High-End Regulated Buffered Inverted GC

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#842
Are you saying that
Click to expand...

the lt1083 needs a cap on its output pin to work proberly - the lm338 doesn't.........🙂

in other words - it's a different animal...:superman:


i would like to comment on the matter of "feeding the regulator".

the better "food" you supply the regulator - the better it works.
if your trafo and caps are too small, the food will be too meagre......:att'n:
 
#843
True Nuuk, I just couldn't help it...😉

What I was trying to say was that everyone is different, and has different tastes, and different systems. To me, the LM chips sound very nice, but the OPAs very accurate, and I prefer accurate. For the same reason, I prefer the inverting approach rather than the NI, but I can see why some people like the sound of the NI amps.

But, as we say in England. it's horses for courses, and I have no regrets in using the LM chips for my current project, as I can use the mute to enable a soft start circuit to reduce clicks and pops upstream from the active crossover circuitry.
 
#844
t. said:


I also built the TDA1543 NOS dac and noticed the treble roll off, its not a bad sounding dac and is cheap and easy to build but I feel my modified Arcam Alpha5+ (NOS,TDA1541S2 ,ALW super regs,Pedja's output stage etc) easily beats it
Click to expand...

I was actually using modified Marantz CD-94 with OPA627 at the output and TDA1541S2 chip. After switching to TDA1543 (I2S direct) and battery power I would never come back to TDA1541 (with this player). I also tried active output with TDA1543 (based on rbroer circuit) but to me, passive I/V sounds more coherent. As I mentioned previously, the sound of this Marantz is in many ways better than partsconnexion modified Shanling. I'm using Shanling right now, so I know. I switched to a different reference to please Carlos😉
The player sits on pneumatic platform.
 

Attachments

  • sl.jpg
    sl.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 250
#847
Peter Daniel said:


I was actually using modified Marantz CD-94 with OPA627 at the output and TDA1541S2 chip. After switching to TDA1543 (I2S direct) and battery power I would never come back to TDA1541 (with this player). I also tried active output with TDA1543 (based on rbroer circuit) but to me, passive I/V sounds more coherent. As I mentioned previously, the sound of this Marantz is in many ways better than partsconnexion modified Shanling. I'm using Shanling right now, so I know. I switched to a different reference to please Carlos😉
The player sits on pneumatic platform.
Click to expand...


I'm not a fan of the Shanling, its a beautiful looking piece of kit but the sound didn't really do it for me, I prefered the sound of the tubed output in that player .
I have already compared my Arcam to one of those and I know which one sounded best to me, The guy who was selling it also agreed😉
 
#849
Re: The Real Answer

saabie22 said:



Obviously you have not experienced buffered inverted blueberry jam, with regulation (of course)!

😀


Mike
Click to expand...

Yes, I have made a version of all jams at one time or another. So I know what all jam recipes and everyone’s batch tastes like on their bread. So if you don't prefer the blueberry you obviously did not make it correctly, or you do not know how to taste properly.

🙂

No question though that someone who has tried many different recipes and cooking methods has a great amount of insight and experiences to contribute to raise the bar. No question the cooking community will have better jam to make.

Someone then will likely have a new insight or sufficient luck to create a new ingredient or technique that is even more popular with breakfast eaters.

Ahhh. I love jam!
 
#850
t. said:



I'm not a fan of the Shanling, its a beautiful looking piece of kit but the sound didn't really do it for me, I prefered the sound of the tubed output in that player .
I have already compared my Arcam to one of those and I know which one sounded best to me, The guy who was selling it also agreed😉
Click to expand...

At least we can agree on something. The stock player is indeed not impressive at all and I also prefer the tube output.

But the modified unit is actually pretty good, and I'm talking here about such. BTW, this Shanling is not mine, I just have it on loan.
 
#851
Peter Daniel said:


At least we can agree on something. The stock player is indeed not impressive at all and I also prefer the tube output.


But the modified unit is actually pretty good, and I'm talking here about such. BTW, this Shanling is not mine, I just have it on loan.
Click to expand...


I suppose we all have our own personnel tastes Pete🙂
No harm in posting our opinions, so whats your best sounding GC at the minute? I presume you have more than one Clone
 
#855
After posting a zillion times on this forum how to bypass a fast op-amp, I didn't think it was necessary to put everything in the schematic.
Once again, I prove that Peter's speciality is to copy schematics.
This was going well untill he came here.
He must be afraid of something.
To make this clear to all, I don't care with what he compares the (bad) amp he made.
I just don't identify the sound of my amp with his impressions.

Here it is, V3, with everything.
This time it's in a zip file, with all the resolution.
Enjoy.😎
 

Attachments

#858
carlosfm said:
[BHere it is, V3, with everything.
[/B]
Click to expand...

You were very specific in response to queries in this thread that the bypassing was not on the schematic originally to simplify the diagram but that bypassing was very necessary to your implementation (and in general). You gave the particular values also, which you use pretty consistently in designs if I remember correctly.

The new schematic is most helpful to avoid a mistake or miscommunication or wonder down the road if it was left off intentionally for some reason. It is also a more useful aid to someone coming late to the thread and only going back a hundred posts or so.

Thank you for the extra effort on the Rev 3 schematic. It is appreciated.
 
#859
Peter Daniel said:
In terms of transparency and dynamics, the amp in this thread can't compare.
Click to expand...


just because the one you had implemented may not sound as good to your ears than the one in that thread, that doesn't mean other cannot have better results.

I am not a fan of regulated PS for power amps (tried it way back and didn't like it. and I doubt that newer 3-terminal breed is that much better but I haven't tried so I cannot say definitively). But to base your conclusion on one implementation in light of excellent results others have obtained using Carlos' topology, doesn't sound very ignorant?

Peter, I know your commercial interests may be very important to you, but sometimes you do need to step back and accept the reality that a lot of other people can be better than you on this thing.

Defending your infallability when you depletes your credibility very quickly.
 
#860
I just don't identify the sound of my amp with his impressions.

Here it is, V3, with everything.
This time it's in a zip file, with all the resolution.
Enjoy.😎 [/B][/QUOTE]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that the sound of this amp will be just as dependent on the coupling cap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom