I continue to trying to make it even better..but really i think i found the maximum
Without the use of Aspen subcircuits...negative!.... i have tried some ideas from the Bulgarian amplifier...negative too.
But i will continue to try something to make it even better.
In parallel with R10, i am using 472 (0.0047uF)....because my years folks!....it is not in the schematic.... customized to my old ears.
Yes... i have tried Douglas Self modified VAS too....negative!
regards,
Carlos
Without the use of Aspen subcircuits...negative!.... i have tried some ideas from the Bulgarian amplifier...negative too.
But i will continue to try something to make it even better.
In parallel with R10, i am using 472 (0.0047uF)....because my years folks!....it is not in the schematic.... customized to my old ears.
Yes... i have tried Douglas Self modified VAS too....negative!
regards,
Carlos
Attachments
I will try...... aproved are things that increase sonics.
Modifications because i "prefer" are tried but do not remains there.... unless produce sonic results.
Because i "prefer" the yellow ones...more pretty, and as they do not sound....i am using the yellow... because pretty...hehe.
But i am opened to try things....if sounded different..your capacitors will be used.
And thanks by the suggestion.
regards,
Carlos
Modifications because i "prefer" are tried but do not remains there.... unless produce sonic results.
Because i "prefer" the yellow ones...more pretty, and as they do not sound....i am using the yellow... because pretty...hehe.
But i am opened to try things....if sounded different..your capacitors will be used.
And thanks by the suggestion.
regards,
Carlos
Hi Carlos,
In your post#1956 you wrote,
>> Sound was "undecided".... something that was afraid to get out from the speaker. <<
That is exactly the way I described sound from a blameless type amplifier many years ago.
Every bit of the sound was there, and you could tell it was very low distortion, but it sounded as if it could not enliven a room by breaking free of the loudspeaker.
It made me stare at the loudspeaker and say - 'that's not right!', whereupon I used a different amplifier with that same loudspeaker and was happy.
Strange you should say the same.
A question about anyone not already having heard better - would they realise that they were missing out?
Cheers ........ Graham.
In your post#1956 you wrote,
>> Sound was "undecided".... something that was afraid to get out from the speaker. <<
That is exactly the way I described sound from a blameless type amplifier many years ago.
Every bit of the sound was there, and you could tell it was very low distortion, but it sounded as if it could not enliven a room by breaking free of the loudspeaker.
It made me stare at the loudspeaker and say - 'that's not right!', whereupon I used a different amplifier with that same loudspeaker and was happy.
Strange you should say the same.
A question about anyone not already having heard better - would they realise that they were missing out?
Cheers ........ Graham.
I am glad we think the same...this promotes me Graham
I had always enormous respect related all your knowledge.
The fact that we perceive things the same way, seems to me that i have the chance that one day i will be so good as you are now a days.
Exactly.... alike the speaker saying "this is not right!"
regards,
Carlos
I had always enormous respect related all your knowledge.
The fact that we perceive things the same way, seems to me that i have the chance that one day i will be so good as you are now a days.
Exactly.... alike the speaker saying "this is not right!"
regards,
Carlos
Re: Destroyer X
Hello
Tweaking a lm3886 or tda7294 made them sound like discrete amp ?
Bridged lm3886 was a bit better sound.
I did those chip amp and there was good sound but there was missing some "life" from them.
Btw, most chip amps do have much higher distortion at very low output level, so the soundstage are lost in crossover distortions.
Gaetan
sandyK said:
Hello
Tweaking a lm3886 or tda7294 made them sound like discrete amp ?
Bridged lm3886 was a bit better sound.
I did those chip amp and there was good sound but there was missing some "life" from them.
Btw, most chip amps do have much higher distortion at very low output level, so the soundstage are lost in crossover distortions.
Gaetan
Yes friends, i am following the thread were you discuss sound stage
I am learning a lot there.
A different world may leave those folks that select recording to top quality.... a very narrow group of options too i think.
