Look at how they are wired..... please... look at the drawings.. each amp sees the other. THAT is the point of my post!
Besides, lowering the speaker impedance is NOT sufficient. You have issues with current drive limitation which is why so many amps will NOT drive twice as much power as the load is halved! You can NOT claim that lowering the impedance will automatically increase the power as expected by a simple analysis based on E=IR and P=I^2R.
THAT was established like a hundred posts earlier!
I must say that here we go again... people replying without reading through the entire post.
Anyhow, would the F4 get away with this as it uses no feedback at all?
Last edited:
(1) I plan on getting an F4 up and running, but as a stereo amp. As I was reading through it, that part really came out.
(2) So, the trick to paralleling an amplifier is something that has no feedback? Because that way there is no way for the power to get back into the amp and it prevents oscillations due to mistmatches between the two amps?
(3) It is a current amplifier. My preamp puts out enough voltage.
(4) I posted it because I'm curious... seems like F4 does what I wanted to do with the Parasounds. Perhaps using something like a couple of F4 and either a high voltage output preamp or something like an ACA would do it.. with the preamp, you would have the sound of the preamp with a transparent amplifier. Same thing with the ACA.
(5) I seem to recall that Musical Fidelity used to have a current amp like that back in the 80s or 90s. It took the output of a low powered amp and provided the current to support like 500 wpc. Yes, here it is:
https://www.musicalfidelity.com/uploads/manuals/English/750k_manual_english.pdf
Last edited:
On the shelf... likely a waste of time. The parts are still not here. So, my plan is to assemble the Ncore instead.
I got lots of plans and lots of things to do... so got to prioritize At one point, I had the Parasound rack on the bench and was ready to plug it in, but I thought that I ought to think before going with it. It is good I thought about it. Maybe when I get the resistors I'll give it a try, but now I'm in no hurry.
I do a lot of "thought experiments" and work has assigned me to debug an intermittent ethernet problem which (a) pays the bills and (b) is a bitch to debug. So my time now is crazy.
Besides, I'm patient. I usually have a one year timeline for the things I want to do. Getting the F4 is likely a much more beneficial endeavor. I've noticed some people have a pair... I wonder if it's worthwhile to get two F4s or..... I ordered parts for a SiT too.
Maybe get a high efficiency speaker.
Many tasks, all running in parallel... just like my code... multi core!
BTW, if you don't like my posts... well, you don't have to read them. It's not like I'm forcing you.
Last edited:
Jesus... well... I've been on the Internet since DARPAnet. That would make it, oh.. hmm... 32+ years by now. Before html, java, etc... even existed.
When we used usenet.
Ever used " rn " ?
I gotta say I have NEVER heard such an interpretation of forums. NEVER, EVER.
Whatever, read on then.
It is that simple.
BTW... if you can get off your evil horse... did you even bother to read my post about the F4?
This-thread-is-about:
and new Physics Laws such as:
And you STILL repeat you demeaning answers, this one is from post #3, go figure:
Boring.
Don´t you have something new, slightly more creative?
Silly answers become even more silly after 289 posts without content.
Did I call this a ´pitiful useless thread?
Yes, I guess I did, one way or another.
By the way, not the only one who thinks so.
He can't do it because he has no real competition to show off to...We should just all stop giving any replica to God.God knows it all anyway.I think He gave the US army the knowledge to built Darpa Net too! He's Self sufficient except He likes our praises in the morning, during the day and before going to bed because he gaves us the w-holly www.
He also likes cursing us, constantly teling us the Truth we don't wanna see...
BTW, P = I^2 R...
You might want to bone up a little... here:
https://medium.com/@jaetech/ohms-la...age-resistance-power-and-current-8556c43a03d6
Hmm... if you find it boring
WHY DO YOU KEEP POSTING?
WHY DO YOU KEEP GOING BACK TO THE FIRST POSTS?
Dude... give it up.
I find running amplifiers in parallel interesting... I find it interesting that the F4 can be run in parallel.
But, you... well, your posts have become pretty much the same, over and over and over...
Adios. I have ignored you again.... I suggest that if you don't like my posts, well, hell, ignore me. Otherwise, it is who is projecting unto me exactly what you are doing.
Which makes the whole difference if it is possible to parallel two amplifiers.
It is the same as with the output stage (gainless emitter followers) of a main amplifiers, where only relative small resistors (eg 0.33Ω) are needed.
But as there is no voltage gain in emitter followers (a little loss actually), no extra output voltage is generated by paralleling two (or more) amplifiers / stages.
And when the output voltage is not increasing by paralleling, the output current is also not increasing with unchanged load.
Current capacity is increased, but not needed with an unchanged load.
So even with P = I^2 R, where I and R remain the same, P will be the same too.
Two amplifiers with gain and NFB will try control the same output, and this 'shared control' cannot work.
To answer your initial question in #1 ("Another option would be to parallel the amps... using both channels of one amp to drive a speaker. That would keep the voltage the same but double the current.") has to be defined more precise: "... but double the current CAPACITY..." (mentioned in posts above).
And with: "...only if this involves gainless and NFB-less amplifiers."
He got explained this for at least 10 times by different people by now...but he's probably studying the effect of turning more pages and nobody reading the previous answers...so every 2 pages he'll seem to be asking the same question as if nobody answered him already.It's pure forum psychology ...we could have another 300 pages on this topic and a new guy will turn in the same input to the same "unanswered " question every two pages.
I'd suggest this topic being closed as the OP has not turned any experience of his own except the same daring questions followed by stories about his secret 007 agent past in service to HMRQ.
I'm sure that slightly less complicated project of powering up new ITER fusion reactor will be accomplished before Tony manages to do any actual test. 🙂
So?
Parallel amps into the same load will NOT increase current into it, so power won´t change.
Explained to you some 25 times already.
And this seems the ideal time to bring this thread to a close.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.