"He posted earlier that it was to make mounting easier. "
Seriously? Not the only reason...or is it? Oh.
Well, I can't say I've designed an open loop OS in quite some time.
Seriously? Not the only reason...or is it? Oh.
Well, I can't say I've designed an open loop OS in quite some time.
traderbam said:Way to go MJ.
Say, have you got any more power transistors? According to SD's schematics, he uses them for the drivers too. Must be a good reason for this...
Thanks,
I have many outputs, but I'm not sure they will make better drivers than the MJE15030/31 I used. I considered using 2SA1837/C4793 and if I do anything in the future with this, I'll try those.I've been working from the schematic posted by ostripper and haven't seen the final version of the amp that Steve posted.
!!!Now, MJL, having come this far & built a circuit, are you now going to try the Krill circuit because this isn't Steve's published circuit in any of it's various manifestations?
You have left off trimmers for bias & offset setting, your emitter Rs are 0,5 ohm. Does the scope image not spur you on to fully realising what this circuit can do?
You have left off trimmers for bias & offset setting, your emitter Rs are 0,5 ohm. Does the scope image not spur you on to fully realising what this circuit can do?
MJL21193 said:
Thanks John, I didn't think that you meant it that way 🙂
Unfortunately, it does read that way ... although it could also read that the bullies need to be given some detention, from time to time ...
thanks
have a good day
🙂
Edit: Hey John, I have just been reading your excellent posts on your testing of Steve's OPS ... thanks and excellent results, appreciated and keep up the good work (as ususal) 🙂
I'm one of the 48000 silent viewers of this thread. Following it from the start I'm now sure that Mr Dunlap is up to something unique with his design and this is what made some people mad.
On one hand we have some people trying still to understand how they would simulate Steve's design.
On the other hand we have Steve's statement that his design not only works but it could be something special, backed up by his integrity and generosity, plus the positive opinions of all the people that have actually build and listen to krill.
It is clear to me that Krill deserves a try from more people, myself included, who can come back and write their opinion.
In the mean time let the others trying to understand or, as I can smell from the latest posts, fight themselves comparing their simulations with their measurements.
On one hand we have some people trying still to understand how they would simulate Steve's design.
On the other hand we have Steve's statement that his design not only works but it could be something special, backed up by his integrity and generosity, plus the positive opinions of all the people that have actually build and listen to krill.
It is clear to me that Krill deserves a try from more people, myself included, who can come back and write their opinion.
In the mean time let the others trying to understand or, as I can smell from the latest posts, fight themselves comparing their simulations with their measurements.
Marinos said:
Marinos
I think you have misunderstood something.
I don’t see any “mad” people.
I don’t see a fight.
I see a discussion.
Are we not allowed to discuss a circuit?
Cheers
Stinius
Marinos said:
Yes, Marinos, there does seem to be some bickering/disagreement among the sim crowd, doesn't there. I wonder how this could be? Aren't these sim tools meant as ways to predict the behaviour of the actual circuit? What gives? Are the laws of physics violated? What should we do, Batman - I know simulate how to escape this dilemma!
I agree with you about building & reporting _ i'm unable to do either at the moment but look forward to hearing reports/ measured results. It's shameful that it has taken 'til now for a semblance of light to have finally shone on this thread. It might be finally emerging from the mire that it had sunk into?
tsmith1315 said:
Yes, 8 ohm dummy load.
jkeny said:
What I have built is close enough. 😉
A broom is still a broom, no matter what colour the handle is.
stinius said:
Thanks.
IT is a shame, that..
Because of all this bickering BS , we could never see
the more advanced version.
I see mr. dunlops point , as the more advanced version would
bring about more advanced bickering BS.. 🙁
I am glad someone else prototyped it..works good.. huh ,MJL?
OS
Because of all this bickering BS , we could never see
the more advanced version.
I see mr. dunlops point , as the more advanced version would
bring about more advanced bickering BS.. 🙁
I am glad someone else prototyped it..works good.. huh ,MJL?
OS
KLe said:
I have built it and scoped it but I would sorely like to run a distortion analysis on it. My sim of this circuit shows diminishing distortion with frequency increase - the amount of which will not show up on the scope (gross distortion will be visible).
My only option is to rig a known input and VAS to it, then check it with RMAA.
Attachments
jkeny said:
Simulation software aren't perfect.
For one thing, the software can do only what its' designers put into it. I'm not sure that all situations are accounted for, especially with non-conventional topologies.
Second, we don't know how accurate are various devices models.
So, as much as simulations may be of assistance in the design stage, it appears that their results cannot be taken as absolutely accurate.
Often there are deviations between simulations results and measurements of actual circuits. This is definitely the case with the Krill amp.
One more thing is that often listening tests differ from measured results. A simulation software cannot say how a certain amplifier will sound.
Also, those who built a "Krill" with different parts values cannot expect to get the same measured and heard results as from the real Krill.
MJL21193 said:
So you think.
Do you think you understand how the circuit works? If yes, please share with us.