I have one exceptional recording that Graham Maynard sent me last year...really the sonics are much better, and because of that i use them during my tests.
I see you have deep belief into your modified Silicon Chip amplifier.
Is that schematic you sent me the modified version Andy?
I had the curiosity to construct to listen, despite i turn red when i observe that kind of circuit that remembers me Blameless..... maybe one day.
regards,
Carlos
I am learning a lot there.
A different world may leave those folks that select recording to top quality.... a very narrow group of options too i think.
I have one exceptional recording that Graham Maynard sent me last year...really the sonics are much better, and because of that i use them during my tests.
I see you have deep belief into your modified Silicon Chip amplifier.
Is that schematic you sent me the modified version Andy?
I had the curiosity to construct to listen, despite i turn red when i observe that kind of circuit that remembers me Blameless..... maybe one day.
regards,
Carlos
Dx amp
Carlos
I would have given you the modified version, but did I give you the original published version ?
You may have noticed the added emitter follower in the modded version. The English designer Graham Slee from GSP Audio, told me that I should try removing the collector resistor that I added to reduce dissipation in the emitter follower , although he said that it may still be necessary to slow the amp down a little.
I reduced it in the similar Class A preamp to 2K2 ,with a further improvement in soundstage and an easier listening type sound. Another friend of mine heard it on Friday, and agrees. I didn't want to fully remove it, as the soundstage was becoming even bigger.Today I reduced the same resistor in the Class A Amplifier circuit you have, to half the value. Digital TV audio now has even more spatial information. I will try to reduce it further soon, BUT, I am concerned that I may end up with too BIG a soundstage !
I am not pulling your leg !
I will see if I can arrange for our mutual friend to obtain his impression of the latest changes
Alex
Carlos
I would have given you the modified version, but did I give you the original published version ?
You may have noticed the added emitter follower in the modded version. The English designer Graham Slee from GSP Audio, told me that I should try removing the collector resistor that I added to reduce dissipation in the emitter follower , although he said that it may still be necessary to slow the amp down a little.
I reduced it in the similar Class A preamp to 2K2 ,with a further improvement in soundstage and an easier listening type sound. Another friend of mine heard it on Friday, and agrees. I didn't want to fully remove it, as the soundstage was becoming even bigger.Today I reduced the same resistor in the Class A Amplifier circuit you have, to half the value. Digital TV audio now has even more spatial information. I will try to reduce it further soon, BUT, I am concerned that I may end up with too BIG a soundstage !
I am not pulling your leg !
I will see if I can arrange for our mutual friend to obtain his impression of the latest changes
Alex
Hi Gaetan,
And Carlos, first off my apologies for jumping in your thread with a non-DX topic, but the problem with the blameless lies very much around the VAS stage, the beta enhanced idea looks good but I found doesnt sound half as good as a simple common emitter single bjt. Second problem is its rather crude miller compensation as the only compensation used. In its original form from Doug Self sounds very cold
and as others have stated, it produces a clean sound that is planted between the speakers rather than extending beyond the speakers which makes anything close to a 3D soundstage its weakness. Other than that the basic topology is very sound to start from, but it does require big ears and lots of experimenting to get to sound like music.
Colin
And Carlos, first off my apologies for jumping in your thread with a non-DX topic, but the problem with the blameless lies very much around the VAS stage, the beta enhanced idea looks good but I found doesnt sound half as good as a simple common emitter single bjt. Second problem is its rather crude miller compensation as the only compensation used. In its original form from Doug Self sounds very cold
and as others have stated, it produces a clean sound that is planted between the speakers rather than extending beyond the speakers which makes anything close to a 3D soundstage its weakness. Other than that the basic topology is very sound to start from, but it does require big ears and lots of experimenting to get to sound like music.
Colin
Yes.... this i have concluded too...not only the VAS but the fact it is mirrored too.
Not exactly a mirror, just a CCS counterpart i think.
No problem to go off topic for some time....it is good to produce a "period"...a pause into the main subject.
