I did not expect you to see it.Joshua_G said:
There is a difference between a good design, and a poor one.
If you do not know or care about the difference, then it does not matter to you.
All the explanations in the world are of no sigificance if the receiver does not understand the language..you should visit my workplace sometime..
Cheers, John
john curl said:
I can certainly understand why. It would be a shame to have somebody really botch the layout with your name on it..
PMA said:
Well, any pics of the internals of the JC-2??
That last one, I cannot believe how the supply primaries, secondaries, and grounds are layed out..
Sheesh..
Cheers, John
I like the sound of my stock hca2200ii.
Regarding Amp/preamp combo mentioned above, is the HCA2200ii going to sound better with a matching Parasound preamp or with a Lexicon preamp? I am confident that due to it's price, the Lexicon is a better piece of equipment, and sounds wonderful compared to the four or five preamps I've plugged in to the system. How much weight does Synergy carry?
John C was there a relation between the amp and preamp design during your time at Parasound?
Matt
Regarding Amp/preamp combo mentioned above, is the HCA2200ii going to sound better with a matching Parasound preamp or with a Lexicon preamp? I am confident that due to it's price, the Lexicon is a better piece of equipment, and sounds wonderful compared to the four or five preamps I've plugged in to the system. How much weight does Synergy carry?
John C was there a relation between the amp and preamp design during your time at Parasound?
Matt
It should not matter what preamp you use. The stock 2200mK2 got a B rating in 'Stereophile' just like I thought it should be. The mK1 FAILED to get a rating, because it had an IC in the front end. The balanced to single ended jfet follower works well, if you reduce the source resistors to 10 ohms or less. Higher was a design oversight. (not my oversight).
I've asked that they post the review on stereophile website so I can read it.
So no credibility or weight to synergy between like components?
So no credibility or weight to synergy between like components?
jneutron said:
Indeed, which is the main reason I'm here, on this thread.
jneutron said:
I do care, I care very much.
jneutron said:
Thank you very much for the invitation.
However, while we are here, on this thread, and since my level of understanding is being considered above average, and since I speak and understand English at least as well as the average American or Englishman – please state again in what ways what you are saying apply to amplifiers design.
Thank you.
Joshua_G said:
Actually it was more of an indication of what it's like here.
The physicists and scientists here speak an entirely different language. Many times, I am lost listening to them...
Joshua_G said:
Connect a single ended preamplifier to an amplifier using an IC.
Plug both of them into the wall outlet. Assume they both have 3 prong cords so meet NEC requirements.
Now, assume that a signal is coming out of the preamp on it's center conductor. Assume that it is 1 milliamp in strength, and 20 hz in frequency.
When that 1 milliamp is flowing towards the amplifier, where do you think the return current is going? Do you believe that the return current is going back to the preamp along the IC shield???
If so, you would be incorrect. Some of it is, most of it is not. If it is a stereo pair, what part of the shield current goes through the IC which had signal in it? Answer...50%. Both IC's will share the current of each... 50-50. Another, secondary loop.
A shielded conductor which has a net non zero current, is one leg of an inductive loop. The line cords are the other.. The IC is what we call "partially shielded".
Do you believe that this condition is the same at 10 Khz? It is not. More of the return current is through the shield..but not all.
This is a description of a system which does not have control over where the currents are flowing.
It is both a broadcaster, and a receiver at the lf, less so but not zero at 10Khz.
By design. Adequate for the task for normal audio. But certainly something to be addressed if one has higher standards.
Cheers, John
jneutron said:
Sorry, AFAIK, the input of the device almost never go directly the, IC – usually there is a resistor, either in series of the IC's input, or shunting it, or both.
What we actually have is the sending device's output impedance reacting with the receiving device's input impedance.
So, please restate all you said in the light of the above.
I think this discussion belongs in another thread.
This thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134500
If somebody could move this tread to the Solid State section it would be nice.
It is a very interesting discussion, but if the discussion has moved to the JC Blowtorch tread a lot of people will miss it.
Stinius
This thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134500
If somebody could move this tread to the Solid State section it would be nice.
