Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#281
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
RichD wrote: On Sep 18, Eeyore wrote: Do you have any experience designing audio amps? LMAO ! Yes, Kevin had indeed had as have I. Amps that sold commercially into the pro-audio market. Did you use MOSFET on the output stage, and why? I have used Mosfets in some of my designs. They had very superior HF characteristics to the readily available bipolars of 1980. Notably they also don't suffer SOA limitation problems at higher voltages. They also typically exhibit much lower crossover distortion when suitably biased than bipolars do. Graham |
#282
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message ... I occaisionally hear artifacts in 16 bit 44.1 KHz, in music. It is easy to make a test signal turn up severe artifacts with 44.1 KHz sample - see what happens with a sinewave at a higher audio frequency that is several Hz off a frequency that the sample frequency is a multiple of. You should simply use a system that is not "broken" then. Since I only occaisionally hear artifacts in music with 44.1 KHz 16 bit, and when I do I usually find them minor, I would expect a sample rate twice as high as that to be OK. Of course it is, as is a *competently* designed 44.1 or 48kHz system. Using either doesn't present much of a problem these days. MrT. |
#283
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:41:43 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
wrote: Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. How would you synchronize the different channels? Some time stamping and segment overlapping and a restricted RF environment, plus NTP as needed for clock synchronization. Total latency and latency variation are the primary issues. Maybe modified bluetooth is a better idea (it really does support streams). Each speaker would have its own IP address, or perhaps its own port on one IP, and from the [new] mixer only digital Ethernet to a wireless access point. No bandwidth problem I think. 56 Mbits / second, should be enough for a few channels. The real 802.11G throughput is 2.8MB/s at the best. An uncompressed audio channel takes roughly 100KB/s. A bit more than that, the normal time 44.1 kHz 16 bits/sample CDA runs somewhere around 1.5 Mbits/s. 48 kHz 24 bit audio (semi-pro and pro level) takes a skosh more, about 1.15 Mbits/s per channel. You will have power cables to the speaker, but not a lot of audio wiring. mmm maybe do the mikes too ;-) The big problem with WiFi for audio is the synchronization between the different WiFi units while maintaining the reasonable delay. This is hard (if possible at all) to attain with the WiFi equipment. AFAIK the solutions for audio via Ethernet (CobraNet and such) used the special protocol stacks and were not fully compatible with the standard networking stuff. In the general, Ethernet is not good as the network for the multimedia; it was not designed for that purpose. This is very true. If you want well time constrained transport, use appropriate (usually telephone like or telephone) technology. If you also want to ship video use SMPTE standards. The bitrates can be daunting (SD-SDI {standard definition - serial digital interface [both electrical and optical]} runs at 270 Mb/s) but the standards guarantee interoperability. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com |
#284
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:59:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote: On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:46:27 -0500) it happened Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote in : Jan Panteltje wrote: On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:41:43 -0500) it happened Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote in : Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. How would you synchronize the different channels? Yes, good point, timestamp would be one way, but that does not solve the delay. the delay would be fatal in a live application. Here is the idea: using the power frequency as the common timing reference. In the local WiFi network, the ping time would be at the order of 1ms, so all channels could be PLLed to the same half period of the AC power without an ambiguity. With the sufficient amount of buffering, that should allow streaming multiple synchronized channels. Sooo simple... I bet somebody already got a patent on that. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com Clever! How about this: we give each speaker a GPS. It will also send back its position, and the 'mixer' will then calculate the optimum sound pattern for 5.1. GPS also has a very precise clock. Yes the satellites do have cesium clocks and rubidium clocks, the system would not work without them. Moreover you do not get good time solutions without serious long term reception. Your little handheld does not have such a clock and requires about 45 minutes power on time to synch up that well. |
#285
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:21:35 +0100, Eeyore
wrote: krw wrote: says... krw wrote: You're going to have to justify that number. 100MB/s? He said kBps. Don't know what I was looking at. ...ahead at WiFi?? I can see 20KB, *maybe*. 44.1k samples / sec x 2 bytes each = 88.2kBps. Allow overhead for collisions etc. Actually if you transmit the full AES/EBU SPDIF data it's THREE bytes. 100kBps sounds about right for one mono channel. Or 150 kBps with flags etc. Ok, now put three or four of these together and it's still easily manageable over WiFi. With Quality of Service and no latency ? Graham With total throughput over 15 times what a single unidirectional channel requires. 4 or 5 channels (per wifi channel, there are 11 in 802.11G) ought to be achievable on a good session, two channels most of the time; and with adequate latency control. Just the same i do not think packet orientated protocols deserve to be used for decent streaming media. |
