Shoog said:
Except he did compare it to an AC driven GC. You guys should read the posts before replying.
Shoog [/i][B] 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.[/B][/QUOTE] And I've heard how even a well implemented but unnecessary active stage can be destructive to the sound. My point is that neither yours nor my experience is applicable. There is nothing wrong with your point of view or your justification for it said:
Peter did his best attempt at building the regulated amp and he didn't like it. Carlos built the unregulated NI amp and he didn't like it. Fair enough????? Everyone????
jeff mai said:
Girl A likes diamond.
Girl B likes gold.
Girl C likes silver
Girl D likes men.
Fair enough !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But there are differences between diamond, gold, silver and men, and they are comparing these, aren't they?
carlosfm said:
So what? Maybe one of you is deaf? Maybe I am? If I am tin eared I'd be the last to know. So it would be with any of you.
This is not a particularly constructive attitude.
This is not an invitational forum and some people, including you, did urge him to build the amp. If you witheld the knowledge and instruction ensuring his success (as you just said you have done), perhaps you were more interested in publicly criticising his effort after its inevitable failure than in his building the amp properly and hearing it's superiority?
Why does he go to all this trouble?
I leave this up to all you.
It seems clear you feel you know his motives - have you (and other detractors) ever considered that you may be wrong. I don't actually believe what I wrote about your motive above, but it's plausible. It's just not constructive to assign motives to people.
Again, so what???? It doesn't mean anything. If everyone on the planet prefers amplifier A and I prefer amplifier B, does it make me wrong?
Jeff knows how to sum things up!!! 🙂
I think his last 2 posts speak for the great majority of us..
I think his last 2 posts speak for the great majority of us..
jeff mai said:
Girl A likes diamond. Fair enough and nothing wrong !!!
Girl B likes gold. Fair enough and nothing wrong !!!
Girl C likes silver. Fair enough and nothing wrong !!!
Girl D likes men. Fair enough and nothing wrong !!!
But there are differences between diamond, gold, silver and men, and they are comparing these, aren't they?
I'm sorry that this is my first post to this forum, but I do not agree with Jeff's summation, nor with your authority to say for whom he speaks.
I have spent the last couple of months reading GC threads and found this one to be the most interesting, lighthearted and fun.
So I was fearful after Peter made his appearance, that the tone and good natured banter of this thread would be lost. Not to mention the swapping of ideas and information!
Thus, it came to be!
Perhaps Peter's work is now done here, and he and his apologists might move on.
It dosen't matter to me which approach to making a GC is 'correct' or sounds 'the best', but I would like to be able to explore completely the nuances and tweaking of the Carlos approach, without interferance from those who are not really interested in its discussion.
Ivan
Just shows you that the perception of fun, similar to that of sound differs a lot.
This has become one of my favourite fun threads where Carlos 'I know what i'm talking about' provides better entertainment than even DestroyerX.
And his secret recipe how to turn a hamburger into high cuisine is gathering more and more devotees.
IPA said:
Poses an interesting question: if the purpose of tweaking isn't to make the best sounding GC (with 6 active devices Carlos' circuit, best or not, probably shouldn't be called a Gaincard Clone) then what is the aim? Some following this thread do so precisely to discover the best sounding implementation of this chip. Carlos, in fact, has claimed many times his is the best. What did he mean if not best sounding? I think for most people following this thread, who aren't caught up in the flamewar, discovering the best sounding circuit is the primary motive.
Yet you do the same for readers like me, the 'apologists'.
IPA said:
?????
People are responsible for their own reactions to others' comments. Full stop.
Perhaps the light-heartedness and fun you found here could have remained by accepting contrasting opinions without derision? This would have the added benefit over your suggestion I quoted above by not being exclusive of anyone.
Peter's whole black-magic approach leaves me deeply questioning his methods. I see all the elaborate trouble he goes to building stuff. But there are some principles of audio design that Peter leaves aside in his rather elaborate huge speaker cabinets, for just one example. I wouldn't make the choices he has made, I probably wouldn't like what I would have to give up in order to get whatever his speakers are doing well.
