I have been following this thread since the beginning and have been very disapointed by the amount of pointless bickering that has gone on.
Carlo's ideas seem sound and if carried out properly I feel will undoubtedly produce a better sounding amp. This I base on the improvements I experienced though using a buffer on my last Gainclone. However his tone has done him no favours and only served to muddy the water.
I have followed Peters work for a long time and respect his thorough work in researching component choice. However I feel a well engineered design is much more likely to procduce conistently good results than spending lots of money on exotic components. I also feel that he willfully misrepresented his test comparison by putting up his battery powered Gainclone against the regulated buffered Gainclone. If you failed to follow the fine detail of this enormous thread it would be easy to assume that Peter was saying that you could make a AC driven none buffered Gainclone sound as good as a Regulated buffered Gainclone. This was not what he was doing, and he compared a different beast to Carlos amp. It might also be argued that he deliberately botched the implementation. Very few people will ever go down the Battery route so to throw this into the pot was misleading.
I think Peter has done himself enormous damage and should shut up and stop digging himself into a hole.
Thats my thoughs and let the bickering stop before it ****es everyone off.
Shoog
Carlo's ideas seem sound and if carried out properly I feel will undoubtedly produce a better sounding amp. This I base on the improvements I experienced though using a buffer on my last Gainclone. However his tone has done him no favours and only served to muddy the water.
I have followed Peters work for a long time and respect his thorough work in researching component choice. However I feel a well engineered design is much more likely to procduce conistently good results than spending lots of money on exotic components. I also feel that he willfully misrepresented his test comparison by putting up his battery powered Gainclone against the regulated buffered Gainclone. If you failed to follow the fine detail of this enormous thread it would be easy to assume that Peter was saying that you could make a AC driven none buffered Gainclone sound as good as a Regulated buffered Gainclone. This was not what he was doing, and he compared a different beast to Carlos amp. It might also be argued that he deliberately botched the implementation. Very few people will ever go down the Battery route so to throw this into the pot was misleading.
I think Peter has done himself enormous damage and should shut up and stop digging himself into a hole.
Thats my thoughs and let the bickering stop before it ****es everyone off.
Shoog
So, now with 87 pages (43 of which are insults,bickering, imaturity generally) I can't find an answer to this: Carlos, have you tried using a non-inverted configuration with reg power supply? It seems that you haven't because you state that others have foolishly persued the non-inverted route, while you wisely stuck with the inverted, resulting in the amp you love so much.
I am seriously asking this because it seems that there is a good possibility that it might be "the best of both worlds"
I understand that the buffer is more likely to improve the inverted than the non-inverted, but it still hasn't been tried?
It seems like there is a group of people that has stuck with the inverted and actually moved ahead with modifications to the minimallist approach. (perhaps beacause the inverted alone is not as great sounding?) while the non inverted camp has been so pleased with the sound that there hasn't been a lot of work investigating options.
I hope someone sees this and is willing to start the third camp, do the research, and a new (respectful) thread.
Maybe it will be a Maxi mini Krell.
Raspberry of course, any idiot can see that instantly..
I am seriously asking this because it seems that there is a good possibility that it might be "the best of both worlds"
I understand that the buffer is more likely to improve the inverted than the non-inverted, but it still hasn't been tried?
It seems like there is a group of people that has stuck with the inverted and actually moved ahead with modifications to the minimallist approach. (perhaps beacause the inverted alone is not as great sounding?) while the non inverted camp has been so pleased with the sound that there hasn't been a lot of work investigating options.
I hope someone sees this and is willing to start the third camp, do the research, and a new (respectful) thread.
Maybe it will be a Maxi mini Krell.
Raspberry of course, any idiot can see that instantly..
Variac,
I have tested inverted and non-inverted.
Buffered and non-buffered.
Regulated and non-regulated.
Regulated inverted-buffered, regulated NI, regulated NI buffered.
LM1875, LM3875, LM3886, LM4780, OPA548, OPA549.
The only one I didn't regulate (yet) was the OPA548.
Anyway, the OPAs are good too, I just feel they don't have that magic midband and treble.
As you can see, when I opened this thread I had already made my mind.
Anyway, NI is good too, but better regulated, and even better regulated and buffered (if you know what you're doing).
But inverted, in the same conditions is better.
Not night and day, in fact.
I hope that my oppinion based on my experience is clear now, as I've said this too many times.
Note (again
): everytime I put a buffer between the pot and the amp I have improvements (with the amp regulated or not).
