Reasonable is to follow the obvious, that are in front of us and no one want to see
And no one want to see, to avoid think that can be some kind of a continuosly doing wrong things man... to avoid hard words.
Reasonable is stop immediatelly to calculate complicated circuits to correct this or that.... error correction, trying to avoid fifth seventh harmonics...the odd harmonics as better or not better...the CCS....the damn long short tail... and Feedback...non Feedback..son of Feedback, feedback cousin... simetrical, double simetrica and those non working things to audio....the result is not good.
Pick one tube.... with all distortions and non linearities.... and hear the sound!...better or not?????
Left the semiconductors to computers...to chips.... to cheap small appliances...to the applications that need something of low current and batteries powered devices...as cell phones..... to computers that must be reduced in size and consumption fast!.
And stop to push the same key.....semiconductor is not good enougth to audio!..... you have been working hard the last 45 years to make that thing good..... had variations FETs, MOSFETs, GMOSFETS..IBJT, and tried a lot of circuit designs and variations...sorry.... this is a very good exercise....but as a game, already loose...go on, this is interesting to me too....i also used to construct, evaluate, hear the transistor....but already have sure the tubes are beating easy..... you can demonstrate with instruments....that transistor is much better......to instruments they are..... to human ears not!...definitivelly, at the end...they are not as good as tubes.
To be reasonable have to reduce tubes size...the nuvistors..... to be reasonable must forget transistor to audio applications when not needed very low consumption, very small size....in those "parrots sounding" celular phones OK.... have to understand that terrible strange out of the world audio... an this is enough.
If we have enormous refrigerator...why not some bigger amplifier...as you spend energy to heating your house...why not the tubes working to warm you environment?
I am, and i think all of us, the solid state guys, we are all loosers...we are figthing for the second place maximum!
The thing turned so crazy that people is making efforces to make tube alike sound...my god!...use the tube where it is better...to hi power RF transmitters as one example!...it is beeing used...as transistor make the transmitter terrible and enormous...giant machine full of complications and hundreds of fets burning in series...booooom!
Use the Eva's genius to develop better transformers as she was great in that sector.
Or try to mix, class A input with tubes or the opposite...but going to the best sound producing device to human ears.
I know no one will heard me...this third world damn ape again with their stupid theories...this idiot!....he do not know even calculate basic things....give him one banana... do not worry, i know what some of you can think.... and i thank you if i touched you this way...if you think that is because i hit you deeply...i touched the delicate place of your mind....the conscience!...your intimate reaction is my crowd of good sense man!...this way....you are completely authorized to write to me the worst you can talk.... stupid, idiot, crazy, maniac, ape, monkey, pig!...each word will be a gift to me!...as i am deeply sure about what i am talking...i can guarantee i am rigth, and you going wrong direction!....one following the other with afraid to be different and considered idiot by the others...as happened when someone said that the earth was rounded, not squared.
A lot of people already told that...no one listen...you do not left your high places to be simple to hear one small aunt as i can be....but aunts are clever too.... in our society, we, humans, we never could organize the way aunt is organized....we cannot have solution of simple problems...we figth in wars... and some will vote in the criminal president by the first time...sorry for you guys if you put "fush" in the place again.
Good and agreable sounds you make, you are very good enginneers...the problem is to follow that crazy market.....the tube sound is better and some clever scientist and salesman are running to make the three stage amplifier.... one FET, other Tube and other BJT...this way.... everybody happy... and the game is going on.
I am sorry....i made all the efforces i could to shut that damn mouth!...but this is too much crazy, the things i am seeing those 44 years long... since 9 years old... to shut the mouth.... this is the reverse of the inverse and three times to be oposite of the common use...related the reasonable.
regards,
Carlos
And no one want to see, to avoid think that can be some kind of a continuosly doing wrong things man... to avoid hard words.
Reasonable is stop immediatelly to calculate complicated circuits to correct this or that.... error correction, trying to avoid fifth seventh harmonics...the odd harmonics as better or not better...the CCS....the damn long short tail... and Feedback...non Feedback..son of Feedback, feedback cousin... simetrical, double simetrica and those non working things to audio....the result is not good.
Pick one tube.... with all distortions and non linearities.... and hear the sound!...better or not?????
Left the semiconductors to computers...to chips.... to cheap small appliances...to the applications that need something of low current and batteries powered devices...as cell phones..... to computers that must be reduced in size and consumption fast!.