#286
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On a sunny day (Sun, 21 Sep 2008 13:41:43 -0500) it happened Vladimir
Vassilevsky wrote in : Anyways, I repeated the test the other way around, now for a mp3 file: -rw-r--r-- 1 user user 103760023 2008-09-09 19:03 instrumental.mp3 Reran the test, it seems a card in my network was configured for base 10 ethernet?, system reported 'network congestion'. So with base 100, or at least the correct configuration, the same test: On receiving side: netcat -q 0 -l -p 1234 -u q3.mp3 On transmit side: -rw-r--r-- 1 user user 103760023 2008-09-09 19:03 instrumental.mp3 /home/user date;cat instrumental.mp3 | netcat -u -q 0 10.0.0.150 1234;date Wed Sep 24 13:03:32 CEST 2008 Wed Sep 24 13:03:57 CEST 2008 makes 25 sec, 4.150 MB/s = 33.2 Mbps. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 103760023 2008-09-24 13:00 instrumental.mp3 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 103760023 2008-09-24 12:58 q3.mp3 grml: # diff instrumental.mp3 q3.mp3 grml: # Zero errors at 33.2Mbps, signal strength was 90%, access point Linksys, channel 7. Of course UDP based protocols exist, like rtp, I can broadcast rtp with the dvbstream program, from digital satellite or terrestrial, It needs an entry in the routing table: 224.0.0.0 * 240.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 dvbstream -f 12188 -p h -s 27500 -v 166 -a 128 will broadcast RTL2 from sat, while mplayer -ao oss:/dev/dsp1 -cache 2048 rtp://224.0.1.2:5004/ will play the rtp stream again. Mixed results via wireless, while TCP over wireless from the same stream works fine.. no idea why. There also exists a utility 'dumprtp', it is part of dvbstream. All this learns us that we can also design our own UDP based protocol, while sending data you could perhaps run a CRC test over many packets, and so once in a hundred packets ask for a retransmit... whatever. I am sure with some careful config that 33.2 Mbps or there about can be used. Just for fun, for just audio, 8 channels uncompressed sampled at 96 k, and 24 bit wide, makes: 8 x 96000 x 3 x 8 = 18 432 000 is only 18 Mbps :-) AC3 however, at a bitrate of say 500kbps has 5.1, we can carry 66 of those 5.1 channels. 33Mbps is about the size of a satellite transponder, and can carry several TV programs, plus audio, plus teletext (ceefax), plus other services like radio, and subtitles. So, anyways, wireless is great for that sort of multimedia stuff. Only limit I see is if you are in a crowded area where everybody uses it, interference would slow the network way down, and UDP probably could not be used at all. I myself will stay with TCP as it, with 2.8MB/s is fast enough for audio and video, and guarantees zero errors. The average bandwidth of a sat TV channel here is 4500 to 6000 (wide screen) kbps, you could get 2 in 22.4 Mbps. |
#287
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
I occasionally hear artifacts in 16 bit 44.1 KHz, in music. Given the false claim that you've posted below, I somehow find that easy to believe. It's a common problem among vinylphiles and other digiphobes. They believe some totally false, but possibly intuitively satisfying (to them) urban myths about digital, and since they believe them, they hear them. One more reason why only carefully bias-controlled listening tests can be trusted. It is easy to make a test signal turn up severe artifacts with 44.1 KHz sample - see what happens with a sinewave at a higher audio frequency that is several Hz off a frequency that the sample frequency is a multiple of. Absolutely false. A close relative is the mistaken idea that phase differences that don't correspond to the sample rate can't be accurately reproduced. |
#288
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
JosephKK wrote: Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: Jan Panteltje wrote: I think it should be possible [I could] design powered speakers with a WiFi interface. How would you synchronize the different channels? Some time stamping and segment overlapping and a restricted RF environment, plus NTP as needed for clock synchronization. Total latency and latency variation are the primary issues. Maybe modified bluetooth is a better idea (it really does support streams). Barely enough reliable bandwidth IIRC. Each speaker would have its own IP address, or perhaps its own port on one IP, and from the [new] mixer only digital Ethernet to a wireless access point. No bandwidth problem I think. 56 Mbits / second, should be enough for a few channels. The real 802.11G throughput is 2.8MB/s at the best. An uncompressed audio channel takes roughly 100KB/s. A bit more than that, the normal time 44.1 kHz 16 bits/sample CDA runs somewhere around 1.5 Mbits/s. 48 kHz 24 bit audio (semi-pro and pro level) takes a skosh more, about 1.15 Mbits/s per channel. You will have power cables to the speaker, but not a lot of audio wiring. mmm maybe do the mikes too ;-) The big problem with WiFi for audio is the synchronization between the different WiFi units while maintaining the reasonable delay. This is hard (if possible at all) to attain with the WiFi equipment. AFAIK the solutions for audio via Ethernet (CobraNet and such) used the special protocol stacks and were not fully compatible with the standard networking stuff. In the general, Ethernet is not good as the network for the multimedia; it was not designed for that purpose. This is very true. If you want well time constrained transport, use appropriate (usually telephone like or telephone) technology. If you also want to ship video use SMPTE standards. The bitrates can be daunting (SD-SDI {standard definition - serial digital interface [both electrical and optical]} runs at 270 Mb/s) but the standards guarantee interoperability. I spoke to CobraNet some time in the past and they have a time synchronisation element they call 'the conductor'. I gather it does not integrate well with networkds already carrying modest traffic and a seperate cable run is advised in such cases IIRC. Graham. |
