But the complexity is overwhelming. The requirements posed to supplies differ wildly over the range of circuits to be fed.
Three examples:
-non-FB balanced class A linestage with zero net AC current consumption
-wideband class B opamp driving a low-R load
-CD player clock oscillator
Since we can't make perfect 'black hole' supplies, we have to optimise for those aspects that in a given case yield the best sound.
People are still disconvering things. Or perhaps rather formalising them. This happens (hopefully, financial analysts notwithstanding) in 'unfriendly' threads like these.
Maybe too unfriendly to be of any immediate use to some. But perhaps useful in the future, when some others have done things and come out with good designs and the environments in which they work.
Three examples:
-non-FB balanced class A linestage with zero net AC current consumption
-wideband class B opamp driving a low-R load
-CD player clock oscillator
Since we can't make perfect 'black hole' supplies, we have to optimise for those aspects that in a given case yield the best sound.
People are still disconvering things. Or perhaps rather formalising them. This happens (hopefully, financial analysts notwithstanding) in 'unfriendly' threads like these.
Maybe too unfriendly to be of any immediate use to some. But perhaps useful in the future, when some others have done things and come out with good designs and the environments in which they work.
Did somebody say, I'm not doing my own R&D's
I don't really have to say it I guess.
"but for somebody looking for "good preamp supply" I believe is just another useless info"
No, its only useless info for people who want to sit around and plug parts into a circuit and listen each particular piece of equipment they build without going further than that. Some of these people even pass themselves off as audio designers.
I have no problem with subjective tuning, but in the absence of any theory, you are just waiting for disaster to happen. Getting three of something to work is no guarantee that 100 will work and some may even oscillate in someone else's system or take out part of their speakers. Go read some Nelson Pass's or Erno Borbely's articles and you will find some theory as well as subjective information about the circuit under discussion. There are any number of people on the board who are not engineers still know enough theory to follow these discussions which aren't as complicated as some would like to believe. Disregard for measurements and some knowledge of how a circuit works seem to be mainly embraced by subjective tweakers who can't (or won't as more often is the case) learn anything about how audio circuits work. Most of this stuff has been very well explained in magazines like the Audio Amateur.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=amateur
If an engineers like Andy and I or any number of others can use subjective evaluations without have to throw engineering principles out the window, why is the converse so difficult. Tweakers that refuse to see the usefulness of some theory and measurements are not helping themselves or others. For anyone to call parts plugging alone to be R and D, be prepared for howls of laughter and don't bitch when your credibility is questioned on results that might not be inline with you own. R and D does not stand for READ about some tweak and DID it. This is neither research nor development as most would perceive the terms to mean.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research+and+Development
I don't really have to say it I guess.
"but for somebody looking for "good preamp supply" I believe is just another useless info"
No, its only useless info for people who want to sit around and plug parts into a circuit and listen each particular piece of equipment they build without going further than that. Some of these people even pass themselves off as audio designers.
I have no problem with subjective tuning, but in the absence of any theory, you are just waiting for disaster to happen. Getting three of something to work is no guarantee that 100 will work and some may even oscillate in someone else's system or take out part of their speakers. Go read some Nelson Pass's or Erno Borbely's articles and you will find some theory as well as subjective information about the circuit under discussion. There are any number of people on the board who are not engineers still know enough theory to follow these discussions which aren't as complicated as some would like to believe. Disregard for measurements and some knowledge of how a circuit works seem to be mainly embraced by subjective tweakers who can't (or won't as more often is the case) learn anything about how audio circuits work. Most of this stuff has been very well explained in magazines like the Audio Amateur.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=amateur
If an engineers like Andy and I or any number of others can use subjective evaluations without have to throw engineering principles out the window, why is the converse so difficult. Tweakers that refuse to see the usefulness of some theory and measurements are not helping themselves or others. For anyone to call parts plugging alone to be R and D, be prepared for howls of laughter and don't bitch when your credibility is questioned on results that might not be inline with you own. R and D does not stand for READ about some tweak and DID it. This is neither research nor development as most would perceive the terms to mean.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research+and+Development
Peter Daniel said:
yuck, those semi regulators.
