traderbam said:
I would say, close to 1: almost all of them have a differential input stage, VAS, and powerful emitter followers.
john curl said:
Incorrect. Correct would be:
Audio industry is not RATIONAL, it is subjective!
Engineering is how you break free of the limitations of crafting. How you go from evolution by natural selection to purposeful design. To do this it is necessary to understand how things actually work - not just the electronic components but also our ear-brain perception system. Then, and only then, can the product can be truly optimised, by design rather than trial an error.
The Mc 2300 is NOT a memorable amp, the Mc 350 IS! It is important that you know what is what, and not be fooled by a fancy front panel. Shame on you, for being fooled enough by a fancy front panel, so that you bought it.
Back in 1973, we tried to get Mc to make more 350's, so that we would not have to use 2300's exclusively, BUT they would not. However, we did manage to put 350's on the tweeter array, thank goodness, and even the roadies could hear the difference.
Back in 1973, we tried to get Mc to make more 350's, so that we would not have to use 2300's exclusively, BUT they would not. However, we did manage to put 350's on the tweeter array, thank goodness, and even the roadies could hear the difference.
traderbam said:
Anyway, it will be still better approximation. There are no criteria except trial and error, no matter how close your model is to the reality, the model is always a model.
Ohm's Law of Acoustics or Ohm's Law of Resistance? You didn't know that there were 2 of them, did you? This is BECAUSE the Acoustics Law was found not to be completely accurate. Learn and grow, everyone.
You are an arrogant SOB, aren't you? 🙂 Nothing to fear here, no need to use offence as the best form of defence.
Fooled by Prozac?
What's the matter with you.
Did you forget to take your daily dose of Prozac or are you dyslectic?
Did I say I was impressed by "a fancy front panel"? The answer is NO!
As a matter of fact, I was impressed by the hefty transformers, electrolytic caps, heat sinks and weight. But I never had the illusion that such an out of date relic would really sound perfect.
Did I say I bought this amp? Again, the answer is NO!
As a matter of fact, I found this amp disgarded on the street! Then I gave it a major overhaul. I restored it with the original parts, including the drivers with the rare RCA40409/40410 (with rectangular heat sinks welded to the TO-5 case). Then I sold that monster as fast as I could (within one hour!, btw).
So, WTF 'fooled' and 'shame on me'? I would rather say shame on YOU for such a ridiculous reply.
john curl said:
What's the matter with you.
Did you forget to take your daily dose of Prozac or are you dyslectic?Did I say I was impressed by "a fancy front panel"? The answer is NO!
As a matter of fact, I was impressed by the hefty transformers, electrolytic caps, heat sinks and weight. But I never had the illusion that such an out of date relic would really sound perfect.
Did I say I bought this amp? Again, the answer is NO!
As a matter of fact, I found this amp disgarded on the street! Then I gave it a major overhaul. I restored it with the original parts, including the drivers with the rare RCA40409/40410 (with rectangular heat sinks welded to the TO-5 case). Then I sold that monster as fast as I could (within one hour!, btw).
So, WTF 'fooled' and 'shame on me'? I would rather say shame on YOU for such a ridiculous reply.
No, I am an old and experienced SOB, trying to convey a little of what I have learned to others, by whatever way possible, on this thread. Was I impolite? I apologize.
Perhaps the fact that the amp was 'abandoned' should have given you a clue as to its sound quality. I am still searching out the 350's that the Dead sold off.
Re: Re: Re: Re: VAS fighting
Hi Glen,
You are overlooking something very, very important in that circuit that I am using to stabilize the VAS bias current and avoid the Slone circuit problem, yet this particular solution is incredibly simple. Look at the 20k resistors across the LTP collectors. They feed back through the helpered current mirror and result in a net 10k impedance, while doing a good job of stabilizing the VAS bias current. They effectively and naturally provide a load resistor termination to just the right voltage needed. Far simpler than CMCL.
Also look carefully at the values of the current mirror degeneration resistors, top and bottom. Why are they slightly different?
Cheers,
Bob
G.Kleinschmidt said:
Hi Glen,
You are overlooking something very, very important in that circuit that I am using to stabilize the VAS bias current and avoid the Slone circuit problem, yet this particular solution is incredibly simple. Look at the 20k resistors across the LTP collectors. They feed back through the helpered current mirror and result in a net 10k impedance, while doing a good job of stabilizing the VAS bias current. They effectively and naturally provide a load resistor termination to just the right voltage needed. Far simpler than CMCL.
Also look carefully at the values of the current mirror degeneration resistors, top and bottom. Why are they slightly different?
Cheers,
Bob
- Status
- Not open for further replies.