On the (NI) LM4780 it was the OPA2132, this op-amp is as picky with bypassing and layout as the OPA627.
And this is common nowadays, op-amps are fast, demand attention.
Otherwise, you risk having better results with an NE5532.
I also hope this thread 😎 s down.
I have tested inverted and non-inverted.
Buffered and non-buffered.
Regulated and non-regulated.
Regulated inverted-buffered, regulated NI, regulated NI buffered.
LM1875, LM3875, LM3886, LM4780, OPA548, OPA549.
The only one I didn't regulate (yet) was the OPA548.
Anyway, the OPAs are good too, I just feel they don't have that magic midband and treble.
As you can see, when I opened this thread I had already made my mind.
Anyway, NI is good too, but better regulated, and even better regulated and buffered (if you know what you're doing).
But inverted, in the same conditions is better.
Not night and day, in fact.
I hope that my oppinion based on my experience is clear now, as I've said this too many times.
Note (again
): everytime I put a buffer between the pot and the amp I have improvements (with the amp regulated or not).On the (NI) LM4780 it was the OPA2132, this op-amp is as picky with bypassing and layout as the OPA627.
And this is common nowadays, op-amps are fast, demand attention.
Otherwise, you risk having better results with an NE5532.
I also hope this thread 😎 s down.
Thanks for the clarification. 🙂
It wasn't clear from what I had read, and while the info may have been in this thread, I don't apologize for missing it amongst all the pointless arguing.
It wasn't clear from what I had read, and while the info may have been in this thread, I don't apologize for missing it amongst all the pointless arguing.
i dont know how u guys can notise a differense in bass/treble/mid in those in/nin chips when the freq response ALWAYS stays the same! 
inverted got lower input impedance so that can lead to bad bass response but this is only if the design is wrong
Shoog said:
Disclaimer - I'm not taking sides.
How does what you feel have to do with what *I* (or anyone else) hear? The answer is: absolutely nothing. It's pure arrogance for anyone to assert otherwise and is why all the arguing within this thread is utterly pointless.
Often enough the outcome goes against expectation, no matter how well reasoned the expectation is. At least both Peter and Carlos have tried to build similar amps to what the other is using. Only then can you have a reasonable chance to know and this conclusion is only valid for *you* and your system.
The problem is that some seem to need validation of their choices by having everyone else agree with them.
sss said:
There seams to be some confusion here.
What clearly betters the bass (and by consequence all the rest) is the regulated PSU.
The buffer betters soundstage, detail, harmonics, the feeling on being there, the LIVE sound...
My god, Jacintha's voice is in my room!😱
That feeling of... this is it!
Actually, music is not only bass/mid/treble.
Forget freq. response, I don't see the music that way.
sss said:
The buffer, near the amp chip, (mine is on the same PCB, at around 5cm from -IN of the LM3886) solves all the handicaps of inverted topology, and then you get it's advantages (as lower THD).
jeff mai said:
As i said Jeff, I don't recognize any of Peter's impressions of the sound of "my" amp.
As simple as that.
And I know what's wrong, but I won't give more details, I think you may have undestood by now.
And I didn't invite him to come here.
And I didn't invite him to build the amp.
Why does he go to all this trouble?
I leave this up to all you.
PS: Leon (t.) had his unreg. amp made with all of Peter's recommendations, including BGs in the PSU, his flavoured resistors, etc..
He built "my" amp cheaper than the price of two BGs and posted his oppinions.
Go some pages back, it's there.
And this is only one example.
"How does what you feel have to do with what *I* (or anyone else) hear? The answer is: absolutely nothing. It's pure arrogance for anyone to assert otherwise and is why all the arguing within this thread is utterly pointless."
You missed my essential point, in that I believe Peter did not do a fair comparison. I am certain he can produce an excellent sounding amp with his methodology, but he compared a battery powered GC when he should have used an AC driven GC. I base my opinion on having heard the benefit a buffer can bring and so I have evidence to support my belief that a buffer at least can bring tangable benefits. I will take it on faith (until I verify it) that a regulator can produce similar benefits, because I respect the research that others have done.
I think Peters conclusions are invalid because he threw a curve ball which has only served to confuse rather than enlighten.
If Peter hadn't got involved in this thread it could have been much more compact and useful for those who really are interested in pushing the envelope..
