look the starting phase
http://www.audiodesignguide.com/Phono/pre-PhonoEnd.html
mod note: off-topic side thread split off to here http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138868
http://www.audiodesignguide.com/Phono/pre-PhonoEnd.html
mod note: off-topic side thread split off to here http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138868
For Hi-End lacked some details ...)
Do not take the starting point of Audio Note(PQ), they have good business and advertising. But until now they sound very far away.
The main thing for you.
1. The concentrated correction - not for MC/hiend... )
2. For applied by you of the correction network (not the type, value) are not present sense to use IT.
3. Sanyo OS-C it is capacitors for digital audio.
4. To use two equal tubes one after another - the bad solution for a good sound.
I have question for you, please. If you do not make it more difficult.
Your tubes C3g were no blue paper strip?
BW, VU
Do not take the starting point of Audio Note(PQ), they have good business and advertising. But until now they sound very far away.
The main thing for you.
1. The concentrated correction - not for MC/hiend... )
2. For applied by you of the correction network (not the type, value) are not present sense to use IT.
3. Sanyo OS-C it is capacitors for digital audio.
4. To use two equal tubes one after another - the bad solution for a good sound.
I have question for you, please. If you do not make it more difficult.
Your tubes C3g were no blue paper strip?
BW, VU
Again I hear more "noise" in this thread than my first attempt at a tube amp.
"Can't we all just get along?" LOL
I am still learning but a FEW things I have learned the following:
1) Phono is probably where we need the MOST gain, so reducing gain with unbypassed cathode R's will neccesitate adding more gain somewhere else. If we need a significant amount more gain then another stage is needed. Another stage increases the number of components in the signal path.
So question?
More gain at the expense of "minute" influences on signal integrity worth more than another stage have additional influences?
"Can't we all just get along?" LOL
I am still learning but a FEW things I have learned the following:
1) Phono is probably where we need the MOST gain, so reducing gain with unbypassed cathode R's will neccesitate adding more gain somewhere else. If we need a significant amount more gain then another stage is needed. Another stage increases the number of components in the signal path.
So question?
More gain at the expense of "minute" influences on signal integrity worth more than another stage have additional influences?
I don't have a huge problem with (high-quality) transformers when used properly. Lundahl makes some nice iron (as do others).... albeit the "nude packaging" makes it prone to stray field pickup. I too would suspect that the 50Hz signal is the result of the open breadboard layout and proximity of the all of the iron. I'd like to see how the preamp shapes up once it's in a proper chassis... I would suspect the 50Hz signal "should" be substantially reduced... or better yet, disappear.
For a high-end definitive design, I would also be leaning towards a passive LCR RIAA EQ similar to the old Tango unit as it would more accurately reflect how the pre-emphasis was done for recording. I'm also not a huge fan of electrolytic caps... naming a capacitor as an "audio grade electrolytic" seems an oxymoron. These are the choice of the designer however.
Beyond that, red lines or not... there's something very 80's about a dozen 6DJ8s wrapped with FETs and current sources... an overly complicated solution looking for a problem that was more marketing related than anything else, but then again... to each their own. Everyone has their own view in the DIY world... if they didn't everyone would be buying the same mass-produced junk and nobody would care. Still... not the best reason/intentions for everyone looking to pi** in everyone else's cornflakes just because they don't agree.
Regards, KM
For a high-end definitive design, I would also be leaning towards a passive LCR RIAA EQ similar to the old Tango unit as it would more accurately reflect how the pre-emphasis was done for recording. I'm also not a huge fan of electrolytic caps... naming a capacitor as an "audio grade electrolytic" seems an oxymoron. These are the choice of the designer however.
Beyond that, red lines or not... there's something very 80's about a dozen 6DJ8s wrapped with FETs and current sources... an overly complicated solution looking for a problem that was more marketing related than anything else, but then again... to each their own. Everyone has their own view in the DIY world... if they didn't everyone would be buying the same mass-produced junk and nobody would care. Still... not the best reason/intentions for everyone looking to pi** in everyone else's cornflakes just because they don't agree.
Regards, KM
Hi Tom,
I'm guessing your Raphael Othophonic VII uses 6DJ8s with FETs and current sources (have no idea actually). Mainly my post was an example, as there was an obvious bias for and against some participants and their views. I did some designs back in the 80's with these topologies... and many sounded very good. After years of listening, I've opted only to use a proper current source reference (not the cheap implementations I see nowadays) with a long-tail phase inverter.
However... I never warmed up to the sound of any 6DJ8... I've given dozens of them away over the years... many were highly sought-after Amperex Bugle Boys, JAN spec ECG-Philips, etc., but to me, they never sounded right in any circuit.
But again... the point being that everyone has their favorite circuit, implementation or whatever... and if you're happy with the performance they deliver in your system, then that is what counts. I simply don't consider overly complex hybrid designs as true vacuum-tube designs. I think Einstein had a valid point.. "everything should be kept as simple as possible, but not simpler", while not exactly a direct quote, the point is clear.
Regards, KM
PS - to say you won't be able to top it with a DIY design seems self-defeating. As Yoda said... "try harder". All with good intentions.
I'm guessing your Raphael Othophonic VII uses 6DJ8s with FETs and current sources (have no idea actually). Mainly my post was an example, as there was an obvious bias for and against some participants and their views. I did some designs back in the 80's with these topologies... and many sounded very good. After years of listening, I've opted only to use a proper current source reference (not the cheap implementations I see nowadays) with a long-tail phase inverter.
However... I never warmed up to the sound of any 6DJ8... I've given dozens of them away over the years... many were highly sought-after Amperex Bugle Boys, JAN spec ECG-Philips, etc., but to me, they never sounded right in any circuit.
But again... the point being that everyone has their favorite circuit, implementation or whatever... and if you're happy with the performance they deliver in your system, then that is what counts. I simply don't consider overly complex hybrid designs as true vacuum-tube designs. I think Einstein had a valid point.. "everything should be kept as simple as possible, but not simpler", while not exactly a direct quote, the point is clear.
Regards, KM
PS - to say you won't be able to top it with a DIY design seems self-defeating. As Yoda said... "try harder". All with good intentions.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.