#289
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Arny Krueger wrote: "Don Klipstein" wrote I occasionally hear artifacts in 16 bit 44.1 KHz, in music. Given the false claim that you've posted below, I somehow find that easy to believe. It's a common problem among vinylphiles and other digiphobes. They believe some totally false, but possibly intuitively satisfying (to them) urban myths about digital, and since they believe them, they hear them. One more reason why only carefully bias-controlled listening tests can be trusted. So why do top-end studio use 24 bit 192 kHz like this from my old friends and colleagues at Prism Sound ? One of the best companies I ever worked for btw. http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...da8xr_home.php Graham |
#290
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"Eeyore" wrote in
message krw wrote: says... Your phrase "good enough for audio" does not inspire confidence. I work in the professional / production area of audio. 'Good enough' usually isn't for us. Indeed, for a host of reasons I'd also probably want to transmit 24 bit audio. Some customers might want 96 kHz sampling too. Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool. Just a professional. But one with a pretty fair track record for hearing urban myths like the crossover distortion that you claim exists in some power amplifiers. Trouble is that on the test bench, that low level distortion is not to be found. I've documented it for you in some cases, but AFAIK, no sale. If you can't hear it, it's good enough. Some people's ears are sharper than others. Mostly the differences are in the brain, not the ears. The first problem I've pointed out, and that is that many people tend to hear what they believe is there, whether its there or not. Actually, just about everybody suffers with the error-creating effects of bias, which is why carefully bias-controlled listening tests are so important. The other problem is that listener training is very important. Most people will hear that something is wrong if its wrong enough. In order to get down to the actual thresholds of detection, most need some coaching. If you want to run fast you have to train a lot, which amounts to running slower than record times and building up your strength. If you want to hear the smallest amounts of distortion that are audible, it is usually very helpful to listen to that distortion at decreasing levels, starting out pretty high. I expect the phone would be good enough for you ? Depends on the phone. If I make a phone up out of a good vocal mic and some studio monitors, it will be pretty good. These days really good electret mics cost pennies, while good earphone elements are relatively small and cheap compared to speakers. Most of the inherent losses in modern phones are in the communications channel, which is wildly bandwidth-reduced. As bandwidth becomes cheaper, there is a possibility that good-sounding telephones will become commonplace. Why? I could care less about "professional" audiophoolery. BTW, we were talking about powered speakers, not "professional" grade audio. 96kHz? What nonsense. Many top studios are now mastering at 24 bit 192 kHz. So what? Many are not. The enabling technology is audio interfaces that run at 24/192 and cost no more than the older ones that ran at 24/44. It's all just numbers for the sake of numbers. Note that Yamaha used to only make digital consoles that ran up to 24/96. Most of their production is now consoles that only clock up to 48 KHz. This is actually a little strange because converters and DSPs that are capable of running faster are cheaper than ever. I think someone figured it out - the higher sampling did nothing with practical significance. Using products like this, reckoned to be the best in the world and manufactured by another company I used to work for. http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...da8xr_home.php Vast overkill. But, if you're spending other people's money, and you think you can use the value of your equipment to justify a higher pay rate for yourself, why not? |
#291
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On Sep 23, 7:00 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
I occaisionally hear artifacts in 16 bit 44.1 KHz, in music. It is easy to make a test signal turn up severe artifacts with 44.1 KHz sample - see what happens with a sinewave at a higher audio frequency that is several Hz off a frequency that the sample frequency is a multiple of. First, would you care to restructure that into a comprehensible sentence. Second, what exactly do you mean by "higher audio frequency?" I have several consumer-grade, semi-pro and professional A/D - D/A system here and not a single one of them show any artifacts that you allude to at any frequency below 1/2 the sample rate, and that includes 44.1 kHz sample rate systems. I have a couple that do show problems with signals ABOVE 1/2 the sample rate, but they are either badly implemented or broken. Since I only occaisionally hear artifacts in music with 44.1 KHz 16 bit, and when I do I usually find them minor, I would expect a sample rate twice as high as that to be OK. This is why proper listening and engineering tests are done with methods that attempt to minimize the effects of expectation. |
