Then never touch Class D with NFB. This is what it takes: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/501/1/final.pdf
P.S. I have spend only 10 minutes reading this work, so I don't claim understanding more than the basic plot. I don't plan spending more time on it
Then never touch Class D with NFB. This is what it takes: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/501/1/final.pdf
P.S. I have spend only 10 minutes reading this work, so I don't claim understanding more than the basic plot. I don't plan spending more time on it
It is a new can of worms advertised as a solution to all former problems.
But what it really brought, an energy saving in an output stage and better suitability for micro-miniaturization. Add here a SMPS, and you have small light cheap amp for a mass production to drive dragon tails on stadiums.
I started building one for you, but you've stopped answering e-mails as soon as I said that you have to share at least some expenses.
What do you mean?
My latest email to you was that I could send you some money and I asked you what I would get. After that I haven’t heard anything from you. If you have responded to that email, I’m sorry but I haven’t seen it. Please send the email one more time.
I’ve been aware of that the spam filter I used was a bit to clever so I have changed it.
If anybody else has sent me emails that I haven’t responded to please send them one more time, I usually answer emails.
I mean I stopped getting answers from you.
Now it is too late, the amp is being made for my own specification. I still hope to get some SiC devices, but even without them the amp will be superb.
Then never touch Class D with NFB. This is what it takes: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/501/1/final.pdf
P.S. I have spend only 10 minutes reading this work, so I don't claim understanding more than the basic plot. I don't plan spending more time on it
Syn08
You told me that you didn’t like Class D amps when I asked you if we should do a Class D amp together.
What do you think about these figures?
Ah! Too much 7th, I have to work on that.
FREQUENCY COMPONENT
1 1.000E+03 1.000E+00
2 2.000E+03 4.338E-07
3 3.000E+03 1.565E-07
4 4.000E+03 7.605E-07
5 5.000E+03 5.121E-07
6 6.000E+03 7.621E-07
7 7.000E+03 9.802E-07
8 8.000E+03 4.249E-07
Cheers
Stinius
And why the heck doesn’t show up like the way I put it in?
Last edited:
The best improvement from class D I ever experienced, was a recording amp in a tape recorder. I was going to combine a bias oscillator and an output stage, but as the result got much cleaner sound and unbelievably reduced tape noise. I was intended to use it with a pre-cleaned tape, but found that an erase head was not needed at all!
Syn08
You told me that you didn’t like Class D amps when I asked you if we should do a Class D amp together.
What do you think about these figures?
Ah! Too much 7th, I have to work on that.
FREQUENCY COMPONENT
1 1.000E+03 1.000E+00
2 2.000E+03 4.338E-07
3 3.000E+03 1.565E-07
4 4.000E+03 7.605E-07
5 5.000E+03 5.121E-07
6 6.000E+03 7.621E-07
7 7.000E+03 9.802E-07
8 8.000E+03 4.249E-07
Cheers
Stinius
And why the heck doesn’t show up like the way I put it in?
What makes you think I give a rat's *** on class D amps simulations? Build it, measure it, listen to it, then we'll talk about. Be prepared, be very prepared for some very nasty surprises. Class D is much more difficult to build than any Class A/B amp.
It's not that I don't like them, I don't need them and can't afford to build from scratch something up to my standards. Without a 4-6 layers SMD board, iterated 3-4 times, it's unlikely the results are going to be spectacular.
And for mid-fi (like the stuff affordable to build from scratch or buy as a kit), the TI power chipsets are very good, no need to go further than that. They have some limitations (including zero PSRR
) but still you can't beat them for the money.
It never ceases to amaze me, as to why people bring their most fun topic of what they are doing to this thread.
Now, taking a deep breath, I will attempt to remind everyone as to why this thread has grown so 'popular' (in a sick sort of way) and my original intentions of contributing to this thread.
It all started, years ago, when someone, long lost in time, wondered about the CTC Blowtorch's schematics, mentioning that Bob Crump (when he was still alive) hinted to some people, that we might give to audiophiles after we stopped production. I tentatively agreed, at the time, but the situation changed when Bob unexpectedly died, without finishing about 6 units that we pre-sold. This put the burden on me to finish them, myself, and this took almost 1 year, after his death.
