yeah, its disappointing how derogatory some people are without any reason
especially considering how meager their contribution is
do not mind those, keep up a good work marigno
I would like to try some of the pre you posted, it just looks like some of those mosfets are on back order in digikey
especially considering how meager their contribution is
do not mind those, keep up a good work marigno
I would like to try some of the pre you posted, it just looks like some of those mosfets are on back order in digikey
I wouldn't, its Ciss id 1400pF, very high, perhaps too high. The original was the 2SK1058 with a Ciss of 600pf, which is now obsolete. Read the next message I'm posting in order to reply to Adason.
My first WOTS LeGrand is in Rome and I want to have it here too, so I'm building a second one. I Just received the components yesterday from Mouser. I could find everything (but tube and socket, which I have). I had to replace the original 2SK1058 because it is obsolete, so I chose the FQPF3N25 because of its low Ciss. The FQPF3N25 will be a new experience for me. At that time (2004) I tried some mosfets, and the sound didn't change. In this new build I will use two tubes, leaving the second triode unused or paralleled to the first one, will see. The second triode could be used in place of the mosfet, but the sound will not be the same.
The active components of WOTS Tre are all way obsolete. You have to figure out what FET (Vgs close to 1.6V) you can use (I think the choice is wide) and the mosfet can be a TO92 one with very low Ciss. I think Central Semiconductors should have them all. At this time Mouser site is not responding and on DigiKey I couldn't find a good replacement.
It is hard to suggest which one to build among LeGrand and Tre, their sound is exactly the same.
if you would have seen the endless flow of tube circiuts with their minor variations over 5 decades like me, you would be bored as well. Everything has been said now - but not by everybody yet.
So everything was said.
So everything is boring.
Perhaps someday I will understand why we are here.
I was close to posting a new schematic with a particular approach, here it is. Boring too? It seems to be a cathodyne driving a UL class A stage... impossible. Or, maybe, is it another thing well possible? The sensitivity is line level. Perhaps not that boring.
So everything is boring.
Perhaps someday I will understand why we are here.
I was close to posting a new schematic with a particular approach, here it is. Boring too? It seems to be a cathodyne driving a UL class A stage... impossible. Or, maybe, is it another thing well possible? The sensitivity is line level. Perhaps not that boring.
Attachments
Musicality created by musician and sound engineer in music production. In music reproduction, I want linearity because I respect to who made the recording so the sound is as accurate as possible. I do not want to change the recording to fit my taste.
I bought the joints a lot of years ago from RS Components. You can find them on eBay as "u-joints".
This has been discussed ad nauseam.
You achieve linearity by very strong negative feedback, which kills musicality.
In my neck of the woods WOT means "With output transformer" so I was expecting to see a thread about that. I was curious because I have designed a number of line stages with output transformers so I was excited at the prospect of reading about a new transformer coupled design. It seems needlessly complex for a 6H30 design with a follower output. The 6H30 by itself should be a pretty effective line driver given the low Rp, have you tried one by itself?
If you add something in reproduction and called it musical, then the recording is not musical. Like Monalisa painting, you want add sun glasses because you think it better.
No signal transformers here, sorry! Yes, I did, here is the schematic http://www2.audiokit.it/ITAENG/KitElettr/AUDIOKIT/AkiLine1/AkiLine1.htm
But I was expecting something more. So I added the follower. Then I removed the negative and the choke. A lot better!
I must say I don't like very much output transformers with gaps. All SE I listened to 2A3, 300B... were punctually overperformed by something else, push-pull or OTL. I have no experience listening to a line stage with a transformer (with a gap).
I agree with you 100%. I will no more build anything with feedback.
It is like watching Monnalisa wearing sunglasses yourself, not she.
My preamplifiers and my tube main amplifiers are zero feedback, my SS amplifiers use feedback only around the VAS, no feedback from speakers output.
Only local feedback is allowed.
But that's me.
I think we agree to disagree.
First of all, you are missing the point. The point is musical pleasure, not accuracy.
If you believe recording is accurate, you are wrong. Tons of signal manipulation has been done to the recording.
The other thing you are totaly wrong is that you believe that your highly engineered amp or preamp with low distortion is the only way to reproduce music out of respect to musician and sound engineer.
Well, all amplifiers are colloring the music signal. Even those with low distortion. Especially those with strong negative feedback. Such amplifier sounds cold, heartless, sterile, uninvolving and fatiguing.
In listening tests people prefer musical amps no matter whats their distortion.
Its like nature photography. All nature pictures in national geographic are photophopped. Nothing wrong with that. Its not out of disrespect to nature, its to advance our pleasure when looking at it. Yet you claim that photophop is wrong, because thats not how it looks in nature. But you failed to understand the process ot light going through the lens and capture on the chip and storing in the memory file is all manipulation.
Same are recording using microphone, mic preamp, all the compressors, harmonizers. None of it is about accuracy. Aah, the falacy of accuracy.
And your example about mona lisa is totally wrong. I do not want to add sunglasses, i want to see her as leonardo did.
Btw, i watched movie about restoring mona lisa. Scientist xrayed the image with deep penetrating laser, analysed what color pigments originally leonardo used. Then they accounted for aging of the pigments and digitally restored them. Then removed all the preserving brown aging lacquer layer, digitally. They recreated what the picture would look like when he just painted it. Pretty stunning. Not just the face, the countryside, the sky...
bimo, next time you are going to cook some meal, please do not use any salt or pepper, no spices either. So you can taste it as accurate as possible. You do not want to change the taste of stuff you eat.
If you want to change the sound from what was recorded, then you are using something called an effects unit, not a preamplifier, there's nothing wrong in that, so long as you call it what it is and don't confuse sound reproduction from sound alteration.
And with a good recording trying to change its character isn't very flattering to the artists and recording engineer! Its rather like putting sunglasses on the Mona Lisa ...