Steve Eddy said:
Hi Steve,
This is not a silly question. Actually, the dormant unipolar vs complementary input thread would be a better place to look for a balanced and diverse set of opinions on this question.
It is indeed a controversial question. The symmetrical nature and schematic appearance of the circuit has a lot of appeal, and it also has some conveniences in implementation. Many very good amplifiers have been made employing that topology, both with FETs and BJTs. Unfortunately, for those who prefer FETs in the input stage, the poor availablility of suitable complementary sets is a problem.
There is usually more than one way to skin a cat. It is indeed possible to use just an N-channel diff pair with suitable mirror-ing or similar circuitry to achieve equally low distortion while still ending up with a complementary push-pull VAS. The input/VAS in my MOSFET power amplifier (www.cordellaudio.com) is a good example of such a unipolar input stage arrangement.
Of course, there will be those who assert that its visual asymmetry prevents it from having any chance of sounding good.....
Cheers,
Bob
Edmond Stuart said:
Yes, and we even gave him his own thread to expound in.
BTW, the correct euphemism for that is now "over unity," not "perpetual motion." The marks have caught on that the latter is a scam, so obfuscation is in order.
Edmond Stuart said:
SY said:
I'm not sure I can say anything here, without joining the two of you in appearing argumentative and foolish. But I will say that I'm pretty near absolutely sure that when either point is publically shown to be otherwise than your beliefs -- neither of you will be anywhere in sight to accept the point gracefully.
It should be an obvious point that the limits of the given person's capacity for intelligence or rumination does not in any way shape or form have anything to do with the limits of what is real or possible. The most hilarious thing of all is the point that such folks use to 'prove' that some things must be impossible.."science"- is that science itself has shown that all science that has come before has been completely reshaped or made invalid by new discoveries.
I believe in cable 'directionality' and my departed colleague, Bob Crump insisted upon it. I don't know how to measure it, however, and I tend to ignore it mostly, because I don't know how to listen for it, properly. I also believe that 'antigravity' will be explained; hopefully, in my lifetime.
For now, I will stick to the properties of graphene and quantum purifiers, that I do tend to understand better.
For now, I will stick to the properties of graphene and quantum purifiers, that I do tend to understand better.
Are there any quantum purifier demos on youtube? You could spend all night watching over unity ones (and anti-gravity for that matter). The corona levitators are the most fun.
Sigurd Ruschkow said:
PMA, could you list the post with the schematic that you and John agreed would be the best approach. With all the OT and other diversions I'm afraid I lost it in the shuffle.
Thanks, Chuck Hansen
I regret Scott, that you remain ignorant about Bybee devices. I know how they work and it makes you look badly when you criticize them, without even trying or having the physics background to understand them. You, of course, stand with Dr. Stuart Yaniger, Dr. Jim Austin (of 'Stereophile') and others, who are not really involved in modern physics today, yet criticize new ideas, for some reason. Of course, Dr. Dick Olsher is on my side in this, but then, he has tried them, and has had direct contact with Jack Bybee. It does make a difference to try things and talk to the designer, directly. Unfortunately, the editor of 'The Absolute Sound' found Jack's latest explanation, made recently for the magazine, too difficult for his readership to follow, so he did not include it with the review of one of Jack Bybee's devices in the latest issue. I am disappointed, and will try to get a copy to put here, if possible. Unfortunately, Jack, like me, doesn't like to divulge everything that he knows, so people tend to poke holes in what he does contribute, just like I get 'appreciated' on this website with my partial input.
Scott, I hope that you liked my historical view of IC circuit design that I found in my old files. They did some pretty good work back in the 1970's. Who were these designers? We should honor them, just like Bob Widlar has been honored over the years, for their early innovations.
Scott, I hope that you liked my historical view of IC circuit design that I found in my old files. They did some pretty good work back in the 1970's. Who were these designers? We should honor them, just like Bob Widlar has been honored over the years, for their early innovations.
John, I simply asked for a demo. As I said before a proper listening test will never happen, there is too much at stake for both sides.
You are right on that, I will be seeing Derek Bowers and another guy who shared a boss with Jerry Coutreau for dinner tomorrow night. I want to get to the bottom of who invented the folded cascode. Nothing like having dated proof, now we're 10yr. earlier than that Stax patent.