#292
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"Eeyore" wrote in
message Arny Krueger wrote: "Don Klipstein" wrote I occasionally hear artifacts in 16 bit 44.1 KHz, in music. Given the false claim that you've posted below, I somehow find that easy to believe. It is easy to make a test signal turn up severe artifacts with 44.1 KHz sample - see what happens with a sinewave at a higher audio frequency that is several Hz off a frequency that the sample frequency is a multiple of. Absolutely false. Note that Graham is uncertain about the falseness of the above urban myth - he has no comment. And let me clarify my short comment. I've done my homework and tested digital audio many ways. I've purposefully avoided using test signals that are at frequencies that are related to the sample rate, and also used test signals that were precisely clocked to the sample rate., or very near to it. The effects claimed above simply don't exist. They might exist to a very limited degree in undithered systems, but no proper digital audio system is undithered. It's a common problem among vinylphiles and other digiphobes. They believe some totally false, but possibly intuitively satisfying (to them) urban myths about digital, and since they believe them, they hear them. One more reason why only carefully bias-controlled listening tests can be trusted. So why do top-end studio use 24 bit 192 kHz like this from my old friends and colleagues at Prism Sound ? Same reason why people climb Mount Everest - it is there. One of the best companies I ever worked for btw. http://prismsound.com/music_recordin...da8xr_home.php One can admire the precision and care of their engineering, regardless of the lack of practical need. Note that the ADA8xr converters have only 112 dB dynamic range, which is equaled by competitive products costing only a fraction of the price. They are significantly (numerically) surpassed by recent chips from TI that cost about $10 each. Sic Transit Gloria |
#293
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"Eeysore" Arny Krueger wrote: It's a common problem among vinylphiles and other digiphobes. They believe some totally false, but possibly intuitively satisfying (to them) urban myths about digital, and since they believe them, they hear them. One more reason why only carefully bias-controlled listening tests can be trusted. So why do top-end studio use 24 bit 192 kHz like this from my old friends and colleagues at Prism Sound ? ** Ignoratio elenchi ..... Yaawnnnnnnnn..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi ...... Phil |
#294
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote krw wrote: says... Your phrase "good enough for audio" does not inspire confidence. I work in the professional / production area of audio. 'Good enough' usually isn't for us. Indeed, for a host of reasons I'd also probably want to transmit 24 bit audio. Some customers might want 96 kHz sampling too. Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool. Just a professional. But one with a pretty fair track record for hearing urban myths like the crossover distortion that you claim exists in some power amplifiers. BECAUSE IT'S SO AUDIBLE IT STICKS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. Your precious ABX testing guarantees only a 'lowest common denominator' result. Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. You were in the forces weren't you ? Explains it all. Hearing damage. Graham |
#295
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Phil Allison wrote: "Eeysore" Arny Krueger wrote: It's a common problem among vinylphiles and other digiphobes. They believe some totally false, but possibly intuitively satisfying (to them) urban myths about digital, and since they believe them, they hear them. One more reason why only carefully bias-controlled listening tests can be trusted. So why do top-end studio use 24 bit 192 kHz like this from my old friends and colleagues at Prism Sound ? ** Ignoratio elenchi ..... Yaawnnnnnnnn..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi How do you KNOW that clock accuracy isn't a factor. I saw some DREADFUL clock jitter on early digital kit and that's just as bad as amplitude inaccuracy. Graham |
#296
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"Eeysore" Arny Krueger wrote: Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool. Just a professional. But one with a pretty fair track record for hearing urban myths like the crossover distortion that you claim exists in some power amplifiers. BECAUSE IT'S SO AUDIBLE IT STICKS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. ** ********. Your precious ABX testing guarantees only a 'lowest common denominator' result. ** Gobbledegook plus a massive non-sequitur. Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. ** Shame how the rest of us do not have any of the defective examples YOU claim YOU came across that lacked forward bias current in the output devices. Shame you were too lazy and dumb to give the bias trim pot a tweak. ******. You were in the forces weren't you ? Explains it all. Hearing damage. ** So what explains YOUR obvious brain damage then ? Was it too much LSD or is it simply congenital ASD ??? ..... Phil |
#297
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
More and worse ignoratio elenchi
"Eeysore"
Arny Krueger wrote: It's a common problem among vinylphiles and other digiphobes. They believe some totally false, but possibly intuitively satisfying (to them) urban myths about digital, and since they believe them, they hear them. One more reason why only carefully bias-controlled listening tests can be trusted. So why do top-end studio use 24 bit 192 kHz like this from my old friends and colleagues at Prism Sound ? ** Ignoratio elenchi ..... Yaawnnnnnnnn..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi How do you KNOW that clock accuracy isn't a factor. ** More and worse ignoratio elenchi GIANT yaawnnnnnnnn..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi Peeeeeuuuuukkeeeeee...... ...... Phil |
