Bob Cordell in the past and just now has made one of the most significant criticisms of complementary design that I have seen contributed here.
I am not an average guy, Chris, and I expect people to use factory matched devices, either bipolar or fet. I also EXPECT matching of the betas or the Idss of the complementary devices. IF NOT, make something easier to build. Use IC's, I do. Right now I have designed into future products: AD797, OPA132, and A825 (thanks Scott). More will follow.
john curl said:
You have the arrogance to refuse to discuss a topic because you pre-judge your audience to be too stupid to understand you. Oh boy.
Well, no point applying for that TA job...you don't seem to have the prerequisites to be a teacher.
Hi John,
You are one of the few that seems to understand what is important when using this configuration, present company excepted of course. The average mass produced amplifier will not lend itself to this unless they go to a single package solution. THAT may have something, if they can match both polarities. Otherwise, this circuit is more of a liability.
-Chris
Well, yes. That was my entire point.
You are one of the few that seems to understand what is important when using this configuration, present company excepted of course. The average mass produced amplifier will not lend itself to this unless they go to a single package solution. THAT may have something, if they can match both polarities. Otherwise, this circuit is more of a liability.
-Chris
john curl said:
Really? Bob just stated the bleeding obvious! (no disrespect intended, Bob). Blimey.
scott wurcer said:
Funny. 🙂
Technically, I think they may be Americans er Irish er same thing. Plenty of gobshites in the UK too, though.
Did you notice what sign your cursor becomes when you try to select something at the site?
traderbam said:
Funny. 🙂
Technically, I think they may be Americans er Irish er same thing. Plenty of gobshites in the UK too, though.
Did you notice what sign your cursor becomes when you try to select something at the site?
They are from Boston.
John (or anyone who will condescend to reply - I'm not fussy), on the subject of brute force NFB, I think we can declare Halcro to incorporate gobs of it. Have you compared the sound of the top JC amplifier (is it the JC1?) with the top Halcro? I wish I had the opportunity to do this myself.
One high end amp I have auditioned, albeit in a small hotel room, is the Lamm M1.2, and I thought it was really quite good. The Lamm is a little eccentric; using a valve stage and mosfet outputs, and no global NFB.
One high end amp I have auditioned, albeit in a small hotel room, is the Lamm M1.2, and I thought it was really quite good. The Lamm is a little eccentric; using a valve stage and mosfet outputs, and no global NFB.
traderbam said:
Isn’t the thing with Halcro that Candy is using a lot of EC together with GNFB?
john curl said:
Is the circuit something that can be published? I'm interested in the techniques you used as are others here. I'm sure the high feedback would have an effect on the sound etc. but the other aspects of ultra low distortion are always enlightening. Is that the output buffer in the ST1710?
stinius said:
Yes. The patent I've seen uses local OS NFB and a global NFB loop that encompasses it. A more recent patent involves 4 stages of nested NFB but I'm not sure whether this scheme was used.
I am compelled at this point to play my well-worn 78: EC is equivalent to NFB. Same thing.
I personally have not compared the Halcro with the JC-1 power amp. I do deliver about twice the power and 5 times the transient peak current, at 1/2 the price, but the Halcro on its own, sounds OK to me. I would never be the judge of components that I am involved with. The LAMM $130,000 tube amp is a favorite of mine.
traderbam said:
Lamm M1.2 uses small amount (6 -7dB) of feedback taken from the VAS output. Output stage works in open loop.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.