1. How can you copy something that is based around integrated IC´s and is written in datasheets? So where´s your secret anyway?
2. If everybody was thinking like that I actually wouldn´t be here.
This forum is about a community of some very knowledged people who are generous with their knowledge and design help.
Jens - thinks we should be careful whom we scare away from the forums
As a newbie looking in from outside, I don't understand why someone wants to post what they are building without actually saying how.
Otherwise it is just boasting rather than being useful to anyone else.
On another thread, somone posts a fancy amp design and states that the actual component values are left unspecified so that any competent DIY can tweak them to their own liking. Some people gave him a lot of guff for that, but he never budged. The amp remained a rough schematic. Perhaps that is all it EVER was.
What was the point of that post? I could never build that amp because as a newbie, I wouldn't have a clue about how to specifiy the values. He didn't even give a baseline starting place.
In this chip-amp section, I was feeling frustrated about how people were talking about their designs, but not being clear about how they were doing it. It now turns out that this cagey act is utterly deliberate, which begs the question -- why post at all.
It is not very useful to anyone if all this is bragging forum.
I am not out to steal anybody's ideas. I just want to buld a nice amp. I'd even pay someone a reasonable design fee for a good worked out design.
Otherwise it is just boasting rather than being useful to anyone else.
On another thread, somone posts a fancy amp design and states that the actual component values are left unspecified so that any competent DIY can tweak them to their own liking. Some people gave him a lot of guff for that, but he never budged. The amp remained a rough schematic. Perhaps that is all it EVER was.
What was the point of that post? I could never build that amp because as a newbie, I wouldn't have a clue about how to specifiy the values. He didn't even give a baseline starting place.
In this chip-amp section, I was feeling frustrated about how people were talking about their designs, but not being clear about how they were doing it. It now turns out that this cagey act is utterly deliberate, which begs the question -- why post at all.
It is not very useful to anyone if all this is bragging forum.
I am not out to steal anybody's ideas. I just want to buld a nice amp. I'd even pay someone a reasonable design fee for a good worked out design.
Come on Carlos, it seems like you being a little grouchy here.
Just because Peter doesn't agree with you on everything is no reason for YOU to get upset. I don't see how he can agree that your amp is great if he hasn't made one and heard it.
He's not saying you are lying!!
Lots of us are reading your posts and are very interested.
But I think you have to agree that no one sould just believe whatever is written here- even from someone with a good reputation as you have. Hell, if we listened to some "authorities" around here we wouldn't even have tried chip amps!!
Why do you want to "take your ball and go home" just because one person hasn't built your amp? Why do you assume that because one person hasn't built your amp no one is interested?
Why wouldn't you share your discoveries with the rest of us?
Are you just "showing off" like the poster above asked?
How can you complain that people are copying your designs and that people are not taking you seriously at the same time?
The reason everyone is making gainclones without regulation or
buffers is because the easy way, with Brian's boards, doesn't have these features. A lot of us don't have time to jump into a new project. instantly like you and Peter are apparently able to do.
Just because Peter doesn't agree with you on everything is no reason for YOU to get upset. I don't see how he can agree that your amp is great if he hasn't made one and heard it.
He's not saying you are lying!!
Lots of us are reading your posts and are very interested.
But I think you have to agree that no one sould just believe whatever is written here- even from someone with a good reputation as you have. Hell, if we listened to some "authorities" around here we wouldn't even have tried chip amps!!
Why do you want to "take your ball and go home" just because one person hasn't built your amp? Why do you assume that because one person hasn't built your amp no one is interested?
Why wouldn't you share your discoveries with the rest of us?
Are you just "showing off" like the poster above asked?
How can you complain that people are copying your designs and that people are not taking you seriously at the same time?
The reason everyone is making gainclones without regulation or
buffers is because the easy way, with Brian's boards, doesn't have these features. A lot of us don't have time to jump into a new project. instantly like you and Peter are apparently able to do.
Peter Daniel said:
I was talking of the particular chip that you like and use, I like it too, but not that way, and I don't have any relation with Jocko.
Anyway, you come here to put your doubts, to say it shouldn't be better blah blah blah... without trying, because we are talking here of something you haven't tried, you don't make, you don't sell.
This site is becoming very commercial, it's not what it used to be.
That's my point.
I have all the best intentions in reporting my experiences and someone that thinks he's a guru (you) come here and doubts everything I say.
What's the matter Peter, am I ruining your business?