And stop to push the same key.....semiconductor is not good enougth to audio!..... you have been working hard the last 45 years to make that thing good..... had variations FETs, MOSFETs, GMOSFETS..IBJT, and tried a lot of circuit designs and variations...sorry.... this is a very good exercise....but as a game, already loose...go on, this is interesting to me too....i also used to construct, evaluate, hear the transistor....but already have sure the tubes are beating easy..... you can demonstrate with instruments....that transistor is much better......to instruments they are..... to human ears not!...definitivelly, at the end...they are not as good as tubes.
To be reasonable have to reduce tubes size...the nuvistors..... to be reasonable must forget transistor to audio applications when not needed very low consumption, very small size....in those "parrots sounding" celular phones OK.... have to understand that terrible strange out of the world audio... an this is enough.
If we have enormous refrigerator...why not some bigger amplifier...as you spend energy to heating your house...why not the tubes working to warm you environment?
I am, and i think all of us, the solid state guys, we are all loosers...we are figthing for the second place maximum!
The thing turned so crazy that people is making efforces to make tube alike sound...my god!...use the tube where it is better...to hi power RF transmitters as one example!...it is beeing used...as transistor make the transmitter terrible and enormous...giant machine full of complications and hundreds of fets burning in series...booooom!
Use the Eva's genius to develop better transformers as she was great in that sector.
Or try to mix, class A input with tubes or the opposite...but going to the best sound producing device to human ears.
I know no one will heard me...this third world damn ape again with their stupid theories...this idiot!....he do not know even calculate basic things....give him one banana... do not worry, i know what some of you can think.... and i thank you if i touched you this way...if you think that is because i hit you deeply...i touched the delicate place of your mind....the conscience!...your intimate reaction is my crowd of good sense man!...this way....you are completely authorized to write to me the worst you can talk.... stupid, idiot, crazy, maniac, ape, monkey, pig!...each word will be a gift to me!...as i am deeply sure about what i am talking...i can guarantee i am rigth, and you going wrong direction!....one following the other with afraid to be different and considered idiot by the others...as happened when someone said that the earth was rounded, not squared.
A lot of people already told that...no one listen...you do not left your high places to be simple to hear one small aunt as i can be....but aunts are clever too.... in our society, we, humans, we never could organize the way aunt is organized....we cannot have solution of simple problems...we figth in wars... and some will vote in the criminal president by the first time...sorry for you guys if you put "fush" in the place again.
Good and agreable sounds you make, you are very good enginneers...the problem is to follow that crazy market.....the tube sound is better and some clever scientist and salesman are running to make the three stage amplifier.... one FET, other Tube and other BJT...this way.... everybody happy... and the game is going on.
I am sorry....i made all the efforces i could to shut that damn mouth!...but this is too much crazy, the things i am seeing those 44 years long... since 9 years old... to shut the mouth.... this is the reverse of the inverse and three times to be oposite of the common use...related the reasonable.
regards,
Carlos
Carlos,
Perhaps the best idea is to use SS power amps, with tube preamps? That way you don't have to use a big transformer and large bottles; the durability, power and accuracy of SS but the romance of tubes......
'Tube grace, SS muscle.....'
Cheers,
Hugh
Perhaps the best idea is to use SS power amps, with tube preamps? That way you don't have to use a big transformer and large bottles; the durability, power and accuracy of SS but the romance of tubes......
'Tube grace, SS muscle.....'
Cheers,
Hugh
Yes, i think a good idea...having tube too, result will be different
As some SS sounds alike tubes, as your units...they can be matched, this way... all people will be satisfied.
regards,
Hey Epupa? are you feeling good today.... sitting confortable?
Carlos
As some SS sounds alike tubes, as your units...they can be matched, this way... all people will be satisfied.
regards,
Hey Epupa? are you feeling good today.... sitting confortable?
Carlos
Yes, thats the way it is. This is absolutely true for commercial designs 'cause someone has to sell this stuff... But don't we talking here about DIY? So it's more interesting to MYSELF to like an amp regardless if it's more pleasant to someone other or more neutral.
Is not this the (subjective) question: If it sounds better to me it is better (for myself?) I had to lean this from a buddy of mine who sells all that electronic stuff. Interestingly most he sells are tube amps only a very few SS amps. Because I'm not so familar with tube designs I have to build SS amps. But that ones who are most pleasant to me. So why not learn which kind of coloration is caused by some specific topolgy or components? And if high bandwith and low open loop influences sonical behavior in a typical way not using it?
From a technical point of view I'd also prefer to comply with specs, easy to measure, easy to realise. But this implies that our measurements, our models correlate extactly with the sonical behavior. Does this really? Or are our models just too simple? Why are we using just simple tone (single, dual or whatever) measurements? Is music really that simple?
Carlos, Hugh, I think the sensible way to apportion it is by frequency, not by level- use those wonderful tubes at 200 Hz and up, then let transistors do what they do best. Of course, any sensible preamp will use tubes, regardless of frequency range.
People use all sorts of measurements. The idea that competent design engineers use single tones into simple resistors is a popular straw man amongst audio journalists, but it is nonetheless straw. Impulses, tone bursts, and MLS are even used by rank amateurs like me.
That said, the literature indicates that there are many distortions that can easily be heard with carefully created test tones which are not easy to hear with music; the brain is a funny processor.
People use all sorts of measurements. The idea that competent design engineers use single tones into simple resistors is a popular straw man amongst audio journalists, but it is nonetheless straw. Impulses, tone bursts, and MLS are even used by rank amateurs like me.
That said, the literature indicates that there are many distortions that can easily be heard with carefully created test tones which are not easy to hear with music; the brain is a funny processor.
SY, as always you get the thing... direct in the point
Brain is a processor, and make you like the amplifier you make, the amplifier you friend show you to evaluate, and also the awfull battery powered AM old radios.
Those things had feeling connections.... your father first radio gift... despite terrible sound...in a matter of minutes you adjust your "receiver" to hear them.... in some minutes you will be appreciating the bass...and no bass there...it is cutted 300 hertz...only higher than that...how can we perceive the bass...memory brain creation.
I strongly think that Enginneers, those brigth ones we have in our forum must go to Psychology department, and gain the experience in "Human Perception"...and create some correlation between measurements and human perception....this way they will directly into the point...imagine that discover that we love intermodulation distortion!!!!!!
Epupa Epops..... i loved you spirit.... your capacity of understanding the sub text not said...you send me back the element...now i am not feeling very well....not sitting confortable...ahahahaha...very good Epupa...will respect you twice since your clever answer....congratulations man!
PMA, let me use your words related BOCKA.... zier gut mein freund, very good bocka.
SY...you must left your brain to science research...my God SY!!!
regards,
Carlos
Brain is a processor, and make you like the amplifier you make, the amplifier you friend show you to evaluate, and also the awfull battery powered AM old radios.
Those things had feeling connections.... your father first radio gift... despite terrible sound...in a matter of minutes you adjust your "receiver" to hear them.... in some minutes you will be appreciating the bass...and no bass there...it is cutted 300 hertz...only higher than that...how can we perceive the bass...memory brain creation.
I strongly think that Enginneers, those brigth ones we have in our forum must go to Psychology department, and gain the experience in "Human Perception"...and create some correlation between measurements and human perception....this way they will directly into the point...imagine that discover that we love intermodulation distortion!!!!!!
Epupa Epops..... i loved you spirit.... your capacity of understanding the sub text not said...you send me back the element...now i am not feeling very well....not sitting confortable...ahahahaha...very good Epupa...will respect you twice since your clever answer....congratulations man!
PMA, let me use your words related BOCKA.... zier gut mein freund, very good bocka.
SY...you must left your brain to science research...my God SY!!!
regards,
Carlos
Upopa Pops wrote:
Pavel,
This is tricky. How do I describe the process?
I think impressionistic artist is probably the best term.
The electronics is difficult, yes, but ultimately it comes back to choosing a 'voice' for the machine. By choosing layout, appropriate components and dimensions it is possible to sculpt the sound to a marked degree. You see this again and again with musical instrument amplifiers; the use of orange drop caps, certain tube operating points, output transformers, even feedback regimes (check the feedback loop on a Bazouki amplifier from Greece). All play a part. I accept distortion as inevitable, and try to minimize and mould it to suit the human ear.
