Just going by what the OP said he has. Your post was directed at my comments and are really just obfuscating the simple issue. Why are you protecting Peter D of something. It is a disservice to novice chipamp builders by leaving that input cap off a standard product. For what some might even construe as a penny pinching move on their part.
I stand by what I said and if you disagree after consulting the National app notes then I don't really know what else to say to you.
I stand by what I said and if you disagree after consulting the National app notes then I don't really know what else to say to you.
I don't.infinia said:Why are you protecting Peter D of something.
Absolutely.infinia said:It is a disservice to novice chipamp builders by leaving that input cap off a standard product.
analog_sa said:The sickening smell of burning speaker-flesh. A tube amp will never do this. Not counting OTLs.
Technically, any amp thats transformer/capacitively coupled on the output stage will never do this. No need for the subtle "tubes are the best" dig there.
Modern digitals, both pure and hybrids, are also unlikely to damage speakers. Practically all of them have built in protection circuits.The sickening smell of burning speaker-flesh. A tube amp will never do this. Not counting OTLs.
However, an additional protection mechanism would be to connect a low pass filter (set to well below the lowest audio frequencies) to the output and a circuit used to check for significant DC bias. If it exceeds a limit, it sends a signal to the power supply controller to power down.
Some wisdom from Rod Elliott:
Well, it's something you get after you need it.
"The best cap is no cap" is claimed by some. I would much prefer to ensure that no DC flowed where it is unwelcome by using a cap than to allow a fully DC coupled system to try to destroy speakers given the chance.
Well, it's something you get after you need it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.