Each joke is partly serious, contains some truth. ;-)
But this particular case, A+C, was described by fancy words and formulae in Walker's patent, and used in Quad amplifiers. It works better and sounds cleaner than a traditional class AB approach. Nothing is more inertial than human mind. People don't understand why it is better, and here is the real joke! 😀
Edit: http://hifisonix.com/peter-walkers-..._405_power_amplifier_wireless-world-article1/
Last edited:
Good timing. I've been looking at these sort of ideas, although I keep getting carried away. Latest thoughts on tilt if you are going beyond the simple passive with 3dB insertion loss would be to have a high and low shelving function where you can move things around a bit. so for high shelf 1k, 2k5, 5k and 10k and for low 125, 250,500, 750Hz. But as you start ramping up the complexity it gets tempting to add a couple of channels of parametric and suddenly you are carried away again 🙂.
Bill, control your desires (just Fig. 1 & Fig. 2)
😀
https://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=...3Po3F77UZo-fAkJXQ&sig2=imkC1IoBtRXWcVod4hrRvA
George
😀
https://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=...3Po3F77UZo-fAkJXQ&sig2=imkC1IoBtRXWcVod4hrRvA
George
Oh, now I see where you lead us to !
George, as usually I lead to abyss of ignoring public opinions in favour of own experience. 😀
Dafos modulated the lights in a friends living room, he shrugged it off after all he was only a reviewer for TAS. 🙄
I am fine with a 31-band digital EQ. Made for me by Behringer. Set up once, before the venue, and forever. 🙂
Attachments
If you really want to hear a change in tone, there's a synthesizer module using signal diodes and opamps called a wavefolder.
Well, either he was running his system on a long extension cord with #18 wire in it, or else he had some seriously LOW efficiency speakers there with MONSTER amps, OR he was trying to deafen small animals a quarter mile away??
What sort of SPL are we talking here???
_-_-bear
Bear did you know that George Lindsey who played Goober Pyle on TV was born the same year as Philip K. Dick?
Go to page 10 here and build the network. Drive it with a line driver transformer coupled opamp of your choosing and use a regular non-inverting gainstage for makeup gain and output driving. Now you will hear a good EQ. It even sounds good with snail opamps like 5532 or Wave's 4558. If you build it and want to go further with it PM me and I will tell you how to turbocharge the high frequency network.
Last edited:
I like his words about no magic, then "it's sound will get better with age and the more it's used" 😉
Bear I know the op-amp thing is an issue with you so here it goes. After consulting with my peers it is clear that no un-refereed test could be free of cheats. For instance one could listen to the noise floor or look at the clipping characteristics. So this is a proposal. You pick pairs of op-amps that you are convinced sound different until we accept a pair for the test. We get to make 10 boxes to test 5 of each with complete circuits to our satisfaction be it gain of 10 dB or whatever we determine is the best. You specify the equipment for the listening test so that the source and load impedances are known and can not be changed. No listening is allowed with inputs that overdrive the inputs or otherwise abuse the amplifiers. Tests are ears only after level matching only no test equipment at all allowed. The listening tests must be refereed.
Break-in is real with inductors and transformers in the audio path. Actually come to think of it, EQ caps too.
Well, my preamps get most of their break-in with hum from an un-grounded TT. 🙂
Jesus and Mary Chain works well too though.
Not quite clear on what you mean. Build 10 boxes, 5 with each with op-amp, in a single stage amplifier configuration with a gain of 10?
If so, I don't know if they would sound different under those conditions or not. Under some other conditions they might sound different, such as in Mooly's experiment. Would Mooly's circuit be okay?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.