Poll for the participants of "John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II"

On which kind of design are you interested the most

  • a design that is simple

    Votes: 7 11.3%

  • a design that is cheap

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • a design that is “green”

    Votes: 2 3.2%

  • a no holds barred design that performs the best

    Votes: 50 80.6%
  • Total voters
    62
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#25
> and that impacts whether its N or P channel?

Duh .................... No .........

> need to know how its connected, look at the way
> the gate is oriented, same side as the source

I don't think that is a convention, happenstance in this
case ( but I may be wrong ( I draw them either way for
aestetic purposes ))
 
#26
It is my opinion that the Charles Hansen V3 proto schemo I posted, is representative of the simpified diagram PMA offered.
Also, A MOSFET Gate lead eminating oposite the source or oposite an additional lead from Source to the middle of the symbol should be considered a "convention". This "simplified" dwg however leaves some things over simplified and missing at the Gate of the cascode devices, which may have clued you in to further details of the circuit if they were present.
Just trying to help clear things up. Not be OT...
Of coarse I like this topology also. 😀
 
#28
The topology of the V3 is one of the best in the business. I use it (without the follower output stage) for the CTC Blowtorch.
I would not personally use the IRF510/9520 for an input stage, BUT I have used them for second stages and complementary output followers.
Charles Hansen would not use them today for input stages either. The criticism by Bogdan is not relevant to the overall discussion.
 
#30
flg..you mean opposite how? you mean horizontally do you? in the orientation thats mostly used, I mean same side on the vertical as in if the source is on the bottom, the stroke on the gate L is also pointing to the bottom. guess thats a bit ambiguous, its also mirrored across a vertical axis. 😉
 
#32
😀If I look at the devices depicted in the diagram of post #9, I don't have any doubts. Of coarse as I said, that topology is not new to me so I just ignored any (over simplified) ambiguity.
That particular MOSFET symbol is unfamiliar to me but maintains the characteristics of most. The Source is indicated by the offset of the Gate pin in this symbol.
If the Gate were centered in the Channel portion, as in the V3 shematic MOSFET symbols, I would expect to see that additional connection to the source from the Gate to be visible, indicating which is the Source.
Although I like "simple," and this 2 stage topology certainly is, I would like a highly accurate reproduction of the input signal to be reaching my ears and that sounds more like answer #4
 
#33
oh I have my own way of telling, same way as you pretty much, I was just trying to work out how your language linked with it. because the way you said it, reads the opposite to what I said, but we are both describing the same thing.
 
#35
Just voted on this thread. So, I'll explain my vote for a simple design. I really have no interest in building a complicated circuit design and simple audio designs often perform just as well or better than complicated ones from a subjective stand point.

So, simple and sounds great to me, is my recipe. Don't need the very best, and everyones subjective opinion on what that is varies.
 
#37
myhrrhleine said:
If youre not interested in a no hold barred design, i think you are at the wrong thread.
Click to expand...

How I could be in the wrong thread? It's a poll and all points of view should be shared I think. Isn't that the whole point?

And your comment brings up another thought. What is a no holds barred design? Op amps with lots of feedback and ultra low distortion, or something with no global feedback, but with good/reasonable distortion numbers. Are Charles Hanson's no feedback designs no holds barred? What about Nu-Force products that tend to use op amps and switching amplifiers?

For the DIYer simple is nice cause I have to wire the damn thing up. Does that mean I have sacrifice sound quality? Not in my experience.
 
#38
In this case, I think that "no holds barred" means that the designer has done anything and everything that he thought was needed in order to get his system's reproduction quality, and all of his other defined performance goals, close-enough to perfect, in his estimation. Or I suppose you could make "designer" plural and change all of the pronouns to plural, if you wanted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom