputimpedance at the XSOZ, it is only 120 Ohm singleended and 240 balanced. Not many other preamps will be able to drive this low impedance, not even the original BSOZ.
There have ben talking much about wether the BSOZ or XBSOZ is good at converting a singleended input to a balanced output or not.
I do have a feeling, that the XBSOZ woud sound better with a current source at the tail, also becauce the X-feedback will suffer more or less from mismatch in the diffrential amplification. Therefore I am doing some experiments on this toppic.
I hope I will have some results to post to morrow. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Henrik
I run the program with the connection of BOSOZ (unbalanced-balanced) and XSOZV2.
Results are:- Lower critical f = 9 Hz (-3dB)
- Upper critical f = 90 kHZ (-3dB)
I however have no idea my run was correct.
I will try to attach the Zip file tomorrow, for your opinion. |
|
|
| Henrik |
jh6you
I got it a little different than you, but the most important difference in measurements is when You substitute the irfp150 with irf130. The Irf130 has only half the inputcapaciance of the irfp150. I presume thatīs the reason for the lower cut off for the irfp150.
The red curve is irfp150 and the green is irf130.
I would go for -1db at 20kHz / -3db at 100kHz. |
|
|
| Henrik |
:rolleyes:
Sorry, I ment -0.1db at 20kHz, -1db at 20kHz is absolutly degrading the performance. |
|
|
| nar |
| Input capacitance is causing it:magnet: |
|
|
| ralf |
Thanks Henrik,
two questions,
MA1091 - are they zener diodes with 9.1 V ?
Do you think Irfp240 are the right ones for the x soz?
Thanks,
Ralf |
|
|
| Henrik |
jh6you
I didnīt see your post, it came while i was writing.
-3db at 9Hz is a little too hig to me, I would go for -3db at 1-5Hz.
-3 db at 90 kHz is almost ok I think.
It also depends on the shape of the roll off, so I think the best is to measure it at 20Hz and 20kHz and then make it -0.1db.
This is my expirience so far. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Henrik
You need to adjust R4 (10k) to get the quiscent voltage of +18,
i.e. down to about 7k. Then, you will get about 80 kHz instead of
71.34 kHz.
I agree with you. The upper critical frequency point will vary
according to the input Miller capacitance. Therefore, we need to
use MOSFET having low C(gs) and C(gd).
I will try to replace IRFP150 with better one. |
|
|
| Henrik |
Ralf
Yes, MA1091 is zevers at 9.1 V.
I am using Irfp240 for my SOZ, but I will replace them with IRFP140. They shoud sound better, even when they have a higer inputcapacitance. But if You have the IRFP240, use them, I donīt think it matter that much, but I havenīt heard the difference my self. |
|
|
| jh6you |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also depends on the shape of the roll off, so I think the best is to measure it at 20Hz and 20kHz and then make it -0.1db.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are not only bandwidths, but also other aspects
I have to consider.
Anyhow, no problem. I will re-try. |
|
|
| Henrik |
jh6you
R4 at 7k I also gets -3db at 82kHz. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Henrik
I am deadly tired today (golf and drink: it is 11:42PM).
See you later. :drunk: |
|
|
| Nelson Pass |
Wake up! You're putting this thread to sleep!
:sleep: |
|
|
| jh6you |
Henrik
I suspect the frequency response curve (red color) made with IRF150.
I checked C(gs) and C(gd) of IRF150 used in your spice model and
found the values of 9027pF and 1679pF respectively. According to
my data, however, IRFP150 has typical 1650pF and 650pF. Since these
two values are essential to calculate the input Miller capacitance,
using the correct values are demanded.
In principle, amp designers might set up their target to achieve
audio frequency between 20Hz and 20kHz and corresponding critical
frequencies of 2Hz and 200kHz. I however doubt if these are the first
condition for the good amp sound.