It is a very interesting discussion, but if the discussion has moved to the JC Blowtorch tread a lot of people will miss it.
Stinius
Don't forget it can be done.
This is a project that I am working on right now. Gain of 60dB preamp connected to an MAudio USB A/D, computer display, several CFL's, regular FL's, 16 - 150CFM fans 10' away, everything plugged into the same isolating strip. Picture of noise floor.
This is a project that I am working on right now. Gain of 60dB preamp connected to an MAudio USB A/D, computer display, several CFL's, regular FL's, 16 - 150CFM fans 10' away, everything plugged into the same isolating strip. Picture of noise floor.
Attachments
PMA said:
The sad thing is that there are designers out there who think that such configurations give a great 'spaciousness' to the sound. What happens is that transient peaks are slammed in the phase and level domain and thus hang around disconnected to their mass of related signal components ** and the micro details are swamped.
Many people and even designers confuse this with 'clarity' 'detail' and 'spaciousness' when it is nothing less than a horrific mass of distortion-distortion right in the are where the ear is most sensitive to it.
Then the other components in a given system can have issues of their own that mute critical components of the 'intelligence' of the signal, so this false exaggeration of detail can sound appealing to the 'not think it through' crowd..which there are sadly many of.
Most people are not aware that real music has no real extreme high frequencies and exists in correctness of dynamic and temporal expression - along with a good dose of real, living BALLS. Ie, real dynamic acoustic pressure.
** This is easier to hear as it is heard as a separate component. Why? The distorted peaks are disconnected from the main signal mass. To the eye, this would be like seeing a single man in a million man march..who is out of step-we catch and see the difference out of the mass of similarity. The ear is the same, in this aspect as a human measurement and quantification system.
~~~
We hear via those transients and micro transients, and the vast majority of distortions and changes created in a modification like this given amplifier that is pictured (the 2200) are going to be of a transient draw nature. Those components would be the most affected. As they are emphasized/heard by the ear-brain combination (like the out of step man) some will then confuse this distortion with 'high fidelity' when the exact opposite is true.
However, being a slave to engineering philosophy with respects to audio design is ALSO a fools game. It's a great starting point but the whole game floor/field is different. New understandings must be reached. Like making booze, or driving a car...any idiot can do it, but doing it best requires consummate skill and it is a self taught thing, in this field. One turns themselves into an expert via experiments, observation and then applying it to new work. It tends to look a lot like any other well thought out and well navigated engineering or design level work, but it has, once again, it's own rule book. Don't let the similarities fool you.
It was frustrating when the overseas engineers added their version of' hi fi' to these original designs, but at least with the JC-1 and JC-2, we were able to keep the caps to a reasonable minimum. Those white caps, however, are either polystyrene or polypropylene, I am pretty sure. There are just too many of them.
I used to play that game, like most..until I finally heard what it was bringing to the table. Then I never did it again. Completely the wrong direction.
Joshua_G said:
I suspect a misinterpretation here, IC (jneutron) - InterConnect against an Integrated Circuit - joshua
Whilst only a DIY builder , fascinated by the ideas within this thread and the input of various gurus
Spiny said:
I share the fascination of audio gurus participating in DIY forum.
John Curl probably don't know it, however, I consider him as my Guru concerning amplifier design.
In this context. I looked at topologies mentioned in this thread and in other threads in this website and elsewhere on the net. A while ago, probably a year or two ago, in this thread, someone (I believe it was Pavel – PMA) published a simplified schematic, based on John Curls ideas. The circuit is repeated below. Assuming this circuit is indeed in accord with John Curl's idea – all I can say that this design is a work of a genius. This is so because of the best possible quality is attained by the simplest and most elegant design. Looking at some of Erno Borbely's designs published on his website and looking at the Ayre V3 Prototype design, published somewhere on the net – all those designs are more complicated and have lesser quality (noise and distortion) than John Curl's one.
Possible, the only way of improving this design is by the idea mentioned by John Curl of paralleling the input JFETs for further reducing noise.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.