I came to this thread to put out some immature criticisms of the CTC design that came from a number of instant critics, most of whom, are not here, anymore. I then hoped to extend the topic of this thread to cover most areas of audio circuit design and promote what seems to work to a greater audience. I was told, by close friends and associates, that this was a serious waste of time, and that I should keep my design ideas to myself, since I needed to continue consulting. At the very least, this effort was a waste of my time, that could be engaged in more productive pursuits, such as producing new designs for ultimate sale in the audio marketplace.
So much, for why I came here. Now, I had hoped for some spirited discussion, but things tended to get out of hand, and if I had a lick of common sense, i would have dumped this project, long ago. Unfortunately, I am not completely appalled by vigorous discussion, in fact I kind of get a charge out of it, as it gets me, back to the textbooks and looking up obscure technical papers, long lying fallow, waiting for such a situation. This differs from people with real jobs, who find this sort of thing just takes their time and potentially loses them money. Being semi-retired, I have the time, and this reduces the boredom.
Now, where has this gone wrong? Well, this thread has had its ups and downs, but lately I can't seem to get a word in edgewise without a group of people, who could just ignore me, instead deciding that I am 'poisoning' the audio community with 'unproven' ideas and deviating designers from the 'true path' (whatever that is), you know something like: Good op amps are virtually perfect, and if you pay a little extra, you don't have to bother building your own electronics. Or, the human ear cannot detect such subtle factors, and this can be proven in a double-blind test, therefore audiophiles are imagining that they hear differences. Or, a number of opinions in that general type.
Yet, when I talk to audio friends, designers, and people in the audio industry, we have a completely different conversation, where we compare subtle factors, often independently discovered, that there is very little 'proof' of, as to why these factors make any difference at all. Still, we hear these differences, sometimes together, sometimes independently, and we feel sorry for those who ignore these details, as they will almost invariably make a 'mid-fi' quality design, rather than an 'audio quality' design. At least, that has been our experience, thus far.
Now, where to go from here? Back to discussing the subtleties of quality preamp design, or continue the aimless diversions that just confuse the issue?
Now, taking a deep breath, I will attempt to remind everyone as to why this thread has grown so 'popular' (in a sick sort of way) and my original intentions of contributing to this thread.
It all started, years ago, when someone, long lost in time, wondered about the CTC Blowtorch's schematics, mentioning that Bob Crump (when he was still alive) hinted to some people, that we might give to audiophiles after we stopped production. I tentatively agreed, at the time, but the situation changed when Bob unexpectedly died, without finishing about 6 units that we pre-sold. This put the burden on me to finish them, myself, and this took almost 1 year, after his death.
I came to this thread to put out some immature criticisms of the CTC design that came from a number of instant critics, most of whom, are not here, anymore. I then hoped to extend the topic of this thread to cover most areas of audio circuit design and promote what seems to work to a greater audience. I was told, by close friends and associates, that this was a serious waste of time, and that I should keep my design ideas to myself, since I needed to continue consulting. At the very least, this effort was a waste of my time, that could be engaged in more productive pursuits, such as producing new designs for ultimate sale in the audio marketplace.
So much, for why I came here. Now, I had hoped for some spirited discussion, but things tended to get out of hand, and if I had a lick of common sense, i would have dumped this project, long ago. Unfortunately, I am not completely appalled by vigorous discussion, in fact I kind of get a charge out of it, as it gets me, back to the textbooks and looking up obscure technical papers, long lying fallow, waiting for such a situation. This differs from people with real jobs, who find this sort of thing just takes their time and potentially loses them money. Being semi-retired, I have the time, and this reduces the boredom.
Now, where has this gone wrong? Well, this thread has had its ups and downs, but lately I can't seem to get a word in edgewise without a group of people, who could just ignore me, instead deciding that I am 'poisoning' the audio community with 'unproven' ideas and deviating designers from the 'true path' (whatever that is), you know something like: Good op amps are virtually perfect, and if you pay a little extra, you don't have to bother building your own electronics. Or, the human ear cannot detect such subtle factors, and this can be proven in a double-blind test, therefore audiophiles are imagining that they hear differences. Or, a number of opinions in that general type.