Of course we have to obbey rules.... if we insist too much we can have problems...so, we go limiting...do not worry, when i perceive excesses i use to publish texts about the Dx amplifier, pictures, tests, details, non succeeded modifications and all that stuff that interrupt the off topic continuity..... creates a pause only.
Your ideas, conclusions, opinions and posts are interesting Sandy, also Gaetan is very interesting too.
We have some nice friendship, a starting one as we use to mail directly having some personal conversations..also Gaetan.
So...here is our meeting place too, the care needed, is to avoid the idea that is only ours...hundreds are reading, and i do not know if they accept off topic so gladly as i use to accept.
thank you,
regards,
Carlos
Not exactly a mirror, just a CCS counterpart i think.
No problem to go off topic for some time....it is good to produce a "period"...a pause into the main subject.
Of course we have to obbey rules.... if we insist too much we can have problems...so, we go limiting...do not worry, when i perceive excesses i use to publish texts about the Dx amplifier, pictures, tests, details, non succeeded modifications and all that stuff that interrupt the off topic continuity..... creates a pause only.
Your ideas, conclusions, opinions and posts are interesting Sandy, also Gaetan is very interesting too.
We have some nice friendship, a starting one as we use to mail directly having some personal conversations..also Gaetan.
So...here is our meeting place too, the care needed, is to avoid the idea that is only ours...hundreds are reading, and i do not know if they accept off topic so gladly as i use to accept.
thank you,
regards,
Carlos
Hi vynuhl.addict,
I am sure Carlos will be pleased at you jumping in with non-DX comment, because the concept of his DX was to construct an amplifier which did not have the audible weaknesses of other apparently more theoretically correct ultra low distortion designs.
Yes the Darlington VAS creates so much gain for 'desirable NFB' that the gain bandwidth must then be limited to ensure stability. The action of the VAS C.dom which becomes necessary then limits open loop bandwidth and this leaves internal amplifier behaviour at risk for non-linearity or discontinuity when the output stage cannot match dynamic loudspeaker system generated current demands.
Of note in relation to the C.dom at the 'blameless' VAS is that its VAS base drive is a minute fraction of the current necessary to charge the C.dom with respect to slewing VAS collector voltage. This means that input stage currents primarily drive the C.dom, and thus the input/error sensing differential stage can no longer transconduct linearly.
Input/VAS operation within individual 'blameless' type circuits are thus loudspeaker system load dependent, they operate independently in time, not together - as is necessary for accurate stereo image reproduction.
A 100pF C.dom on Carlos' VAS does not behave the same as a 100pF C.dom on a 'blameless' VAS. The DX and 'blameless' might appear to have similar value C.doms, but they do not act upon the differential input pair in the same way !!!
Cheers .......... Graham.
I am sure Carlos will be pleased at you jumping in with non-DX comment, because the concept of his DX was to construct an amplifier which did not have the audible weaknesses of other apparently more theoretically correct ultra low distortion designs.
Yes the Darlington VAS creates so much gain for 'desirable NFB' that the gain bandwidth must then be limited to ensure stability. The action of the VAS C.dom which becomes necessary then limits open loop bandwidth and this leaves internal amplifier behaviour at risk for non-linearity or discontinuity when the output stage cannot match dynamic loudspeaker system generated current demands.
Of note in relation to the C.dom at the 'blameless' VAS is that its VAS base drive is a minute fraction of the current necessary to charge the C.dom with respect to slewing VAS collector voltage. This means that input stage currents primarily drive the C.dom, and thus the input/error sensing differential stage can no longer transconduct linearly.
Input/VAS operation within individual 'blameless' type circuits are thus loudspeaker system load dependent, they operate independently in time, not together - as is necessary for accurate stereo image reproduction.
A 100pF C.dom on Carlos' VAS does not behave the same as a 100pF C.dom on a 'blameless' VAS. The DX and 'blameless' might appear to have similar value C.doms, but they do not act upon the differential input pair in the same way !!!
Cheers .......... Graham.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.