Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Pulling Poopie's chain, was On the origin and workings of "Fast"Power supplies
Andre Jute wrote: Andre Jute The Boss You're a fraud. Graham |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: How much more bottom of the barrel can you get ? Both Morgan and I have published about five books, a couple of which are currently used as standard texts - from the bottom of the barrel no doubt. Would you care to give us your own book refs, Graham? Amazon will do. Failing that, any articles? Failing that a letter to a utilities company showing you can write? Andy Gee, you fellows musta been idling down to retirement. It is a good question to ask how many books someone has published because books are not only subject to peer review (often malicious and never less than hostile) but, unlike papers given free of charge to a professional body, published books are the survivors of a ruthlessly darwinian commercial weeding process. I fell off my chair laughing and wasted a glass of good wine to stain a favourite carpet when I read you asking the non-kulturny clown Poopie Stevenson for his books. Nice one! Andre Jute Visit Andre's books at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Phil Allison wrote:
below, prose so perfect I couldn't bring myself to break it up: So what, sweetarse, do you think "linear" means wrt a power supply? To what should it have a linear response? Surely a reasonable application of the word would be to describe a supply that conforms to Ohm's law? That is, voltage out is a linear function of voltage in and current out? That is, an unregulated supply? Or, if applied to a regulator, one that is in effect a self-adjusting potentiometer? No-one seems to have thought of an alternative collective term for the kind of supply Iain meant. The context is quite correct. Everyone knows what he means. If there were an alternative, I would advocate it, because although I can't agree that "linear" in this context is ambiguous, it does cloud its usual meaning in the context of audio machines, and could be a red herring to a novice. But there isn't. If I want a linear PS, or a linear regulator, rather than a switching PS or a switching regulator, that's what I have to ask for. Otherwise the supplier won't know what I want. Maybe we could invent a word and persuade the world to use it. Continuous? love and kisses, Ian in message ... "Ian Iveson Pile of ASD ****ed Pommy Pus " But if Linear = Linear Regulated, then Regulated = 0 ** Purest gobbledegook. Quite. ** Yep. It is common to use "linear" as distinct from "switching". ** It is an error to do so if the supply is not regulated, on the grounds that ambiguity is error. But there is already a good word for "regulated". We generally say "regulated". ** Another non sequitur ..... yawn. Plus - there is nothing very " linear " about what happens when an AC supply is rectified and filtered by electros to get DC. Such supplies are mostly called "conventional" when there is a need to distinguish them from the switchmode kind. Rubbish. ** Fraid it is true - ****wit. Just searched several suppliers for "Linear unregulated power supply". Plenty hits. ** Agrees with the point about ambiguity exactly. Linear is pretty meaningless word to use for a power supply anyway, ** Not it isn't - you ****ing ass. What you call them in writing DEPENDS ON CONTEXT. As with all things. ** Then stop ignoring that fact - ****HEAD. ....... Phil |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Pulling Poopie's chain, was On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Poopie "Jailhouse Hoover" Stevenson wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Andre Jute The Boss You're a fraud. Graham But, Poopie, I make inadequates jump when I say boo, that's what I do, at least when I can't see any enemies of society to stomp and get bored. You're inadequate, you're here, you're useless, you're offensive. you're dull and you're boring, so there is no excuse for not stepping on you. And, anyhow, you were so terminally stupid as to announce when you arrived that you had come to RAT "to be on Jute's arse". Whoopee-doo, we can all see you being on my arse day in, day out, with such success! Rolling on the floor, laughing, will put more marks on my teflon than you have in two years. Moron. Excuse me while I pray. Just once, please Lord, -- and I know wit is too much to ask for -- but can't I have someone quick and alive on my arse, instead of this parade of fatty substances and ineffectual cholerics and thick mechanics and secondhand janitors? This is what Poor Poopie was too enraged to reply to: Andre Jute wrote: Andre Jute threw out an old boot and Poopie tried it on: Eeyore wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Today we thoughtlessly accept as axiomatic the wretchedly inaccurate statement, devised by bureaucrats for the convenience of lowest common denominator engineers If you think you're a lowest common denominator "engineer", Poopie, the boot fits. and jumped-up techies, If you think you're a jumped-up techie, Poopie, the boot fits. that the human audio range is 20Hz to 20KHz, and furthermore we don't swat down those idiots If you think you're an idiot, Poopie, the boot fits. who claim all speakers should go down to 20Hz just because any old fool If you know you're an old fool, Poopie, the boot fits. can make a solid state amp produce some kind of 20Hz noise If you admit that you make noise rather than music, Poopie, the boot fits. (and it isn't so difficult in tubes either, though tubies are generally a bit smarter). If you agree that it has often been demostrated that the tubies are smarter than you, Poopie, the boot fits. These two facts between them account for a lot of truly wretched sound If all that wretched sound you made haunts you, Poopie, the boot fits. produced at vast expense. That position can only become worse when the same morons Here's a boot we don't even have to ask about, eh, Poopie. Everyone, including you, know you're a moron. will assure us that, because the new media can go up to 35KHZ, we should follow the techies up there. No one asks the devastating question, Why? And the best this clown can come up with is to call me an "idiot" as in: the idiot Joot Poor old Poopie. That's the difference between us. I know how little I know -- and still I pull your chain every time I'm bored, without fail. You're a jailhouse ****mat, man. Andre Jute The Boss |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... How many hundreds of thousand of units of your designs have you sold ? