Ok So that is a very very clear gratuitous insult there Mr Pot. Why on earth would you want to complain about me then do exactly the same back?
BTW if you look at a copy of nature they do not capitalize the 'n' so assuming that was my supposed fault it fell a bit flat.
It is far from being the same - the error in question is not imaginary like your insult was.
Does't matter. Check a style guide. The name of the magazine is still Nature, no matter what they put on its cover.
Just sitting here Bill, ROTFLMAO watching you dig a deeper hole for yourself.
What fool says I don't have a sense of humor? ;-)
In most cases there is no original performance, but just a carefully crafted studio amalgamate. Wrong benchmark.
It depends on what you sell and how you are selling it.
Cash-flow is what comes out of a cash cow.
You've never made one of these, I'd guess from the error. Been there, done that many times.
When what you quaintly and seemingly awkwardly call a studio amalgamate is made, it is still listened to by the person(s) who prepare it.
What is listened to is thus the moral equivalent of the original performance.
The benchmark still exists!
Bill, if you wish to call yourself that, I won't stop you.
But Bill the reason you are calling yourself a fool is not the one I suggested as a general statement that could apply to anybody.
It appears to be something that you assigned to yourself.
Who am I to argue with you? ;-)
In order: you don't know, there is no error, good for you.
Performances don't have moral equivalents. You do, but I will leave it to others to describe it.
Again Bill, you are missing the rather obvious point that you called yourself a fool for a different reason. Now you appear to be trying to go back on your word.
Bill, I'm wondering who you usually hang with who does not see the obvious dissembling and trickery? Perhaps everybody sees it but does not point it out to avoid being targeted by you?
Are-you not the knight, leading a strange religious war against CFAs, which have quasi fatal allergic crises each time these acronyms appear in the forum ? Silent most of the time, we can be sure to see-you back, red like a tomato, each time those 3 letters appears.
Well, This definitely undermines you.
- As far as I know, Alexander amplifier was never produced commercially. So there is 99,99/100 chances that you never listened to it. (I still have one of the original printed boards, offered by A.D. as demos to his good customers (I was one ;-). It was a very good sounding and measuring amp at its time. His character depend on the IC used, of course.
- Most of the people that listened to CFAs (Reviewers etc... ) use to qualify the sound they usually produce by words meaning exactly the opposite of "Harsh and Raspy". On the contrary, they underline the absence of fatigue, the fluidity of the trebles, and the level of little details revealed all along with "easy listening".
- On my side, I had realized the same amp in the two configurations (CFA Vs VFA) http://www.esperado.fr/temp/VSSA/vssa-vs-vfa.html
And I can confirm that, if the difference is not Day and Night, the "Harsh and Raspy" is on the VFA side.
NB: reducing the impedance of feedback path in the VFA, in order to increase the bandwidth at HF reduce the difference further. So, yes, it seems that an extended bandwidth gives some advantages for the quality of the sound.
- In my multiway system, the 1000-40000Hz range is powered by a CFA, while low medium and basses by a VFA, and my big sub with a class D one. The best of all worlds. Do-you think I'm masochist ?
Last edited:
Your reaction on this "insult" seems to me some indication of a lack of humor.
Well no one else on here has accused me of either of those, so either you are more perceptive than everyone else or there is no dissembling or trickery going on.
Unless of course everyone else is too polite to call me out for the conniving word twisting, point scoring, petty illegitimate that I am.
So you claim.
So you claim.
Speaking as someone who has recorded 100s of live performances and done dozens of studio mixes...
Bottom line, you can claim what you will, but that doesn't change reality.
I explained that, partially stimulated by some PMs.
You were kind enough to provide examples, which I pointed out. Now you want to pretend it never happened. Just more deflections.
Just another misleading list of self-serving options with the relevant ones removed.
Unless of course everyone else is too polite to call me out for the conniving word twisting, point scoring, petty illegitimate that I am.
Your words, not mine.
On my experience, it is easier to achieve a high open loop gain in a VFA, to the detriment of open loop bandwidth, that means less distortion at low frequencies.
The closed loop bandwidth is dependent of the overall closed loop gain.
It is easier to achieve high slew rate and bandwidth with CFA, that mean less distortion at high frequencies.
CFA are more sensible to power quality, because they have a poor PSRR, while the PSRR can be better at very HF.
You have to filter more the rail of the input stage to get similar rejection.
CFA are, usually easier to compensate, and offer, everything equal, a better phase margin. The closed loop bandwidth is near independent from the overall closed loop gain.
We can achieve pretty good sounding and measuring amplifiers with both topologies, with very close measurement results, chose your poison. No myth, no mysteries, nothing to fear. Just two pretty old and well known topologies offering both various advantages and inconveniences, as always.
The closed loop bandwidth is dependent of the overall closed loop gain.
It is easier to achieve high slew rate and bandwidth with CFA, that mean less distortion at high frequencies.
CFA are more sensible to power quality, because they have a poor PSRR, while the PSRR can be better at very HF.
You have to filter more the rail of the input stage to get similar rejection.
CFA are, usually easier to compensate, and offer, everything equal, a better phase margin. The closed loop bandwidth is near independent from the overall closed loop gain.
We can achieve pretty good sounding and measuring amplifiers with both topologies, with very close measurement results, chose your poison. No myth, no mysteries, nothing to fear. Just two pretty old and well known topologies offering both various advantages and inconveniences, as always.
Last edited:
Totally lost now so stepping away from this particular line of banter
Happy in my skin. Esp for Jacco and not safe for anyone https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJHoZBJYxI
Another Pyrrhic victory Mr Kruger! Well done! 
And whilst posting this, how about you posting a list of two of the records which you have made and which have been published? Should be pretty easy to pick 1% or so out of that 200 or so which to you lay claim. I am pretty sure that I have asked for this before ... and the request ignored.
But I, for one, am not interested in local Church performances (by other than acknowledged professional musicians), so you need not mention those.
And whilst posting this, how about you posting a list of two of the records which you have made and which have been published? Should be pretty easy to pick 1% or so out of that 200 or so which to you lay claim. I am pretty sure that I have asked for this before ... and the request ignored.
But I, for one, am not interested in local Church performances (by other than acknowledged professional musicians), so you need not mention those.
(at least you can't accuse me of being a novice in that department store)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.