TSSA - The Simplest Symmetrical Amplifier

diyAudio Chief Moderator
Joined 2002
Paid Member
No it is not. It works very well. My protoamp has run for months with this configuration.

No need to worry.

By using 50R you do not lose feedback. Distortion is the same. Damping factor is the same.

Being a CFB amp, only the 1K Rf position changes the current injection to the input node so the voltage gain division ratio does not modify crucial parameters? Is that a right way to sum it up?
 
excellent diagram

This update enables TSSA BIGBT HP to be even more universal:
- serial diode MUR160 plus 22 ohm resistor in power supply rails helps to improve PSRR
- +/-OPT pins enables to connect separate power supply for the front-end (MUR160 and 22 ohm are omitted)
- power supply LED indicators for both front-end and output stage are present
- serial compensating resistor added to NTC (serves to calibrate NTC thermal response)
- serial resistors added to SK75 heatsink's GND connection (serial RC filter)
- 1 uF/63V decoupling capacitors added close to VAS transistors supply rails
- TLP627 input now accepts 12 V remote signal (serial resistor added)
- LT1034 replaced by TL431
- R2-R9 values stated for +/-50 V power supply rails

And that's about it. ;)

I never saw such 8one amplifier, very good contribution.
Thanks Lazy Cat
Best regards Sergio.

POSTSCRIPT: Have the pcb
 
Yes it is nice and compact CFB amp, thanks for kind words Sergio. :cheers:

Probably Marc will be the first to assemble TSSA as he already populated PCBs to certain level. :rolleyes:

Yes i do beut weather is against me....i wanted to populated second board and achieve first test this morning........but when i oppened yese this morning i just can cry : this night ia rain under negative tempco, i took the whole morning to scrape iced an defrost car......

Marc
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2012
I really like the basic idea of post 1.
I personally think that i can not hear better then 0,1% low order distortion so to make the circuit more complicated to get PPM distortion is not so attractive to me when it looses the simplicity.

The lower limit/threshold of hearing seems to be somewhere between .1 and .01%. So, I would make it 5-10 times better than that for each component in the 'system'... so that if the entire playback system was measured, the THD would be under that threshold. The simplist design which can do this and all other audible artifacts is the best design.
Thx-RNMarsh
 
The lower limit/threshold of hearing seems to be somewhere between .1 and .01%. So, I would make it 5-10 times better than that for each component in the 'system'... so that if the entire playback system was measured, the THD would be under that threshold. The simplist design which can do this and all other audible artifacts is the best design.
Thx-RNMarsh

The lower threshold is indeed relatively high .. But if you have multiple components that adds 0.1% it starts to be dominant.
 
The simplist design which can do this and all other audible artifacts is the best design.
We can only agree, Richard. While i believe the actual methods to measure errors are far to represent the all landscape.
It is time for a young and courageous engineer to work an a method and to propose the measurements instruments able to evaluate all the errors at once in the real music landscape.
Comparing an calculating the differences that occurs dynamically with real music, digitally and computer based.
We will loose a lot of fun, fighting in forums :)