Hi Bob,
What would be an appropriate way of addressing all our members here? I'm somewhat at a loss. I'm regularly accused of being condescending, but that is not my intent at all. I don't even understand why most of the time. Therefore, your complaint interests me. I'm serious.
-Chris 🙂
Hmmm, I say that sometimes too. However I take no offense at it's use. I regard it as similar to "you guys" (except we are not all "guys"), "fellas" (same issues) or "you people". We could say "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" - okay, we wouldn't say that! 😉
What would be an appropriate way of addressing all our members here? I'm somewhat at a loss. I'm regularly accused of being condescending, but that is not my intent at all. I don't even understand why most of the time. Therefore, your complaint interests me. I'm serious.
-Chris 🙂
I think Bob's point is that he resents the implication that everyone feels and thinks the same way and that they are equally knowledgeble or ignorant on a subject until enlightened.
anatech said:
Language is indeed a funny thing. It is often decoded in context and dependent on the situation and the sender.
I think it is the "you" followed by words like people. You people [are all wrong]. The word "you" groups the people and stereotypes them. But it isn't always bad. Sometimes it can be explicitly good.
For example, "you people are wonderful". "You folks are so very kind." These are obviously cases where people don't mind being put in a group.
"You folks just don't get it [but I do]" is the kind of thing that will anger people.
Cheers,
Bob
Those of you on this website, I apologize to you, if you do not get the meaning of "you folks" I have tried to find a general, non-controversial title to include virtually everyone addressing this thread. In this world of word correctness, it is almost impossible to converse without ruffling some feathers.
Bob, I think that you must also look to yourself in this regard. Trust me, if you gave Otala, Jung, and others a little more consideration, you would find more good in their inputs than you have given them so far.
Bob, I think that you must also look to yourself in this regard. Trust me, if you gave Otala, Jung, and others a little more consideration, you would find more good in their inputs than you have given them so far.
Noblesse oblige........
I think in his previous post Jacco has a point that can be applied to more than one person here. Many of you that post on this sort of thread are the "nobility" of audio. Ironically, there may be more people following here than have ever read your papers or heard your talks.
What impression are you leaving them? Magnanimous, generous, confident and secure in your beliefs? Or petty, backbiting, insecure, argumentitive and avenging of past slights? Give the members some credit. They can tell when you make a good point. They can tell when someone is just trying to prop up his ego or obfuscate. They are getting to know YOU- or at least whatever personality you reveal here. Feel free to fool us and at the very least appear to have the attributes of the former group rather than the latter.
😉
Variac
I can accept most "group" names. I agree that in this world of political correctness, some people actually go looking for a slight.
I prefer to believe most people have good intentions when they post. So there is much that we should let slide. Grow a thicker skin in other words. Words. That's all they are. Sometimes poorly chosen (I do that in error at times).
Hey, aren't most of us those 60's kids? You know, love and acceptance. Is it true that we are "the man" now. Condemned to the same faults we saw in others? Why not chill with a clear head this time.
That was my love and brother speech. 😀 I was at the tail end of all that. I remember it well. Did we all forget?
-Chris 😉
I prefer to believe most people have good intentions when they post. So there is much that we should let slide. Grow a thicker skin in other words. Words. That's all they are. Sometimes poorly chosen (I do that in error at times).
Hey, aren't most of us those 60's kids? You know, love and acceptance. Is it true that we are "the man" now. Condemned to the same faults we saw in others? Why not chill with a clear head this time.
That was my love and brother speech. 😀 I was at the tail end of all that. I remember it well. Did we all forget?
-Chris 😉
john curl said:
John,
I am not without sin, that is for sure. Walt Jung is a good friend of mine. I don't think I have ever criticized any of his work. Read my review of his recent big op-amp book in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. I did criticize Otala's work with good reason. Many, many other people criticized his work as well. But I'll certainly give him one thing: he made us all think a lot, even if his theories were wrong. For that he deserves credit. Anyone here who wishes to see my criticism of Otala's work can read my paper "Another View of TIM" on my web site at www.cordellaudio.com, and they can judge for themselves if I was too harsh or unfair. But that all was 25 years ago. Its too bad that you keep bringing that up. We've all come a long way since then.
