scott wurcer said:
Not even "Honky Tonky Train Blues" done by Keith Emerson & Oscar Peterson 😉
snoopy said:
Only if your setup is a POS with poor grounding. There are plenty of DIY’ers who swear by them only because they don’t know what they are doing WRT grounding and designing low noise amplification stages.
Transformers are quite OK for providing the first stage of practically noise-free voltage amplification ahead of a valve phono amplifier, but pretty much an expensive waste of time for solid-state home HiFi (especially at line level)
But of course there are those in communiqué with the audio spirits who insist on the desirability of that mysterious and magical transformer sound 🙄
john curl said:
Why not? You seem to be quite happy putting everyone here on this thread down for no obvious reason? If you don't want to reap it, don't sow it.
Jan Didden
I have used a few of Lundahl's excellent amorph core
transformers for I/V conversion, and there I cancel out the DC-offset from the PCM1792/4 DAC chips.
Sy, how do you handle the DCoffset from a DC coupled source?
I mean, line level transformers can saturate from even low DC voltages as low as 10mV, AFAIK. Correct?
And even be permanently damaged, right?
Sigurd
transformers for I/V conversion, and there I cancel out the DC-offset from the PCM1792/4 DAC chips.
Sy, how do you handle the DCoffset from a DC coupled source?
I mean, line level transformers can saturate from even low DC voltages as low as 10mV, AFAIK. Correct?
And even be permanently damaged, right?
Sigurd
SY said:
Sigurd Ruschkow said:
In my measurements of NTL-1 I had to put a 47uF NP capacitor in series with the soundcard output, otherwise 5 mV offset on that output noticeably (by about 10 dB) increased 2nd harmonic of 50 Hz component. Luckily, in my application the preceding stage is SE, so there is a capacitor on the output anyway 😉 .
Alex
OT pc board goop
This is OT, but does anyone know the brand name of the material used to secure large items such as electrolytic caps to the pc board. It almost looks like transparent brown rubber cement.
Best, Chuck Hansen
This is OT, but does anyone know the brand name of the material used to secure large items such as electrolytic caps to the pc board. It almost looks like transparent brown rubber cement.
Best, Chuck Hansen
I've used clear silicone window sealer.
Good adhesive that remains flexible but peelable when needed.
Good adhesive that remains flexible but peelable when needed.
lumanauw said:
This is just a friendly disagreement, I think John narrows his views a little more than he has to. I just pointed out that someone made a recording in 1958 that people think still sounds better than most. I this case the same people that give the Blowtorch an "A" rating. I said it was ironic, just a comment. Many audiophile recordings are vanity projects, I guess so what it's their time and money.
snoopy said:
If I'm not mistaken, Krell's CAST current mode interface isn't characterized by a high input impedance, common-mode or otherwise. Just the opposite. The output is a high impedance current source and the input is a low impedance (ideally zero) I/V converter.
And I don't know that it necessarily offers any particular advantage in terms of common-mode rejection.
se
G.Kleinschmidt said:
So no one has ever had any noise issues with commercially produced gear due to he ubiquity of 3 pin IEC power connectors and power cords and the chassis leakage currents they cause?
Yes. God forbid sound should play any role in audio.
Instead of getting off in our listening rooms with good music, we should be getting off in our bathrooms with a graph in one hand and our manhood in the other.
se
10mV doesn't saturate a JT-11P1 (I just checked it).
I can't find any sources in-house (2 CD players, a DVD player, a direct-coupled phono stage) that have that much offset, and I don't think my zoo is atypical.
Well here is my challenge, John.
My new preamp, complementary-symmetrical folded cascode design, with output diamond buffer. Very low feedback, like 10dB. With DC servo. Described in another thread. I would like to post here a result of distortion analysis at 100kHz, 200mV, into 50 ohm load.
My new preamp, complementary-symmetrical folded cascode design, with output diamond buffer. Very low feedback, like 10dB. With DC servo. Described in another thread. I would like to post here a result of distortion analysis at 100kHz, 200mV, into 50 ohm load.
Attachments
G.Kleinschmidt said:
Only if your setup is a POS with poor grounding. There are plenty of DIY�ers who swear by them only because they don�t know what they are doing WRT grounding and designing low noise amplification stages.
Transformers are quite OK for providing the first stage of practically noise-free voltage amplification ahead of a valve phono amplifier, but pretty much an expensive waste of time for solid-state home HiFi (especially at line level)
In an ideal world, yes. But when you haven't built your own CD player, satellite receiver, or sound card, and you don't have your entire system mounted in a Faraday cage, you can be the Master of All Grounds and still get buzzes, squawks, and noise pickup. So, despite using good grounding and layout in my own (admittedly not solid state) equipment, I have still found the use of quality input transformers advantageous.
