KYW's linestage (split from RIAA for life time) - Page 2 - 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 21st March 2004, 03:52 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Morton, Illinois
Default Wow.

Too bad you have to resort to such negative tatics. But the important thing is that the truth is being exposed.

First off, he Again refuses answer the question of education. Not surprising since, as we shall see below, he only has a couple of years experience with tubes and the design he presented shows it. Let's take a look.

<"If we combine the 82.6k and the 100pF we get a timeconstant of 8.26uS or a -3db point of 159115/8.26=20KHz.">

Actually 17.5k, using the electronics computer program, and the
-1db point is only around 8.7k (we will use your own figures), Very poor open loop response indeed. Similar to open loop SS designs with feedback, esp in the old days.

The only reason the open loop FR is even this good is because of his feedback scheme and the need for the 220k in the circuit. Of course Thorsten needs to increase the open loop FR response. Very messy circuit indeed. Remember how delicate music is and how easy it is to upset things sonically.

You finally got around to mentioning the 16db of negative feedback to try to bring up the response and lower the output Z. Real brilliant design there. But there are more problems indeed using this design. Can you figure them out?

By the way, my design has an Open loop FR of over 100khz (pot midpoint) with 100pf/100k load, extremely low distortion, and output Z pretty low. All without 16db of feedback to screw the sound up!

<"This concludes the current EE101 lesson for those who wanted to know and those who obviously slept through EE101. We thank you for your attention and suggest that everyone her or himself evaluate designs themselves, using sensible methodes instead of listening to people who obviously lack basic analytic skills (or deliberatly distort the truth - I leave it to the audience to decide which takes place).">


Not a smart comment Thorsten. You already got caught in the last string trying to hide the perks/compensation you receive under the table (I had to ask you twice before you would spill the truth, or partial truth, remember; while I volunteered mine). You also distorted my positions too. And now the comment above. I have always found that deception and unethical behaviour doesn't lead to being trusted?

By the way, you only mentioned the basics, including the 16db of feedback. Now explain the rest of the problems with the circuit and the feedback.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2004, 03:53 PM   #12
Vortex is offline Vortex  Hungary
diyAudio Member
 
Vortex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Debrecen, Hungary
Send a message via ICQ to Vortex Send a message via MSN to Vortex
Corbato,

have you seen THIS site?
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2004, 05:24 PM   #13
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Default Re: Wow.

Konnichiwa,

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
<"If we combine the 82.6k and the 100pF we get a timeconstant of 8.26uS or a -3db point of 159115/8.26=20KHz.">

Actually 17.5k, using the electronics computer program,
A computer program that arrives at 17500 when dividing 159115/8.26 seems rather inacurate.

And if you mean to say that your program arrives at a different analisys, you should be able to point out the ommisions in my calculations (which where done primarily for breviy and clarity), that assuming of course that you actually understand what is going on, which based on your comments so far I am forced to seriously doubt.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
You finally got around to mentioning the 16db of negative feedback to try to bring up the response and lower the output Z.
Well, number one, the use of Feedback is an inherent design feature. Negative feedback is a design tool, just like any other. It needs to be understood to be used correctly. Only those who fail to understand it take refuge to comments of "feedback is bad" as an absolute.

In my case negative feedback is the primary tool to achieve low gain while using an active stage and avoiding followers. The frequency response and low output impedance are the redsult of doing things that way. One could have used an output transformer to achieve low gain, low output impedance and wide bandwidth, the original request was not to use Transformers, so non are used.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
Real brilliant design there.
Thank you for your compliment.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
But there are more problems indeed using this design. Can you figure them out?
There are no PROBLEMS if the circuit is implemented as suggested and operated within it's design parameter limits. We may argue about the way this circuit sounds or not, which would require after all experience with the circuit and it's sonics, which you seem to still lack.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
By the way, my design has an Open loop FR of over 100khz (pot midpoint) with 100pf/100k load, extremely low distortion, and output Z pretty low.
A design, for which you make any number of claims which cannot be verified (unlike the ones for mine) as you fail to share it. I will simply put these parameters down to your usual baseless claims as we have seen in past discussions.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
All without 16db of feedback to screw the sound up!
If the use of negative feedback "screws up the sound" the implementation of negative feedback was incompetently done. So you may wish to re-evaluate your views on negative feedback as a design tool.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
I have always found that deception and unethical behaviour doesn't lead to being trusted?
I would consider making deliberatly misleading statements (eg claiming a circuit that has illustrably a frequency response of -1db @ > 40KHz has one of 1db @ 6KHz) both unethical and deceptive.

