So, you can easily do that. Right?
I envy you!
I can do it if I really want. But it won't be a hobby after that. So far my goal is get to 95% of it at 1/10th of cost. That is what hobby is about. If I help someone on the way, it would be an additional benefit and source of satisfactions too.
I want. But when I am in recording studio I hear studio monitors. Every time, in different studios. Including such nice monitors as Barefoot.
From other hand, at home I don't have such studio monitors that were used during mastring sessions. But sometims I close my eyes and hear sounds as real, forgetting about speakers and amplifiers...
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I want. But when I am in recording studio I hear studio monitors. Every time, in different studios. Including such nice monitors as Barefoot.
From other hand, at home I don't have such studio monitors that were used during mastring sessions. But sometims I close my eyes and hear sounds as real, forgetting about speakers and amplifiers...
According to this Barefoot Sound | Vintageking.com you can get a nice 5.1 setup for around $20K. This not out of reach for many people - compare it with price of Honda Accord or other "affordable" car.
Hi Bigun
I appreciate very much your feedback, tomorrow I will read the article you mention, I'm very tired now.
I just wanted to do a thought experiment and look what resulted.
I think my explanation did not like anyone, but I think to be right, as a phenomenological explanation seems to me well.
Best regards
Johann
I appreciate very much your feedback, tomorrow I will read the article you mention, I'm very tired now.
I just wanted to do a thought experiment and look what resulted.
I think my explanation did not like anyone, but I think to be right, as a phenomenological explanation seems to me well.
Best regards
Johann
Hi Wavebourn
Sorry for my curiosity, but if your picture is not that time, you have more than kept secrets of aspirin.
I would like to grow old that way.
Best regards
Johann
Last edited:
Popilin,
Keep after your experiment.
I searched through the DIY pages for The Valve Wizard and found this http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/118966-valve-wizard.html
Check out the Wizard for SRPP there is a calculation for the output impedance. I believe your previous estimate did not return the best number, I think that is likely somewhat lower.
That thing may work better as a driver than you give it credit.
DT
Keep after your experiment.
I searched through the DIY pages for The Valve Wizard and found this http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/118966-valve-wizard.html
Check out the Wizard for SRPP there is a calculation for the output impedance. I believe your previous estimate did not return the best number, I think that is likely somewhat lower.
That thing may work better as a driver than you give it credit.
DT
Ah, I only have a BEng in Electronic Engineering (including device physics) and an MSc in an unrelated subject.
On the other hand, even an exponential law has no 'sharp corners' in it, AFAIK...
Last edited:
Of the ECC types, the 12AU7 has the poorest linearity. See Morgan Jones's measurements in "Valve Amplifiers." The 3rd and 5th harmonic distortion were an order of magnitude worse than a 6SN7. Comparing my measurements, the ECC81 is similar to 6SN7 (not quite as good, but higher gain) and ECC83 is better yet (much higher gain and must be buffered).
Hi DualTriode
Thanks for your feedback.
The equation for the output impedance of the SRPP from The Valve Wizard is for cathode resistor bypassed, for unbypassed cathode resistor, the correct is
Zout = [Ra + Rk (u+1)]/2
It gives almost 54K for the SRPP.
Just get up and I'm asleep, sorry if I say anything more stupid than normal.
Best regards
Johann
Thanks for your feedback.
The equation for the output impedance of the SRPP from The Valve Wizard is for cathode resistor bypassed, for unbypassed cathode resistor, the correct is
Zout = [Ra + Rk (u+1)]/2
It gives almost 54K for the SRPP.
Just get up and I'm asleep, sorry if I say anything more stupid than normal.
Best regards
Johann
Hi SY
How lucky that I see you around here.
Wavebourn told me you were the one to help.
Could you give me a trick to remove the magnet wire enamel?
I'm going crazy with an OPT, and I can't with 0.2mm wire because the enamel is polyester imide resin.
And tested with aspirin, acetone, thinner, and up brake fluid !!!
Fire tends to ruin the wire, please, help me.
Best regards
Johann
How lucky that I see you around here.
Wavebourn told me you were the one to help.
Could you give me a trick to remove the magnet wire enamel?
I'm going crazy with an OPT, and I can't with 0.2mm wire because the enamel is polyester imide resin.
And tested with aspirin, acetone, thinner, and up brake fluid !!!
Fire tends to ruin the wire, please, help me.
Best regards
Johann
Hi Wavebourn
As I said, you have more than kept secrets of aspirin...
What do you suggest that I leave?
Tobacco, alcohol, women...
I congratulate you also for your paper Tubes 201 - How Vacuum Tubes Really Work.
I had seen a few times, very deep, the best I found on the web.
But, why John Harper?
Best regards
Johann
Last edited:
Ah, I only have a BEng in Electronic Engineering (including device physics) and an MSc in an unrelated subject.
On the other hand, even an exponential law has no 'sharp corners' in it, AFAIK...
Ohh, I probably forgot to mention that I graduated as well high school where learnt Algebra. Sorry. And AFAIK different curves can be described by functions of different orders. When you take smaller part of a curve you get more smooth transfer function than when you take it's longer part, and it looks more linear: higher weight of the 1'st order member than of higher order members. It works for both, function of power 2/3 ad for exponential function, but exponential curve is described by function that is sum of members of infinitely high orders. It is sharper by nature already.
Now, straightening the curve described by low order function by multiplicaion (negative feedback) you increase it's order. That means, making it more linear you make it bent sharper.
However, feedback applied to the amplifier described by exponential function does not do any harm to it: you can't increase it's order. That's why transistor amps always benefit from feedback in terms of non-linear distortions. But when you apply feedback to tube amp you increase order of it's transfer function, i.e. make it sharper.
Now let's go back to perception and think, which changes of waveshapes we got used to hear in nature and don't hear as distortions, and which of tem will be audible as something that our perception can't recognize as natural changes of sounds?
The keyword is amplify power. Amplifying power you can add distortions that are not heard as distortions, they are filtered out by our own perception. It sounds louder, but still clean. Now trying to minimize this distortions you add some other distortions that perception does not filter out, and hears as something odd. I is what happens when going for lower TD we remove distortions that don't sound as distortions, but add distorions that sound as distortions.
Do you hear e now?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.