Books indicate that the upper critical frequency is very much up to
the input Miller capacitance and the input resistance. I again changed
R5 to 7.5K and R4 to 5.5k (adjustment for the quiescent voltage) and
did re-run the program with IRF130. Results are:- Lower Fc = 2 (-3dB)
- Upper Fc = 100 (-3dB)
When I connected XSOZV2 to BOSOZ, the results are similar even though
the results somewhat vary depending on the input attenuator (volume) setting.
I hardly expect any problem if the BW is between 2Hz and 100kHZ.
Your preference of -0.1dB at 20kHz could be a meaninful indication...?
That is just the output signal voltage level of about 98.8% of its
midrange value.
By the way, how is it going your feasibility study of BSOZ having
constant current source tails? I am very interested in. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Nelson, this thread will be getting HOT.
We agreed to ignite fighting, as was in The Aleph-X. |
|
|
| CryingDragon |
| Eeek gads man 23 pages :faint: |
|
|
| jh6you |
Where there is smoke, there is fire.
CryingDragon, are you the man...? Woops. |
|
|
| Henrik |
Letīs get some more fire!
jh6you
However, the bandwidth is essential, if it is too narrow You can have all other virtues in its place and it still sounds crappy.
In my first tests of the XSOZ I realised that it was down -1db @ 20kHz.
When I lowered the input impedance in XSOZ from 1k to 120 Ohm and output impedance in the XBSOZ from 1.4k to 10 Ohm, the subjektive quality of the sound increased the most, all the virtues of the X was relieved, the relaxed and easy sound was better than ever.
IRFīs own data:
Irfp150 InputC is 2800pF
Irfp140 InputC is 1700pF
Irf130 InputC is 650
So if IRFP150 Spicemodel is set to 9027 something is wrong.
May be we shoud try IRFīs own spicemodels.
We can hear 20 - 20kHz, not 1Hz or 100kHz, so my common sence tells me, that 20Hz and 20kHz is the band to focus on. And -1db in this area is audible to me, but I am not shure if I can hear -0,1db, I donīt think so. So if I sets the bandwidth to 20Hz-20kHz @-0.1db I feel safe.
I have got the flue, but I still hope I will be able to do some tests on the tail-CCS in XBSOZ. |
|
|
| Henrik |
jh6you
I have ben looking at the powermos.lib to check Cgs.
I think you went for IRF150 (it had Cgs at 9027pF) and not IRFP150, wich was the red curve. |
|
|
| ralf |
Hi, i miss c3 and c4 (1000uF) in your x BoSoz. is this right?
What is the parts quality of C101 and C102 (33uF) and the 220uF Caps in XSoz?
Thanks,
Ralf |
|
|
| jh6you |
Yeahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!
I got the library.
I will post new figures. |
|
|
| Henrik |
Ralf
You are quite right, in my tests I have these C3 and C4 even they are not in my scematic, my fault.
For C101 and C102 I used some blackgate at 47uF/50v, and for C201 and C202 I used Panasonic HFS 220uF/25V.
In my final version I will go for Blackgates, C-type 50V for C101/102 and BG-Nx-type 6.3V for C201/202.
But I think that Panasonic FC or similar type will do fine. |
|
|
| jh6you |
XSOZV2 R3 and Frequency Response
Henrik
I finished Revision 3 of XSOZV2 with the following alterations:- MOSFETs to IRFP140
- R2 to 430
- R5 to 4.5k
- R4 to 5k-pot (to be adjusted as about 3.3k)
Results are:- Lower Fc = 2.813Hz (-3dB)
- Upper Fc = 51.94kHz (-3dB)
- At 20kHz, about -0.65dB
I could not lift the upp Fc further up. I send all of you SOS.
The new circuit and frequency response curve are attached. |
|
|
| jh6you |
| <Frequency Response Curve> |
|
|
| Henrik |
| The link is from page 15 |
|
|
| jh6you |
Henrik
From the frequency formula f = 1/(2x3.14xRxC), I could see
three possibilities to lift the upp fc up.
1. Minimizing the resistance of the signal source
2. Minimising the Miller capacitance by selecting proper MOSFET
3. Minimizing the voltage gain
Accordingly, your suggestion of R8 down to 100 is a good idea.
