The math and the written explanation is NOW in front of you. Come on! Even a lowly BA in physics, like me can do the math. (At least I used to) Find the mistakes, if you can. This is your chance. True 'peer' review. Just because it was published by the IEEE, shouldn't stop you.
Lumba Ogir said:
The alternative is you happily lacking the basic understanding of feedback and time/frequency analysis methods? Somehow, I'd buy on this one
john curl said:
You haven't even read Otala's IEEE article, so it's to early to discuss about. Do your homework, build some arguments and then we may discuss about.
Hint: repeat the same math as in the Otala's article for the non-feedback case (or for Beta->0) You'll be suprised to identify the same type of phase modulation of the output signal.
They get great reviews, they sell for a lot of money, and they use a ton of feedback.
syn08, try playing nice. Your technical points tend to get lost when you stoop to invective.
john curl said:
No I don't but if flies in the face of your theories and assertions. For you to be correct you need to explain why this particular amp has exceptional objective and subjective performance. According to your way of thinking it should be a mediocre amplifier but it isn't.
Since you have a BA in Physics then you should be familiar with the scientific process which applies here 😉
regards
trev
Hi Trevor White; please drop me a PM: you have no convenience button attached to your messages.
stinius said:
Ok, what are you expecting me to do? You want math, experiment, phenomenological explanations pre-digested and served on a silver platter? What would be for you a solid, acceptable argument?
Unfortunately, as much as I would like, I can't replace a solid education. However, if anybody around has it's own reasoning beyond the story board type, I am ready to debate. There are a few things that I consider though undebatable and therefore automatically raise the BS flag, such as conservation of energy, causality principle [feedback loop chasing it's tail], thermodynamics principles and Shannon's theorems [Bybee devices reducing 1/f noise] etc..., you got the drift.
Now, if you have anything to debate here, I'm ready. Come up with a schematic, analysis, simulation, calculation, showing your point. Unfortunately Lumba has nothing, beyond some undebatable semantically empty phraseology.
All we need is a good, reasonable explanation that Matti Otala is full of hot air, in regards to his 'simple' two page paper.
john curl said:
Why should anyone feel the need to further flog the skeleton of a head horse? Especially when you keep voluntarily stepping up onto the podium in replacement, leaving no one with any need to explain the obvious whatsoever
The math is there, live with it. If you can't beat the math, then you are just fooling yourself.
john curl said:
Oh great, now you have the math to backup your BS subjectivist position on the NFB-induced component of PIM. Keep blowing...............
The math is 30 years old and peer review published in the IEEE. Apparently, you don't understand this. It's math, not opinion.
john curl said:
John you are not an engineer. You haven't done the hard yards when it comes to fundamental circuit theory. This shows up in your arguments and that's why you have to resort to fallacies.
regards
trev
stoolpigeon said:
Well look at how many advancements in audio have come from the audio guru's ??
How many audio guru's write papers that get submitted for peer review in the technical journals ??
All the guru's want to talk about is bits of wire that don't really amount to much and they can't even reach any consensus on what is good and what is bad. That's not scientific nor does it advance the cause in any way. You won't even conduct proper double blind tests because you have excuses as to why that is no good as well.
Sorry to disappoint you but semiconductors, integrated circuit technology, digital audio technology etc are not formulated and designed by audio guru's with little or no formal technical education. Live with it before you start throwing stones in glass houses
And I'm not trying to have a dig at your average diyer either.
regards
trev
Trevor, I have a degree in physics, with a minor in electronic engineering. It is true that I lack some math that makes a masters or a Ph'd electronic engineer. What I HAVE done is hire Ph'd's when needed, and Master's degreed associates as well, WHEN a specific job is over my head. At the moment, I am working with a multi degreed engineer-physicist and we work well together.
As far as my title, it was Senior Design Engineer on my business card when I worked on medical electronics at Humphrey Instruments in 1984-85, a company of about 300 people, and VP Engineering when I was with Lineage Inc. in 1986-87. I still get most of my free journals under John Curl VP Engr. Lineage Inc. as it is a continuation of the past as far as my mail is concerned. I am a LIFETIME MEMBER of the IEEE, first joining it in 1965, and continuing my membership for more than 40 years. I was also a MEMBER of the AES, for 40 years, starting in 1966. I dropped out, because the dues got high, and the return was low.
