You need different resistors values and the layout is slightly different, but non invering board can be easily modified into invering by cutting traces/connecting parts directly. After all we are talking here 2 resistors only😉
Talking about that, I have a bunch of Caddocks and Rikens removed from all modified amps (250K and 10K values). I can sell them pretty cheap.
Talking about that, I have a bunch of Caddocks and Rikens removed from all modified amps (250K and 10K values). I can sell them pretty cheap.
I'm using an active preamp, and it works as a buffer, as the sound is pretty good with it, better than without, would be my guess.
Peter, I honestly don't want to start one of those terrible arguments that we sometimes see on this forum but when we originally discussed buffers with Gainclones, you preferred the sound without a buffer.
I just wondered if you have changed any other factors (source, speakers etc) in your system so that you now prefer the sound with a buffer? 😉
Nuuk said:
I sort of asked a related question is Peter's thread about his new buffer (preamp).
It would seem to me that the high output impedance of a passive I/V DAC would not be well suited to drive the low input impedance of a TVC like the one Peter used before. I suggested that maybe putting the buffer between the passive I/V and the TVC could yield the best results?
Maybe not, though. I haven't heard what a ML preamp can do.
Peter Daniel said:
Yes.
Regulated or not, Inverted sounds better to me.
But anyway on the PCB I have regulators for the OPA627 buffer.
And another (maby important) thing is that I use the LM3886.
Peter, your result may be different, you're not talking about an active buffer...
The inverted configuration needs an active buffer near the chip (a good op-amp) to give it's best.
Without buffer, NI sounds better, but it benefits if buffered too.
😎
Nuuk said:
I remember that.
He said that without trying.😀
Just minimalist theory...
Same thing with the regulated PSU now...🙄
For one year that I'm saying that the GC sounds even better with a good pre (or a buffer, in case of integrated amp).
Nuuk said:
I don't know if you remember that, but as soon as I tried S&B 102 TVC stage, I claimed right away it improves the GC sound, both on this forum and the other chip amp forum. I also tried OPA627 buffer and results were much less satisfactory, so maybe that's what confusion comes from.
You guys have pretty funny approach. You think you put any buffer in front of the GC amp and it should imidiately improve the sound. Well, it's not the case.
I definitely like it with TVC.
When I tried stock ML 38S I didn't like it all. The sound was very dark, without enough high end extention, very dull and boring. I definitely prerferred the amp with a passive volume cotrol (consisting of Vishay and Holco resistors) and not with the active preamp.
After experimenting and improving ML preamp, the results are much better now, and actually I prefer the amp with this premp than with a switching attenuator.
I don't know how this now compares to TVC, but eventually I will compare them too. It might well be that modified ML is actually better.
As to the inverted/ non-inverted config., even with a buffer, non-inverting sounds better to me.
PS: Bear in mind that modified ML380S is a $8,000 preamp (including mods).
Peter Daniel said:
You couldn't put the OPA627 to sing properly, but don't generalize the results.
Peter Daniel said:
The TVC is a passive device, using an S & B transformer pot. It probably doesn't have the shortcomings of a passive pot on an IGC, but it doesn't have any "drive" of its own. It shouldn't be that different from a properly made stepped attenuator.
Not any buffer should work, but a properly designed one might. Whether it sounds better or worst than a passive design may be a matter of opinion.
You also reported your experience with regulators, which you also didn't like. Others seem to like buffers and regulators.
Bottom end it's really a question of taste when we get to a certain level and what are our expectations or surprises when we listen to what we made.
The question is that we got here in this forum to a level in GC development that is quite remarkable. Now it might be really a question of character shaping.
Carlos
I guess I couldn't.
Did you try S&B 102 TVC stage, in case you don't want to generalise that OPA627 is better?
Did you try S&B 102 TVC stage, in case you don't want to generalise that OPA627 is better?
carlmart said:
As far as I know, I don't have any experience with regulators as I didn't try them yet.
I only have my doubts, which I hope am allowed to express.
carlmart said:
That's what I meant on my post #125, but thanks for making it even more clear, Carlos.😎
carlmart said:
Passive pots and switching attenuators are not equal. Some are noticably better, but even the best I tried were not a match fot TVC stage. (with GC, other setups might be different).
Peter Daniel said:
This will not take us anywhere, forget it.
I have my oppinion, and I have excellent results with the OPA627, just that.
carlosfm said:
This will not take us anywhere, forget it.
I have my oppinion, and I have excellent results with the OPA627, just that.
It's good you mentioned that it's only your opinion. Let's try to keep it this way. You already know my opinion.
Peter Daniel said:
That's fair.
These days I don't say everything on these forums.
Next day it's being copied and sold.😉
I'm shocked!
Someone would take something that they read here.......copy it and then try to sell it?
No......it can't be.
Oh,wait.......National doesn't have an app note on regulators for chip amps.
(Must be why someone hasn't tried one yet..........hmmmmm?)
Never mind........post it and they will take..........
Jocko........the guy that "nobody takes seriously anymore."
Someone would take something that they read here.......copy it and then try to sell it?
No......it can't be.
Oh,wait.......National doesn't have an app note on regulators for chip amps.
(Must be why someone hasn't tried one yet..........hmmmmm?)
Never mind........post it and they will take..........
Jocko........the guy that "nobody takes seriously anymore."
Jocko, I was not talking regulators.
I was generalizing.
Why bother to post my oppinions on the best implementation for these chips (not only the PSU, much more) if I'm not selling anything?
I'm talking my experience with these chips, people can take it serious or not.
It seams that everyone is blinded by PD's oppinions, I don't give a s**t.
I know what's best, but I'll keep it for myself.
And I don't need help from friends to decide what's best.
BTW, some crappy dacs are being called "Ultimate", some of these days they're selling PCBs.
Yes, my experience with those dacs tell me that they will sound much better with different implementation.
Don't ask me how, I WON'T TELL.
Now, mods, if you wanna put this in Texas, go ahead, put the whole thread, this amp is crap!
Peter Daniel makes the best amps in the world, you know?
BTW Jocko, tell me what's the AppNote that says precisely what cap value works best after the LM338 regulator, because I've spent hours finding it and reported here.🙄
I was generalizing.
Why bother to post my oppinions on the best implementation for these chips (not only the PSU, much more) if I'm not selling anything?
I'm talking my experience with these chips, people can take it serious or not.
It seams that everyone is blinded by PD's oppinions, I don't give a s**t.
I know what's best, but I'll keep it for myself.
And I don't need help from friends to decide what's best.
BTW, some crappy dacs are being called "Ultimate", some of these days they're selling PCBs.
Yes, my experience with those dacs tell me that they will sound much better with different implementation.
Don't ask me how, I WON'T TELL.
Now, mods, if you wanna put this in Texas, go ahead, put the whole thread, this amp is crap!
Peter Daniel makes the best amps in the world, you know?
BTW Jocko, tell me what's the AppNote that says precisely what cap value works best after the LM338 regulator, because I've spent hours finding it and reported here.🙄
carlosfm said:
Peter Daniel makes the best amps in the world, you know?
It seems like you took the challenge and the best comes from you now. Nothing wrong with that, especially when Jocko is your consultant.
It only shows that you can't read the posts, or you read too much into them. I believe there is a difference between 'ultimate' layout, and 'ultimate' DAC.carlosfm said:
I already suspect that you figured out the way to build an ultimate DAC. Interestingly, not even a year ago, Jocko was claiming those DACs were the biggest piece of crap around.
That's why I suggested not to take him seriously anymore.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.