Sometimes the cable routing can be very counterintuitive at first examination. I mounted the left and right (unbalanced) input connectors next to each other and then ran the wires via the shortest route to each amplifier module located on the heatsinks on each side of the amplifier chassis. I had hum at about -90 dBV.
On the second approach, I ran the one cable next to the other to the first amp module and then along the top of the first module, to the front of the amp, along the front panel and over the second module to the inputs. Hum -110dBV.
In the first attempt, I had created a big cross channel ground loop that was picking up the transformer mag field. In the second attempt, the loop area was a fraction of the first and the result was ~20 dBV lower noise.
I don't think Cherry's approach is necessary a bad thing, in particular for medium power amplifiers. I don't follow the same approach, though, and always separate the signal ground from the "dirty" ground right at the input (10 ohm resistor). I also don't twist together the power supply wiring with the output wiring, I keep the output/ground wiring twisted separately.
Not a tantrum. I was being satirical. I got tired of the unending stream of unimaginably bad reading comprehension and just plain lack of reading. The vast majority of my posts have been comprised of me repeating myself. No need for me to put in the effort to continue to do so because the usefulness of the thread has reached far into the diminishing returns. Again, thanks to those that decided to be constructive and help me to this point.
There is a theoretical method of distortion reduction that does not require absolute linearity of an EC amp. Un-distorted output must look exactly like the input. That much is obvious. It follows that if the input and output could be continuously compared for phase, and that difference held at a single immutable value, then the output would be a replica of the input at any desired amplification. So the EC is a phase comparator/correcter.
I encountered one gentleman who claimed to have achieved such a feat. He demonstrated a 100W amp based on the concept. He was also very coy about disclosing additional details.
One point to be aware of, is that US patent law changed a few years ago. It is no longer 'first to invent'. Now it is now 'first to patent'. So you may have invented something before others, but if someone else gets to the patent office first, they get invention ownership.
I encountered one gentleman who claimed to have achieved such a feat. He demonstrated a 100W amp based on the concept. He was also very coy about disclosing additional details.
One point to be aware of, is that US patent law changed a few years ago. It is no longer 'first to invent'. Now it is now 'first to patent'. So you may have invented something before others, but if someone else gets to the patent office first, they get invention ownership.
Last edited:
Exactly, immutable, replica, any? These are ideal concepts, not reality.
Last edited:
This actually makes no sense at all. For a complex waveform phase has no meaning.
Phase was a bad choice. I mean time aligned, with or without an offset. Distortion alters signal shape. Therefore, at any given instant the time alignment can change. Monitoring positions of input and output in time, and ensuring that is a constant should mean no distortion. Polarities have to match. Quantum entanglement maybe...
Last edited:
You’re right, and I do have some sympathy for hellokitty123 because people have jumped all over him without fully reading.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.