Variac said:
Hey Carlos,
Don't get upset, Variac summarized it pretty well. I don't know how your amp sounds and how good it is.
But the way you present it, it seems like it's the next best thing around. Try to look at this from my side, I might think you're a guru as well😉
Let's be friends and don't argue about it anymore. I ordered LM338 today and will try them soon. Then we'll see how good reg. PS is.
Carlos,
Coming back to your buffer stage, I see you use IC regulators. Let me tell you about my experience with those. In my preamp LM78M15 and LM79M15 has been used. I changed them for LM2990T-15 and LM2937ET-15 and the difference is substantial. I was also experimenting with caps before regulators. Originally Chemi Com 6,800/35 were used. I tried many different brands (Nichicone were the worst, Panasonic for Audio sounded pretty good and STD BG were close to very good) but the best results I obtained with 1000/50 BG N type. Those were sounding most natural without any tonal discripancies, no question about it. I hope yiu are using MUR860 diodes as they also work very well here. I'm using 4.7 BG N after regulators. They sound very good, but I will definitely try bigger values, up to 33u. Those caps are simply the best in those applications, IMO.
As to the bypass caps at the chip, those blue ROE seem the work very well indeed. I only tried 0.01u value, but that's the value that was there originally. The input buffer is based around LT1217, but soon I'l be putting there OPA627 or AD797.
Coming back to your buffer stage, I see you use IC regulators. Let me tell you about my experience with those. In my preamp LM78M15 and LM79M15 has been used. I changed them for LM2990T-15 and LM2937ET-15 and the difference is substantial. I was also experimenting with caps before regulators. Originally Chemi Com 6,800/35 were used. I tried many different brands (Nichicone were the worst, Panasonic for Audio sounded pretty good and STD BG were close to very good) but the best results I obtained with 1000/50 BG N type. Those were sounding most natural without any tonal discripancies, no question about it. I hope yiu are using MUR860 diodes as they also work very well here. I'm using 4.7 BG N after regulators. They sound very good, but I will definitely try bigger values, up to 33u. Those caps are simply the best in those applications, IMO.
As to the bypass caps at the chip, those blue ROE seem the work very well indeed. I only tried 0.01u value, but that's the value that was there originally. The input buffer is based around LT1217, but soon I'l be putting there OPA627 or AD797.
He don't need no steenking consultants......
All he needs is a National app note, his kid to layout the PCB, and voila! The world's greatest amp.
Better than anything that Nelson Pass, John Curl, Charlie Hansen, Jeff Rowland, Steve McCormack, Keith Johnson, Dan D'Agostino and a bunch of other guys have ever done.
Yeah, right. And you talk about being taken seriously. Maybe you should look in the mirror next time you say that.
Never heard one of them ever say that they make the greatest amp known to mankind. Just one good enough to merit acceptance in the market place.
Seems that high-end isn't the only place that ego runs amok.
(Well, ok.............maybe Dan has at one time.............)
Jocko
All he needs is a National app note, his kid to layout the PCB, and voila! The world's greatest amp.
Better than anything that Nelson Pass, John Curl, Charlie Hansen, Jeff Rowland, Steve McCormack, Keith Johnson, Dan D'Agostino and a bunch of other guys have ever done.
Yeah, right. And you talk about being taken seriously. Maybe you should look in the mirror next time you say that.
Never heard one of them ever say that they make the greatest amp known to mankind. Just one good enough to merit acceptance in the market place.
Seems that high-end isn't the only place that ego runs amok.
(Well, ok.............maybe Dan has at one time.............)
Jocko
Re: He don't need no steenking consultants......
I've never heard me saying that either. It's only jealous guys like you try to suggest it.
Let's do it like that: you find a post where I say that I make "The world's greatest amp" and I will send you one of those amps (and you can keep it)
Jocko Homo said:
I've never heard me saying that either. It's only jealous guys like you try to suggest it.
Let's do it like that: you find a post where I say that I make "The world's greatest amp" and I will send you one of those amps (and you can keep it)
One thing I'm NOT interested in is the $150 kit to build an extremely overdesigned enclosure for the gain clone.
There is no way that such heavy aluminum, 1-inch thick hardwood or expensive feet are going to make the slightest difference in the sound. There are also simpler ways to build the enclosure that would look just as nice (or better) esthetically but cost much less.