Now, what makes an engineer? Well, I could not call myself one if I worked in Illinois, because I only have a degree in physics. However, here in California, I know plenty of people with less education than me, who are considered darn good engineers. We do not share the prejudice of the state of Illinois as to what constitutes an engineer.
Now, just because I graduated in 1966 and went to work at Friden Calculator as a junior engineer, and then on to Ampex for several years, doesn't mean that I stopped learning engineering. I took night classes at Ampex, and UC Berkeley engineering school, where I was taught by Dr's Dorf, (servo design) Orchard (filter design), RG Meyer (sr and grad analog design), Don Peterson (sr and grad analog design) and several others. I think that I have some experience as a design engineer, and that is all that I call myself.
I have unilaterally invented the complementary differential input stage, in 1968 (although others may have done it independently, few have done it so early), the patented inverse complementary stage (1971), the complementary fet follower (1970), the first complementary fet input stage (1972), and I have worked in Finland at the Technical Research Centre on 2 occasions, 1976, 1977, and with Matti Otala in 1978 at HK.
That is why I am so annoyed that they stole my work without telling me, when they made the Citation power amp.
I gave my first AES paper in LA in 1972 (no preprint), my first IEEE paper in 1978, for a TIM conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and a modified version of the paper in Tokyo in 1978. I was chairman of the AES SF Bay Area Section for about 10 years, off and on, planning guest lecturers once a month. That is where I met Floyd Tool, and of course I know and have debated Dr Lipshitz and a long array of your buddies, over the decades.
NOW, show me what math I should catch up on, and I'll get to it.
As far as my title, it was Senior Design Engineer on my business card when I worked on medical electronics at Humphrey Instruments in 1984-85, a company of about 300 people, and VP Engineering when I was with Lineage Inc. in 1986-87. I still get most of my free journals under John Curl VP Engr. Lineage Inc. as it is a continuation of the past as far as my mail is concerned. I am a LIFETIME MEMBER of the IEEE, first joining it in 1965, and continuing my membership for more than 40 years. I was also a MEMBER of the AES, for 40 years, starting in 1966. I dropped out, because the dues got high, and the return was low.
Now, what makes an engineer? Well, I could not call myself one if I worked in Illinois, because I only have a degree in physics. However, here in California, I know plenty of people with less education than me, who are considered darn good engineers. We do not share the prejudice of the state of Illinois as to what constitutes an engineer.
Now, just because I graduated in 1966 and went to work at Friden Calculator as a junior engineer, and then on to Ampex for several years, doesn't mean that I stopped learning engineering. I took night classes at Ampex, and UC Berkeley engineering school, where I was taught by Dr's Dorf, (servo design) Orchard (filter design), RG Meyer (sr and grad analog design), Don Peterson (sr and grad analog design) and several others. I think that I have some experience as a design engineer, and that is all that I call myself.
I have unilaterally invented the complementary differential input stage, in 1968 (although others may have done it independently, few have done it so early), the patented inverse complementary stage (1971), the complementary fet follower (1970), the first complementary fet input stage (1972), and I have worked in Finland at the Technical Research Centre on 2 occasions, 1976, 1977, and with Matti Otala in 1978 at HK.
That is why I am so annoyed that they stole my work without telling me, when they made the Citation power amp.
I gave my first AES paper in LA in 1972 (no preprint), my first IEEE paper in 1978, for a TIM conference in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and a modified version of the paper in Tokyo in 1978. I was chairman of the AES SF Bay Area Section for about 10 years, off and on, planning guest lecturers once a month. That is where I met Floyd Tool, and of course I know and have debated Dr Lipshitz and a long array of your buddies, over the decades.
NOW, show me what math I should catch up on, and I'll get to it.
John
You say that you have done all of these things and debated all of these people so now you have the opportunity to put your cards on the table and debate Robert Cordell on this issue. Nows your chance, just like the good old days 😉
regards
trev
I've done my arguing with Bob Cordell. I would rather ignore him, actually. He has not done me any favors over the decades. Why you rush to his defense? Yet you have not read the other side of the argument, and this shows the sort of researcher that you tend to be.