Re: That's rigth Mike.... we are telling the same thing with in different ways
Sorry for the crashcourse in Fourier, the resultant has exactly the original shape. That's what Fourier found out, ANY function can be represented as a combination of sinusoidals. That's the basics behind Fouriertransformation. You can transform a complete musicpiece into a set of sinusoidals, after transforming it back, the shape is completely identical.
So, no loosing fidelity...
Mike
destroyer X said:
Sorry for the crashcourse in Fourier, the resultant has exactly the original shape. That's what Fourier found out, ANY function can be represented as a combination of sinusoidals. That's the basics behind Fouriertransformation. You can transform a complete musicpiece into a set of sinusoidals, after transforming it back, the shape is completely identical.
So, no loosing fidelity...
Mike
Re: mikeB,
Yes, it is still the symasym thread !
Without redesign, it will be difficult to increase poweroutput of symasym to these levels. A high power version can't work with to92 devices in VAS, or it needs to be at least triple darlington, but this creates problems with stabilizing...
I was thinking about such a version using folded cascode...
Mike
soundbag said:
Yes, it is still the symasym thread !
Without redesign, it will be difficult to increase poweroutput of symasym to these levels. A high power version can't work with to92 devices in VAS, or it needs to be at least triple darlington, but this creates problems with stabilizing...
I was thinking about such a version using folded cascode...
Mike
So obviously, the word sum was inadequated.
Maybe superimposed waves may produce some better communication.
Related Fourrier...he was lovely.
I am going to the beach...to have some fourrier waves over me.
regards,
Carlos
Maybe superimposed waves may produce some better communication.
Related Fourrier...he was lovely.
I am going to the beach...to have some fourrier waves over me.
regards,
Carlos
MikeB said:oops, okay, or you will get an infinite number of frequencies...
Mike
That is not the problem. Many signals need an infinite number of sines in their decomposition, square wave being an archetypical example.
Signals coming from CD player etc. are definitely limited in frequency and might be created by sum of appropriate sinusoidals, if we do not speak about RFI, D/A residuals etc.
PMA said:
I think I have to put this post on the wall for a good laugh
every now and again!
Guess what amplifier got Stereophiles product of 2005?
http://www.stereophile.com/features/1205poty/index2.html
Guess what microphone preamp is being heralded as
THE preamp to use for ultra clarity and resolution by
sound engineers?
http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/5preint.jpg
Guess what circuit topology they both share?
Its a confusing world sometimes. 🙂
Cheers,
Terry
PMA said:
Thanx PMA for that... most people start talking Fourier transform & forget that there are some very strong constraints -- broken in almost all practical applications -- that are required for the theory to work.
For instance the limited in frequency is broken every time a CD is made... i picture it in my head like a monty python skit where the big boot comes out of the sky & steps on a tomato... splatter going off in all directions...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
A good audio-buddy in Denmark had this to say... http://www.t-linespeakers.org/oddsends/mrFourier.html
dave
MikeB said:
The schematic is on the dartzeel website.
There is a good description of the Gordons topology
on their website. You should be able to work it out.
I'll give a hint, neither of these products would measure
exceptionally well.
Cheers,
Terry
Why rumbling about this and that, come back to the Symasym
thread, It is the MOST valuable and musical amplifier I ever
built. PEROD
Sorry about this but I had to tell you guys this, the third amplifier
made all the difference!
thread, It is the MOST valuable and musical amplifier I ever
built. PEROD
Sorry about this but I had to tell you guys this, the third amplifier
made all the difference!
bye bye boys, i will travel to Spain...will delay some time there
Never mind and be happy.
regards,
Carlos
Never mind and be happy.
regards,
Carlos
Yes, I will Mike, I can't be silenced after such a very good experience I had yesterday...
I really don't know what happened and why it happened, but
yesterday I connected two nice speakers (test speakers) to
the last Symasym I built to which I installed the last transistors
I received from On Semi, the 21193/21194. Remember I told you Mike that I had 2sa1493 ($11.00 a pop, ouch!) /2sc3857 outputs. Well I wanted to do an experiment with these to hear
till what point the amplifier would benefit .
To make the story short (I hate rumbling, saying nothing) what
I heard was simply astonishing, I never heard this amplifier
sounding this good. The treble is crisp and smooth, the midrange
sounds beautiful (and what a soundstage!) the bass is precise
and authoritative with no boominess whatsoever.
The big difference was detected playing my prime CD's, the ones
I use for testing which I know already very well, one of them
is the very same one I played when the FIRST symasym was
constructed and I detected a harsheness (I used this word
remember?) that turned me off, really...
And yesterday I was looking for the same problem well, none,
the amplifier sounded simply fabulous so much so that I
decided to elect this amplifier the BEST I own right now. I couple
of transistors changed and the new (so to speak) CD's made
a hell of a difference. The JLH is awfully good, the SC480 (the
two versions I built) are ok, but this one....well, I hate to
repeat myself, it's all said.
Could it be because I was in such a good mood to listen to
music? Nah...., I don't think so! My ears don't lye!
After all was said in this thread, I would not need to say this
but I was so happy that I didn't resist....
By the way the second amplifier still had the old PCB, perhaps
this was the reason why I didn't notice a big difference.
Cheers, we are waiting for the more powerful version of the Symasym, just kidding.....
I really don't know what happened and why it happened, but
yesterday I connected two nice speakers (test speakers) to
the last Symasym I built to which I installed the last transistors
I received from On Semi, the 21193/21194. Remember I told you Mike that I had 2sa1493 ($11.00 a pop, ouch!) /2sc3857 outputs. Well I wanted to do an experiment with these to hear
till what point the amplifier would benefit .
To make the story short (I hate rumbling, saying nothing) what
I heard was simply astonishing, I never heard this amplifier
sounding this good. The treble is crisp and smooth, the midrange
sounds beautiful (and what a soundstage!) the bass is precise
and authoritative with no boominess whatsoever.
The big difference was detected playing my prime CD's, the ones
I use for testing which I know already very well, one of them
is the very same one I played when the FIRST symasym was
constructed and I detected a harsheness (I used this word
remember?) that turned me off, really...
And yesterday I was looking for the same problem well, none,
the amplifier sounded simply fabulous so much so that I
decided to elect this amplifier the BEST I own right now. I couple
of transistors changed and the new (so to speak) CD's made
a hell of a difference. The JLH is awfully good, the SC480 (the
two versions I built) are ok, but this one....well, I hate to
repeat myself, it's all said.
Could it be because I was in such a good mood to listen to
music? Nah...., I don't think so! My ears don't lye!
After all was said in this thread, I would not need to say this
but I was so happy that I didn't resist....
By the way the second amplifier still had the old PCB, perhaps
this was the reason why I didn't notice a big difference.
Cheers, we are waiting for the more powerful version of the Symasym, just kidding.....
