I thought we had discussed this already JP. I described the path I took which one can indeed loosely translate as....I just do something. That is truly what I do. And through suggestions of fellow forum members I try different stuff. And I'll also try your suggestion. However in the end I don't care about measurements or calculations if the fruits of my labour sound good to me. Theoretical ideas are secondary to me.
I did that just last night. But since it was very late (I did not turn up the volume)...and the slight loss of gain...did make it sound less 'dramatic'...(less perceived bass as well). But there was improvement in clarity and neutrality. So in will go a film cap one of these days...
Wow, just wow......
We did not discuss anything BTW, I thought you was joking. I recognize this from teachers "I thought we had discussed this already" when the ground gets too hot 🙂
Last edited:
Yeeep. All the specs, calculations and measurements in the world could not get me to like ESS based dacs.
I may hope that your house, car and the trains and airplanes you travel with are designed by people who think otherwise. I don't know where the ESS suddenly comes from? AFAIK your DAC has TI chips and it has enough signal level at low Zout.
Last edited:
I regret I have not been able or have not found the time to try this little stage out - more the pity.
But I am eager to have a try, I have recently read, like many valves, or triodes, the 6S19 benefits from a constant current source, so CCS or choke anode load might be a good way to expand on the circuit.
But I am eager to have a try, I have recently read, like many valves, or triodes, the 6S19 benefits from a constant current source, so CCS or choke anode load might be a good way to expand on the circuit.
? Makes the thought of an ESS DAC (*which type BTW?) the sound of your line stage better ? 🙂 It would be more productive to find out the specifications of the DAC and amplifier you do have instead of deviating to stuff you apparently don't have or don't want to have. It is way more rewarding to design to what one has at hand and to use their specifications to your benefit. Then you could determine if something is needed, what exactly is needed and where in the chain it is needed.
Last edited:
Sure. Normally I would have used abovementioned methods. But sometime there is something to be said for "miss piggy" in this case simple resistors.
Miss piggy is a reference to an audioasylum post where simple cathode/cap in a stage was deemed to sound better than some newer methods that are in vogue.
Different attenuator position (before or after gain) will have some effect to amount and distribution of harmonic content of the output. Not trivial to predict how much difference will be perceived by calculation alone. I would decide permanent position after listening.
Thanks for the clarification indra1. I'll report back after I've done a swop of positions of the potmeter.
😀
It's funny because I've met JP in real life and we got along great. But even before we met we clashed online.
Last edited:
Well stuff is designed with parameters. Everything is designed with parameters. If one just does something at random one is not making anything better in most cases. The proof of that is in the devices you use just like your DAC. Of that DAC I know many hours were spent in designing it into the device it now is. The result is a known good device that works in most given situations. The chain would be very weak if all parts would be thrown together at random. This can be done and it is interesting what would come out of it but you can be sure that it will cost a lot of time to correct it to something remotely usable. As a tech I am into some disciplines and any given situation needs requirements, calculations, and definitions when there is an issue to be solved. A good example is to design a kitchen with all drawers, equipment etc. Anyone that has been busy with this is astonished how many standard sizes and thus solutions there are to fix issues for every kitchen there is.
I know you are a nice guy but the way of designing is not my cup of tea to say the least. Your remark about ESS is below the belt because it refers to a (supposedly inferior from what I understand) ESS device I once designed with another member (yes with parameters!) and of which many hundreds are still in use. This old design also proves that designing with standards and parameters works best. I could have designed at random but then one could have used it while the other would have needed a gain stage with 20 dB of gain.
I know you are a nice guy but the way of designing is not my cup of tea to say the least. Your remark about ESS is below the belt because it refers to a (supposedly inferior from what I understand) ESS device I once designed with another member (yes with parameters!) and of which many hundreds are still in use. This old design also proves that designing with standards and parameters works best. I could have designed at random but then one could have used it while the other would have needed a gain stage with 20 dB of gain.
Last edited:
I know. But I don't design things. I build things for my own personal pleasure. And I am very grateful that there are engineers/scientists who design(ed) my phones, cars , tubes, dacs, transformers etc. Without them I would not be typing this on a computer. The only things I check/calculate are if things are within the parameters such as the dissipation of a tube or resistor.
The device in post #1 is a very real design IMHO with very real part values as well. The values of the parts define parameters so this means it has real features too. These parameters can be adapted to the task the device has.
1. Why was it designed?
2. For what purposes was it designed?
3. What are the required specifications (gain, input impedance, output impedance etc.)?
4. Are there secondary tasks it should fulfill?
5. What are the specifications of the devices that drive it?
6. What will the device itself drive and what are the specifications of that device?
7. Can it be improved to fulfill its given tasks even better?
8. Can we improve easy of use/user experience without penalties?
Etc.
1. Why was it designed?
2. For what purposes was it designed?
3. What are the required specifications (gain, input impedance, output impedance etc.)?
4. Are there secondary tasks it should fulfill?
5. What are the specifications of the devices that drive it?
6. What will the device itself drive and what are the specifications of that device?
7. Can it be improved to fulfill its given tasks even better?
8. Can we improve easy of use/user experience without penalties?
Etc.
Last edited:
It is a copy of someone else's design that I used. I then used a building block that some engineer designed (21st Century Maida). Rewired. Stuck in a different tube. Changed the resistor. And voila. Drew up the schematic after the fact because I liked the result especially after the initial result was not good. If you want to call it a design you may be correct. I'd rather be intellectually humble and say that I am riding the tailcoats of others. A cut and paste hobbyist.
You don't use load lines and the calculations that come when using tubes? Or predefine what the tube should do?