Craig405 said:
Hi Craig,
A good start is reading Douglas Self's book: 'The Audio Power Amplifier Design Handbook'
See also: http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/books/book.htm
Edmond Stuart said:
I would recommend starting from physics and experimenting, experimenting, experimenting....
some good suggestions already.
here's mine ...
i'm assuming you'll start working after you graduate (economy willing ...)
find the analog guru in the place you work. my experience has been they're easy to find because they usually have:
-a junky office (parts and papers all over the place)
-old and well maintained test gear in the office
-circuits on the whiteboard
-interruptions from people in other areas of the business stopping by to ask tough questions.
when you find 'em, tell 'em what you want and (again, my experience has been ...) they'll ecstatically oblige you; most are looking for someone to pass on things they've learned to someone who would appreciate the knowledge. find some way to be helpful and you're in like flynn. when i started working (in the late 70's), i helped the gurus with their spice sims - they weren't so familiar with it back then and i helped do some after hours testing.
good luck!
mlloyd1
here's mine ...
i'm assuming you'll start working after you graduate (economy willing ...)
find the analog guru in the place you work. my experience has been they're easy to find because they usually have:
-a junky office (parts and papers all over the place)
-old and well maintained test gear in the office
-circuits on the whiteboard
-interruptions from people in other areas of the business stopping by to ask tough questions.
when you find 'em, tell 'em what you want and (again, my experience has been ...) they'll ecstatically oblige you; most are looking for someone to pass on things they've learned to someone who would appreciate the knowledge. find some way to be helpful and you're in like flynn. when i started working (in the late 70's), i helped the gurus with their spice sims - they weren't so familiar with it back then and i helped do some after hours testing.
good luck!
mlloyd1
Craig405 said:
john curl said:
John,
You just typed in a bunch of unsubstantiated statements and numbers. Unless and until you prove them, they are all just a pile of :bs:
I had an interesting experience with my system about 4 weeks about. We had this preamp I built in our system for about 3 months. My Dad wanted to try our old preamp again and see how it sounded. This is also a very good preamp. I let it warm up for about 8 hours and gave it a listen. Trailer Trash!!! It made our system sound like a cheap transistor radio. I knew this was just my ears. After a couple days I got re-acquainted to the sound and it sound good, but more closed in, and less musical, but had better detail in the bass/less bass authority.
My dad listened the day after I first listened and said it sounded pretty bad. I agreed, and I hadn't told him my experience before hand. About four days later he told me it was sounding a lot better, and he understood about how hearing can change. Again, I hadn't said anything about my experience before.
My dad is a die-hard audiophile and says it takes months to break-in speaker cables and equipment. He usually attributes any difference he hears to the equipment. He still says he can hear my preamp breaking in.
I listened and experimented to get the preamp sounding that good. But, if you attribute every difference you hear to the equipment you can enter another dimension.
My dad listened the day after I first listened and said it sounded pretty bad. I agreed, and I hadn't told him my experience before hand. About four days later he told me it was sounding a lot better, and he understood about how hearing can change. Again, I hadn't said anything about my experience before.
My dad is a die-hard audiophile and says it takes months to break-in speaker cables and equipment. He usually attributes any difference he hears to the equipment. He still says he can hear my preamp breaking in.
I listened and experimented to get the preamp sounding that good. But, if you attribute every difference you hear to the equipment you can enter another dimension.
Wavebourn said:
What the are you talking about? What "mechanical deformation" (your term) is involved in a diffraction effect?
Reinventing the wheel and again and again and again?
Wavebourn said:
OH oh here we go again! 🙂 I think you guys are talking past each other. An acoustic pressure wave diffracts just as well around a totally rigid body. And yes vibrating objects made out of who knows what probably re-radiate all kinds of distorted wave fronts. You are both right.
syn08 said:
Syn08, sorry to come back to this only now but what interest me is that you say the molecules rotate to align with the electric field. If so, would it also be possible that molecules move / align in a copper cable when an electric field is applied?
Thanks
André
Johnloudb said:
Actually the only thing that ever sounded to me like a cheap transistor radio was a cheap transistor radio. If you switched from a Blowtorch to one of Nelson Pass' Zen circuits you probably wouldn't say that. It seems the better things keep getting the less subtle the differences are, I remain unconvinced.
Passives
Hello Scott
You have done a lots of work with Walt Jung, and I suspect have heard lots of things he has built ( low noise power supplies for example) now in all these years have you ever heard the difference that just changing one passive component for another passive component with exactly the same value just another brand .
I agree with your technical approach to audio and that improving technical specifications results in better sound quality.
Regards
Arthur
Hello Scott
You have done a lots of work with Walt Jung, and I suspect have heard lots of things he has built ( low noise power supplies for example) now in all these years have you ever heard the difference that just changing one passive component for another passive component with exactly the same value just another brand .
I agree with your technical approach to audio and that improving technical specifications results in better sound quality.
Regards
Arthur
Absolutely not.
Re: Passives
No never, unless a high series inductance cap made a circuit oscillate for instance.
Savants who can multiply 10 digit numbers in their head (for example) love to demonstrate their abilities to just about anyone, why not the audiophiles. I read here almost every day, "swaping out the Dale RN60's was obvious even to my daughter in the other room". Or even better two identical copies of the same CD played from a hard drive and for one "you can feel the improvement in bass in the table top" (that one violates conservation of energy).
You tell me, credible?
Yes, I've helped customers in the medical instrument business for 35 yr. not once has anyone operated in the manner that some audio designers do.
PHEONIX said:
No never, unless a high series inductance cap made a circuit oscillate for instance.
Savants who can multiply 10 digit numbers in their head (for example) love to demonstrate their abilities to just about anyone, why not the audiophiles. I read here almost every day, "swaping out the Dale RN60's was obvious even to my daughter in the other room". Or even better two identical copies of the same CD played from a hard drive and for one "you can feel the improvement in bass in the table top" (that one violates conservation of energy).
You tell me, credible?
Yes, I've helped customers in the medical instrument business for 35 yr. not once has anyone operated in the manner that some audio designers do.
No. First, the notion of rotation of the molecules at normal temperatures is not correct. The dielectric properties result from the modulation of dipole moments from electrons sloshing around.
Second, copper does not exist as a "molecule" per se.
Third, a field cannot exist inside a conductor.
SY said:
Okay, this is a nitpick, but I think you meant to say a perfect conductor.
The notion of skin depth is derived by considering a plane wave normally incident on a semi-infinite block of linear, homogeneous, isotropic material having finite conductivity. The skin depth is defined as the distance it takes that wave to travel inside the conductor before the E-field decays to 1/e times its value at the surface. Of course, this wave attenuates very rapidly with distance as it travels inside the conductor, such that it's very small (but not identically zero) in most practical situations.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.