Steve Eddy said:
Yes thats what I meant. Input impedance is low and differential and common mode output impedance is high which gives immunity to induced differential and common mode noise 😉
Thanks for the input PMA and Snoopy. PMA, you are really refined your design. I am a mere shadow to yours, but my distortion looks the same.
I would like to put out some REAL information that people might be able to use.
This recording 'Ragtime Razzmatazz' Vol.3 was made for a specific purpose, as were others before it.
These are the technical notes on the back of the record cover.
"The challenging task of accurately capturing the delightful sound of the 'Mighty Kroeger' on this album was given to Wilson Audio Specialties . Master tapes were recorded on location at Cattlemen's in March 1984, using Wilson's custom-built ULTRAMASTER 30 ips, half inch analog tape recorder. Schoeps transformerless condenser microphones driving custom-built vacuum tube line amplifiers provide a clean, dynamic and very dimensional sound. Sonic evaluations were performed using the superlatively accurate Wilson Audio Modular Monitor (WAMM) loudspeakers. Minimal signal processing, high quality laquer mastering (directly off ULTRAMASTER), laboratory grade matrixing and superb disc pressing, result in the fine technical and musical qualities of this record. "
It is a test record for the WAMM loudspeaker system and does it perform in that way!
I would like to put out some REAL information that people might be able to use.
This recording 'Ragtime Razzmatazz' Vol.3 was made for a specific purpose, as were others before it.
These are the technical notes on the back of the record cover.
"The challenging task of accurately capturing the delightful sound of the 'Mighty Kroeger' on this album was given to Wilson Audio Specialties . Master tapes were recorded on location at Cattlemen's in March 1984, using Wilson's custom-built ULTRAMASTER 30 ips, half inch analog tape recorder. Schoeps transformerless condenser microphones driving custom-built vacuum tube line amplifiers provide a clean, dynamic and very dimensional sound. Sonic evaluations were performed using the superlatively accurate Wilson Audio Modular Monitor (WAMM) loudspeakers. Minimal signal processing, high quality laquer mastering (directly off ULTRAMASTER), laboratory grade matrixing and superb disc pressing, result in the fine technical and musical qualities of this record. "
It is a test record for the WAMM loudspeaker system and does it perform in that way!
It all comes down to , in the end, what I said before: the level and type of what the given listener, or audiophile listens for..and how long they've been doing it..and how much they've learned. Most folks have given up attempting to listen to and/or attempting to discern what comes after a transient..and ..IMHO, the more learned audiophiles, or listeners have taught themselves that the other 50% of great sonics is all about what comes after the transient.
This point also involves many a circuit designer. In the end, it encompasses them all, listener, audiophile, DIY designer and bona-fide high end designers. Some topologies and circuit types are better at transients (and minutely smearing or tearing them, thus providing 'detail') but the distortions hide in grossly applied measurements..and some other types of circuits and parts (transformers, in this case) are better at what follows the transient, when considered with respects to the rest of the signal and comparison to micro transients and the inter-play of the micro and macro structure in correct balance.
All a combination of natural talent, hearing sensitivities in the individual and pure basics of psychology.
Then we attempt to hash out between us..on these boards..what sounds 'best'. When in the end, it's something that we must do personally, in each other's presence, with the actual equipment in front of us both..and listened to. Then we attempt to show the other what we mean when we talk about listening for the given point.
When you combine these points with the speakers, which are high distortion products, and designers of speakers many times have a difficulty in understanding these points themselves..and thus complicate and obfuscate the issue via this lack of understanding.....it's no small wonder youse guys can't seem to come to any consensus as to what sounds 'right'.
I've mentioned this exact point earlier in the thread, and done so purposely. Hopefully that, at the least, is obvious.
However, it's been a personal point and consideration of mine that, with regards to problems that exist as along term issue, a maxim I came up with, long ago, does apply here. (I'm sure others have stated it in their own ways-in other times)
If there is a problem that has persisted, then the mistakes or errors in the formulation of the question, have fault. The more difficult the question is to answer, in that the formulation of the question itself, or the data utilized to formulate the question is -in a state of fundamental error.
Ie, the more difficult a question is to answer, the more fundamental the errors in the formulation of the question. go back and re-hash the components of the basics, as that is where the error lies. If you cannot get to an answer, then you've started from the wrong spot. There are obviously many ways to put it.
The problem here..seemingly..is that the basic points of the psychology and physiology of listening is not being put to the test..and applied to the idea of the weighting of measurement systems.