Bob
john curl said:How about "Comrades"?
Comrades would be good. Just don't say YOU comrades 🙂.
Cheers,
Bob
Read the posts. This has nothing to do with whether people are called "you all " or "comrades" It is to do with whether someone is placing himself above another and whether one believes that every possible slight must be acknowledged, mentioned and acted upon.
Other than that, the peace/love comments are appropriate..
Other than that, the peace/love comments are appropriate..
Actually, from the very beginning of this thread, I have hoped to get people to realize that protection circuitry is all important in high power amplifiers. Yet, standard protection is not good sonically. This is the problem. Finally, protection circuitry was seriously mentioned on this thread. That is a step forward. When I come to remind the group that this was my original intention, I get told off. Oh well, I have come to expect it.
Hi John,
I've spend years looking at so called "high end" amps with no protection that often also took the speakers out. Then there are the fools who disable existing protection circuits. Same result. Even from people who maintain that "our amps don't blow". Yes they do.
Please continue.
-Chris
I agree with you.
I've spend years looking at so called "high end" amps with no protection that often also took the speakers out. Then there are the fools who disable existing protection circuits. Same result. Even from people who maintain that "our amps don't blow". Yes they do.
Actually, we are listening (okay, reading). You do have our attention.
Please continue.
-Chris
john curl said:
Hi John,
I apologize for over-reacting to your post above. I was too quick to take offense.
While the need for protection of MOSFETs has been discussed before on this thread, it is true that it is not always given enough attention. Indeed, protection is something that both BJT and MOSFET designers have struggled with constantly. It is also true that a number of design approaches to protection have been intrusive on the sound. I think it is fair to say that vertical MOSFETs need just as much protection as BJT's, as you have stated, even though the details of such protection may be different. Six or fewer small-signal transistors for short-circuit protection of MOSFETs is not a big price to pay (as long as it does not intrude on the sound).
Let's get back to a technically substantive track here. In your post above, you seem to say that it is not practical and possible to build power amplifiers with vertical MOSFETs. That's a pretty strong statement. I'm sure you had some qualifications in mind. Can you be more specific? Are you only referring to big amplifiers? If you are only referring to your products, what is it about your products that forecloses on using MOSFETs as the output devices? What are the barriers, specifically, that you are referring to?
I appreciate your participation in this thread. Even if we don't always agree, your experience is invaluable, and you make us think.
Cheers,
Bob
Bob Cordell said:
Hi Bob,
I think this is the best idea I've seen for non-intrusive output stage protection yet. I must admit to having been baffled as to how to do this with six transistors though. Then, after searching around a bit, I ran into figure 13 on page 10 of this document. I'm ignoring the ICs here, except for the single transistor shown as being internal to the AS273. I'm thinking that if you replace ground in that figure by the output of the amp, and connect the high side of the latch to the high side of the amp's shunt regulator, then you'd have half of the six-transistor circuit you're describing. Then the other three transistors would be just a mirror-image complement of these, allowing the low side of the amp's shunt regulator to be shunted to the amp's output as well. Does that sound right?
Andy,
The old standby uPC1237 would do something like that with added flexibility.
http://www.ampslab.com/PDF/upc1237.pdf
Jan Didden
The old standby uPC1237 would do something like that with added flexibility.
http://www.ampslab.com/PDF/upc1237.pdf
Jan Didden
Hi,
Yes, the two transistor thyristor is used in the Crimson range to detect high frequency at the VAS and shutdown the CCSs feeding the LTP and VAS.
In the Cyrus they detect excessive current through the output emitter resistor and again shut down the input signal, but I have seen reports that the Cyrus protection is not infallible.
Yes, the two transistor thyristor is used in the Crimson range to detect high frequency at the VAS and shutdown the CCSs feeding the LTP and VAS.
In the Cyrus they detect excessive current through the output emitter resistor and again shut down the input signal, but I have seen reports that the Cyrus protection is not infallible.