If there is no problem of parasitic oscillation, I would even remove R8.
Then, the upper fc could rise up somewhat.
:dunno: |
|
|
| Henrik |
Keep up the god spirit!
I suggest You do all tree, but You need about 20db gain, 15db as minimum.
I think You need the gateresistors at min. 100 Ohm.
I have almost finishd my test CCSīs in my XBSOZ, may be I will come back tonight with som feedback on this. |
|
|
| Henrik |
| Reducing the resistance of the signal source is an effective way to go. I would give this the highest priority for now. |
|
|
| Henrik |
I have just listend to my XBSOZ with and without CCS at the tail.
I have only singleended signal sources, so the XBSOZ have to convert into balanced mode.
The sound of the CCS is more soft, round and less dynamic, sweeter, but the directnes of all the precented instruments and voices is signifcantly degraded, and because of that the feeling of tactility and space in the soundstage suffer from this too.
This is my first impressions, I need to listen to this difference some more, but I think I will end up with resistors only and no CCS, not of "religious" reasons but purely sonically. |
|
|
| jh6you |
XSOZV2 R4 and Frequency Response
In order to get the widened frequency response, I finally
adopted the reduction of gain by introducing negative
feedback loop. I will examine sounds of both Revision 3 and this
Revision 4.
Results of Revision 4:
* Lower Fc = 2 Hz (-3dB)
* Upper Fc = 100 kHz (-3dB)
* I expect 16W/ch with 8-ohm load.
<Revision 4> |
|
|
| jh6you |
| <Frequency Response Curve> |
|
|
| Jens |
Many thanks for all your input on this highly interesting project. Regarding the SIMetrix simulator, I'm looking for some more models (like the MA1091, LED...), maybe Henrik can help - thanks.
Jens |
|
|
| jh6you |
Henrik
It is cheerless to hear that the constant current source
was helpless in sound effect. I would however recommend
listening further for certain period before you make a
conclusion. I avoid one day A/B test. I often find mine
after long hour A/B test, minimum one week. |
|
|
| Henrik |
It is cheerless, and it is an important issue, so it deserves more tests with different kinds of CCS.
I am rather buisy these days, but I will be back soon. |
|
|
| ralf |
Hi, can anyone tell me which substitutes can be used instead of ZVP3310A ?
thanks,
Ralf |
|
|
| jh6you |
Henrik
You will manage well.
I have my understanding of the constant current source (CCS):- For the balanced-in and balanced-out, the CCS will maximise CMRR.
- For the unbalanced-in and balanced-out, the CCS will afford symmetrical output swing.
I hope my understanding would come true with sonic effects.
By the way, I might think about the splitting CCS, port and starboard,
for X-effect. Otherwise, I presume there is no X-effect.
With one CCS in the middle, how the left and right channel can exchange
the signals...? |
|
|
| jh6you |
(Short Break)
DIY Blues
:note: Matching twins...
:note: Super symmetry figures...
:note: X and X... |
|
|
| Henrik |
Ralf
Try this page http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...=&threadid=6799
jh6you
Your understanding of CCS is in my opinion ok only as we are talking about one CCS or two closely conneced CCS at the tail.
Lack of matching (CCS or not) certainly rises the audiophile anxiety to a level worth a shrink, and by the way, I am a badly mached tween my self, I know all about it. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Here is XSOZV2 Revision 5.
The circuit is nothing more than re-drawing and minor correction of
misprint. Forgive me if I have broken the schematic drawing standard.
Thanks to Nelson Pass and Henrik, this project could be no-nonsense.
I started cutting steel for the materialization of this project.
And, acc. to the progress, I would try to post one or two pictures.
By the way, it is not too late. If any part of circuit looks something
wrong, I would much appreciate your kind indication.
Thanks.
:) |
|
|
| Henrik |
jh6You
You could consider the following setup:
Q1 and Q2 -> IRFP240
R4 -> 10k (adjusted to 6.2k)
R5 -> 6.8k
R8 -> 100 Ohm
C4 -> 220pF (no peaks in the corners at a 10 or 100 kHz square wave)
Leave out R21 and C2.