He puts spikes for vibration isolation on amps, which utterly mystifies me. I could only find literature on Ceramic caps as having microphonic issues, btw. For all other types it is not mentioned. And even so, I would suspect that spikes are not going to help as much as rubber feet. Potting ceramic caps in with a dab of ureathane caulk would probably solve that too.
He is obsessed with expensive capacitors, exotic interconnects and values simplicity way too much. Carlos design violates almost everything he believes in because it is not simple, and he doesn't use shockingly expensive caps.
I don't think we can take seriously any discussion of frequency response of Carlos amp by Peter, because Peter may very well be getting good response from the amp, but it only makes the deficiencies in his speakers more noticeable. Perhaps his chosen woofers ARE boomy with a good amp. His speaker box is rather large and unless he was incredibly careful with mechanical design, it is likely to be resonant. The bigger you make the box, the harder it is to avoid resonance.
I design the other way around. I want speakers to be as small as reasonably possible and keep the corner frequency around 55 hz where the sub takes over. So my philosophy is different right there. Keeping the box small makes it easier to build a rigid box, reduces diffraction effects, and keeps the cost of the system reasonable, something that is apparently no concern for Peter. Plus, it keeps your significant other happier with your hobby. A win-win as far as I'm concerned.
You then make one modestly big box and hide it somewhere in the room for the sub.
Perhaps he should be testing on something more people are familiar with and something that is known to have good frequency response before making such statements.
I just want something that sounds good, and Carlos method looks like good engineering to me. I can see how making your signal source move current rather than voltage thru the interconnects would cause problems with frequency response and apparently most signal sources are not designed to do this. They are designed with an active preamp in mind at the other end. (I read an article Carlos posted about this).
On a related topic, Carlos, claims to not care much about frequency response. I do.
For me anything with a distinct peak or even mild midrange glare or the old-fashioned British understated midrange (most British speakers no longer do this) is really annoying after a while.
He puts spikes for vibration isolation on amps, which utterly mystifies me. I could only find literature on Ceramic caps as having microphonic issues, btw. For all other types it is not mentioned. And even so, I would suspect that spikes are not going to help as much as rubber feet. Potting ceramic caps in with a dab of ureathane caulk would probably solve that too.
He is obsessed with expensive capacitors, exotic interconnects and values simplicity way too much. Carlos design violates almost everything he believes in because it is not simple, and he doesn't use shockingly expensive caps.
I don't think we can take seriously any discussion of frequency response of Carlos amp by Peter, because Peter may very well be getting good response from the amp, but it only makes the deficiencies in his speakers more noticeable. Perhaps his chosen woofers ARE boomy with a good amp. His speaker box is rather large and unless he was incredibly careful with mechanical design, it is likely to be resonant. The bigger you make the box, the harder it is to avoid resonance.
I design the other way around. I want speakers to be as small as reasonably possible and keep the corner frequency around 55 hz where the sub takes over. So my philosophy is different right there. Keeping the box small makes it easier to build a rigid box, reduces diffraction effects, and keeps the cost of the system reasonable, something that is apparently no concern for Peter. Plus, it keeps your significant other happier with your hobby. A win-win as far as I'm concerned.
You then make one modestly big box and hide it somewhere in the room for the sub.
Perhaps he should be testing on something more people are familiar with and something that is known to have good frequency response before making such statements.
I just want something that sounds good, and Carlos method looks like good engineering to me. I can see how making your signal source move current rather than voltage thru the interconnects would cause problems with frequency response and apparently most signal sources are not designed to do this. They are designed with an active preamp in mind at the other end. (I read an article Carlos posted about this).
On a related topic, Carlos, claims to not care much about frequency response. I do.
For me anything with a distinct peak or even mild midrange glare or the old-fashioned British understated midrange (most British speakers no longer do this) is really annoying after a while.
geewhizbang said:
Maybe he likes the way it looks. I do.
We could all write 100,000 words about our philosophies and what we think. None of it necessarily applies to anyone else or what they hear.
Two points here!
First: you can hardly call it a 'secret recipe' when so many schematics have been made available and so many questions answered about the circuit.