#298
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"Eeyore" wrote in
message Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote krw wrote: says... Your phrase "good enough for audio" does not inspire confidence. I work in the professional / production area of audio. 'Good enough' usually isn't for us. Indeed, for a host of reasons I'd also probably want to transmit 24 bit audio. Some customers might want 96 kHz sampling too. Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool. Just a professional. But one with a pretty fair track record for hearing urban myths like the crossover distortion that you claim exists in some power amplifiers. BECAUSE IT'S SO AUDIBLE IT STICKS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. Everyplace but on test equipment, and in careful listening tests. Let the record show that I have a number of QSC amps on hand to test, have done so, and reported the results to Graham on Usenet. He has no such resources at hand. Your precious ABX testing guarantees only a 'lowest common denominator' result. Horsefeathers. ABX verifies or improves the known audible thresholds for the detection of ALL KNOWN forms of distortion. Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. It just takes a lack of hysteria and making sure that the equipment is not damaged. You were in the forces weren't you ? You engineer live sound in a music bar night after night? Explains it all. Speaks to your prejudice against the military Graham, and also your inability to understand what I have reported again and again: (1) When I report listening test results, I don't report on findings obtained with only me as a listener. (2) Test equipment doesn't lie - if it finds negligible low-level distortion, no matter how bad the ops hearing is, the distortion isn't there. Hearing damage. In your case Graham it is all about prejudice and hysteria. Of course you think QSC amps suck - they are a highly competitive product. |
#299
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:33:17 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in I expect the phone would be good enough for you ? Depends on the phone. If I make a phone up out of a good vocal mic and some studio monitors, it will be pretty good. These days really good electret mics cost pennies, while good earphone elements are relatively small and cheap compared to speakers. Most of the inherent losses in modern phones are in the communications channel, which is wildly bandwidth-reduced. As bandwidth becomes cheaper, there is a possibility that good-sounding telephones will become commonplace. If NASA can send broadcast quality video down from the shuttle or ISS, howcome their audio still sounds like a fast food clown? Thanks, Rich |
#300
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Phil Allison wrote: "Eeysore" Arny Krueger wrote: Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool. Just a professional. But one with a pretty fair track record for hearing urban myths like the crossover distortion that you claim exists in some power amplifiers. BECAUSE IT'S SO AUDIBLE IT STICKS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. ** ********. Deaf ****. Your precious ABX testing guarantees only a 'lowest common denominator' result. ** Gobbledegook plus a massive non-sequitur. Read how it works. Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. ** Shame how the rest of us do not have any of the defective examples YOU claim YOU came across that lacked forward bias current in the output devices. The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent current in the output devices. They are biased 'virtually on the threshold' at about 0.5V Vbe typically. This is actually quite clever and quite intentional and I've used the same method myself. It avoid the huge gm jump at crossover by putting the load current in that area through the DRIVERS alone which are highly degenerated with about a 10 ohm emitter resistor to make gm look fairly constant. Fortunately there are experts here who will understand exactly what I mean by the above and ignore your huffing and puffing. You're a tech. I'm a designer. Don ? Kevin ? Shame you were too lazy and dumb to give the bias trim pot a tweak. You mean the WRONG tweak. ******. Careful with your language when you're talking to your betters. You were in the forces weren't you ? Explains it all. Hearing damage. ** So what explains YOUR obvious brain damage then ? Was it too much LSD or is it simply congenital ASD ??? Clearly you're stupid as well as deaf. Graham |
#301
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Rich Grise wrote: If NASA can send broadcast quality video down from the shuttle or ISS, howcome their audio still sounds like a fast food clown? This is for the presence effect; otherwise you will think of ISS or Shuttle as if it is something routine. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com |
#302
