Tube Theory - Page 3 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Tubes / Valves

Tubes / Valves All about our sweet vacuum tubes :) Threads about Musical Instrument Amps of all kinds should be in the Instruments & Amps forum

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 7th April 2003, 02:49 PM   #21
diyAudio Senior Member
 
fdegrove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belgium
Default UH?

Hi,

Joel?

Quote:
Brett is siding with the Frank D. philosophy of DIY which is that any circuit that can be used in multiple applications is "bad".
Never said that either.

I just don't use single sample circuits as building blocks, that's all.

Cheers,
__________________
Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2003, 03:00 PM   #22
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: North Herts, UK
Default ...a rose by any other name...

I suspect one of the 'failings' of CF is that they are not transparent i.e. one can always hear their insertion...but then no circuit (or component) is...

So it's an unfair 'rap'

The insertion of any single stage circuit is audiable...some slightly some a lot... Are CFs worse than other single stages? Depends on the application - sometimes they make it worse - some times they make it better... Horses for courses - again...

BTW I almost never use them (or in ss emitter followers)... I think better solutions are available...but that's just me...

ciao

James
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2003, 03:15 PM   #23
Joel is offline Joel  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Joel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Quote:
Originally posted by Brett
...There are classic designs out there that are well regarded amongst some people using CF's. In a commercial design, there is a requirement to be able to drive a wide range of poweramps, so some designers choose them. We are not so restricted in diy to the came commercial considerations.
Did you not say that?
I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your comments, but it sure sounds to me like you are saying that designing for a "wide range" of possible loads is a restrictive, "commercial" requirement.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2003, 04:56 PM   #24
diyAudio Member
 
Brett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Joel
I'm sorry if I mischaracterized your comments,
You quoted me correctly in the above post, but misrepresented my statements in your earlier post.

You said <i>Brett is siding with the Frank D. philosophy of DIY which is that any circuit that can be used in multiple applications is "bad". </i> I have never said that, simply that were are able to optimise for what we are using as diyers.
Note your applied spin by the use of the words "any" and "bad".

If all my poweramps have a > 100k input Z, and my pre sufficiently low output Z, gain and drive, why design for 5k, by adding another stage with a CF, which <i>generally</i> I consider to be inferior sounding?

Then you said, <i>A "good" circuit is specialized to a single application.</i>. I didn't say that, again it's only your spin. Do you put taxi tyres on a Lambo because they're more universally applicable, and you never know, someone might want to use it as a taxi?
If you optimise something for it's desired function, then it stands a <u>greater chance</u> of being the best for that function.

Earlier I said
<i>We are not so restricted in diy to the same commercial considerations.</i>
Are you challenging that, or do you think it would be possible for ARC for example to go into production today with your 71a poweramp? Where would they source sufficient numbers of tubes? Apart from having them manufactured, not a simple or cheap proposition, then due to commercial considerations, it's not practical, whereas for a diyer it is to build a stereo amp and amass enough spares for many years of service.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2003, 05:37 PM   #25
Joel is offline Joel  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Joel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Well, you've gone off on a bit of a tangent there. But, regarding cathode followers - somebody said earlier, and I agree, that you could very well make the same arguments against any other topology.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2003, 06:21 PM   #26
diyAudio Member
 
Brett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Quote:
Originally posted by Joel
Well, you've gone off on a bit of a tangent there.
Nope, stayed on point. <i>You</i> stretched my comments beyond what I said, and all I've done is correct and clarify.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LC vs. CLC Theory Bryan Tubes / Valves 5 4th November 2005 09:33 PM
looking - theory rathek Multi-Way 1 22nd April 2005 03:58 PM
Zen theory!!! Anorgan Pass Labs 3 12th September 2003 01:53 AM
DSP theory hifiZen Digital Source 7 6th November 2001 06:18 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:17 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2