This setup should give You -3db low pass at 100kHz, and -0.15db at 20kHz.
I am using IRFP240 at the moment, an they sound very nice.
They have a lower Cgs, the reason for the much easier run to the 100kHz at -3db.
Canīt wait to hear, unfortunately not your amp, but then your description of its sound and some pics too.
:) |
|
|
| jh6you |
Ill try your resistors, capacitor and Q1&2, too.
The sound, the sound...yeah, Im also excited,
wondering when I could finish the construction.
The speed of construction could be obtained by
three variables I have: workload, laziness and
wifes mood.
;) |
|
|
| jh6you |
Luckily, I got 20 x IRFP240.
I hope I could manage to get 2 x four matching fets among 20.
To find the matching sets, I will try as explained in
http://www.passdiy.com/howto.htm.
By the way, is there any idea to find the matching twins just by a look?
Or, what about if I use the gravity? I drop all 20 at the same time at
the 1m height, and select 8 that are touching the ground first. |
|
|
| Henrik |
:judge: Those touching the ground first must be the fastes!
New kind of maching! |
|
|
| Henrik |
You only need to mach input Qīs as pairs, and CCS as separatley pairs.
Find 2*2 and 2*2 matching pairs.
No problem to find this among 20 pieces. |
|
|
| jh6you |
I wanted to find the matching pairs by the touching-ground-first
method. But, I found that the method in http://www.passdiy.com/howto.htm
was easier and more reliable.
I used 9V (battery) instead of 15V, and used 1k-R instead of 2.2k.
All pairs matched within 5mV. Average Vgs was about 3.25V.
I hope these are in order. Otherwise, pls correct me.
Attached is how I did. |
|
|
| Nelson Pass |
Keep in mind that matching the 240's at 5 mA is not
quite the same as matching them at an amp or so, if
that's where they are going to be operating.
Toward that end, I recommend maybe higher voltage and
less resistance. Say 15 volts and 10 ohms. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Where could I get the 15 volt DC supply...?
Could I use Zen as a tester?
If yes, I want to have the test where Q1 is, after cut it off.
It is a breeze because mine is made-up with p2p wiring. |
|
|
| jh6you |
I will have two transformers for XSOZV2. The attached drawing
shows one channel power supply, with two bridges.
I know that there is interesting comparison of two bridges
with one bridge in another thread. It seems that two bridges
receive a prize. It is however applicable only for +/- polarities.
I wonder in case of one polarity... One better? Two just OK? |
|
|
| jh6you |
| quote: | Nelson Pass
Keep in mind that matching the 240's at 5 mA is not
quite the same as matching them at an amp or so, if
that's where they are going to be operating.
Toward that end, I recommend maybe higher voltage and
less resistance. Say 15 volts and 10 ohms. |
I got 17V DC from my Zen amp. With the 17 volts and 10 ohms, I tested Vgs of 28 x IRFP240.
Results:
* Min. Vgs 3.789V
* Max. Vgs 4.430V
* Avg. Vgs 4.072V
The values were found scattered. But, selection of matching pairs within 20mV was not a big deal.
Thanks.
PS
Phew... Handling steel is really hard work. I wish if I were living next to Peter Daniel. |
|
|
| ralf |
| quote: | Originally posted by jh6you
Here is XSOZV2 Revision 5.
The circuit is nothing more than re-drawing and minor correction of
misprint. Forgive me if I have broken the schematic drawing standard.
Thanks to Nelson Pass and Henrik, this project could be no-nonsense.
I started cutting steel for the materialization of this project.
And, acc. to the progress, I would try to post one or two pictures.
By the way, it is not too late. If any part of circuit looks something
wrong, I would much appreciate your kind indication.
Thanks.
:) |
jh6You,
is your schematic a only computer simulated one? or do you have build a beta circuit and have you heard/compared it with the original SOZ? Can this circuit be connected to BoSoz without changing Bosoz?