This sounds like cooking, and there are techniques in common, but while this approach is held in contempt by many engineers, I see no evidence that designing amplifiers for lowest possible measured (steady state) distortion is giving us better sound. Furthermore, while I can accept the point that amps with no global feedback sound better than those with, I believe it is possible to build good and bad sounding examples using either topology. By analogy, I would say that give me half an hour in a workshop with a sophisticated BMW passenger car I can have it driving like a dog.
Equally, and as for any machine, the reverse is equally true........
Essentially, I would contend that this means you can use almost any amplifier topology, and with careful choices and a lot of attention to detail make it sound very good indeed.
Cheers,
Hugh
Pavel,
This is tricky. How do I describe the process?
I think impressionistic artist is probably the best term.
The electronics is difficult, yes, but ultimately it comes back to choosing a 'voice' for the machine. By choosing layout, appropriate components and dimensions it is possible to sculpt the sound to a marked degree. You see this again and again with musical instrument amplifiers; the use of orange drop caps, certain tube operating points, output transformers, even feedback regimes (check the feedback loop on a Bazouki amplifier from Greece). All play a part. I accept distortion as inevitable, and try to minimize and mould it to suit the human ear.
This sounds like cooking, and there are techniques in common, but while this approach is held in contempt by many engineers, I see no evidence that designing amplifiers for lowest possible measured (steady state) distortion is giving us better sound. Furthermore, while I can accept the point that amps with no global feedback sound better than those with, I believe it is possible to build good and bad sounding examples using either topology. By analogy, I would say that give me half an hour in a workshop with a sophisticated BMW passenger car I can have it driving like a dog.
Equally, and as for any machine, the reverse is equally true........ Essentially, I would contend that this means you can use almost any amplifier topology, and with careful choices and a lot of attention to detail make it sound very good indeed.
Cheers,
Hugh
jcx said:
In addition jcx, subjectivists correctly advocate making each gain stage as linear as possible....
This is emphatically NOT what is achieved by resistively loading down the TIS...
Moreover, thus reducing LF gain exposes the design to rubbish on the supply rails.....
which perhaps explains why these folk then advocate regulated supplies..... 🙄
Upupa Epops said:Mike, I know what you can - the same as I can 😉 , but in the end you will have realy " fidelity amp " and you will hear "all " - and I guarantee to you, that this " all " will be not so pleasant. What you will be doing in that time ? Do you will be searching for some " musical one ", which make all now ?
That's my problem with this question:
"is the recording bad or my amp ?"
Now i don't know, why i don't really like the sound of my folded cascode,
does it show me how bad my CD/Player is ? Or is the amp bad ?
Mike
Hugh, I tend to agree with you. Below a certain point, lower order distortion, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, don't matter to any degree, even though they may 'bias' an amp to sound a certain way, you know: 'musical', 'soft', or just something distinctive.
Higher order distortion, 5th, 7th, 9th, in my opinion are VERY problematic, although a little 5th may be unavoidable in solid state circuits.
Tubes have certain problems and advantages. I have found that if you can use their 'advantages' but exploit the characteristics of solid state devices, you can compete with tubes effectively.
This usually includes: High open loop bandwidth, low global feedback or even NO global feedback, and simple gain stages, and class A operation.
However, solid state can improve on tubes with 'direct coupling' between stages, complementary design for lower open loop distortion, lower input noise, and much higher peak output current.
I personally lived with a tube preamp for about 10 years, including a Dyna PAS 3X, Mac C22, and Marantz 7. I appreciate each of these preamps as being 'listenable' even today. I also worked at Audible Illusions in making their tube preamp. I think that the AI preamp is one of the best buys in the hi end audio industry, even now.
Now what do these preamps have in common to my later solid state designs?
Well, the Levinson JC-2 is really a discrete op amp phono stage, with a transconductance amp line stage. The line amp, especially, was designed after Otala paramaters: High open loop bandwidth and high slew rate, however it was also class A, and used a FET input stage, so that it could be direct coupled to the input pot. The JC-2 could use low value stage coupling caps, much like tube circuits, because of the input FETS. This turned out to be an advantage, as we found out later.
The Dennisen JC-80 uses all transconductance gain stages, but was able to remove global negative feedback on the phono input stage, direct couple all the stages, and create a balanced output.
The CTC preamp uses an open loop input stage, a low feedback second stage, and no global feedback line stage, all direct coupled, ultra low noise, and balanced output operation.