Jack offers a money back guarantee, on his products. That should be enough for anyone who is really interested in them.
Hi John,
Unfortunately, I've been away for a bit. Coming back, I see this thread is still focusing on personalities more than it is looking at actual design work. Too bad, because the content can be excellent some times.
I do notice that there are some who persist is challenging each other to a verbal duel. One trend I have seen too, there are more circuits that get good results. Not just "the one", being blind to all others.
You know John, you could have laid out exactly how you built the Blowtorch in this thread and it would have been lost in the noise. That is really sad, as you have a chance to show and explain some circuit techniques to other people. Sciences are for sharing information. Maybe not all the details, but certainly some of them.
To your stance of "it's a secret and I can't tell you", well, that's just silly. You know for sure that the schematic is no where near the entire story. Parts and placement make all the difference in the world. How you match and to how close you match is another factor too.
Put yourself in any other persons' shoes and consider what you would say if you were presented with the same information and responses you have given. I suspect that you would not accept the argument at all.
Anyway, consider what someone on the outside sees before complaining that you are attacked. True, there are personal attacks, but then there are the legitimate requests for backup proof as you chop down the ideas of others. Sounds like you are founding a church really.
I feel this same comment applies to some other members also. You can tell from their thin skin often enough. Let's try something new here in these threads. How about talking about the science behind the circuit blocks? It is possible to talk about circuits in isolation without giving up the entire design. Expand on these as you see fit.
One last comment. If you want your design to be a true secret, you can never sell one. The first one that is sold comprises the "secret". Copying a finished design is much easier than building from a schematic.
-Chris
Unfortunately, I've been away for a bit. Coming back, I see this thread is still focusing on personalities more than it is looking at actual design work. Too bad, because the content can be excellent some times.
I do notice that there are some who persist is challenging each other to a verbal duel. One trend I have seen too, there are more circuits that get good results. Not just "the one", being blind to all others.
You know John, you could have laid out exactly how you built the Blowtorch in this thread and it would have been lost in the noise. That is really sad, as you have a chance to show and explain some circuit techniques to other people. Sciences are for sharing information. Maybe not all the details, but certainly some of them.
To your stance of "it's a secret and I can't tell you", well, that's just silly. You know for sure that the schematic is no where near the entire story. Parts and placement make all the difference in the world. How you match and to how close you match is another factor too.
Put yourself in any other persons' shoes and consider what you would say if you were presented with the same information and responses you have given. I suspect that you would not accept the argument at all.
Anyway, consider what someone on the outside sees before complaining that you are attacked. True, there are personal attacks, but then there are the legitimate requests for backup proof as you chop down the ideas of others. Sounds like you are founding a church really.
I feel this same comment applies to some other members also. You can tell from their thin skin often enough. Let's try something new here in these threads. How about talking about the science behind the circuit blocks? It is possible to talk about circuits in isolation without giving up the entire design. Expand on these as you see fit.
One last comment. If you want your design to be a true secret, you can never sell one. The first one that is sold comprises the "secret". Copying a finished design is much easier than building from a schematic.
-Chris
john curl said:
But as you have stated in the past, Jack Bybee intentionally misleads people regarding his devices. You say Scott remains ignorant about them as if that's somehow Scott's fault, but how can one not remain ignorant about them when they are intentionally misled?
Excuse me, John, but how can anyone with any amount of physics background or any amount of trying understand them when they have not been given anything to understand?
All they have been given is misinformation from Bybee and your empty claims of knowing how they work.
se
Bob Cordell said:
Thanks, Bob!
Though as it turns out, it's not the distortion canceling nature of the complementary pair that John feels is the main benefit, but rather that "...it creates two separate signals that are opposed in DC voltage from each other. This gives 2 times the gain, without any phase delay increase."
se
john curl said:
But as you have said before, what Jack has said publicly in the past about his devices has been intentionally misleading. So what assurance does anyone have that this would be any less misleading?
se
"Intelligent Design" is now "out." The euphemism now is "teach the controversy."
OK, let's get back to the topic. If and when John posts the Bybee stuff in its own thread, we can chew it around there.
OK, let's get back to the topic. If and when John posts the Bybee stuff in its own thread, we can chew it around there.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.