Second: To the best of my knowledge it was Pedja/Joe Rasmussen who originally came up with the idea of a buffer for the inverted Gainclone. And Pedja had full details of regulated supplies on his site long before this thread began. To call the ideas of these guys 'a hamburger' is highly disrespectful!
Third: a not insignificant number of us have now built and tried this design. We are the only ones really qualified to pass comments on whether it is any good (and I include PD in that statement and respect his opinion too, if not his comparison with a battery-powered GC).
Now, I have tried to stay well away from the contention pervading this thread, other than to appeal for reason or steer the thread back on topic. But it seems that these efforts (and those of others) have been in vain so let's try and clear this up once and for all.
First Carlos. Carlos has built a variation of a Gainclone. May be the first to try regulated and buffered IGC, may be not. But he started this thread to share his results with others who may, or may not want to copy his work (note I say work and not design).
If Carlos has a 'fault', it may be some 'Latin temperment' which makes him over-enthusiastic, very proud and prone to take any criticism a bit too personally. He is also one of those people who finds it difficult to let go of an argument but there are plenty of those types in the world as we all know!
Now to Peter! I have given this a lot of thought! It seems to me that there is an inherent problem for the individuals who are commercially involved in hi-fi as well as interested in it as a hobby. This should be understood by everybody without the need for it to be spelled out.
The likes of Joe Rasmussen, Nelson Pass and High Dean, to name but a few manage to somehow avoid controvosy despite their presence on DIY forums as well as producing commmercial hi-fi.
So I sat down for a while and asked myself what was the difference between them and Peter and the only answer that I could come up with is that Peter is not actually a recognised electronics designer, ie he has not produced products that he has designed from scratch.
Now I don't have a problem with that but it should be obvious that when messers Rasmussen, Pass and Dean appear on a forum, it is accepted that they are contributing to a thread based on their knowledge and experience which is widely respected.
Conversely, when Peter posts, there is a problem knowing if he is posting as a hobbyist (either sharing or requesting information) or as a commercial hi-fi producer. This can lead to some of the misunderstandings that we have seen crop up on diyAudio over the past year or so.
I can't offer any solution here other than to remind people that these forums are rightly open to everybody in the true spirit of the Internet. When you post here, you should understand that you are 'speaking' in public to the world and must accept the consequences of your posts.
It should also be understood that although (luckily for me) English is widely used on forums throughout the world, it is not the first language of many of the contributors and you should always give people the benefit of the doubt rather than take offence! Even native English speakers have misunderstandings when communicating with words. That's one reason emoticons are useful but they can't solve all misunderstandings.
Well, I hope that I have not alienated either Carlos or Peter (or anybody else). I love this hobby and generally speaking have found those involved in it to be very friendly people who are keen to share knowledge and give help.
So once more, please guys let's put and end to this silly argument. Nobody has to build a regulated buffered IGC. If you don't think that it can work that's been said enough already so just have a beer and laugh at we silly fools who have built one but don't spoil this thread for others by adding fuel to the fire.
Carlos, I hope that I am having the last word here so please don't even comment on this post or any others. I thank you for this thread, I would have buluit the circuit anyway but have foundthe information here helpful in doing so. Accept my thanks and that of many others but please accept it gracefully and keep all your attention on the subject and not on personal disagreements! 😉
I do realise that I may have opened a can or worms here so may I respectfully request that the moderators move anything arising from this post to a new thread where it can be discussed without further 'spoiling' the topic of the regulated buffered IGC?
RESPECT!
Why is it so necessary to have our opinions regarding our audio systems validated? Are we all this fragile?
No one else can listen through my ears. No one else's opinion matters. If you ask someone's opinion on something, it's very rude to try to argue with them after they've given it but it happens here all the time.
Try going to a strange pub, ask for a patron's opinion about what beer he prefers and then deride him to his face over his choice. You'll probably get a much deserved punch in the snout.
No one else can listen through my ears. No one else's opinion matters. If you ask someone's opinion on something, it's very rude to try to argue with them after they've given it but it happens here all the time.
Try going to a strange pub, ask for a patron's opinion about what beer he prefers and then deride him to his face over his choice. You'll probably get a much deserved punch in the snout.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.