Shoog
You missed my essential point, in that I believe Peter did not do a fair comparison. I am certain he can produce an excellent sounding amp with his methodology, but he compared a battery powered GC when he should have used an AC driven GC. I base my opinion on having heard the benefit a buffer can bring and so I have evidence to support my belief that a buffer at least can bring tangable benefits. I will take it on faith (until I verify it) that a regulator can produce similar benefits, because I respect the research that others have done.
I think Peters conclusions are invalid because he threw a curve ball which has only served to confuse rather than enlighten.
If Peter hadn't got involved in this thread it could have been much more compact and useful for those who really are interested in pushing the envelope..
Shoog
carlosfm said:
Carlos keep it on that way please
Oh my God I had enough, Carlos and his secret PS and buffer on the same PCB, at around 5cm from -IN of the LM3886) and it solves all the handicaps of inverted topology, and then you get it's advantages (as lower THD).
Ahhaaa
Trigon 😀
carlosfm said:
As i said Jeff, I don't recognize any of Peter's impressions of the sound of "my" amp.
As simple as that.
And I know what's wrong, but I won't give more details, I think you may have undestood by now.
And I didn't invite him to come here.
And I didn't invite him to build the amp.
Why does he go to all this trouble?
I leave this up to all you.
PS: Leon (t.) had his unreg. amp made with all of Peter's recommendations, including BGs in the PSU, his flavoured resistors, etc..
He built "my" amp cheaper than the price of two BGs and posted his oppinions.
Go some pages back, it's there.
And this is only one example.
It ssems to me that to many people are judging the regulated, buffered GC whithout even bothering making one and listening to it.
I have to be honest, after the disapointing results with my non regulated non inverted GC I expected this one to be no better or even worse, seeing as though I had most of the standard parts I built one anyway, if it sounded crap I would stick it in the bedroom.
Its a week old now and I'm more than happy with it, infact the sound took me by surprise.
Come on guys, just get the thing built and see what you think, if its not to your liking then fair enough
hey guys, has any one of you compared buffered/unbuffered, regulated/unregulated clones in a system where a (good) preamp was used?
I'm not even thinking about battery powered clones (which requires more space than I can spare).
I'd like to know the results of these tests (if any) as i'm collecting parts to build me a nice preamp (with a slightly modified pimeta headphone amp as an output buffer). I'm especially interested in buffered/unbuffered comparisons with pre's as it seems likely that (with the local power lines, i live near a small industrial site) regulated psu's theoretically should be way better.
as most of the gainclone buffs are present here i thought it not necessary to open a new thread....
edit:
peter, carlos, can you please stop this childish behaviour? You're both at least 5 years older than me so act up to it.
"STIL, anders krijg je GEEN ijsje !"
I'm not even thinking about battery powered clones (which requires more space than I can spare).
I'd like to know the results of these tests (if any) as i'm collecting parts to build me a nice preamp (with a slightly modified pimeta headphone amp as an output buffer). I'm especially interested in buffered/unbuffered comparisons with pre's as it seems likely that (with the local power lines, i live near a small industrial site) regulated psu's theoretically should be way better.
as most of the gainclone buffs are present here i thought it not necessary to open a new thread....
edit:
peter, carlos, can you please stop this childish behaviour? You're both at least 5 years older than me so act up to it.
"STIL, anders krijg je GEEN ijsje !"
t. said:
unfortunately, that seems to be the norm here: people are too busy judging the sound by the schematics, spec sheets, or the polarity and lead length of resistors.
carlosfm said:
I was just about to ask you about your grounding arrangements on the buffer when I saw this............ But I`ll ask anyway:
What is better:
1. Connect input cap for the regs groundpins and the groundpins on 78/79L18 together with groundpins of the decoupling caps for the buffer and connect them to the amps signal star ground (low power)?
2 Connect input cap for the regs groundpins and the groundpins on 78/79L18 together and wire them to the power star ground. And then join the groundpins of the decoupling caps for the buffer to the signal starground?
Or neither?
Hope you can answer this.
I`ll order parts for my regulated, opa627, lm3886 amp on Monday. Maybe I`ll have it up and running within a couple of weeks.🙂
I did some reserach on my Dali Grand Coupe speakers, and even if they are 6 ohm average impedance, the impedance below 700 hertz is around 4 ohm ( I have not measured this my self, so I have to trust the net..) Sensitvity 85dB. Maybe I`ll be better of paralelling two lm3886 to get enough current?
Thanks
Tor Martin🙂
- Status
- Not open for further replies.