Don't they sound positively grey and dynamically challenged?
to borrow from a forum member, 🙂
I would suggest that in the future, all reviewers of pre-amp or amps need to do is to look at the schematics of power supplies and make a judgement right there. No need to turn the boxes on. It is easy, accurate, sceientific and fast! the way high-end audio is meant to be.
🙂
Re: Did somebody say, I'm not doing my own R&D's
We both know that this can happen to everybody, no matter how good EE one might be or how much theory he wants to learn.
I stated it before and I'm doing it once more so it's clear to everybody. I'm not interested in the theory behind the circuits and I will never try to learn it (unless it happens accidentaly). Because this is not a neccessary requirement to built a good piece of audio equipment.
I prefer to work with already existing circuits and modify them to push the envelope limits. I prefer to make things done and complete whatever I started, instead of critisizing other's efforts. I prefer to contribute useful and practical info, instead of theory. One reason for that, is that this all I can, so you should not blame me for that. I cannot be like you. ( I once even opened a thread: "I wish I was HarryHaller")😉
Fred Dieckmann said:
We both know that this can happen to everybody, no matter how good EE one might be or how much theory he wants to learn.
I stated it before and I'm doing it once more so it's clear to everybody. I'm not interested in the theory behind the circuits and I will never try to learn it (unless it happens accidentaly). Because this is not a neccessary requirement to built a good piece of audio equipment.
I prefer to work with already existing circuits and modify them to push the envelope limits. I prefer to make things done and complete whatever I started, instead of critisizing other's efforts. I prefer to contribute useful and practical info, instead of theory. One reason for that, is that this all I can, so you should not blame me for that. I cannot be like you. ( I once even opened a thread: "I wish I was HarryHaller")😉
millwood said:
Millwood,
I'm lost here with the logic behind your comments. Care to enlighten me?
Re: Did somebody say, I'm not doing my own R&D's
There are different reasons for everybody to be involved in a hobby called diyAudio. Also, everybody draws his own rewards from involvement in that thing. For somebody it's an opportunity to laugh whenever somebody makes a goof or is lost looking for correct answer, for others it's the only way to remember they are still EE, others like to Read and Do tweaks (sometimes a good product comes accidentally when doing this), still others prefer to endlessly argue about subjective vs objective claims, still others like to post cartoons every time they see an opportunity. I don't mind any of this, do you?
But for me the current thread is simply useless, because so far it didn't provide an answer to the opening question. Do you think it did?
Fred Dieckmann said:
There are different reasons for everybody to be involved in a hobby called diyAudio. Also, everybody draws his own rewards from involvement in that thing. For somebody it's an opportunity to laugh whenever somebody makes a goof or is lost looking for correct answer, for others it's the only way to remember they are still EE, others like to Read and Do tweaks (sometimes a good product comes accidentally when doing this), still others prefer to endlessly argue about subjective vs objective claims, still others like to post cartoons every time they see an opportunity. I don't mind any of this, do you?
But for me the current thread is simply useless, because so far it didn't provide an answer to the opening question. Do you think it did?
Re: Re: Did somebody say, I'm not doing my own R&D's
I think Fred's point, at the risk of putting words intohis mouth, is that you probably need the guidance from theories (which is an abstraction from prior experience/experiments) in modifying circuits and pushing the envelope.
You are absolutely right that understanding the theories isn't a neccessary requirement to be successful in audio and anything else for that matter. But without an understanding of how circuits work, your chance of being successful via the shotgun approach is that much smaller.
Peter Daniel said:
I think Fred's point, at the risk of putting words intohis mouth, is that you probably need the guidance from theories (which is an abstraction from prior experience/experiments) in modifying circuits and pushing the envelope.
