John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it’s anything like the bypass cap on the xo it takes some experimentation to get it right.....blurring was an issue.
And it’s not the uf values, or esr, But materials that made the differences.

Not exactly a popular topic with the EE’s....

Bracing for impact! :scared:
It's the snake in the grass you need to watch out for - oops, I speak too late - he's already arrived - beware the venom:eek:

You are just a wind up merchant aren't you? :cool:
 
You have a good teacher mountainman bob, go on!!!! :D:D:D

JC is responsible for most of this. He supports spreading of alchemy and black magic into the crowds.

I’m soaking it up like an unbiased sponge.....if you don’t know both sides of an argument how else do you judge?

And I’m pretty sure all opinions hold some sort of value......even if it’s what not to do!

What's "it"?

Anything I’ve ever done apparently! :D
 
Ordinary storage cap between battery & device being powered is usually detrimental to sound also. Bypass caps at pins are still needed so it's likely LF stability is the issue.

The noise of batteries is an old myth which doesnt apply to modern battery technology such as LiFePO4 - check out noise measurements of LifePo4 on here

But battery packs (as you purchased - sorry, not you but Tournesol bought smartphone battery pack) already have a voltage reg on the output so you won't get the full benefit of direct battery drive
Get yourself a LiFePo4 battery 3.3V & use it direct on digital audio device. Search for LiFePO4 on here & you will see some people discussing them

Please link the actual LiFePo4 noise measurements, I could not find them with a quick search.
 

Attachments

  • noise.png
    noise.png
    275.8 KB · Views: 145
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
No, just making an observation about how often LIGO/Nobel prize is mentioned on audio forums as some sort of 'scientific' argument


Pick any major research project, LIGO, CERN, LLNL, even JNs place and find out where they use any of the crap dreamed up on audio forums. They use Science and Engineering. Luckily Audio is at least 50dB less demanding than precision analog...
 
www.hifisonix.com
Joined 2003
Paid Member
I'm getting the feeling this thread is getting a bit like doctors vs anti-vaxers.

As PMA says, everyone's an 'expert' in the internet age and although 'quiet to 9 digits' using good engineering is good enough for LIGO (where they have to specifically deal with the thermal noise of a few gold atoms bumping around on the laser mirror) its not good enough for audio.

And I have the temerity to I think I'm a hero because I can build a 1nV/rt Hz amplifier . . .

Go figure.
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
am I the only one struggling to see much relevance in DAC and amplifier design?


No you are not alone. But for some glomming and glopping things they can get away with avoids looking at the harder to solve issues. If something is below the level of the noise of the blood running through my ears I consider any improvements to be entirely for intellectual challenge (also called Sh*t and giggles).
 
Pick any major research project, LIGO, CERN, LLNL, even JNs place and find out where they use any of the crap dreamed up on audio forums. They use Science and Engineering. Luckily Audio is at least 50dB less demanding than precision analog...

Where does one look nowadays to find out the ciruit and wiring details about LIGO, CERN to show that they are using "crap".
I've read only a few publications about such details and got the impression that they were often similarly interested in details. (not for listening purposes, though )

@scottjoplin,
I've almost given up asking him questions

I'm glad about it. As you were able to change the meaning of your question 4-5 times within 4-5 oneliner posts, trying to keep track doesn't make sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.