Hi Pat,
Marek was waiting until the review was published before re-listing on Ebay.
His contact details are at the start of the review and I'll add them to my page on DD.
Marek was waiting until the review was published before re-listing on Ebay.
His contact details are at the start of the review and I'll add them to my page on DD.
Hi nuuk,
I hope that what you have there is not just the missing resistors from the chip amp cct, put in a sealed container with extra wires coming out? and the only thing happening is that you are connecting a speaker and resistor in parallel with your main speaker? Please tell us that connecting V+ and V- to it makes a difference😀 You say it uses less power from the transformer😕
I hope that what you have there is not just the missing resistors from the chip amp cct, put in a sealed container with extra wires coming out? and the only thing happening is that you are connecting a speaker and resistor in parallel with your main speaker? Please tell us that connecting V+ and V- to it makes a difference😀 You say it uses less power from the transformer😕
audio1st said:
Would what you suggest cause the gain to become variable with frequency? I've been building chip amps for six years now. All sorts, different chips, inverting, non-inverting, buffered, non-buffered, different power supplies: small caps, large caps, snubberized, regulated, SMPS and so on. The difference that the Resurrector makes is far and away more than anything else I have tried with a chip amp.
If it is a 'trick' and all I have done is added another speaker and resistor in parallel with my main speakers, then I say go ahead and try that for yourself.
And moving the circuit resistors further away from the chip would in my experience make the sound worse not better.
As regards the quote
You say it uses less power from the transformer.
I can't find where I said that. I think I said something like you can get away with a smaller power supply when using the Resurrector.
Anyway, please try what you think the Resurrector is doing and report back to us! 😉
Hi Nuuk,
Good morning, sorry to have been negative..
Your right, I could try adding speakers in parallel to my main speakers and it will make the sound different, I guess it will be like tweaking the crossover, but it won't tell me if it is the same effect as you have?
I just wanted to know if there was a powered component in side the unit or just passive?
Sorry again..
Good morning, sorry to have been negative..
Your right, I could try adding speakers in parallel to my main speakers and it will make the sound different, I guess it will be like tweaking the crossover, but it won't tell me if it is the same effect as you have?
I just wanted to know if there was a powered component in side the unit or just passive?
Sorry again..
Hi Nuuk,
What I was trying to say is that this device goes against the idea of the chip amp, simplicity and short paths, as you say "And moving the circuit resistors further away from the chip would in my experience make the sound worse not better."
You have found that it improves the sound and I guess that is the most important thing.😉
What I was trying to say is that this device goes against the idea of the chip amp, simplicity and short paths, as you say "And moving the circuit resistors further away from the chip would in my experience make the sound worse not better."
You have found that it improves the sound and I guess that is the most important thing.😉
No need for an apology. 😉 Scepticism is healthy, particularly in this game!
I also understand that some people want questions answered before they part with their money. That's why I've tied to explain as much as I can in the review and on DD. And let's face it, we DIYers are an inquisitive bunch who always want to do it ourselves instead of buying.
I also respect the work that the designer has put into the Resurrector and even if I did know how it works, I wouldn't disclose it to anybody without his permission. What Marek has told me is that if you build a Resurrector into a chip amp, and then disconnect the power to it, the amp will sound different. Make of that what you will.
I really find myself between a rock and a hard place with the Resurrector. If I say how good it is it sounds like I am promoting it. It I say it makes chip amps better, it sounds like just another tweak that somebody wants paying for.
I guess we need somebody else, not a reviewer, who will try the Resurrector and hopefully remove some of the scepticism. For my part, I could sit back quite happy in the knowledge that at least two of us now have the best sounding chip amps in the world. But I would much rather see others experiencing the same pleasure. 😉
I also understand that some people want questions answered before they part with their money. That's why I've tied to explain as much as I can in the review and on DD. And let's face it, we DIYers are an inquisitive bunch who always want to do it ourselves instead of buying.
I also respect the work that the designer has put into the Resurrector and even if I did know how it works, I wouldn't disclose it to anybody without his permission. What Marek has told me is that if you build a Resurrector into a chip amp, and then disconnect the power to it, the amp will sound different. Make of that what you will.
I really find myself between a rock and a hard place with the Resurrector. If I say how good it is it sounds like I am promoting it. It I say it makes chip amps better, it sounds like just another tweak that somebody wants paying for.
I guess we need somebody else, not a reviewer, who will try the Resurrector and hopefully remove some of the scepticism. For my part, I could sit back quite happy in the knowledge that at least two of us now have the best sounding chip amps in the world. But I would much rather see others experiencing the same pleasure. 😉
Nuuk said:
In the ebay listing the seller describes the phantom speakers as delivering the feedback for the amplifier. So they are used as a microphone. Which means that the feedback will be different with each type of phantom speaker and with different positions of the phantom speakers. Why did he not use a calibrated microphone in the first place?