Yet, when I talk to audio friends, designers, and people in the audio industry, we have a completely different conversation, where we compare subtle factors, often independently discovered, that there is very little 'proof' of, as to why these factors make any difference at all. Still, we hear these differences, sometimes together, sometimes independently, and we feel sorry for those who ignore these details, as they will almost invariably make a 'mid-fi' quality design, rather than an 'audio quality' design. At least, that has been our experience, thus far.
Now, where to go from here? Back to discussing the subtleties of quality preamp design, or continue the aimless diversions that just confuse the issue?
Hi John,
What strikes me about your posts is that most of them involve putting people down in some way. Heck, you've handed out the highest variety of put downs I have ever seen anyone else even attempt! There isn't one single method you haven't used.
There are times when I guess you feel more cooperative and do contribute a little, then there is the moaning and crying about the original purpose of the thread being lost. John, you've kicked things off track more than anyone else here! Many times you can be seen crying that you are not believed, then typically a name drop where the "name" does agree with you. There is of course the never ending "you're wasting your time John", from people unseen. It's all just your word. No way of checking what you say ever pops up.
Next, I'll address some of your last comments.
-Chris
What strikes me about your posts is that most of them involve putting people down in some way. Heck, you've handed out the highest variety of put downs I have ever seen anyone else even attempt! There isn't one single method you haven't used.
There are times when I guess you feel more cooperative and do contribute a little, then there is the moaning and crying about the original purpose of the thread being lost. John, you've kicked things off track more than anyone else here! Many times you can be seen crying that you are not believed, then typically a name drop where the "name" does agree with you. There is of course the never ending "you're wasting your time John", from people unseen. It's all just your word. No way of checking what you say ever pops up.
Next, I'll address some of your last comments.
-Chris
Well, the people who bug me the most, about being on this thread, are: Jack Bybee, who could care less about ill informed people in his field, Hal Finley, my Vendetta Research business partner, who would rather me putting in time on circuit details on our latest circuit board, and now, Mitch Cotter, who continually reminds me that there are better things to do, than suffer 'critics' , such as yourself. They won't come here, and I don't blame them. You are not missing much, as you would not believe them, in any case.
Hi John,
Now, about these last comments ...
John, answer me honestly now. Would you ever accept a statement of fact from anyone without any way to verify that what you are being told is true? Most people wouldn't without some way to check the details. The more someone says "it's true, you must believe me but I can't prove this fact", the more you see skepticism in your audience. It's natural and healthy. Otherwise, you get a myth something like the "cold fusion" silliness that made it's rounds.
More seriously, there have been many times when people around you have agreed with you on some things. I have agreed with you on many occasions. But, if you expect everyone to sit in rapture with every syllable that slips from your tongue, you should have become an evangelist. Most people will not suspend reason in order to accept on faith what you often want to pass as fact. If you had reasonable expectations, we wouldn't be having posts like this at all. I can only assume that you are either unreasonable in what you expect from people or you are winding people up for your own personal jollies.
I'll bet you lose more IP by having your trash examined than talking about things here. That's if anything you know is worth having your trash examined. John, I am not kidding about this.
-Chris
Now, about these last comments ...
That is a private matter that has nothing to do with anything. Are you setting up a defense for something?
Given that no details were ever given clearly, I can't see why this would be. You did make a big deal out of the case being made from a solid block of metal and there was a discussion about shielding properties and cable openings. You finally defended the case by saying your customers deserve a fancy, expensive case for what they are paying (can't argue that). But the case was really the only detail know. Well, then there was "air wiring", Teflon insulation, a particular switch you like and power supply noise reduction. Did I miss anything relating to the Blowtorch?
Well, yes. You went off-topic several times. But, it's okay when you do it.
You have not divulged any of your secrets. Any time you get close, you always tell us that they are your trade secrets and you can not tell us. I guess your people have been on your case about this for years? We accepted this from you, but it got pretty silly. Eventually you got to the point where you said "I'm designing a new project, but I can't tell you anything". Childish. Most new developments I have seen over the years are rehashes of what was done earlier in time. In other words, public domain.
