Christer said:
I wouldn't say that. In the case of the Zen amp, we have a
feedback loop from Drain to Gate, which does not span more
than a single stage, yet it clearly is feedback.
If I put degeneration on the Source of the Zen Mosfet, I
would not call that feedback, but a resistor from Drain to
Gate, I call that a feedback loop - a connection from the input
to the output of a gain stage or series of gain stages.
I/V converter is discrete and part of those 3 FETs, i don´t need much gain as i intend to drive 109dB/1W speakers. Internal structure of DAC is of course not SE FETS, but i wrote ">>between<< DAC and speaker" and i don´t consider it important digital logic transistors inside the DAC are CMOS pairs. The analog part of the DAC consists of trimmed thinfimresistors switched by transistors to the Iout. No opamp here.
Whats your problem with this ?
In exess I/V conversion with one FET would give all the voltage i need, only a source follower stage for current needed by speaker would be necessary. I also thought about making all the voltage needed with one tube stage (higher voltage), and one FET follower stage behind.
Read Stereophile's full comments at:
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/779/index5.html
You'll find Atkinson says "Note the higher-than-usual noise floor in this graph, which to some extent is due to the D-1x's lower-than-usual output level from its unbalanced output."
1) The D-1x was deliberately designed to have a lower than average output. This leads to a rise in the jitter floor measurement in this specific test due to the limitations of Stereophile's test setup, not the D-1x.
2) Atkinson used the unbalanced outputs. Again this was due to a limitation of his equipment, as it does not accept a balanced signal. Using the balanced outputs would result in improved measured results.
3) The same technology is used in our CD player which features a higher audio output level, resulting in improved results in this specific test. Please refer to the test of our CD player where Atkinson says, "The CX-7 did very well on this test, producing just 159 picoseconds of peak-peak jitter—among the lowest results I have measured."
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/840/index4.html
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/779/index5.html
You'll find Atkinson says "Note the higher-than-usual noise floor in this graph, which to some extent is due to the D-1x's lower-than-usual output level from its unbalanced output."
1) The D-1x was deliberately designed to have a lower than average output. This leads to a rise in the jitter floor measurement in this specific test due to the limitations of Stereophile's test setup, not the D-1x.
2) Atkinson used the unbalanced outputs. Again this was due to a limitation of his equipment, as it does not accept a balanced signal. Using the balanced outputs would result in improved measured results.
3) The same technology is used in our CD player which features a higher audio output level, resulting in improved results in this specific test. Please refer to the test of our CD player where Atkinson says, "The CX-7 did very well on this test, producing just 159 picoseconds of peak-peak jitter—among the lowest results I have measured."
http://www.stereophile.com/digitalsourcereviews/840/index4.html
PMA, whats your problem? In first line feedback is nothing but a word. A word usually means something, thats its meaning. This you call semantic. Feedback is a word made by two well known basic words glued together. We call these kind of words Kopulativum, i think in english it was copular. Feedback seems to be a Kopulativkomposita, what measn we can see its meaning by looking at the meaning of both basic words the copular was made of. What we get is something that is Feed (put into mouth or input end) back (coming from somewere more towads the output end. Of corse this needs some kind of connection between both points.
That you and some EEs call everything "feedback" what has an effect similar to this trivial to understand feedback is some different story. No normal (consumer, layman) person would call everything limiting or degenrating a signals input/output ratio "feedback". In this sense i would take it as one of all those crude technical terminology terms.
What you do at the moment is calles "Korinthenkacken" in my country, btw.
That you and some EEs call everything "feedback" what has an effect similar to this trivial to understand feedback is some different story. No normal (consumer, layman) person would call everything limiting or degenrating a signals input/output ratio "feedback". In this sense i would take it as one of all those crude technical terminology terms.
What you do at the moment is calles "Korinthenkacken" in my country, btw.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.