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote krw wrote: says... Your phrase "good enough for audio" does not inspire confidence. I work in the professional / production area of audio. 'Good enough' usually isn't for us. Indeed, for a host of reasons I'd also probably want to transmit 24 bit audio. Some customers might want 96 kHz sampling too. Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool. Just a professional. But one with a pretty fair track record for hearing urban myths like the crossover distortion that you claim exists in some power amplifiers. BECAUSE IT'S SO AUDIBLE IT STICKS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. Everyplace but on test equipment, and in careful listening tests. It stands out like a sore thumb on test equipment too. It's HIGHLY visible and occurs typically at critical listening levels (around the 100mW - 1W area). Let the record show that I have a number of QSC amps on hand to test, have done so, and reported the results to Graham on Usenet. He has no such resources at hand. Uh ? I don't have access to it at the moment but my measurements have been made on such amplifiers using AP test Equipment - the industry standard and capable of incredible resolution. I may also shortly get my hands on a Prism Sound dScope 3. http://ap.com/products/index.html I personally love the Portable One to bits since it's so intuitive and fast to use and totally self contained. With System Ones you often had to turn off the PC monitor to get accurate results. http://www.prismsound.com/test_measu...scope_home.php Your precious ABX testing guarantees only a 'lowest common denominator' result. Horsefeathers. As I read how ABX testing works, if say, you had a group 30 listeners and 3 were consistently about to determine A from B and the other 27 couldn't, then you would say the products were indistinguishable, i.e. discard the results of the 3 that could determine a difference. That's what I mean by 'lowest common denominator'. All it proves is that most people have crap hearing. What the test should do is affirm there IS a difference on the basis of the 3 who can hear a difference. If I have misunderstood these principles, my apologies. However I WILL NOT engage in futile discussion about things *I* know I *can* hear. Some of my colleagues recently used me as the 'professional ears' to track down a curious hum that a studio mix engineer had reported but they couldn't hear themselves. I eventually found it. It was a slightly humming wall wart in the back of an equipment rack. If it was much louder than 10 phons I'd be surprised. Graham |
#303
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote You were in the forces weren't you ? You engineer live sound in a music bar night after night? No. And when I did engineer regularly it was probably only 2-3 times a well and I was very careful not to expose myself to excessive sound levels. Besides, for a couple of hours, and certainly not every day, it's almost irrelevant. After the period when I had been mixing live a lot, I happened to have an ear problem. I was tested in an acoustic booth and my hearing was as the nurse said "the best I've ever seen". The results were bang on the 0 phon line. Explains it all. Speaks to your prejudice against the military Graham, and also your inability to understand what I have reported again and again: No prejudice whatever. My mother's side of the family contained many RAF officers, My Grandfather being a Wing Commander and my best girlfriend ever's father who was a superb guy was an ex RN Lieutenant Commander BUT the military are reknowned for big *impulsive* bangs that are they most damaging type to hearing. Impulsive noise is vastly more damaging that continuous noise like music. Hence all the sound level recommendations that were based on steel mills with their anvils and the like are utterly irrelevent to music (except for the drummer who typically goes deaf first if anyone is going to because it's impulsive noise from the kit). Graham |
#304
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote (2) Test equipment doesn't lie - if it finds negligible low-level distortion, no matter how bad the ops hearing is, the distortion isn't there. Too damn right it doesn't. It sees x'over distortion with a clarity clearly unmatched by your hearing. Have you noticed QSC have now abandoned the grounded collector arrangement in newer and high-end models. If it was so good why would they do that ? Hearing damage. In your case Graham it is all about prejudice and hysteria. Of course you think QSC amps suck - they are a highly competitive product. One of our OEMs offered us a QSC 'clone'. I managed to make it work better ! As in lower THD AND noise by a simple pcb re-layout and front-end tweak. Don't forget I've met the guy who really designed the RMXs, Tim Lau. We exchanged some very interesting ideas on amp design whilst I was in China visiting them.. Graham |
#305
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Rich Grise wrote: On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:33:17 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in I expect the phone would be good enough for you ? Depends on the phone. If I make a phone up out of a good vocal mic and some studio monitors, it will be pretty good. These days really good electret mics cost pennies, while good earphone elements are relatively small and cheap compared to speakers. Most of the inherent losses in modern phones are in the communications channel, which is wildly bandwidth-reduced. As bandwidth becomes cheaper, there is a possibility that good-sounding telephones will become commonplace. If NASA can send broadcast quality video down from the shuttle or ISS, howcome their audio still sounds like a fast food clown? No-one cares. Try listening in on VHF ATC messages to aircraft. It's a bloody disgrace. No wonder they have accidents. Graham |
#306
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote: Rich Grise wrote: If NASA can send broadcast quality video down from the shuttle or ISS, howcome their audio still sounds like a fast food clown? This is for the presence effect; otherwise you will think of ISS or Shuttle as if it is something routine. That happened fast enough to the Apollo missions too ! Graham |
#307
