I agree, that is what I am trying to point out. Once a design approach is shown to work, everyone else thinks it is obvious. This is true with all future design breakthroughs as well. It is best to not be so sure that every practical design topology has been invented.
I am a bit critical of you sometimes John, but, there is no doubt in my mind that the balanced topologies that you developed and promoted are elegant and intuitive. I am a fan.
Thank you!
🙂
Thank you!
🙂
John,
You also have my deep respect for what you did, 40 years ago, for the audio industry and consumers.
My respect would be even deeper if you would admit that:
- most of those things could be done even better (performance, cost) today. It's not really happening every day in the industry because unfortunately there is little appetite today for really high performance. But this is a DIY forum...
- there are things you are flat wrong about (cables, wiring, bybee devices, etc...). Admitting wrong doings is one of the attributes of a high moral fibre.
- showing respect and interest for other's work and effort.
Thanks again for your contributions.
You also have my deep respect for what you did, 40 years ago, for the audio industry and consumers.
My respect would be even deeper if you would admit that:
- most of those things could be done even better (performance, cost) today. It's not really happening every day in the industry because unfortunately there is little appetite today for really high performance. But this is a DIY forum...
- there are things you are flat wrong about (cables, wiring, bybee devices, etc...). Admitting wrong doings is one of the attributes of a high moral fibre.
- showing respect and interest for other's work and effort.
Thanks again for your contributions.
Bonsai, from the beginning, perhaps 45 years ago, I have seriously tried to make better audio equipment, generally with solid state. I have attempted from the beginning, to make solid state work as good as tube technology. The ONLY real advantage over tubes, in terms of topology, is the complementary device. IF it didn't exist, there would be little advantage, and probably a real liability, and we should have stayed with tubes, except for portable applications. Even this week, I was asked to design single ended designs. I know how to do it, within reason, but why? Unless you use tubes exclusively, then using complementary topology to the greatest extent possible, allows the inherent distortion to be reduced to reasonable levels, even without feedback.
In the old days, 40 years ago, you would be surprised how few people could think 'upside down'.
For example, they would insist on using npn transistor devices exclusively, even for MC preamps, BECAUSE they wanted to see + on top, and ground on the bottom. The added base resistance was a real compromise to these early designs.
Of course, others independently paved a similar path. Most particularly, Jon Iverson, of
Electro-Research, who has been missing for about 15 years. Also, Daniel Meyer, of Southwest Technical, who was the first to publish the complementary symmetry input stage. Later, 'everybody' started to use this new symmetry, and it became obvious with solid state, so I moved to complementary fet input stages, over 35 years ago, when complementary fets became available from Siliconix. Sometimes we have to wait for the manufacturers to catch up, before we can create even better topologies. For example, SIT's or complementary V-fets, have a special place in design topology that we cannot fill at the moment, because they stopped making them. The same thing is happening to complementary jfets, as we all know, but there is hope for complementary second sourcing of the 2SJ75, or its equivalent, in future.
In the old days, 40 years ago, you would be surprised how few people could think 'upside down'.
For example, they would insist on using npn transistor devices exclusively, even for MC preamps, BECAUSE they wanted to see + on top, and ground on the bottom. The added base resistance was a real compromise to these early designs.
Of course, others independently paved a similar path. Most particularly, Jon Iverson, of
Electro-Research, who has been missing for about 15 years. Also, Daniel Meyer, of Southwest Technical, who was the first to publish the complementary symmetry input stage. Later, 'everybody' started to use this new symmetry, and it became obvious with solid state, so I moved to complementary fet input stages, over 35 years ago, when complementary fets became available from Siliconix. Sometimes we have to wait for the manufacturers to catch up, before we can create even better topologies. For example, SIT's or complementary V-fets, have a special place in design topology that we cannot fill at the moment, because they stopped making them. The same thing is happening to complementary jfets, as we all know, but there is hope for complementary second sourcing of the 2SJ75, or its equivalent, in future.
syn08 said:
Can you demonstrate how it mat be done better?
syn08 said:
The errors in those cases are to your own view.
Why do you think others must adopt your view?
Do you respect only people who share your views?
Joshua_G said:
Read his post. He said he would even have more respect if errors would be acknowledged. Surely *everybody* must make a mistake *sometimes*?
Although it is a rare person who is strong enough to say here that he made a mistake....
Jan Didden
Syn08 just doesn't believe in difficult-to-measure tweaks to audio systems in order to improve their sonic performance. I do, because I have made direct examples that sound different, yet measure essentially the same, in both preamps and power amps. Why?
I have no idea how 'modern' design techniques would improve performance that I get every day from my 35 year old (yes, I could have built their near equivalent 35 years ago) ideas.
