So then where have Denon and Pioneer published the techniques (I don't mean marketing spin, I mean engineering) that make their stuff sound good? If they haven't then you've misunderstood what I meant by commoditized knowledge.
<edit> which I realize on re-reading is perhaps due to my lack of precision in writing
I did mean commoditized understanding, not commoditized kit.
<edit> which I realize on re-reading is perhaps due to my lack of precision in writing
I did mean commoditized understanding, not commoditized kit.So then where have Denon and Pioneer published the techniques (I don't mean marketing spin, I mean engineering) that make their stuff sound good? If they haven't then you've misunderstood what I meant by commoditized knowledge.
<edit> which I realize on re-reading is perhaps due to my lack of precision in writing
Ah.... They are not going to do that because the "understanding" is what adds the value to their products. But nothing stops their competitors from reverse engineering their products to understand what they do. There's no secret sauce. It's all in the box.
Yes it equally adds price to their products. But perhaps some of that understanding isn't understanding at all - they just use certain components or circuit configurations because they 'know that sounds good'? That's know-what, not know-how.
Such an approach may just produce cargo-cult audio designs. That's not to say reverse engineering can't be of value though. For myself I love the teardowns, or 'audio porn'
Exactly. While real "know how" often is understood as "mistakes", or "arrogant schematics"
T0-247's singing would imply simple Lorentz forces. I've heard aluminum cased to-3's sing, but not 247's (I've never put a resistive load on a 247-based amp.)
Just because others say they are being watched... doesn't mean you're not paranoid..I was feeling quite uneasy that I was the only one to report transistors singing.
But now three participants (jneutron, PMA, RNMarsh) confirm it.
I’ll stop looking my face on the mirror watching for signs.
Yes. Driven hard, not sure if it was clipping or not, but I could hear the very hf portion of the signal.
You mean, Abby Normal? Or, Hump? What hump?
I believe most ww resistors are wound sufficiently tight that the wire cannot move relative to the bobbin. But the overall structure can certainly move a bit if the leads are long. Many design without considering that the leads are the heat removal mechanism for most wirewond under 10 watts or so, that leaves the body free to vibrate in response to Lorentz forces.
Sure.
jn
edit: When a wire is carrying current, there will be a force trying to pinch the conductor. A litz wire will attempt to constrict. The forces however, are just too small for solid conductors, and I suspect stranded insulated as well. It may well be that the pinch forces are so low that nothing happens.
For liquid conductors, it is quite significant. When copper conductors are over 1,062 degrees C, they will tend to pinch off completely.
Last edited:
Excellent point, I wish folks would stop using bad engineering as a counterpoint, i.e. stuff like 1/2 W resistors as feedback elements in a 150W amp.
I maintain all these "audiophile' issues can be covered and maintain a good dollar value to the customer.
It is more than different playing fields: it is different realities. I can't understand why in my reality I would need transformer rated for 5 times higher power than peak consumption of the whole amplifier.
Hmmm..letseee...
A TO-3 case with a 200 mil square die. Emitter and base wires almost parallel for 300 mils.
Emitter wire vibrates as a result of a signal, carrying perhaps 10 amperes at one time or another..
It's current is physically moving towards and away from the base wire at some rate and deflection dependent on the modulus of dead soft aluminum, in some specific loop design (hopefully the loop peaks in midspan from a wire pull test).
Long answer...really no way of calculating it given the immensely variable....um, variables..
Short answer. No. Can't hear it while a driver in the room is pushing 100 to 130 dbSPL.
jn
For the very same reason one "needs" one of these to do their grocery shopping.
Edit:
In other words, it's a "guy thing."
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
se
Last edited:
Speaking of grocery shopping, it is not the peak consumption: the same car can be used to go on camping in difficult road conditions. The analogy with John's transformer would rather be, an exhaust pipe that occupies the whole size of the SUV, and one seat for a driver only. The theory behind this would be, customers complained that Japanese cars had too small exhaust pipes before.
At $1,300,000 MSRP they fit the audiophile model. When I went to buy my Saab the dealer had a demo of a McClaren F1 in for Jay Leno and he put a standard dealer sticker on it, US style MPG info and all.
Last edited:
Now, we have opened the controversy as to how much rated power a power transformer in an amp 'needs'.
Now I tend to relate to SOLID STATE power amps, because that is all I have ever designed for the last 45 years. I own several tube amps, but they were not designed by me.
However, now that I have your attention:
What IS the real power need of a power amp, and how much power should it be designed to put out: Continuously, on peak voltage transients, on peak current transients?
For example: IF you are making a tube amp, you can adjust the max 'power' by adjusting the output windings. It will be about the same with every assigned output transformer winding, 4,8, 16 ohms for example. AND to get more current, you have to TRADE for voltage output capability in a way that you always get essentially the same power out, SO assigning a power transformer for this application is relatively straight forward. This is apparently what Wavebourn is referring to.
However, for the design of a competent solid state power amp, the situation is somewhat different.
However, most solid state amps do NOT have an output transformer.
My amps are MUCH more powerful than the amps that Wavebourn is referring to, like 10 times more powerful into a 4 ohm load, for example, so we need a bigger power transformer. In this case, maybe 5 times the rated power per channel, and that is what we have, in our best designs. We also make much cheaper designs, and the output power and the power transformer gets smaller as well. Optimum? Maybe not.
Now I tend to relate to SOLID STATE power amps, because that is all I have ever designed for the last 45 years. I own several tube amps, but they were not designed by me.
However, now that I have your attention:
What IS the real power need of a power amp, and how much power should it be designed to put out: Continuously, on peak voltage transients, on peak current transients?
For example: IF you are making a tube amp, you can adjust the max 'power' by adjusting the output windings. It will be about the same with every assigned output transformer winding, 4,8, 16 ohms for example. AND to get more current, you have to TRADE for voltage output capability in a way that you always get essentially the same power out, SO assigning a power transformer for this application is relatively straight forward. This is apparently what Wavebourn is referring to.
However, for the design of a competent solid state power amp, the situation is somewhat different.
However, most solid state amps do NOT have an output transformer.
My amps are MUCH more powerful than the amps that Wavebourn is referring to, like 10 times more powerful into a 4 ohm load, for example, so we need a bigger power transformer. In this case, maybe 5 times the rated power per channel, and that is what we have, in our best designs. We also make much cheaper designs, and the output power and the power transformer gets smaller as well. Optimum? Maybe not.
Steve are those the usual suspects with a power cord that "removes the last veil"?
Did that sticker include MTBF numbers, or mileage between services?
It could be impressive to know how your SAAB outperforms such expensive machine.
regarding power- a slightly different tangent to pwr xfmr rating -- is how much power do some people actually need. In my case, the size/volume of the room, effiiciency of the speaker(s) and the SPL capability of a real (acoustic) event, etal means I need at least 250W per channel for stereo. Then I have to find a speaker that will not be stressed to its max with that much power and then have all the other desieable speaker qualitities (power response, freq response, thd, IM, compression etc.) Less effecient speakers or larger room then means the $$ of the system really goes up... along with that pwr transformer size... thus digital amps start to have real meaning for some.
My moto is- if you cant afford to buy it, make it/design it yourself (DIYAudio) - so i made super analog mono power amps (900W into 4 Ohms at .01thd 20-20khz). The transformer is: You dont want to know. It was a labor of love.
My moto is- if you cant afford to buy it, make it/design it yourself (DIYAudio) - so i made super analog mono power amps (900W into 4 Ohms at .01thd 20-20khz). The transformer is: You dont want to know. It was a labor of love.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.