Whatever the reason is, one thing's for sure - it isn't engineering-based. I've heard no reasonable engineering justification though I have sought one for what seems like a very long time...
I figure it comes down to fashion.Its a very good question. Flexibility about upgrading must be part of it - having to sell on a box of electronics in conjunction with the speakers perhaps? The fact that few companies in the business have a good reputation for making both speakers and electronics?
I meant that 100% literally, but in physical terms. You simply put two TO-92 plastic package tranistors with their flat sides one against the other, having added some thermal compound. Then you fix them to stay so joint - I've seem many methods used, from plastic straps, to copper rings.
Thus, physically joined also means thermally coupled.
@Wavebourn, Sy
Have I not made myself clear enough? I am severely limited in my choice of parts because of a small local market, which is ruled by one thing only - price. This means I am doomed to Chinese parts. "Doomed" is the EXACT term - a friend bought several nominally high power Motorola transistors, rated at 250W and like 250V, which died at just 30V and say 1W. He returned them and got his money back, but now has to order them from abroad.
But we face the problem of fakes day in, day out. We NEVER know what we actually got and have to test out each and every one piece.
Fun, huh?
In a sense, that's a symptom of losing the big picture. If the goal is high quality reproduction of music, then the good engineer looks at the whole system rather than focusing on one link in the chain. When that link is made of hardened tungsten and other links are made from decomposing ground beef, the wise engineer stops worrying about the isotopic ratios of the carbon in the tungsten and works on turning the ground meat into something more solid.
The exceptions are hobbyists who just love tungsten alloys and want to play with them and old engineers who only know tungsten, played with tungsten throughout their careers, love to tell stories about the old tungsten mines, are reduced to selling variations on the same alloys that were developed decades earlier, and growl at anyone who suggests that perhaps the tungsten links aren't really important anymore if the goal is to make a strong chain. And shamans who like to spin stories about how the tungsten needs to be made in mysterious and non-physical ways or the decomposing ground beef might corrode it.
On Studer/reVox electronics:
What you gents are saying is pure symphony to my ears. Throughout the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies, Studer/Revox ruled all but unopposed locally - tape meant Studer/Revox. Anybody who wanted to be somebody bought theirs. Akai, Teac at al., were cosidered, well, acceptable, but really second class citizens.
In the early 70ies, I did own a Revox A78 integrated amp, and I was quite happy with it. To the best of my knowledged, it's still working happily somewhere.
Last year, I purchased their B 760 digital tuner, made in the late 70ies. On some list on Internet, I read that it is consedered to be No.8 on the 100 best tuners ever list, a list on which Day Sequerra is like No. 34. Whatever, it is an outstanding FM only tuner, and I can't wait to start refreshing it. Build quality like none I have seen so far, and I own three other tuners.
Studer's build quality is second to none, those people really knew how it should be done. They just work and work.
But I never owned a tape deck from them. On hearing only, I opted for Uher, a now defunct German compny, a part of Harman International, and I'm not sure they still make anything. It's mechanics were way behing the Revox A77, it was a single motor machine, but in my view, it had a better sound, or more precisely, I preferred its sound over the Revox. Revox always sounded a little detached to me.
That Uher Royal de Luxe, at the time their top model, cleanly took me from 1970 to 1981, when I purchased a Philips N4520, a 60 lbs behemoth. It was a rather advanced machine at the time, Philips' top of the line model, with many nice things built in - wind speed control, bias adjustment, 3 speeds (9.5, 19 and 38 cm/s, top speed with selectable NAB or IEC eq.), automatic electronic tape tension, 2.3 kg (5 lbs) flywheer, rubber belt drive, quartz locked, digital counter, the works. I really loved that machine, and it took me all the way to 1998, when I finally gave up on open reel tape.
In the meanwhile, a friend purchased a big Sony machine, I think the model was 765 or some such, and I have to say it - it had a superb sound, in my view better than Revox of old, but not having heard the current model 99 at that time, I can't compare them.
I have also heard a few machines I think sounded better than Revox, most notably from Germany, in shape and form of ASC 6004, and whatever anyone says, Grundig's TS1000 was another superb machine.
My biggest letodown ever regarding open reel was the gigantic Technics 1500 US machine. Imposing is an understatement, looks like a cool million, but I felt its sound was on the cold side. Admittedly, there was just that one sample, and one swallow doth not a spring make.
Regarding John's note that he designed some new electronics for the Studers, I must say that's no news to me, I did read somewhere about it. And while everybody around me said those Gringos are crazy, I remained silent because I saw the logic of it. There never was, or will be, any piece of equipment you cannot improve upon.
I swapped the recording and playback electronics boards in my Philips (thank God, it was very modular!) with the same, but with metal film 1% resistors instead of classic carbon 5% ones, with as tightly matched transistors as I could do at the time, and it did sound a little bit better - nothing drastic, but enough to be heard. And I just swapped - designing anew is whole new ball game, with far more opportunities.