You are absolutely right that understanding the theories isn't a neccessary requirement to be successful in audio and anything else for that matter. But without an understanding of how circuits work, your chance of being successful via the shotgun approach is that much smaller.
Re: Re: Did somebody say, I'm not doing my own R&D's
there is no logic in what I wrote above, and that's why I wrote it to show people how ridiculous it is and was.
Good. Sounds like you had drop'd the qualification argument by now. Progress in the right direction.
Peter Daniel said:
there is no logic in what I wrote above, and that's why I wrote it to show people how ridiculous it is and was.
Peter Daniel said:
Good. Sounds like you had drop'd the qualification argument by now. Progress in the right direction.
Re: Re: Re: Did somebody say, I'm not doing my own R&D's
Depends what circuits you are working with. So far I didn't experience any problems because of lack of theories with the circuits I built. And I made quite few of them. This days you work mostly with IC's, as they are obviously better than discreet circuits😉, so theory is not such a big requirement. You can find most everything in application notes or on the forum (if you don't mind, Fred). I actually don't understand why Fred objects so much to using ideas from Forum in commercial product, if the permission is granted and proper credits given.
That's also one reason, for a person like me, to try working with IC's. I will never be able to design discreet circuits like Nelson or Jonathan, and I don't even try. I just recently found out a different solution and it works just fine for me. I don't need a theory and I can do what I know the best: implementation. I think it is still an art and all theory is again useless without a person doing the final stage of design. It was already mentioned that it constitutes at least 40% of performance.
millwood said:
Depends what circuits you are working with. So far I didn't experience any problems because of lack of theories with the circuits I built. And I made quite few of them. This days you work mostly with IC's, as they are obviously better than discreet circuits😉, so theory is not such a big requirement. You can find most everything in application notes or on the forum (if you don't mind, Fred). I actually don't understand why Fred objects so much to using ideas from Forum in commercial product, if the permission is granted and proper credits given.
That's also one reason, for a person like me, to try working with IC's. I will never be able to design discreet circuits like Nelson or Jonathan, and I don't even try. I just recently found out a different solution and it works just fine for me. I don't need a theory and I can do what I know the best: implementation. I think it is still an art and all theory is again useless without a person doing the final stage of design. It was already mentioned that it constitutes at least 40% of performance.
Re: Re: Re: Did somebody say, I'm not doing my own R&D's
I don't know where did you get the idea that I don't understand the basic theory how the circuit works. It' s not from Fred, is it?
millwood said:
I don't know where did you get the idea that I don't understand the basic theory how the circuit works. It' s not from Fred, is it?
Re: Re: Re: Did somebody say, I'm not doing my own R&D's
To clarify things even more, so we have better understanding in our disussions, if I ever asked you whether you look at certain point from banker's POV or audio designer's (which I don't consider myself to be) POV, was only to help me understand your approach better, nothing else. It was never about qualifications, as they don't mean much to me and certainly don't determine who a person is. The posts on a Forum say much more about it😉
millwood said:
To clarify things even more, so we have better understanding in our disussions, if I ever asked you whether you look at certain point from banker's POV or audio designer's (which I don't consider myself to be) POV, was only to help me understand your approach better, nothing else. It was never about qualifications, as they don't mean much to me and certainly don't determine who a person is. The posts on a Forum say much more about it😉
So far I didn't experience any problems because of lack of theories with the circuit
I think you had better qualify that with "that you know of." I do seem to remember you having stability concerns over a chip amp prototype that did not have the minimum gain suggested by the data sheet. This very simple algebra for the value of the feedback resistor divided by the sum of the maxim resistance of the pot and the input resistor. A simple calculation but theory based on the data sheet recommendations and the kind of thing that will burn someone's butt when selling a product. People are going to use information here in commercial products. That is a lot different situation than exploitation of the form for commercial purposes. Ever wonder why the other forum sites have forums devoted to manufacturers? I don't think people post information here that is proprietary (not intentionally anyway) but make get annoyed if said information is claimed as R and D.