Of course, it seems you call that behaviour ethical and truthfull. I must insist that this is where we part company.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
Now explain the rest of the problems with the circuit and the feedback.
How about you do so, making sure your math is actually up to scratch and your computer program can at least divide correctly and you math is based on reality not wishful thinking.

Sayonara
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2004, 01:48 AM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Morton, Illinois
Default Wow.

<"quote:
Originally posted by Positron
<"If we combine the 82.6k and the 100pF we get a timeconstant of 8.26uS or a -3db point of 159115/8.26=20KHz.">

Actually 17.5k, using the electronics computer program,

A computer program that arrives at 17500 when dividing 159115/8.26 seems rather inacurate.

And if you mean to say that your program arrives at a different analisys, you should be able to point out the ommisions in my calculations (which where done primarily for breviy and clarity), that assuming of course that you actually understand what is going on, which based on your comments so far I am forced to seriously doubt.">

Your figure is only approx. I actually measured them, but of course measured stray capacitance too, which we both didn't include when starting. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. The open loop response is still -1db at 10khz and -0,5db at approx 5khz. Still very poor.

<"Well, number one, the use of Feedback is an inherent design feature. Negative feedback is a design tool, just like any other. It needs to be understood to be used correctly. Only those who fail to understand it take refuge to comments of "feedback is bad" as an absolute.

In my case negative feedback is the primary tool to achieve low gain while using an active stage and avoiding followers. The frequency response and low output impedance are the redsult of doing things that way. One could have used an output transformer to achieve low gain, low output impedance and wide bandwidth, the original request was not to use Transformers, so non are used.">

Well, give me a wrong way to use the feedback in a single stage preamp. It isn't hard to do correctly, or at least as best as is possible.

<"There are no PROBLEMS if the circuit is implemented as suggested and operated within it's design parameter limits. We may argue about the way this circuit sounds or not, which would require after all experience with the circuit and it's sonics, which you seem to still lack.">

Well, that sounds suspicious to me. You don't know of any more problems?
And I built the circuit decades ago, so another inaccurate claim. The circuit is only ordinary at best.

<"Originally posted by Positron
By the way, my design has an Open loop FR of over 100khz (pot midpoint) with 100pf/100k load, extremely low distortion, and output Z pretty low.


A design, for which you make any number of claims which cannot be verified (unlike the ones for mine) as you fail to share it. I will simply put these parameters down to your usual baseless claims as we have seen in past discussions">

Actual measurements Thorsten. I am certainly not going to give you a schematic to copy and waste decades of private research.
By the way, I just recently got the latest review from BFS, who accepts no kickbacks or advertising, on my preamp. What reviews do you have on yours??

<"Originally posted by Positron
All without 16db of feedback to screw the sound up!

If the use of negative feedback "screws up the sound" the implementation of negative feedback was incompetently done. So you may wish to re-evaluate your views on negative feedback as a design tool.">

So tell me how to do it wrong?? What you have done is very elementary, my dear watson.

<"Originally posted by Positron
I have always found that deception and unethical behaviour doesn't lead to being trusted?


I would consider making deliberatly misleading statements (eg claiming a circuit that has illustrably a frequency response of -1db @ > 40KHz has one of 1db @ 6KHz) both unethical and deceptive.

Of course, it seems you call that behaviour ethical and truthfull. I must insist that this is where we part company. ">

Interesting since you were the one who refused to devulge your unethical behaviour until I asked twice.

I probably could have brought up the point directly, that the open loop response was very poor. But I wanted to find out if you actually understood the circuit, and for you to mention this problem. If I mentioned it upfront, you could have easily slid by. Frankly, I didn't think you even understood the basics. You do show some knowledge of design though, I will give you credit for that.

<"Originally posted by Positron
Now explain the rest of the problems with the circuit and the feedback.

How about you do so, making sure your math is actually up to scratch and your computer program can at least divide correctly and you math is based on reality not wishful thinking.">

Remember I am finding out what you know; as you claim, from your above post, to be teaching me.
I wouldn't have graduated No. 1 in my class if I didn't know my stuff. I am not going to give you a free education. It took me alot of work and time.

If you wish to exit this conversation, go ahead. No problem.

ps. Go fighting Illini
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2004, 10:25 AM   #15
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Default Re: Wow.