The one-inch thick hardwood is utterly wasted on the exterior since it isn't rounded for any good esthetic effect. you may as well use flat veneer and save money and trees.
I also see these pointy feet over and over on various people's stuff here. I can understand vibration isolation for a turntable. I can't imagine why it would make much difference to an amplifier, or a DAC. A few cents worth of rubber feet would look just fine and I can't imagine any way that you could hear the difference other than pschoacoustics.
I also can't understand the reverence for various expensive interconnects either. Once you get a clean signal into the amp, with perhaps $20 US worth of cables, why spend more?
There is no way that such heavy aluminum, 1-inch thick hardwood or expensive feet are going to make the slightest difference in the sound. There are also simpler ways to build the enclosure that would look just as nice (or better) esthetically but cost much less.
The one-inch thick hardwood is utterly wasted on the exterior since it isn't rounded for any good esthetic effect. you may as well use flat veneer and save money and trees.
I also see these pointy feet over and over on various people's stuff here. I can understand vibration isolation for a turntable. I can't imagine why it would make much difference to an amplifier, or a DAC. A few cents worth of rubber feet would look just fine and I can't imagine any way that you could hear the difference other than pschoacoustics.
I also can't understand the reverence for various expensive interconnects either. Once you get a clean signal into the amp, with perhaps $20 US worth of cables, why spend more?
Hi geewhizbang,
It’s clear you don’t believe in magic at all. But let me tell you, if you want to become a successful electronic designer you need a little bit of magic (or in other words: imagination)
😀 😉
It’s clear you don’t believe in magic at all. But let me tell you, if you want to become a successful electronic designer you need a little bit of magic (or in other words: imagination)
😀 😉
geewhizbang said:
I was just starting to enjoy this thread after being turned off at first, and BOOM!, democracy shows its ugly side. 🙂
Jocko, I assume this was a reply to Carlos?
I think you are being awfully critical of him.
Geewhizbang: What does this have to do with a high end regulated and buffered GC?
Look at all the "high end" amps on the market:
Overengineered cases are the norm . A case that's looks "cool"
isn't something sinful. At least I think it looks cool, and I guess the people that ordered it like it too. ( I couldn't spend the money on it so I bought a simpler case, but I like it)
I would think that you could figur e out how to round the wood corners if that's what you prefer the wood isn't finished. After all this is DIY
😎
I thought that way for a long time and I still harbour doubts over some of the claims made in Hi-Fi some are pretty wacky
but until you try these things for yourself you will never understand how, for instance, 3 wood cones placed under a piece of Hi-Fi kit can alter the sound, forget if it's good or bad just the fact that it's altered the sound. Hi-Fi is more than just electrical engineering there is an 'art' to it as well, after the base ground has been laid with good engineering comes a certain 'skill' in ,say, selecting components and knowing what works with what, I think it's fun. What sounds good to me or what I percieve to sound good may have a totally different affect on the next guy/gal, the only person your'e trying to please is yourself.Let's make this clear, Peter
You ask me questions like "what do you prefer, inverted or non-inverted, and why", and I answer you politely.
You ask me "what are your impressions about the LM3886, is it better than the LM3875?", I answer you politely, as to any member here, newbie or old.
But then, you disagree on some matters in a way like you have the reason for everything.
That's why I became mad about this.
I give my oppinion, based on my experience and you don't accept that.
Tell you what, read this, it seams I'm still useful for some people:
Post #737 here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=422077#post422077
But you don't know what we're talking about, you have no experience with this.
Next time try to accept other oppinions.
You ask me questions like "what do you prefer, inverted or non-inverted, and why", and I answer you politely.
You ask me "what are your impressions about the LM3886, is it better than the LM3875?", I answer you politely, as to any member here, newbie or old.
But then, you disagree on some matters in a way like you have the reason for everything.
That's why I became mad about this.
I give my oppinion, based on my experience and you don't accept that.
Tell you what, read this, it seams I'm still useful for some people:
Post #737 here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=422077#post422077
But you don't know what we're talking about, you have no experience with this.
Next time try to accept other oppinions.
What was ugly about what I posted?
Good sound is a matter of getting the physics right. Making the best tradeoffs between human hearing perception and the physical constraints of audio reproduction is a matter of physics, and the result will be more accurate and sound better.
If you get too worried about some kind of accuracy that our ears cannot hear, such accuracy often comes at the cost of something that you CAN hear but couldn't be bothered to measure.
There is art to this for sure. But it is also science.