All you have ever been asked to do was to answer questions in an honest and straight forward manner. Letting everyone know you have emailed the odd other member with information doesn't score you any points, and it's pretty childish as well.
John, you have demonstrated that you can easily get a word in broadside with no difficulty at all. Get real please, complain about things that are true. You are not ignored for one, so let's ignore that comment. You are not deviating anyone, so that's hogwash. You do put ideas forward without advancing any information that can be verified in any way, so what do you expect? The only poisoning you are guilty of are the constant insults and put downs of people around you here. In fact, I have really only had two issues with you. Your insults and put downs, and a complete lack of information beyond a statement from you.
John, answer me honestly now. Would you ever accept a statement of fact from anyone without any way to verify that what you are being told is true? Most people wouldn't without some way to check the details. The more someone says "it's true, you must believe me but I can't prove this fact", the more you see skepticism in your audience. It's natural and healthy. Otherwise, you get a myth something like the "cold fusion" silliness that made it's rounds.
Well, could be a "birds of a feather" thing there.
More seriously, there have been many times when people around you have agreed with you on some things. I have agreed with you on many occasions. But, if you expect everyone to sit in rapture with every syllable that slips from your tongue, you should have become an evangelist. Most people will not suspend reason in order to accept on faith what you often want to pass as fact. If you had reasonable expectations, we wouldn't be having posts like this at all. I can only assume that you are either unreasonable in what you expect from people or you are winding people up for your own personal jollies.
Well, I'd suggest working with the members here, many who have expressed an interest in helping you in investigating these findings you've made. If you wish to keep things focused, why not try to answer questions honestly and with full disclosure (except where it differentiates your designs from others). Of course, that may mean that you can not discuss anything as everything represents your trade secrets. It's up to you to define acceptable discussion areas and fully participate.
I'll bet you lose more IP by having your trash examined than talking about things here. That's if anything you know is worth having your trash examined. John, I am not kidding about this.
-Chris
Hi John,
Again, I only ask for direct and truthful answers to questions and a cessation of your insults and put downs towards other members. Check the posting history.
In reality, I have attempted many times to assist you, clarify your statements and most lately, to assist you in running an experiment again. I just wanted to be careful about what was done so that it stood the highest chance of agreeing with your previous work. In other words, I gave you every opportunity to mold the experiment to your wishes. I could have made some assumptions and run what I thought was close, then beat you over the head with the results.
Do you even understand that some people want to help you? That includes me, because you have said time and time again how difficult things are for you.
John, what do you want? I mean, aside from blind acceptance of everything you say.
-Chris
Since when am I a critic?
Again, I only ask for direct and truthful answers to questions and a cessation of your insults and put downs towards other members. Check the posting history.
In reality, I have attempted many times to assist you, clarify your statements and most lately, to assist you in running an experiment again. I just wanted to be careful about what was done so that it stood the highest chance of agreeing with your previous work. In other words, I gave you every opportunity to mold the experiment to your wishes. I could have made some assumptions and run what I thought was close, then beat you over the head with the results.
Do you even understand that some people want to help you? That includes me, because you have said time and time again how difficult things are for you.
John, what do you want? I mean, aside from blind acceptance of everything you say.
-Chris
John
If this thread should be solely related to the CTC BT preamp it would have died out a long time ago, don’t you think so as well?
It’s a very lively thread at that other forum (about one post a week) the good thing is of course that you don’t have to waste your time answering all the silly posts by stupid pitchfork villagers.
Have fun
Hi John,
I would really appreciate it if ....
You treated people with respect, and ...
You focused on answering questions put to you from other members.
Does anyone know what you are trying to convey John?
John, I've been straight with you the entire time. There is no reason to dance around, just get to the point you want to make. But, be realistic in what you expect the responses to be. Want to discuss a subject? Then, understand that intellectual give and take is necessary in order to discuss any subject.
-Chris (aka anatech)
I was simply answering your comments in a recent post of yours.
I would really appreciate it if ....