Now, over 30 years, what has been my direction? My direction in circuit design is to make direct coupled, class A, push pull complementary circuitry, that is low noise on the input and with low order distortion only at the output.
Does the CTC really measure better than the JC-2? NO! In some ways, the higher feedback levels of the JC-2 will give better measurements. Still, static measurements are not everything, and I know from experience that the CTC is the superior design.
What does this mean regarding this thread? Audio design is a progression of learning what works, and using it, rather that doggedly sticking to some pre-programed idea of what is important and what is not. Also, it is not an arbitrary assembly of different parts that go in and out of favor. Like tubes this years, solid state last year, and a hybrid design of both next year.
Audio is a vast marketplace, and is much like autos were, perhaps 100 years ago. There were many, many car manufacturers in 1904 or so, and each had a different concept of what an auto should be. The best ideas have evolved and the 'crazy' ideas dropped out of sight over time. It is the same in audio design, today. Many 'crazy' ideas will drop out of sight over time, but this should not stop people from trying different ideas, we might learn something from them.
Higher order distortion, 5th, 7th, 9th, in my opinion are VERY problematic, although a little 5th may be unavoidable in solid state circuits.
Tubes have certain problems and advantages. I have found that if you can use their 'advantages' but exploit the characteristics of solid state devices, you can compete with tubes effectively.
This usually includes: High open loop bandwidth, low global feedback or even NO global feedback, and simple gain stages, and class A operation.
However, solid state can improve on tubes with 'direct coupling' between stages, complementary design for lower open loop distortion, lower input noise, and much higher peak output current.
I personally lived with a tube preamp for about 10 years, including a Dyna PAS 3X, Mac C22, and Marantz 7. I appreciate each of these preamps as being 'listenable' even today. I also worked at Audible Illusions in making their tube preamp. I think that the AI preamp is one of the best buys in the hi end audio industry, even now.
Now what do these preamps have in common to my later solid state designs?
Well, the Levinson JC-2 is really a discrete op amp phono stage, with a transconductance amp line stage. The line amp, especially, was designed after Otala paramaters: High open loop bandwidth and high slew rate, however it was also class A, and used a FET input stage, so that it could be direct coupled to the input pot. The JC-2 could use low value stage coupling caps, much like tube circuits, because of the input FETS. This turned out to be an advantage, as we found out later.
The Dennisen JC-80 uses all transconductance gain stages, but was able to remove global negative feedback on the phono input stage, direct couple all the stages, and create a balanced output.
The CTC preamp uses an open loop input stage, a low feedback second stage, and no global feedback line stage, all direct coupled, ultra low noise, and balanced output operation.
Now, over 30 years, what has been my direction? My direction in circuit design is to make direct coupled, class A, push pull complementary circuitry, that is low noise on the input and with low order distortion only at the output.
Does the CTC really measure better than the JC-2? NO! In some ways, the higher feedback levels of the JC-2 will give better measurements. Still, static measurements are not everything, and I know from experience that the CTC is the superior design.
What does this mean regarding this thread? Audio design is a progression of learning what works, and using it, rather that doggedly sticking to some pre-programed idea of what is important and what is not. Also, it is not an arbitrary assembly of different parts that go in and out of favor. Like tubes this years, solid state last year, and a hybrid design of both next year.
Audio is a vast marketplace, and is much like autos were, perhaps 100 years ago. There were many, many car manufacturers in 1904 or so, and each had a different concept of what an auto should be. The best ideas have evolved and the 'crazy' ideas dropped out of sight over time. It is the same in audio design, today. Many 'crazy' ideas will drop out of sight over time, but this should not stop people from trying different ideas, we might learn something from them.
Now I have waded through 70+ pages of crap on earlier threads regarding feedback and my question still remains: 😀
Consider the current source I mentioned on page 10 and the use of regulated power supplies. I would like to hear if using these topologies is considered "without feedback"!
And to Carlos: You think engineers should study psychology and human behaviour. Well, since medical instrumentation is my business I do. Imagine a biological system without feedback...! 🙄 😉
/Magnus
Consider the current source I mentioned on page 10 and the use of regulated power supplies. I would like to hear if using these topologies is considered "without feedback"!
And to Carlos: You think engineers should study psychology and human behaviour. Well, since medical instrumentation is my business I do. Imagine a biological system without feedback...! 🙄 😉
/Magnus
- Status
- Not open for further replies.