|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Rules | Articles | Store | Gallery | Blogs | Register | Donations | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Search |
| Vendor's Bazaar Commercial Vendors large & small hawking their wares |
|
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 |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1941 | |||
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BE/NL/RW/ZA
|
Quote:
Based on what I know about IC processing, getting round the non-linear capacitance from the inputs to the rails would require an SOI process. For an op amp manufacturer this is not enough reason to do so. This is pretty much the only serious drawback I can name for IC op amps. This issue causes exactly no problem at all when you balance the impedances at both op amp inputs. Unfortunately there's just no way you can do this in a follower stage because the impedance at the inverting input is fixed (the feedback network) and at the noninverting input it's whatever the source throws at it. The closest you can get to having no problem is by keeping both impedances low. Now, if there's one thing you can't count on when selling amplifiers into the consumer audiophile market it's the output impedance of the preamplifier. Just think about passive controllers. Under those circumstances having a discrete input stage definitely helps. The NC400 is intended as a no holds barred design so discrete is what it became. Now, adding cascoded emitter followers in front of an ordinary IC op amp equally does the trick but once you've done that you've already built half an op amp. That and the fact that you don't add the input noise of the IC. Quote:
Quote:
The snippet you're referring to is a heavily condensed version of my answer to the question who I thought was equally working to push the bounds of audio performance and theoretical insight in class D. In that case indeed Lars, Sören and the rest of the TI crew come to mind. I think what they're doing in silicon terms is pretty trailblazing. The guys who did the original Mueta design are also still actively researching modulation theory but not doing any practical audio work (on account of being too busy making rather amazing sensorless motor drives). M&H's interpretation sounds a bit crass but I can't help noticing a certain paucity in the number of published class D measurements approaching those of Ncore. That could either mean nobody's doing it or there's suddenly going to be an Ncore killer from a hitherto unknown designer. The former makes people uneasy because it's simply not on to say (or even think) you're ahead of the game, the latter makes me uneasy because I have no idea what or who I'm racing against. But the least you can say is that I'm not doing too badly. Of course there is the occasional outburst from those who advance philosophical arguments to excuse less than stellar results ("it's more digital!" "measured results matter only until they're as good as mine", "the stuff you hear is something different altogether" etc) but I don't think it would be pretentious to suggest that they're in an entirely different game.
__________________
There's a time for everything, and this is not it. Last edited by Bruno Putzeys; 8th February 2012 at 02:25 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
#1942 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
|
Bruno,
I have a pair of nCore 400's arriving tomorrow. Looking forward to auditioning them. Question. And please just direct me if this has already been addressed elsewhere in this or another thread. For those with digital sources the nCore requires an upstream DAC and PRE (unless a digital attenuator is used). Do you believe it is feasible to design a commercially viable integrated device which could substantially improve sound quality of a DAC/PRE/nCore signal chain? This device would input a PCM signal via USB or SPDIF which would then be converted to Pulse Width Modulation, reclocked via a high quality clock, amplified in the digital domain, reclocked again, and then demodulated at the output of the amplifier to drive a speaker directly using some form of volume control (e.g. a voltage controlled attenuator that resides outside the signal path)? Supposedly, Core Audio Technology in California is offering a product like this under the name Kratos. Currently it only outputs 20wpc so it is rather limited to high efficiency speakers. Thanks for your perspective on this. |
|
|
|
|
#1943 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BE/NL/RW/ZA
|
It's been discussed earlier in the thread (I'm sure someone will post a link). In short, you're at the mercy of the switching speed of the FETs, the quality of the power supply and the load-dependent frequency response of the output filter when you do such a thing. Not a good idea.
__________________
There's a time for everything, and this is not it. |
|
|
|
|
#1944 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
|
Did any manufactures display models at the recent CES show?
__________________
Kevin |
|
|
|
|
#1945 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BE/NL/RW/ZA
|
Yes.
__________________
There's a time for everything, and this is not it. |
|
|
|
|
#1946 |
|
diyAudio Member
|
__________________
"This site gives off very confusing signals, one minute highly technical discussions that leave the truly interested learners wallowing in their own stupidity and the next finds it endlessly repeating old wives tales and cockeyed theories as fact." |
|
|
|
|
#1947 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
|
Theta Prometheus....................................6000 dollars for one mono amplifier featuring ncore....and linear power supplies....
Gallery: Audio Electronics at CES 2012 | Sound and Vision Magazine Last edited by pieter t; 8th February 2012 at 07:54 PM. |
|
|
|
|
#1948 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: -
|
Quote:
Cheers, Jan-Peter |
|
|
|
|
|
#1949 |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
|
For that price it had to be big'n heavy, so no SMPS.....
|
|
|
|
|
#1950 | |
|
diyAudio Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: No. Utah
|
Quote:
Your comment reminds of the one of Zaph Audio's better DIY monitor designs...searched forever and could hardly find a couple sentences of feedback.
__________________
Jimbo "Television is the poor man's whiskey." Russel Baker |
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (3 members and 1 guests) | |
| leedle, tony399, jeno |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Hypex problem, who can help | Hansms | Class D | 8 | 10th March 2011 08:18 PM |
| Hypex | steveww | Class D | 14 | 18th November 2010 01:44 PM |
| Question for those who have tried hypex smps with hypex modules | avian | Class D | 12 | 3rd March 2009 09:30 AM |
| Hypex UcD 180AD + signal wires, Power Supply ST, Hypex Transformer TR100A | c10h12n2 | Swap Meet | 7 | 7th July 2007 03:55 PM |
| FS: Hypex UcD 400/180AD, hypex toroid | Archmage | Swap Meet | 4 | 14th November 2006 04:23 AM |
| New To Site? | Need Help? |
| Page generated in 0.15554 seconds (47.89% PHP - 52.11% MySQL) with 11 queries |