You treated people with respect, and ...
You focused on answering questions put to you from other members.
No, I don't know you, just as you don't know me.
Does anyone know what you are trying to convey John?
I don't imagine any of us "need this" to be honest with you. Consider one thing though. I have some respect for you and your accomplishments. It's sad that you do not respect many people here. That is one thing I am sure of, given your history of posting here.
John, I've been straight with you the entire time. There is no reason to dance around, just get to the point you want to make. But, be realistic in what you expect the responses to be. Want to discuss a subject? Then, understand that intellectual give and take is necessary in order to discuss any subject.
-Chris (aka anatech)
Stinius, I don't know exactly where you sit, but it looks like pretty much on the fence between two contesting neighbors.
I did try to expand the breadth of this thread by bringing in power amps, and general design philosophy, since I think that it is all related.
I was opposed on this by some, because "I do not own the thread" as someone else started it, and so forth. I trudged forward, anyway.
I did try to expand the breadth of this thread by bringing in power amps, and general design philosophy, since I think that it is all related.
I was opposed on this by some, because "I do not own the thread" as someone else started it, and so forth. I trudged forward, anyway.
Hey john,
I would like to thank you for "wasting your time" over the last few years. YOU are the catalyst that has kept this most interesting and worthwhile thread going. I think your "investment of time" is appreciated by the thousands that are following this thread.
Now I see what Chris is saying and agree, but the friction is an important part of this thread, it stimulates the debate. So John I ask you to take it on the chin and continue as you have always done. I think we have struck a very good balance in this thread through the right combination of technical discussions, varied opinions, heated debates, historical facts and personal interactions.
regards
I would like to thank you for "wasting your time" over the last few years. YOU are the catalyst that has kept this most interesting and worthwhile thread going. I think your "investment of time" is appreciated by the thousands that are following this thread.
Now I see what Chris is saying and agree, but the friction is an important part of this thread, it stimulates the debate. So John I ask you to take it on the chin and continue as you have always done. I think we have struck a very good balance in this thread through the right combination of technical discussions, varied opinions, heated debates, historical facts and personal interactions.
regards
Chris (aka anatech),
Who appointed you to "help" others against their will?
Who appointed you to determine for others what's right and what's wrong for them, what's good and what's bad for them?
Who appointed you to educate others?
Don't you see you are a self-appointed righteous?
I love to see all you may contribute to technical issue. When you have nothing technical to contribute – do what's appropriate in such cases (shut up?).
Who appointed you to "help" others against their will?
Who appointed you to determine for others what's right and what's wrong for them, what's good and what's bad for them?
Who appointed you to educate others?
Don't you see you are a self-appointed righteous?
I love to see all you may contribute to technical issue. When you have nothing technical to contribute – do what's appropriate in such cases (shut up?).
I suspect, Joshua, that you understand me, and while we have never met in person, we have talked on the phone.
You are also an admitted 'technician' that I have come to believe actually essentially understands what I am trying to say here. Trust me, that is a relief, when I get so much 'static' from many others.
I try to convey, without math or schematics, HERE, because I have no good and direct way to put them up. Also, I don't like to publish my latest schematics, or even patent #'s by others, as this leads to intellectual loss of trade secrets, that my associates and I don't want to give it out to our direct competitors.
Also, most of what I wish to convey here to 'help' others is expressed as ideas, anyway, unless someone demands PROOF! Well, take it or leave it, everyone, I can't give more info. than I give. If it is not 'enough' then change to another thread. Is that so hard?
You are also an admitted 'technician' that I have come to believe actually essentially understands what I am trying to say here. Trust me, that is a relief, when I get so much 'static' from many others.
I try to convey, without math or schematics, HERE, because I have no good and direct way to put them up. Also, I don't like to publish my latest schematics, or even patent #'s by others, as this leads to intellectual loss of trade secrets, that my associates and I don't want to give it out to our direct competitors.
Also, most of what I wish to convey here to 'help' others is expressed as ideas, anyway, unless someone demands PROOF! Well, take it or leave it, everyone, I can't give more info. than I give. If it is not 'enough' then change to another thread. Is that so hard?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.