John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
True, for various reasons.

Some are not interested because they think as you describe: Below some given threshold of hearing they believe it doesn't matter.
And yet some of this group are producing things in their particular fields of interest that are very notable. Funny that...


Others are not interested because they believe the correlation between hearing and AP measurements is too limited to spend too much time on. Listening and AP are for separate purposes, they are not expected to correlate perfectly.


You forgot the third group who flick solder at things, don't appear to even check if they have made things better or worse then pronounce veils lifted, wives in kitchen amazed etc.



I'm in group 7...
 
By comparison very small, less that 10sq. mils in the 90's now I'm not sure how small the latest processes are. The thermal stuff is easier than you think due to the close coupling and known geometry. The brilliant Alberto Bilotti solved the thermal problem in closed form so if simple symmetry is not possible his solution can be used to minimize thermal effects by arranging the locations of devices. RCA also did their own analysis for one of their early video matrix encoders.

The end result is that the thermal issues can be reduced to a minor issue, and yes I have had to spin mask sets to fix a few chips for this problem.

The other problem is the finite resistance of the very thin aluminum interconnects, supply routing and ground starring was a problem before we had parasitic extraction. The aluminum has an ~3000ppm/degree TC so when you are making a chip with pin programmable gains you have to be very careful.

Awesome, while this is a bit above my head yet it's fascinating stuff to grasp regarding all the aspects one have to take into account before the semi gets forged, it's kind of a therapy to read this helping one to come over the "mysterious black box" cognitive resistance syndrome and learn moving towards a greater acceptance embracing opamps, and yes with the Lavardin I meant the thermal thing.

Got to check up that Bilotti guy, thanks a lot Scott!
 
Here is what I use to 'improve' my Cognac. I haven't used it much for its original intent, as I don't like CD's much anyway. Try it at your own risk! '-)
 

Attachments

  • Picture 51.png
    Picture 51.png
    790.2 KB · Views: 233
Hmmm. Kinda light on new ideas and ones own developed circuit tricks.

Seems like a lot of text book knowledge though. For quite some years now, analog circuit design has become a collection of 'black boxes' interconnected in various ways for the end result. Less and less discrete designs.

The end result is fewer choices and all perform much the same. just features and cost is remaining issues for sales.

I recall when every one included the Dolby Ic in their product. A sonic bottle-neck which, no matter what you did in your design effort, it came out sounding the same after passing thru that Dolby IC.

Now we have similar effect with fewer DAC et al chip to work with and no optimising for Your own priorities. Filters built in and all fixed.

I think the lack of circuit design tricks used to improve selected parameters indicates this dependance on pre-made circuits. Granted opamps are much better now but at a cost of fewer needed circuit designers and a building block approach.

Is analog design becoming a lost art soon? Only a few in IC companies have the know-how? What happens when they are gone?


THx-RNMarsh
 
Last edited:
Because it is a PUBLIC FORUM. All are EQUAL here. 😉
If one wants to communicate with others on the same level, there are other places and ways of doing it - closed mailing lists, newsgroups, email etc. Or by just picking up the phone.
Just sayin'

You may read again Bill’s phrase which Scott refered to. You’ ll notice you have misunderstood Scott.
In the long run everyone drags the weight of his/her own contribution here.

George
 
Status
Not open for further replies.