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:18:39 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote krw wrote: says... Your phrase "good enough for audio" does not inspire confidence. I work in the professional / production area of audio. 'Good enough' usually isn't for us. Indeed, for a host of reasons I'd also probably want to transmit 24 bit audio. Some customers might want 96 kHz sampling too. Yes, I know you're a "professional" audiophool. Just a professional. But one with a pretty fair track record for hearing urban myths like the crossover distortion that you claim exists in some power amplifiers. BECAUSE IT'S SO AUDIBLE IT STICKS OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB. Everyplace but on test equipment, and in careful listening tests. Let the record show that I have a number of QSC amps on hand to test, have done so, and reported the results to Graham on Usenet. He has no such resources at hand. Your precious ABX testing guarantees only a 'lowest common denominator' result. Horsefeathers. ABX verifies or improves the known audible thresholds for the detection of ALL KNOWN forms of distortion. Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. It just takes a lack of hysteria and making sure that the equipment is not damaged. You were in the forces weren't you ? You engineer live sound in a music bar night after night? Explains it all. Speaks to your prejudice against the military Graham, and also your inability to understand what I have reported again and again: (1) When I report listening test results, I don't report on findings obtained with only me as a listener. (2) Test equipment doesn't lie - if it finds negligible low-level distortion, no matter how bad the ops hearing is, the distortion isn't there. Hearing damage. In your case Graham it is all about prejudice and hysteria. Of course you think QSC amps suck - they are a highly competitive product. What is it about audio that makes people so angry and profane? I thought music was supposed to make people happy. Peace Train, All you Need is Love, stuff like that. What happened to "musick hath powers to calme ye savage beaste?" It sure doesn't seem to be making you guys very calm. Is it because most of you guys can't afford decent test equipment, so everything becomes subjective? John |
#308
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
John Larkin wrote: What is it about audio that makes people so angry and profane? I thought music was supposed to make people happy. Peace Train, All you Need is Love, stuff like that. God only knows. If I can find a cute new way of putting an extra zero behind the decimal point in a THD figure why should I lambasted for it ? And as for hearing the difference between amps of 0.1% specified THD rating and 0.01%, I discoverd about 30 years ago that it was like chalk and cheese. Once you get to 0.00003% like some of Nat Semi's op-amps the argument is hypothetical anyway. The ear would be incapable of resolving such a low figure so why not use them anyway ? What harm could they do ? Arny seems to be almost as bad as the tube afficionados who LIKE lots of distortion. Graham |
#309
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Rich Grise wrote in
news On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:33:17 -0400, Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in I expect the phone would be good enough for you ? Depends on the phone. If I make a phone up out of a good vocal mic and some studio monitors, it will be pretty good. These days really good electret mics cost pennies, while good earphone elements are relatively small and cheap compared to speakers. Most of the inherent losses in modern phones are in the communications channel, which is wildly bandwidth-reduced. As bandwidth becomes cheaper, there is a possibility that good-sounding telephones will become commonplace. If NASA can send broadcast quality video down from the shuttle or ISS, howcome their audio still sounds like a fast food clown? Thanks, Rich I wonder, tho', whether their secure/encrypted comms are as bad. I'd suspect not - I'd imagine that a secure channel woudl be able to carry mroe data, and therefore be "cleaner". But that's just a guess... |
#310
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:13:56 +0100, Eeyore
wrote: John Larkin wrote: What is it about audio that makes people so angry and profane? I thought music was supposed to make people happy. Peace Train, All you Need is Love, stuff like that. God only knows. If I can find a cute new way of putting an extra zero behind the decimal point in a THD figure why should I lambasted for it ? And as for hearing the difference between amps of 0.1% specified THD rating and 0.01%, I discoverd about 30 years ago that it was like chalk and cheese. Once you get to 0.00003% like some of Nat Semi's op-amps the argument is hypothetical anyway. The ear would be incapable of resolving such a low figure so why not use them anyway ? What harm could they do ? Arny seems to be almost as bad as the tube afficionados who LIKE lots of distortion. Graham Soft distortion ain't bad, and lots of people like it. Crossover distortion is ghastly, but tubes sort of inherently don't do that when biased in the usual (ie, ancient traditional) ways. The crossover thing is a non-trivial and often subtle issue with anything but Class A semiconductor amps. There's some *really bad* biasing going on out there. But all that can be measured. I've been hanging out with a lot of artists lately, and some of them tend to be snooty based on their "vision" that dumb mortals just don't have. Similar delusions... and similar economics. John |
#311