It will take a lot of luck to find just the right speaker pairing and then a lot of trial-and-error to find out the right positioning. But then again the seller says, he (or she) will customize your Resurrector. Wow! That takes some database for all the chipamp and speaker varieties and possible combinations. 🙄
Just a wild guess. It sounds great in a pleasing way, like old radios with tube amps and Greencones. But it does not sound accurate in the way that makes chipamps such a success.
pacificblue said:
This would certainly make sense but how do you reconcile it with the way Nuuk used them?
'having them situated in the far corners of the room under several cushions'
Presumably that acted as a crude attenuator, reducing the effect it had on the overall sound.
I still think someone needs to try one with a dummy load, to settle whether it's meant to utilise microphonic feedback, or if this is a side effect of the design.
I still think someone needs to try one with a dummy load, to settle whether it's meant to utilise microphonic feedback, or if this is a side effect of the design.
TheSeekerr said:
Someone? With zero ebay sales Nuuk might be the sole lucky owner of this incredibly unmarketable device.
I don't think they are but I will try and confirm that one way or the other.
The customising I was talking off was with regard to making a dual-mono version of the Resurrector, not in the way that you have interpreted it. 😉
I wouldn't say that it reduces the accuracy of a chip amp but it does make it much more musical. I sort of alluded to that in the review when I said that it would appeal to people who place enjoyment of music over the other aspects of what is considered good hi-fi. Sadly, I feel that many have lost sight of the real purpose of a hi-fi system!
As I understand it, that's what R1 is, a dummy load that you can switch in and out to hear the effect of the phantom driver in the circuit.
Two more sold in Poland apparently. I'm not sure if the buyers frequent this forum.
Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about R1. So, it's definitely microphonics then - interesting. I just wonder exactly what that the acoustic feedback is trying to achieve, and how it's applied. Is it simply a positive feedback? The review makes it sound a bit that way - swapping light-coned full rangers for heavier bass drivers caused a "less airy" sound, which to me sounds a lot like less treble was being fed back.
Is it acoustic feedback though? Could the phantom driver be there for some other purpose?
Marek puts his phantom drivers inside the enclosures of his main speakers. From what I have tried so far, it appears that changing the phantom drivers makes a difference, but not where you locate them.
Marek puts his phantom drivers inside the enclosures of his main speakers. From what I have tried so far, it appears that changing the phantom drivers makes a difference, but not where you locate them.
well, if there's sound produced by tapping on the speakers, then there IS feedback, whether it's intentional or not.
Yes, but of course you get an output from the system if you tap on a turntable - its entire purpose in life is to turn minute mechanical variation into a signal to be amplified.
Can feedback taken from the output of an amplifier take a signal (ie. a generated EMF) from a speaker and amplify it? I don't know, I don't design amplifiers. I guess it's a possibility. And I guess, if those phantom speakers play at a lower level, that the input (vibration of the cone from the air due to the main speakers) would not be mechanically canceled out so much by that cone's output.
Sorry if that doesn't make a lot of sense, it's getting a bit late here.
Can feedback taken from the output of an amplifier take a signal (ie. a generated EMF) from a speaker and amplify it? I don't know, I don't design amplifiers. I guess it's a possibility. And I guess, if those phantom speakers play at a lower level, that the input (vibration of the cone from the air due to the main speakers) would not be mechanically canceled out so much by that cone's output.
Sorry if that doesn't make a lot of sense, it's getting a bit late here.
Here is the answer.Nuuk said:
Yes. The theoretic advantage is that the room influence also enters the correction signal. Disadvantage is that the influence of both speakers enters both feedback signals. So the stereo separation will probably suffer.TheSeekerr said:
Using a speaker instead of a microphone may be done to avoid an acoustic feedback in that configuration. You know that screech we all love so much during live performances.
For a simple correction of speaker inertia and EMF-induced effects it would be easier to use a direct feedback signal from the speaker. Backes & Mueller do that. They use e. g. a second voice coil on woofers and mid-range speakers to generate a feedback signal from the actual cone movement. For tweeters they use a capacitive feedback signal. But maybe they have patents on that and Mr. Witort could therefore not use that technology.
hmm. Would the "best" phantom driver, then, be the most microphone-like one, ie. a small (3ish inch?) full range driver?
Depends on the room, on the main speakers, on what is actually inside of the Resurrector and of course on personal taste.
The more microphone-like the phantom speakres are, the more likely they will also be to generate unwanted acoustic feedback. The best result will probably be achieved when main and phantom speakers are the same.
The more microphone-like the phantom speakres are, the more likely they will also be to generate unwanted acoustic feedback. The best result will probably be achieved when main and phantom speakers are the same.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.