Your circuit would be very intersting for me to build aktive speakers with 3 Amps per chanel (30 Watts per amp??). since it seames to be builded much cheper than SOZ. With original soz it would be too expensive for me, cause of the need of big parts for running and cooling it.
Regards,
Ralf |
|
|
| jh6you |
Ralf
Yes, only computer simulated so far. I am building it now.
The part requiring most hard work is completed. I hope I could
have the final product soon.
Yes, you could use the original BOSOZ.
I will try to come up with few pictures and other interests.
Thanks. |
|
|
| Henrik |
Ralf and jh6you
When I simulate XSOZV2 R5 and BSOZ, it seems as the BSOZ do have a hard job driving the XSOZV2 R5. To do this in the simulater, you have to do some change in the BSOZ, C1 an C2 must be 100uF and R15=24 Ohm (proberly means increaced distortion) to bring XSOZV2 R5 to full outputswing.
This is only simulation, so reality could be different. |
|
|
| ralf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Henrik
Ralf and jh6you
When I simulate XSOZV2 R5 and BSOZ, it seems as the BSOZ do have a hard job driving the XSOZV2 R5. To do this in the simulater, you have to do some change in the BSOZ, C1 an C2 must be 100uF and R15=24 Ohm (proberly means increaced distortion) to bring XSOZV2 R5 to full outputswing.
This is only simulation, so reality could be different. |
Henrik and jh6you,
increasing capacity of the couple C`s and decreasing R15 should not be the problem...
Do you think distortion will increase though, when i have matched the Transistors of Bosoz?
If i would build the version of you. Henrik, i need to build new Bosoz (XBosoz), and i try to avoid this.
But at last i will build, what sounds best.
I hope jh6you will soooooon tell us somthing about the sound of his version.
jh6you, can you compare your version with the SOZ?
Regards,
Ralf |
|
|
| Henrik |
Ralf
Decreasing R15 will raise the amount of distortion, Nelson has described this in his papers on the BSOZ.
If You increase gain and distortion just for loosing the gain at the inputload at the poweramp, then the only thing You gets is distortion.
A better way is to lower the outputimpedance of the BSOZ, and a good way to do this is to make the X-feedback.
The X cancels more or less distortion from the gainprocess.
The lowered outputimpedance from the X circiut helps You loosing only a minor fraction of the gain at the load in the poweramp, even when it is as low as 200 Ohm. Actually the XBSOZ can drive a headphone at 60 Ohm.
I have almost finished my testsetup for 4 different variations of CCSīs for the XBSOZ, but I have to work hard these days to stay a live, but I hope that I will have some results next weekend. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Ralf
Please note that I have Zen V2 only for the time being.
XSOZV2 is my first X-fied diff pair amp.
I am fabricating it at maximum continuous revolution speed.
Expected launching is this weekend.
Henrik
Much interested in your four variations of CCS.
If you post the results, would be great for us.
All the best! |
|
|
| ralf |
"I am fabricating it at maximum continuous revolution speed.
Expected launching is this weekend."
I like those fanatics.....
:devilr:
Regards,
Ralf |
|
|
| Henrik |
jh6you
Shure I will share my expirience from the CCS tests.
By the way, with what preamp do you intend to drive Your XSOZ? |
|
|
| jh6you |
Henrik
Unless I have a better idea, I am going to drive it
with BOSOZ on page 21 of this thread. |
|
|
| jh6you |
I got the keel laying of XSOZV2.
The block dimension is 330mmx250mmx460mm (WxHxD).
Two transformers, total 600VA, are installed.
The heat sinks and two transformers look a bit oversized.
Yes, it is. I want to have flexibility with respect to the
current and power within certain range.
The show up of the inside wiring will come later,
no reason to make you disappointed now. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Here is the bottom view. The block has a large air chest
in way of the transformers. |
|
|
| Henrik |
:wave: Looks really nice!
BTW why donīt you X Your BSOZ? |
|
|
| jh6you |
Tusen Tak!
I am going to use BOSOZ for the unbalaced-input and
balanced-output converter. Clearly no CMRR in this case.
I will however go for the X if it is effective to my converter.