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"Eeysore the Lunatic " ** Gobbledegook plus a massive non-sequitur. Read how it works. ** Insane false logic. Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. ** Shame how the rest of us do not have any of the defective examples YOU claim YOU came across that lacked forward bias current in the output devices. The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent current in the output devices. ** Massive BLATANT LIE !! You are ridiculous, stupid damn LIAR Stevenson. ....... Phil |
#312
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Phil Allison wrote: "Eeysore the Lunatic " ** Gobbledegook plus a massive non-sequitur. Read how it works. ** Insane false logic. Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. ** Shame how the rest of us do not have any of the defective examples YOU claim YOU came across that lacked forward bias current in the output devices. The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent current in the output devices. ** Massive BLATANT LIE !! You are ridiculous, stupid damn LIAR Stevenson. You have it 100% incorrect. But then for a toaster repair man it's not too surprising. If Kevin or Don Pearce were to re-enter the thread, they'd know EXACTLY what I'm driving at. Actually, Larkin probably does too but maybe he's just trying to stir it up ? Graham |
#313
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Phil Allison wrote: "Eeysore the Lunatic " ** Gobbledegook plus a massive non-sequitur. Read how it works. ** Insane false logic. Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. ** Shame how the rest of us do not have any of the defective examples YOU claim YOU came across that lacked forward bias current in the output devices. The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent current in the output devices. ** Massive BLATANT LIE !! You are ridiculous, stupid damn LIAR Stevenson. And you know nothing about amplifier design. Graham |
#314
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"Eeysore the Lunatic " Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. ** Shame how the rest of us do not have any of the defective examples YOU claim YOU came across that lacked forward bias current in the output devices. The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent current in the output devices. ** Massive BLATANT LIE !! You are ridiculous, stupid damn LIAR Stevenson. You have it 100% incorrect. ** Five QSC MX series amps I have here RIGHT NOW prove you WRONG. All have about 20 mA per output BJT at idle - more when hot. You have no proof whatever of you MAD & WRONG assertion. ...... Phil |
#315
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
"Eeysore the Lunatic "
The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent current in the output devices. ** Massive BLATANT LIE !! You are ridiculous, stupid damn LIAR Stevenson. ....... Phil |
#316
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Phil Allison wrote: "Eeysore the Lunatic " Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. ** Shame how the rest of us do not have any of the defective examples YOU claim YOU came across that lacked forward bias current in the output devices. The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent current in the output devices. ** Massive BLATANT LIE !! You are ridiculous, stupid damn LIAR Stevenson. You have it 100% incorrect. ** Five QSC MX series amps I have here RIGHT NOW prove you WRONG. All have about 20 mA per output BJT at idle - more when hot. I suppose you set them that way. You have no proof whatever of you MAD & WRONG assertion. Well lucky you. You simply don't understand electronic design and never will. How many tens or hundreds of thousands of products of YOUR design have you sold ? Graham |
#317
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Phil Allison wrote: "Eeysore the Lunatic " The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent current in the output devices. ** Massive BLATANT LIE !! FACT. Straight out of the factory. Mind you, their Q/C might be sloppy enough to have misled you. Graham |
#318
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Phil Allison wrote: "Eeysore the Lunatic " Anyone that can't hear the distortion of QSC USA or MX series must have severely damaged hearing. ** Shame how the rest of us do not have any of the defective examples YOU claim YOU came across that lacked forward bias current in the output devices. The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent current in the output devices. ** Massive BLATANT LIE !! You are ridiculous, stupid damn LIAR Stevenson. You have it 100% incorrect. ** Five QSC MX series amps I have here RIGHT NOW prove you WRONG. All have about 20 mA per output BJT at idle - more when hot. You have no proof whatever of you MAD & WRONG assertion. BORING |
#319
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Phil Allison wrote: "Eeysore the Lunatic " The classic QSC arrangement with grounded collectors has no qiescent current in the output devices. ** Massive BLATANT LIE !! You are ridiculous, stupid damn LIAR Stevenson. That's what you always say when you're caught out. Graham |
#320
Posted to sci.electronics.design,rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
MOSFET output stage
Eeyore wrote: How many tens or hundreds of thousands of products of YOUR design have you sold ? Many hundreds of thousands and I still get congratulatory emails as to how their 23 your old unit is still working fine. The only trouble is, the paint tend to wear off. Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Simple SE output stage | Vacuum Tubes | |||
PP Output stage bias balance | Vacuum Tubes | |||
WTB: used DAC with tube output stage. | Marketplace | |||
300b output stage | Vacuum Tubes | |||
211 Ultra Linear PP output stage?? | Vacuum Tubes |