Konnichiwa,

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
Your figure is only approx.
Do not distract from the issue.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
I actually measured them, but of course measured stray capacitance too, which we both didn't include when starting. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. The open loop response is still -1db at 10khz and -0,5db at approx 5khz. Still very poor.
You measured them. Right. May I ask when you build the circuit? And could you then illustrate the change in response with volume control settings you calimed earlier? Any comments on the sound?

On another line, would you mind illustrating in what sense an open loop response of -3db @ 20KHz in a looped feedback Amp (single stage) is "poor". It is more than adequate for the purpose. The open loop response is a direct result of a number of design choices.

It would be easy to change the open loop response to a much wider one by lowering the impedance values in the feedback setting circuitry and by using a lower resistance volume control. If we (for arguments sake) lower all values by a factor 10 we can easly achive a ridiculously wide bandwidth, which has no advantage whatsoever (sonically or other) and introduces a number of other problems.

It is my experience that a well implemented and sensibly set bandpass behaviour is preferable in linestages, arguably a sentiment open to discussion, however I usually follow my own design requirements when designing something.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
Well, give me a wrong way to use the feedback in a single stage preamp. It isn't hard to do correctly, or at least as best as is possible.
Is the above your opinion or are you stating a fact? If you are stating a fact, would you mind illustrating WHY applying loop feedback to achieve low gain and to take advantage of the stages excess gain to improve linearity and lower the outputimpedance is "a wrong way to use feedback"? Maybe you would like suggest the "right" way to use feedback?

At any extent, you may notice that we are now outside the realm of factual performance (unless you can illustrate that the laws of physics have recently gone on annual leave) and in the realm of design preferences and how they relate to sonical performance.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
And I built the circuit decades ago, so another inaccurate claim. The circuit is only ordinary at best.
You build a Circuit I published here a few days ago DECADES AGO, with identical resistor, cpacitor and other values? Interresting feat. I now would also ask for plans to your time machine, I could use one.

I will readily admit that similar circuits have been around for ages and some of the best sounding commercial preamps of the last two decades used variations thereoff. So it surely cannot be THAT BAD....

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
<A design, for which you make any number of claims which cannot be verified (unlike the ones for mine) as you fail to share it. I will simply put these parameters down to your usual baseless claims as we have seen in past discussions">

Actual measurements Thorsten. I am certainly not going to give you a schematic to copy and waste decades of private research.
By the way, I just recently got the latest review from BFS, who accepts no kickbacks or advertising, on my preamp. What reviews do you have on yours??
Well, first, are your actual measurement independently verified?

Secondly, the design I presented is strictly DIY, not commercial> A design based around my ideas and parts mostly designed by me is the MF Audio Passive Preamp, the Bent Audio Noh and the DIY Hifisupply Django, plus there are other Preamps using the same core (S&B TX-102) in both the DIY and commercial domain.

Many reviews by many individual exist and they tend to agree in the largest part that the S&B TX-102 based passives outperform ANY active preamp these individuals have tried and also most/all passive linestages from other sources. That is good enough for me.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
So tell me how to do it wrong?? What you have done is very elementary, my dear watson.
First, I never claimed that what I did was NOT elementary. As to "How to do it wrong"? For starters loop feedback around several stages and in circuits where there is more than one dominant pole and have an open loop response (-3db) that is substantially narrower than the desired signal bandwidth. But you should know that, if you are 1/10th as good as you claim to be.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
<"Originally posted by Positron
I have always found that deception and unethical behaviour doesn't lead to being trusted?


I would consider making deliberatly misleading statements (eg claiming a circuit that has illustrably a frequency response of -1db @ > 40KHz has one of 1db @ 6KHz) both unethical and deceptive.

Of course, it seems you call that behaviour ethical and truthfull. I must insist that this is where we part company. ">

Interesting since you were the one who refused to devulge your unethical behaviour until I asked twice.
WHAT unethical behaviour? Giving free advise when asked for it? Providing my designs for all to use who would like to do so? Pointing out the mistakes in basic electronic theory application you make when leveling irrational criticism at designs I suggest?