Come to think of it, Nagra is the ONLY tape machine I have never ever read of anyone improving upon. Although, admittedly, it is a special purpose machine, with really only one competitor also from Switzerland, Stellavox.
Anyway, it seems that pnce you got into tape recording, you staid there. I did sell the Philips, but I did keep my Sony TC-K 808 ES cassette deck. I actually preferred that over its competing model from Nakamichi.
What you gents are saying is pure symphony to my ears. Throughout the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies, Studer/Revox ruled all but unopposed locally - tape meant Studer/Revox. Anybody who wanted to be somebody bought theirs. Akai, Teac at al., were cosidered, well, acceptable, but really second class citizens.
In the early 70ies, I did own a Revox A78 integrated amp, and I was quite happy with it. To the best of my knowledged, it's still working happily somewhere.
Last year, I purchased their B 760 digital tuner, made in the late 70ies. On some list on Internet, I read that it is consedered to be No.8 on the 100 best tuners ever list, a list on which Day Sequerra is like No. 34. Whatever, it is an outstanding FM only tuner, and I can't wait to start refreshing it. Build quality like none I have seen so far, and I own three other tuners.
Studer's build quality is second to none, those people really knew how it should be done. They just work and work.
But I never owned a tape deck from them. On hearing only, I opted for Uher, a now defunct German compny, a part of Harman International, and I'm not sure they still make anything. It's mechanics were way behing the Revox A77, it was a single motor machine, but in my view, it had a better sound, or more precisely, I preferred its sound over the Revox. Revox always sounded a little detached to me.
That Uher Royal de Luxe, at the time their top model, cleanly took me from 1970 to 1981, when I purchased a Philips N4520, a 60 lbs behemoth. It was a rather advanced machine at the time, Philips' top of the line model, with many nice things built in - wind speed control, bias adjustment, 3 speeds (9.5, 19 and 38 cm/s, top speed with selectable NAB or IEC eq.), automatic electronic tape tension, 2.3 kg (5 lbs) flywheer, rubber belt drive, quartz locked, digital counter, the works. I really loved that machine, and it took me all the way to 1998, when I finally gave up on open reel tape.
In the meanwhile, a friend purchased a big Sony machine, I think the model was 765 or some such, and I have to say it - it had a superb sound, in my view better than Revox of old, but not having heard the current model 99 at that time, I can't compare them.
I have also heard a few machines I think sounded better than Revox, most notably from Germany, in shape and form of ASC 6004, and whatever anyone says, Grundig's TS1000 was another superb machine.
My biggest letodown ever regarding open reel was the gigantic Technics 1500 US machine. Imposing is an understatement, looks like a cool million, but I felt its sound was on the cold side. Admittedly, there was just that one sample, and one swallow doth not a spring make.
Regarding John's note that he designed some new electronics for the Studers, I must say that's no news to me, I did read somewhere about it. And while everybody around me said those Gringos are crazy, I remained silent because I saw the logic of it. There never was, or will be, any piece of equipment you cannot improve upon.
I swapped the recording and playback electronics boards in my Philips (thank God, it was very modular!) with the same, but with metal film 1% resistors instead of classic carbon 5% ones, with as tightly matched transistors as I could do at the time, and it did sound a little bit better - nothing drastic, but enough to be heard. And I just swapped - designing anew is whole new ball game, with far more opportunities.
Come to think of it, Nagra is the ONLY tape machine I have never ever read of anyone improving upon. Although, admittedly, it is a special purpose machine, with really only one competitor also from Switzerland, Stellavox.
Anyway, it seems that pnce you got into tape recording, you staid there. I did sell the Philips, but I did keep my Sony TC-K 808 ES cassette deck. I actually preferred that over its competing model from Nakamichi.
Whatever the reason is, one thing's for sure - it isn't engineering-based. I've heard no reasonable engineering justification though I have sought one for what seems like a very long time...
Its a very good question. Flexibility about upgrading must be part of it - having to sell on a box of electronics in conjunction with the speakers perhaps? The fact that few companies in the business have a good reputation for making both speakers and electronics?
In my view, a good pair of active speakers will beat literally everything out there - but at a price. For it to be superb, you need a superb loudspeaker with some super amplifiers powering it, and costs tend to escalate.
How about a passive loudpeaker which is incrimentally upgradeable to fully active, using external amps?
Because that's what I did with my speaker. It has three pairs of binding posts at the back, and its crossover is split onto three hard cardboard blocks, each containing one XO section with point-to-point soldering.
So, you can take it to fully active in discrete steps, first the bass, then the mid and lastly the treble. Sure, there's fiddling to be done, it takes time, but it sure keeps your speaker in business MUCH longer.
Hi,
On Semi is Sanyo now? Boy, these acquisitions are going fast and furious.
I still remember when Texas Instruments, Burr Brown and National Semiconductors where three companies... And with the recent Nat Semi acquisition I expect another long list of nice and useful parts to be nixed.
True, but there is nothing that you cannot fix in each individual stage...