But there is absolutely no reason why a peice of wire, beyond some shielding for interference, and perhaps some attention to capacitance and inductance, makes much of a difference past a certain point.
There is certain point, where no matter how much you spend, you are not going to make it significantly better in terms of capacitance, shielding, resistance, or inductance. Especially since it is already pretty hard to tell the difference between $3.00 unshielded interconnects and $20.00 reasonably good ones already. How is spending any more going to make any more difference is beyond me, since there is no physical theory that can explain how $200 interconnects should sound any better than $20 ones do. Or any difference in the construction of $200 interconnects that ACTUALLY costs more to build. Other than the hype.
Or those silly pointy feet on amplfiers. Or if you think that pointy feet look good, fine. But I doubt that they have anything to do with the sound, because there is no physical theory that can explain the effect on the sound.
I am not into magic. I am into art, but in audio, such art has to be grounded in solid physics. I just want good sound, and I don't care about highfalutin' pyschoacoustic mumbo-jumbo.
*****
On the other hand, I can see people doing a lot of things that do make sense. Most of what Carlos posts makes sense to me; he seems to have a good grasp on physics. It is refreshing that he finds no big difference in audio interconnects, which, is as it should be, since there is no reason why they SHOULD make much of a difference.
Good sound is a matter of getting the physics right. Making the best tradeoffs between human hearing perception and the physical constraints of audio reproduction is a matter of physics, and the result will be more accurate and sound better.
If you get too worried about some kind of accuracy that our ears cannot hear, such accuracy often comes at the cost of something that you CAN hear but couldn't be bothered to measure.
There is art to this for sure. But it is also science.
But there is absolutely no reason why a peice of wire, beyond some shielding for interference, and perhaps some attention to capacitance and inductance, makes much of a difference past a certain point.
There is certain point, where no matter how much you spend, you are not going to make it significantly better in terms of capacitance, shielding, resistance, or inductance. Especially since it is already pretty hard to tell the difference between $3.00 unshielded interconnects and $20.00 reasonably good ones already. How is spending any more going to make any more difference is beyond me, since there is no physical theory that can explain how $200 interconnects should sound any better than $20 ones do. Or any difference in the construction of $200 interconnects that ACTUALLY costs more to build. Other than the hype.
Or those silly pointy feet on amplfiers. Or if you think that pointy feet look good, fine. But I doubt that they have anything to do with the sound, because there is no physical theory that can explain the effect on the sound.
I am not into magic. I am into art, but in audio, such art has to be grounded in solid physics. I just want good sound, and I don't care about highfalutin' pyschoacoustic mumbo-jumbo.
*****
On the other hand, I can see people doing a lot of things that do make sense. Most of what Carlos posts makes sense to me; he seems to have a good grasp on physics. It is refreshing that he finds no big difference in audio interconnects, which, is as it should be, since there is no reason why they SHOULD make much of a difference.
I'm sorry Carlos if I sounded too critical of you. I don't think you are just boasting. I do wish you could be a little more clear, but I will eventually get up to speed.
Re: Let's make this clear, Peter
Since you still try to continue it, I'll tell you what I have experience with. I had to modify at least 20 amps, which were pulled from customers, when we learned that non-inverted configuration sounded better. Each of those guys preferred the amp after the conversion was made. This stands both for integrated and monoblocks. Monoblocks were mostly used eith TVC preamp stage (as a buffer).
The major claimed difficiency of inverting topology was lack of soundstage and lack of dynamics. To me it also sounded 'veiled'. Complete opposite to what you claim. But then again you are using a different chip so we can't really compare.
Please try to accept my opinion on that.
carlosfm said:
Since you still try to continue it, I'll tell you what I have experience with. I had to modify at least 20 amps, which were pulled from customers, when we learned that non-inverted configuration sounded better. Each of those guys preferred the amp after the conversion was made. This stands both for integrated and monoblocks. Monoblocks were mostly used eith TVC preamp stage (as a buffer).
The major claimed difficiency of inverting topology was lack of soundstage and lack of dynamics. To me it also sounded 'veiled'. Complete opposite to what you claim. But then again you are using a different chip so we can't really compare.
Please try to accept my opinion on that.
Re: Let's make this clear, Peter
Tell me, what exactly is wrong with that?
Is it because you don't want to accept other oppinions?
carlosfm said:
Tell me, what exactly is wrong with that?
Is it because you don't want to accept other oppinions?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.