Please pay serious attention to this post, it is 1100% fundamentally connected to the reasons for about 50% of the posts on this forum.
Until one realizes and comes to an understanding of the points I've raised, the reasons behind the vast majority of the discussion on this forum-will not reach your brain and be considered.
For me, for example, I read the CTC min-review. Written by Brian Cheney. VMPS. A staunch advocate for my favorite crossover type..compensated 12 db and similar slopes. Quasi second order, he called them. This is a very critical pointy with regards to getting speakers to do their best with their inherent psychotic dynamic phase and psychotic dynamic LCR issues. They simply cannot be addressed with simple textbook understandings of DC signal or even standard AC analysis.
This results in seriously poor audio quality. The problem being as stated above. Even audio designers have this point escape them. Their ideas on 'voicing' itself..due to how they have organized their thoughts and minds on listening itself...are fundamentally wrong. Thus, they never even make it to the basic points of correct assessment of parts and components themselves. Never mind implementation. But..they receive the rave reviews and thumbs up...from folks who's ideas and understandings of hearing itself..are in the same boat or 'time'(phase) in their audio listening/hearing skill type, or 'grouping'.
Brian understands this. He HEARS it--- Critical point.
This, to me, puts great credence to his analysis of the CTC preamp. I have the ability to qualify and quantify his framing of the mini-review. I'm paying attention to the core of the argument and it's origins.
This point also involves many a circuit designer. In the end, it encompasses them all, listener, audiophile, DIY designer and bona-fide high end designers. Some topologies and circuit types are better at transients (and minutely smearing or tearing them, thus providing 'detail') but the distortions hide in grossly applied measurements..and some other types of circuits and parts (transformers, in this case) are better at what follows the transient, when considered with respects to the rest of the signal and comparison to micro transients and the inter-play of the micro and macro structure in correct balance.
All a combination of natural talent, hearing sensitivities in the individual and pure basics of psychology.
Then we attempt to hash out between us..on these boards..what sounds 'best'. When in the end, it's something that we must do personally, in each other's presence, with the actual equipment in front of us both..and listened to. Then we attempt to show the other what we mean when we talk about listening for the given point.
When you combine these points with the speakers, which are high distortion products, and designers of speakers many times have a difficulty in understanding these points themselves..and thus complicate and obfuscate the issue via this lack of understanding.....it's no small wonder youse guys can't seem to come to any consensus as to what sounds 'right'.
I've mentioned this exact point earlier in the thread, and done so purposely. Hopefully that, at the least, is obvious.
However, it's been a personal point and consideration of mine that, with regards to problems that exist as along term issue, a maxim I came up with, long ago, does apply here. (I'm sure others have stated it in their own ways-in other times)
If there is a problem that has persisted, then the mistakes or errors in the formulation of the question, have fault. The more difficult the question is to answer, in that the formulation of the question itself, or the data utilized to formulate the question is -in a state of fundamental error.
Ie, the more difficult a question is to answer, the more fundamental the errors in the formulation of the question. go back and re-hash the components of the basics, as that is where the error lies. If you cannot get to an answer, then you've started from the wrong spot. There are obviously many ways to put it.
The problem here..seemingly..is that the basic points of the psychology and physiology of listening is not being put to the test..and applied to the idea of the weighting of measurement systems.
Please pay serious attention to this post, it is 1100% fundamentally connected to the reasons for about 50% of the posts on this forum.
Until one realizes and comes to an understanding of the points I've raised, the reasons behind the vast majority of the discussion on this forum-will not reach your brain and be considered.
For me, for example, I read the CTC min-review. Written by Brian Cheney. VMPS. A staunch advocate for my favorite crossover type..compensated 12 db and similar slopes. Quasi second order, he called them. This is a very critical pointy with regards to getting speakers to do their best with their inherent psychotic dynamic phase and psychotic dynamic LCR issues. They simply cannot be addressed with simple textbook understandings of DC signal or even standard AC analysis.
This results in seriously poor audio quality. The problem being as stated above. Even audio designers have this point escape them. Their ideas on 'voicing' itself..due to how they have organized their thoughts and minds on listening itself...are fundamentally wrong. Thus, they never even make it to the basic points of correct assessment of parts and components themselves. Never mind implementation. But..they receive the rave reviews and thumbs up...from folks who's ideas and understandings of hearing itself..are in the same boat or 'time'(phase) in their audio listening/hearing skill type, or 'grouping'.
Brian understands this. He HEARS it--- Critical point.
This, to me, puts great credence to his analysis of the CTC preamp. I have the ability to qualify and quantify his framing of the mini-review. I'm paying attention to the core of the argument and it's origins.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.