And Spice Sim's are way too optimistic regarding semi-conductor performance, because often the models are not even as they could be in Spice (usually Gummel-Poon which has huge holes in it anyway).
I agree, current mirrors and current sources that use feedback (ring of 2 anyone) need to be "faster" than the main circuit. Of course, they usually are not.
Ciao T
On Semi is Sanyo now? Boy, these acquisitions are going fast and furious.
I still remember when Texas Instruments, Burr Brown and National Semiconductors where three companies... And with the recent Nat Semi acquisition I expect another long list of nice and useful parts to be nixed.
True, but there is nothing that you cannot fix in each individual stage...
And Spice Sim's are way too optimistic regarding semi-conductor performance, because often the models are not even as they could be in Spice (usually Gummel-Poon which has huge holes in it anyway).
I agree, current mirrors and current sources that use feedback (ring of 2 anyone) need to be "faster" than the main circuit. Of course, they usually are not.
Ciao T
Hang on there, T.
Texas bought out Burr-Brown, which then became "The Tucson operation". That was some years ago.
What's this with National? Who bought whom out?
That Sanyo should buy out Motorola will happen when you buy an icecream in Hell. Motorola is neck deep in collaboration with the Pentagon, and nobody sells their strategically important companies.
True, these buyouts and/or mergers do happen, like when Philips' parts manufacturing arm of old, BC Components, was sold off to Vishay, but Philips then opened up a new parts manufacturing chapter. It's too lucrative a business to just give it up.
Hi,
And so it should. Even better if you throw extensive cascoding in as well, using the same "opposite sex - different tribe" combo's (that is a FET of one polarity with a BJT of the opposite polarity).
The Perraux is a straightforward Hitatchi circuit without extra drivers and a driving a lot of Mosfets directly of the VAS (this causes what I call "Mosfet Mist"), goldmund I like better, J-Fet inputs and Drivers for the FET's fix 90% of the problems with the Hitachi topology.
Look at the old NAD 3020 Phono Stage input stage, that is a rush cascode...
Rush (not Limbaugh) was the Naim of the Englishman who published it (or at least got his name stuck to it), cascode IMNSHO is a misnomer actually.
In our case, take a 2SK246, connect the input signal to it's gate.
Connect +30V to the Drain.
Connect the source to the emitter of a PNP Transistor and the PNP transistors Base to ground.
Output from PNP Collector. Stage is non-inverting.
Attached a little "qd-concept" which I call "Bumrush"...
Ciao T
Now, combining FET and bipolar, that will produce some headaches.
And so it should. Even better if you throw extensive cascoding in as well, using the same "opposite sex - different tribe" combo's (that is a FET of one polarity with a BJT of the opposite polarity).
The Perraux is a straightforward Hitatchi circuit without extra drivers and a driving a lot of Mosfets directly of the VAS (this causes what I call "Mosfet Mist"), goldmund I like better, J-Fet inputs and Drivers for the FET's fix 90% of the problems with the Hitachi topology.
Look at the old NAD 3020 Phono Stage input stage, that is a rush cascode...
Rush (not Limbaugh) was the Naim of the Englishman who published it (or at least got his name stuck to it), cascode IMNSHO is a misnomer actually.
In our case, take a 2SK246, connect the input signal to it's gate.
Connect +30V to the Drain.
Connect the source to the emitter of a PNP Transistor and the PNP transistors Base to ground.
Output from PNP Collector. Stage is non-inverting.
Attached a little "qd-concept" which I call "Bumrush"...
Ciao T
Attachments
In Britain we sell our strategically important companies all the time. Most of our utilities are owned by French and German nationalised industries. Many of our defence companies are owned by Americans (e.g. Qinetiq). We are about to allow a major inroad intio telecomms by a Chinese state-owned company - in future this should make state-sponsored hacking much easier.
And it is scary, if to remember how we learned Marx: last stage of Capitalism, when competition ceases, and trans-national corporations get monopoly on everything...
T, I finally found some Citation XX schematics and they DO look like the original design that Matti brought over in 1978. That circuit was the sort of 'video amp topology' that I noted. IF Matti kept to that topology, then I owe him an apology. Yet, I still remember seeing a schematic with comp differential jfets from HK. That is still a mystery.
That topology, dual JFETs cascoded by bipolars, lived on HK designs. Model HK 2400 power amp was made along those lines, as was the 6900 intgrated.
However, current models typically have just a single, simple differential pair at the input, but they have considerably improved on the number of output transistor pairs, up from 2 or 3 in biggest models to all of 6 now in Signature 1.5 model.
John,
The XX Power uses this "freaky" circuit.
The "smaller" range (XI and also the XXP Pre) used those symmetrical differential cascoded Fets. Supposedly these where completely designed by Silver in Japan, not's that I'd know for sure...
Ciao T
The XX Power uses this "freaky" circuit.
The "smaller" range (XI and also the XXP Pre) used those symmetrical differential cascoded Fets. Supposedly these where completely designed by Silver in Japan, not's that I'd know for sure...
Ciao T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.