Re: MY zen phono (with due apologies to Nelson)
I'm certain that a lot of people would be grateful if you were to write
it up as a DIY project.
😎
scott wurcer said:
I'm certain that a lot of people would be grateful if you were to write
it up as a DIY project.
😎
And that cool buffer circuit. And the low noise power supply for the phono pre-amp. You would certainly make me happy and a lot of others too I suspect.
Graeme
Graeme
Scott,
Seeing as how I (simple-minded country boy that I am) am in the process of working up a balanced-all-the-way-through discrete phono stage, it just looked funny to me. There are more examples of single-ended input to balanced output phono stages than balanced to single-ended, so tracing the signal through left me with a feeling not unlike the one you get when you reach the top of the stairs and try to step on the step that isn't there.
Yes, I see that your second stage doesn't allow for balanced out...so that would leave you building four differentials for balanced stereo use and to rearrange that would necessitate changing your whole topology. Just...I dunno...kinda wistful for what could have been, if you follow what I'm saying.
Grey
EDIT: Nelson, I agree, but the devices would have to be changed, as the 'K146/'J73 are even harder to get than the 'K170/'J74. That, in turn, might lead to other problems.
Seeing as how I (simple-minded country boy that I am) am in the process of working up a balanced-all-the-way-through discrete phono stage, it just looked funny to me. There are more examples of single-ended input to balanced output phono stages than balanced to single-ended, so tracing the signal through left me with a feeling not unlike the one you get when you reach the top of the stairs and try to step on the step that isn't there.
Yes, I see that your second stage doesn't allow for balanced out...so that would leave you building four differentials for balanced stereo use and to rearrange that would necessitate changing your whole topology. Just...I dunno...kinda wistful for what could have been, if you follow what I'm saying.
Grey
EDIT: Nelson, I agree, but the devices would have to be changed, as the 'K146/'J73 are even harder to get than the 'K170/'J74. That, in turn, might lead to other problems.
gl said:
It's Walt's super regulator from the AA article except I added the distortion neutralizing capacitor to the 797. I pointed out to Walt that this cap cancels the output impedance of the amplifier but it never got into the article. 1e-6 Ohm from DC to 100kHz.
> It's Walt's super regulator from the AA article except I added the distortion neutralizing capacitor to the 797.
Is this mentioned in the 797 datasheet ?
Thanks in advance for enlightening us ?
Patrick
Is this mentioned in the 797 datasheet ?
Thanks in advance for enlightening us ?
Patrick
EUVL said:
Yes, it's the capacitor from output to current mirror input, see figure 31 (capacitor Cn) and figure 44, table 6 (capacitor C2).
scott wurcer said:
For audio analysis, try 12 bit (you'll know better and exactly what's possible), likely better and weight the measurements to exactly correlate and compare only the transient positive behavior, as an initial test. You will likely find that for the first time, there will be correlation to the way the ear hears, vs the distortion measurements.
The scope and measuring gear is doing whole signal analysis, the ear is intelligently analyzing the entire transient positive considerations, involving all potential loading and timing, level and harmonic issues. Try measuring the way the ear hears and ignoring about 70-90% of the waveform on the scope.
Compared to the way the ear hears, the vast majority of even design level measurement revolves around being something like a basic continuity test, with regards to sophistication of analytical capacity.
Compared to typical IC op amp designs, some of the latest presentations here are a breath of fresh air. They are push pull, class A, low feedback designs.
However, they are 30 years behind the state-of-the-art, and have limited utility for people looking for the 'best' in audio design. It is like comparing a Porsche 924 to a Porsche Boxter. Both are better as sports cars than most vehicles, but there is a 30 year difference in the design improvements, and even when the 924 was first designed, it was designed to a price point, with many initial compromises in the design. I know, I drove one for years. The real advantage of a car or a design like the 924, is that it is user friendly, and many nonspecialized people can rebuild it themselves. Not so with the Boxter (or the Blowtorch, or the Vendetta phono stage).
However, the design principles of the Boxter, or Blowtorch are more sophisticated, and require much more attention to detail, which makes for world class performance, which I hope the Blowtorch thread is all about.
However, they are 30 years behind the state-of-the-art, and have limited utility for people looking for the 'best' in audio design. It is like comparing a Porsche 924 to a Porsche Boxter. Both are better as sports cars than most vehicles, but there is a 30 year difference in the design improvements, and even when the 924 was first designed, it was designed to a price point, with many initial compromises in the design. I know, I drove one for years. The real advantage of a car or a design like the 924, is that it is user friendly, and many nonspecialized people can rebuild it themselves. Not so with the Boxter (or the Blowtorch, or the Vendetta phono stage).
However, the design principles of the Boxter, or Blowtorch are more sophisticated, and require much more attention to detail, which makes for world class performance, which I hope the Blowtorch thread is all about.
scott wurcer said:
It is, due to the fact that signal itself, concerning electron motion, is inherently a frequential gyroscopic vibratory particle and does not like to move, except in certain axis. Materials and boundaries then play a considerable part, when you take that point to it's logical conclusions. The gyroscopic particle is inherently asymmetrical when you think about it, concerning transfer and motion, and Maxwell's original treatise of 20 equations in 20 unknowns took this fully into account. Which is why symmetrical motor design will never get to 100% efficiency. Only asymmetrical design will. However, we are still designing with solids that have boundaries in multiple ways, where the signal itself inherently desires to be a plasma in motion in multiple axis, all pertaining to that frequential vibrating gyroscopic consideration. Thus the fractal considerations that come about. And it's not just the electron itself, is the place you are attempting to have it interact with, and how that other material interacts with the given electron with respects to how it's done, what they are, etc.. For example, some transfers are better with higher voltage, or polarization. Some are better with current. Ie, mass motional transfer (current) or pressurized polarization as a differential conditional (voltage).
cliffforrest said:
I dug that up from pg 134 or so. I was looking for single channel op amp crumbs of information, and I started pontificating. (as some see it 🙂 )
jacco vermeulen said:I'd rather have the car Mr Wurcer appears to be sitting in
A Lotus. Scott has excellent taste in avatars.
A Lola for me 😎
jacco vermeulen said:
Maybe because it was not a real Ferdinand P, but a Volkswagen.
I'd rather have the car Mr Wurcer appears to be sitting in
And who i am to say no to him doing a write-up of his blasphemic side show.
That's a Lotus Super 7. I almost bought one but I have no place to properly winter it. They actually show up pretty cheap now and then and they are a permanent 'kit' like many British cars. I was told it's probably the most dangerous ride you can get.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.