That is why industry hires consultants to get expertise beyond that available in house. This even happens in the Audio industry.
I think you had better qualify that with "that you know of." I do seem to remember you having stability concerns over a chip amp prototype that did not have the minimum gain suggested by the data sheet. This very simple algebra for the value of the feedback resistor divided by the sum of the maxim resistance of the pot and the input resistor. A simple calculation but theory based on the data sheet recommendations and the kind of thing that will burn someone's butt when selling a product. People are going to use information here in commercial products. That is a lot different situation than exploitation of the form for commercial purposes. Ever wonder why the other forum sites have forums devoted to manufacturers? I don't think people post information here that is proprietary (not intentionally anyway) but make get annoyed if said information is claimed as R and D.
That is why industry hires consultants to get expertise beyond that available in house. This even happens in the Audio industry.
My last PS version from suggestions
From what I got from your suggestions, here the version that I will try first. First the section before the regulators.
Very interesting to see so much passion over a pure technical and theorical little question. I guest people that love music are passionate in nature 😉
Bye.
From what I got from your suggestions, here the version that I will try first. First the section before the regulators.
Very interesting to see so much passion over a pure technical and theorical little question. I guest people that love music are passionate in nature 😉
Bye.
Attachments
Re: Re: Re: Re: Did somebody say, I'm not doing my own R&D's
I don't recall me every said that, Peter.
The point I was making, and I think Fred was making too, is that you can be a much better empricalist (if that's ever a word) if you use a balance approach (theory + experiment) to audio (and anything else in general).
You have done a lot of good work experimenting with different circuits and I have no doubt that you understand basic theories of how circuits work.
and that experience is termendously valuable, especially when coupled with good foundamental understanding of the subject matter. tweakers stay tweakers because of their refusal to go outside of their word.
You hopefully will be able to broaden your knowledge base and be more successful than you are right now.
Peter Daniel said:
I don't recall me every said that, Peter.
The point I was making, and I think Fred was making too, is that you can be a much better empricalist (if that's ever a word) if you use a balance approach (theory + experiment) to audio (and anything else in general).
You have done a lot of good work experimenting with different circuits and I have no doubt that you understand basic theories of how circuits work.
and that experience is termendously valuable, especially when coupled with good foundamental understanding of the subject matter. tweakers stay tweakers because of their refusal to go outside of their word.
You hopefully will be able to broaden your knowledge base and be more successful than you are right now.
Re: So far I didn't experience any problems because of lack of theories with the circuit
The stability problem was caused by lack of proper grounding and was never because of not enough gain. But even if it was, I don't see a problem here as this was still a prototype and because it was a part of my R&D, I figured the way out of it myself, without your help. And it seems like you are the only one annoyed with the way I perform my R&D.
Is there any anybody else?
As I follow the forum discussions pretty close, it seems to me that I'm not the only one "doing exploitation of the forum for commercial purposes". Maybe it's time we open the special Manufacturers section?
Fred Dieckmann said:
The stability problem was caused by lack of proper grounding and was never because of not enough gain. But even if it was, I don't see a problem here as this was still a prototype and because it was a part of my R&D, I figured the way out of it myself, without your help. And it seems like you are the only one annoyed with the way I perform my R&D.
Is there any anybody else?
As I follow the forum discussions pretty close, it seems to me that I'm not the only one "doing exploitation of the forum for commercial purposes". Maybe it's time we open the special Manufacturers section?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Did somebody say, I'm not doing my own R&D's
I'll rephrase my question then. Where did you get the idea that I don't combine theory with experiments in my work. Was it from Fred?
millwood said:
I'll rephrase my question then. Where did you get the idea that I don't combine theory with experiments in my work. Was it from Fred?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.