What is your understanding? Effective? Any tip on this? |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| It looks nice, ... but why using so many interfaces? You have your fets on very thin piece of metal plate, then 2 angles (no champions in heat transfer either) and then heat sinks. Even if your sinks might be oversized, they'll do no good if the mosfets are too far from them. The circuit is so simple that I would be tempted to install the output devices directly on the heat sinks. Why not?;) |
|
|
| till |
| hmm. to me it looks like on the thin piece of metal are not the FETs but the bridges. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| You are right.:blush: In this case the interface is OK.;) Sorry. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Last night, I was cutting and drilling for the front and rear panels,
talking to myself: Okay, I will beat the nice DIY designs of Peter Daniel,
I will... no, yes, no, yes...
And, finished the panels, and found all sizes were made wrong.
I have to cut and drill all again tonight. Damn it! |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| So far it looks pretty nice. I don't know if I could it any better.:) |
|
|
| Henrik |
jh6you.| quote: | Tusen Tak!
I am going to use BOSOZ for the unbalaced-input and
balanced-output converter. Clearly no CMRR in this case.
I will however go for the X if it is effective to my converter.
What is your understanding? Effective? Any tip on this?
|
Selv tusind tak!
The XBSOZ and the BSOZ is quite similar in diffrential behavier, so as a converter they do pritty much the same job.
The X will lover both distortion and outputimpedance.
Your XSOZ will need or benefit from the lower outputimedance provided by the XBSOZ.
If the XSOZ is driven with a signalsource wich is too low, then You will degrade the sonical quality of the amp, much worse than a little mismatch in the unbal to bal conversion.
If You want a perfect match in the conversion You could make a CCS at the tail of the BSOZ or XBSOZ, but what then happens to the sound is not qute clear to mee, my CCS tests in the comming weekend will at least tell me and mybe others too. |
|
|
| Henrik |
"If the XSOZ is driven with a signalsource wich is too low"
I ment too low outputimpedance. |
|
|
| jh6you |
Okay, I am ready to go for the XBSOZ (probably yours) for the lower
distortion and for the lower output impedance. But, I am a bit confused
because you are saying simultaneously good and bad about the lower
output impedance. Do you mean the output impedance of XBSOZ is
to be neither too high nor too low? Would you clarify my question? |
|
|
| leiade |
Hi,
Can any help me with an explanation regarding all BOZ and XBOZ I want a list of all abbrevations I will search for single ended preamps and poweramps and it would be very nice to know what al this BOZ and company really is, as I'm a new to all this with single enden designs.:xeye: |
|
|
| Henrik |
leiade:
Original Nelson Pass designs:
Zen in difrent variations is just called Zen V1...n and is poweramps.
BOZ -> Bride of Zen, preamp for Zen.
SOZ -> Son Of Zen, balanced poweramp.
BSOZ or BOSOZ -> Bride of Son of Zen, preamp for SOZ.
Zen variations made on Diyaudi.com applying Nelsons patented Super Symmetry also called SuSy or X:
XSOZ -> Son Of Zen with Super Symmetry, balanced poweramp.
XBSOZ or XBOSOZ -> Bride of Son of Zen with Super Symmetry, preamp for XSOZ and SOZ.
jh6you
| quote: | Do you mean the output impedance of XBSOZ is
to be neither too high nor too low? Would you clarify my question? |
You will proberly need a lower outputimpedance than the BSOZ provides, when You X it to XBSOZ You wil get that. |
|
|
| UrSv |
Another cause for confusion is the third (and original I suppose) name for BSOZ or BOSOZ which is the Balanced Zen Line Stage (or sometimes BLS).
/UrSv |
|
|
| leiade |
| quote: | Originally posted by leiade
Hi,
Can any help me with an explanation regarding all BOZ and XBOZ I want a list of all abbrevations I will search for single ended preamps and poweramps and it would be very nice to know what al this BOZ and company really is, as I'm a new to all this with single ended designs.:xeye: |
|
|
|
| Henrik |
You are so right.
:confused: :D :confused:
Confused? Then wait until next episode! |
|
|
|