For example, I just got 'preamp of the year' in 2 major American audio magazines WITHOUT advertising in either of them. I apparently did 'something' right, but it is really do to the extra attention to wires, connectors and layout, NOT topology. The SAME topology FAILED with the same reviewers about 10 years ago. I presume that I know something about making a successful audio product, and that is what I am TRYING to show here.
I have no idea how 'modern' design techniques would improve performance that I get every day from my 35 year old (yes, I could have built their near equivalent 35 years ago) ideas.
For example, I just got 'preamp of the year' in 2 major American audio magazines WITHOUT advertising in either of them. I apparently did 'something' right, but it is really do to the extra attention to wires, connectors and layout, NOT topology. The SAME topology FAILED with the same reviewers about 10 years ago. I presume that I know something about making a successful audio product, and that is what I am TRYING to show here.
john curl said:
So, then, would it be ok to say that you goofed 10 yrs ago, and that you subsequently corrected your mistake?
Jan Didden
Of course! Except I didn't 'goof' from topology or measurement. I 'goofed' by letting commercial designers select the passive parts and do the layout. By most standards, it shouldn't make a difference, and cheaper is better, so that the asking price can be as low as possible. It just didn't work out that way, however.
john curl said:
Thank you John, this was a very enlightening reply! This will not diminish the respect I have for your past work, though.
If I ever decide to join the Audio industry (very unlikely, but you'll never know) your statement goes straight into my resume.
janneman said:
Or that the reviews in Audio magazines are not worth the paper they are printed on?
janneman said:
My point is that those "mistakes" are in the eyes of some beholders.
My own experience taught me that different cables do sound differently. Also, filtering mains noise improves the sound of good sound setups.
Joshua_G said:
Give me a break! There are mistakes that are mistakes, period. Generally agreed facts are not up for 'opinions' or 'believe'. If I calculate 10 ohms for a resistor that carries 1 amps at 1 volts, that's not just a mistake in the eyes of the beholder. Get real!
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Can get more subtle than that... I've mentioned in another thread about the TL431 reference for a cascode stage bias voltage (about 15V). The Fairchild data sheet I got was not mentioning anything on stability, so I went forward and designed those references with 0.1uF film bypasses (as I suppose anybody would instinctively do). Post mortem, I read the TI datasheet which clearly shows TL431 being instable, under certain conditions, in capacitive loads. This error costed me a few hundreds in PCB redesigns (was a 7 x 9" board). Lesson learned: a) never assume anything (notably including sim models) b) never build amps as large monolythic, single board, constructions, divide and impera works best here as well.
janneman said:
What you call "mistakes" are acknowledged and generally agreed as facts by so many audiophiles around the world.
Joshua_G said:
Just as when you 'perceive' that a cable sounds better than another. That, of course is an established fact that we all should accept at face value.
People interested in these things would at the very least look up facts about perception, but you stated earlier that you are not even interested to know more about how you perceive (about the processes that lead you to conclude that you 'hear' a specific phenomenon). So, why should anybody take you serious?
Jan Didden
janneman said:
The facts of perception I'm interested in are those I experience.
I pay a lot of money for a sound system in order to enjoy listening to music.
I enjoy more listening to music when I use certain cables.
Some measurements may show no difference between different cables, however, I go by my experience.
Joshua_G, I don't know where we are going on this, but I believe in what I hear, and more especially in what others hear when evaluating my products, in general. We can all be fooled, sometimes, but can we all be fooled, all the time? I doubt it.
Now, there is a subset of people, usually highly educated, who cannot hear any differences between different wires, etc. This is part of their pathology, not mine. These are the usual people who demand ABX testing, so that EVERYONE can be put into a position of not hearing any differences. The problem is that AFTER the ABX test, the different components resume having audible differences, even if the test 'seemed' to show that there was no significant difference. Well, what do you want, fellow audiophiles? Do you want to believe, from higher authority, that there are no significant differences? If so, please don't pay a penny more for your audio products, and seriously consider MP-3 as your sound of choice. Why pay more?
But just like with autos, a Yugo is not a Porsche, even if they could be made to look and weigh essentially the same. Just driving will tell you the difference.
Now, there is a subset of people, usually highly educated, who cannot hear any differences between different wires, etc. This is part of their pathology, not mine. These are the usual people who demand ABX testing, so that EVERYONE can be put into a position of not hearing any differences. The problem is that AFTER the ABX test, the different components resume having audible differences, even if the test 'seemed' to show that there was no significant difference. Well, what do you want, fellow audiophiles? Do you want to believe, from higher authority, that there are no significant differences? If so, please don't pay a penny more for your audio products, and seriously consider MP-3 as your sound of choice. Why pay more?
But just like with autos, a Yugo is not a Porsche, even if they could be made to look and weigh essentially the same. Just driving will tell you the difference.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.