Joshua_G said:
Joshua
You are absolutely right, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Cheers
Stinius
Okay! Enough bickering!
Hi People,
I haven't been up to doing a lot of reading lately, just responding to posts myself. But what I've seen just now skimming through this thread is just plain silly. It really ticks me off to see behavior like this.
I think that we as a group need to check our egos and personalities at the door. Not only here, but everywhere else on this site. Lose the attitudes that confuse the subject, please!
Okay, Steve Dunlap is not a well man for one. People who have been here all along know this and Steve has mentioned it a few times. That, and this is a commercial design that works! Why are we quibbling with Steve with comments like "it doesn't work", or "the distortion can't be that low". He made measurements on running equipment for pete's sake!
Look at this from another viewpoint. Here is a fellow who has shared a working commercial design with us. Not once has he hide any details, it's all there - free. Those who are skeptical about things in general are free to simulate and build. However, we all know that simulated results are not fact. You have to physically build the thing. As Steve himself commented earlier, if he simulates a circuit that performs well, but doesn't simulate properly, which are you going to believe? Everyone who believed the simulated result needs to starting putting things together for real.
I guess we may have to split some stuff out, and trash the noise. My first inclination would be to split the sim stuff out, but I'm open to suggestions here. To that end, what do you people want to have stay, and what should be in a different thread?
Steve, if you are still posting (and I really hope you are), please let me know what your wishes are on this when you feel up to posting or sending me a PM.
In the meantime, assume the circuit works as advertised until a few people have in fact built it and proved it doesn't work when properly constructed. Until that time. IT WORKS! Post accordingly and recognize that Steve is posting with great effort. That deserves some respect all on it's own.
-Chris
Hi People,
I haven't been up to doing a lot of reading lately, just responding to posts myself. But what I've seen just now skimming through this thread is just plain silly. It really ticks me off to see behavior like this.
I think that we as a group need to check our egos and personalities at the door. Not only here, but everywhere else on this site. Lose the attitudes that confuse the subject, please!
Okay, Steve Dunlap is not a well man for one. People who have been here all along know this and Steve has mentioned it a few times. That, and this is a commercial design that works! Why are we quibbling with Steve with comments like "it doesn't work", or "the distortion can't be that low". He made measurements on running equipment for pete's sake!
Look at this from another viewpoint. Here is a fellow who has shared a working commercial design with us. Not once has he hide any details, it's all there - free. Those who are skeptical about things in general are free to simulate and build. However, we all know that simulated results are not fact. You have to physically build the thing. As Steve himself commented earlier, if he simulates a circuit that performs well, but doesn't simulate properly, which are you going to believe? Everyone who believed the simulated result needs to starting putting things together for real.
I guess we may have to split some stuff out, and trash the noise. My first inclination would be to split the sim stuff out, but I'm open to suggestions here. To that end, what do you people want to have stay, and what should be in a different thread?
Steve, if you are still posting (and I really hope you are), please let me know what your wishes are on this when you feel up to posting or sending me a PM.
In the meantime, assume the circuit works as advertised until a few people have in fact built it and proved it doesn't work when properly constructed. Until that time. IT WORKS! Post accordingly and recognize that Steve is posting with great effort. That deserves some respect all on it's own.
-Chris
Thanks for your reply, Joshua, but it really wasn't warranted. My questions were all rhetorical and meant as a reminder to those who stated that the sim doesn't give these distortion values therefore it isn't possible in the real world!
However I see you have a healthy view of sim s/w
I'm also dumbfounded by MJL statement that his circuit is close enough - I hope it was a joke otherwise - Jeez the arrogance!
Edit: I see you just posted - yes MJL explain how the circuit works!
However I see you have a healthy view of sim s/w
I'm also dumbfounded by MJL statement that his circuit is close enough - I hope it was a joke otherwise - Jeez the arrogance!
Edit: I see you just posted - yes MJL explain how the circuit works!
Re: Okay! Enough bickering!
Thanks Chris! 😀 😀 😀
Originally posted by anatech Angry Okay! Enough bickering!
It really ticks me off to see behavior like this.
-Chris
Thanks Chris! 😀 😀 😀
Hi John,
Thank you for building that up. You are welcome by if you want to. We can measure THD and run it through the Spectrum Analyzer. That would give the answers you are looking for I think.
Hi Joshua_G,
I have to agree with most of what you have said there.
BTW, I'm a "build it guy", I don't know enough to simulate a circuit.
-Chris
Thank you for building that up. You are welcome by if you want to. We can measure THD and run it through the Spectrum Analyzer. That would give the answers you are looking for I think.
Hi Joshua_G,
I have to agree with most of what you have said there.
Even a PCB layout change would throw things off even using the exact same parts. But since the design is working, you get an idea of it's general characteristics. Building it is worthwhile even if the circuit isn't exact. Now, if the quick circuit John built works okay, and the sim doesn't, what does that tell you?
BTW, I'm a "build it guy", I don't know enough to simulate a circuit.
-Chris
- Status
- Not open for further replies.