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
I probably could have brought up the point directly, that the open loop response was very poor.
Correction. The open loop response is poor in your considered opinion, whereas in my case I consider it adequate and a good compromise between a number of conflicting design requirements. We can argue endlessly about what is the better compromise, the choice is in the ear of the beholder.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
But I wanted to find out if you actually understood the circuit, and for you to mention this problem.
Nice excuse for incompetence. It would ring truer if you had less of a history of completly ballsing up on basic electronics. I took the time yesterday to review a decent number of posts by you. I rarely seen as many mistakes in basic things from anyone having at least basic competence in electronics. I had more than a few good laughs on your account.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
If I mentioned it upfront, you could have easily slid by. Frankly, I didn't think you even understood the basics. You do show some knowledge of design though, I will give you credit for that.
I'm honoured.

But truth is, what is the point if an illiterate peasant pays backhanded compliments to Newton?

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
<"Originally posted by Positron
Now explain the rest of the problems with the circuit and the feedback.

How about you do so, making sure your math is actually up to scratch and your computer program can at least divide correctly and you math is based on reality not wishful thinking.">

Remember I am finding out what you know;
I notice. But don't expect much else from here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Positron
I wouldn't have graduated No. 1 in my class if I didn't know my stuff. I am not going to give you a free education. It took me alot of work and time.
Well, it seems that you spend a lot of time and work to fail to know even the basics of electronics. I shall take in the next few days take the time to illustrate this a bit further (I'm actually going to enjoy that) and collect your various psotings of great wisdom over the last few month which demonstrably show an appaling lack of being able to apply basic logic and evaluating basic electronic circuits. And not forget the public (re) posting of some of the olded urban legends in the book, that was priceless.

Sayonara
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2004, 11:23 AM   #16
EC8010 is offline EC8010  United Kingdom
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
EC8010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Near London. UK
Gentlemen, would it be possible for one or both of you to post diagrams of what you are discussing? Otherwise, entertaining though it may be, your exchanges are beginning to resemble a pantomime ("Yes, I did" - "No, you didn't").

With the aid of diagrams, a spirited design discussion would be most useful for less experienced members...
__________________
The loudspeaker: The only commercial Hi-Fi item where a disproportionate part of the budget isn't spent on the box. And the one where it would make a difference...
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2004, 11:59 AM   #17
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Konnichiwa,

Quote:
Originally posted by EC8010
Gentlemen, would it be possible for one or both of you to post diagrams of what you are discussing?
I have posted what I am discussing within this thread, at this post:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...015#post353015

As you are aware from the discussion the other guy (I refuse to use "Gentleman" in the context) has repeatedly refused to share anything, whatsoever, prefering sniping from the sides at those more willing to share (and possibly more able than he is?) to actually contributing anything useful.

Quote:
Originally posted by EC8010
Otherwise, entertaining though it may be, your exchanges are beginning to resemble a pantomime ("Yes, I did" - "No, you didn't").
I am sorry, but if someone posts utter nonsense IN CRITIQUE to contributions by me I am unwilling to let this go. I don't much care in other contexts.

Quote:
Originally posted by EC8010
With the aid of diagrams, a spirited design discussion would be most useful for less experienced members...
As pointed out above, the aid of such diagrams is indeed provided, at least for my side of the argument.

Sayonara
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2004, 12:30 PM   #18
EC8010 is offline EC8010  United Kingdom
diyAudio Moderator Emeritus
 
EC8010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Near London. UK
My mistake; I failed to spot Kuei Yang Wang's diagram back in Post #8.
__________________
The loudspeaker: The only commercial Hi-Fi item where a disproportionate part of the budget isn't spent on the box. And the one where it would make a difference...
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2004, 12:36 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
Peter Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Send a message via AIM to Peter Daniel
Although the RIAA and Linestage might not, this disusion has good chances to be for life time
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd March 2004, 01:17 PM   #20
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Konnichiwa,

Quote:
Originally posted by Peter Daniel
Although the RIAA and Linestage might not, this disusion has good chances to be for life time
One rather hopes not. I for one am well sick and tired of this whole thing (and very irritable anyway as it's financial year end where I work). I got better things to do. Where the technical side is concerned I have made any possible point (and scored them all and easily) as for ethics and morals, i leave that to gentlemanly reader to decide.

I think however I will not want to miss putting together my little "positronic non-sense" post (as compensation), but that will go into a seperate thread.... ;-)

Sayonara
  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
6N6P-I life-time inertial Tubes / Valves 13 12th December 2008 09:01 AM
capacitor life time: what does it really mean? jarthel Parts 5 18th July 2006 05:59 AM
RIAA and Linestage for life time corbato Tubes / Valves 26 20th March 2004 02:40 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:54 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