Inefficient yes, but you can probably build one cheaply if not interested in good looks and can scrounge around for the parts. The output devices admittedly aren't cheap. Could prove to be a revelation to you, as my first SE tube amp was to me. (Yeah, I'm one of those
) Worst case you get to call me an idiot.. Kevin,
audio amplifier stages should be single-ended, the "advanced" modes are invented to gain practical advantages that inevitably happens at the cost of sonic impairment. People fool themselves (and others) making up all sorts of explanations for the excellence and superiority of various topologies.
audio amplifier stages should be single-ended, the "advanced" modes are invented to gain practical advantages that inevitably happens at the cost of sonic impairment. People fool themselves (and others) making up all sorts of explanations for the excellence and superiority of various topologies.
hi, kevin,
ironically, the second amp i built in my life was
a single ended class A amp using a 2N3055 and a
tip29 as driver....i was 11 at the time, and for a kid,
yes, the simple design of a SE was appealing !!..
sound was quiete good, for my ears at least,
and in comparison of my first one, an horrible
kind of "el cheapo", as described in rod elliott s site..
as pointed by lumba, there s no inherent superiority
of a topology over another...
i would say that two stages of voltage amplification
is the good mean overall, as there s enough NFB
to tame nonlinearities, without going to the instability
issues that plague the 3 stages topologies...
anyway, what is important is to keep a high enough quiescent
current to suppres all withing products...
since it s inneffcient in respect of the power consumed,
best is to reduce the amps power expectations..
i run a 2 X 5 W class A amp, with a detector that
raise the quiescent current to its nominal value as soon as
the output is just over the noise floor...
ironically, the second amp i built in my life was
a single ended class A amp using a 2N3055 and a
tip29 as driver....i was 11 at the time, and for a kid,
yes, the simple design of a SE was appealing !!..
sound was quiete good, for my ears at least,
and in comparison of my first one, an horrible
kind of "el cheapo", as described in rod elliott s site..
as pointed by lumba, there s no inherent superiority
of a topology over another...
i would say that two stages of voltage amplification
is the good mean overall, as there s enough NFB
to tame nonlinearities, without going to the instability
issues that plague the 3 stages topologies...
anyway, what is important is to keep a high enough quiescent
current to suppres all withing products...
since it s inneffcient in respect of the power consumed,
best is to reduce the amps power expectations..
i run a 2 X 5 W class A amp, with a detector that
raise the quiescent current to its nominal value as soon as
the output is just over the noise floor...
lumba,
you couldn t define yourself better....
oddly,from all existing topologies, you "market" the one that
display the worse global behaviour...
for one advantage, ten drawbacks...
you re lucky, you have still a lot of good surprises to live...
why not start with a moderate power class A PP mosfet
symetrical differential ?...
because even harmonic distortion sounds more pleasant to the ear than odd harmonics in much smaller amounts. but that doesn't negate the fact that there is distortion there. the high output impedance colors the sound because there is less control over speaker resonances, and to some that is also pleasant sounding. but that doesn't negate the fact that there are peaks and dips in the frequency response and some phase shifts from the interaction of the amp and drivers. so the sound isn't really "transparent" at all, it's heavily colored, albeit in a pleasant sounding manner.
Jed,
The facts are well documented, and irrefutable. The opinion is something else again. Why is it that engineers will always seek the most 'accurate' sound, when lots of people (non-technical, largely) actually PREFER the SE sound? Is this a form of political correctness?
I don't wish to be heretic here, but it seems to me that if lots of people prefer the 'pleasant' sound even if it is 'technically inferior' then they should be given some credibility in technical circles even if it is highly distortive and 'heavily colored'. It is, after all, what many actually like. All I see here are quasi religious wars invoking correct sound and technical competence because people like what they like. Odd indeed.
The facts are well documented, and irrefutable. The opinion is something else again. Why is it that engineers will always seek the most 'accurate' sound, when lots of people (non-technical, largely) actually PREFER the SE sound? Is this a form of political correctness?
I don't wish to be heretic here, but it seems to me that if lots of people prefer the 'pleasant' sound even if it is 'technically inferior' then they should be given some credibility in technical circles even if it is highly distortive and 'heavily colored'. It is, after all, what many actually like. All I see here are quasi religious wars invoking correct sound and technical competence because people like what they like. Odd indeed.
right, unclejed ,
since the "audiophiles" demonize the tone correctors,
they compensate with truncated frequency response,
mainly using the "tricks" you did relate..
that s somewhat a form of intellectual dishonesty...
no wonder that these SE are branded "transparent" or
"critstal clear" when listened in comparative tests...
anyway, accuracy is no more their concern...
Hello
A year ago, I've made an amp with about .1 % distortions, but the even harmonics was dominants, and compared to a Radford and a Linar amp, the sound my amp was clearly, for everybody, very musical and engaging, giving a real pleasure, some of us did ear that there was a less precision but we all love it's musicality.
Not that I don't like a precise sound but we need both precision and musicality.
It's should be seen much as a psychoacoustic phenomenon than distortion and phases numbers. A clean amp are very good but not enough, it could have a very low distortions but without an engaging or musical sound you will just listen to a clinical or a dead sound, a kind of image of the music without the life of it. Wen can talk endless but the only judge are our ears, our brain are not an AP distortions analyser.
Bye
Gaetan
A year ago, I've made an amp with about .1 % distortions, but the even harmonics was dominants, and compared to a Radford and a Linar amp, the sound my amp was clearly, for everybody, very musical and engaging, giving a real pleasure, some of us did ear that there was a less precision but we all love it's musicality.
Not that I don't like a precise sound but we need both precision and musicality.
It's should be seen much as a psychoacoustic phenomenon than distortion and phases numbers. A clean amp are very good but not enough, it could have a very low distortions but without an engaging or musical sound you will just listen to a clinical or a dead sound, a kind of image of the music without the life of it. Wen can talk endless but the only judge are our ears, our brain are not an AP distortions analyser.
Bye
Gaetan
Last edited:
The worst sounding amplifier I ever owned was a 100Wrms per channel Kenwood Integrated with sigma drive (basically a 4 wire kelvin connection at the speakers) and a rated thd/imd/tim of something like 0.005% at rated power - it was awful.. The replacement Adcom GFA-2 measured about 20X dirtier, but sounded much better, that ultimately was replaced by a pair of McIntosh MC-30 tube amps that were even worse measuring, but good sounding..
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.