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/L-k-Studiomast...QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-8...QQcmdZViewItem (huge snip) Gosh Graham. I really hope you are nothing to do with StudioMaster. It is a name with a very poor reputation in this part of the world, - known for cheap and cheerful PA, DJ and Karaoke equipment. No self respecting concert master or PA mixer would touch 'em! They rate a long way below Yamaha, Soundcraft, Allen and Heath and most of the other budget names. Now if you told me you had designed the Crown MacroTech 5000 amp, or the SSL C200 console then I *would* be impressed:-) Iain |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Iain Churches wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message ... How many hundreds of thousand of units of your designs have you sold ? http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/L-k-Studiomast...QQcmdZViewItem http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/STUDIOMASTER-8...QQcmdZViewItem (huge snip) Gosh Graham. I really hope you are nothing to do with StudioMaster. It is a name with a very poor reputation in this part of the world, - known for cheap and cheerful PA, DJ and Karaoke equipment. We don't make Karaoke equipment and such of the stuff that's Suitable for DJ use ( 1 model ) is high-end in that market. No self respecting concert master or PA mixer would touch 'em! They rate a long way below Yamaha, Soundcraft, Allen and Heath and most of the other budget names. Have you ever listened to any ? It's *way* superior to Yamaha's budget line of kit and certainly at least on a par with some Soundcraft. Indeed it's durability is considerably better than most economy kit today. There's no disgrace in making affordable gear you know especially when the performance is up there with the best of them. However some ppl do like to belittle gear on price. It doesn't claim to be Allen & Heath but that's not the intended market. FYI it's very 'business-like' kit with many units in service 20 yrs after they were bought. The amps are a good line btw. Wholly my own designs. Now if you told me you had designed the Crown MacroTech 5000 amp, or the SSL C200 console then I *would* be impressed:-) I did work at Neve for a while ( mainly on the V series ans also on the DTC digital mastering console ). Graham |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
So you're suggesting I should bow to you because you wrote a book or
two of nonsense ? You bleat on about the scientific method, yet you're always the first person to rubbish something you know absolutely nothing about. And so it goes on. |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message Andy Evans wrote: Unfortunately his ideas are plain bonkers If you don't believe me, read Lynn Olsen. http://www.clarisonus.com/blog/ Worshipper of the late Harvey Rosenberg If you don't believe him, read Jeff Medwin True believer in the holy rite of the 2A3 If you don't believe him, read Gary Pimm http://www.pacifier.com/~gpimm/ Believes in tubes with solid state biasing circuits. If you don't believe him, read Dave Slagle http://www.intactaudio.com/ True believer in autotransformer volume controls If you don't believe him, read Morgan Jones Wrote many books touting the superiority of tubes If you don't believe him, read Thorsten Loesch http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/intere.html "In my experience all stranded Cables where each single conductor is made from several strands of copper that are not insulated from each other imparts an unpleasant harshness and brightness to the sound." If you don't believe him, read Poindexter real name is apparently Eric Kingsbury Audio Asylum regular, you guessed it, Tubes Asylum to be more specific, http://ekingsbu.users4.50megs.com/ If you don't believe him, read Pete Millett Self-proclaimed "tubehead". http://www.pmillett.com/ If you don't believe him, read Kevin Carter U.S. Importer of Lundahl transformers, it seems http://www.kandkaudio.com/ Is that simply a list of the deluded you're offering ? A little googling shows that this is a list of people who have suspended disbelief and promote tubes as a superior high fidelity alternative. Or in your immortal words, "Character assassination seems to be the only debating tool you tubie vinylite bigots have left" I sometimes think it should be you writing books not Andre Jute, though I would suggest sitcoms if you can come up with a steady stream of one liners like that. |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
Gosh Graham. I really hope you are nothing to do with StudioMaster. It is a name with a very poor reputation in this part of the world, - known for cheap and cheerful PA, DJ and Karaoke equipment. Gosh Iain, I really hope you are nothing to do with Decca. They had an amazing catalog of great recordings and a great history of recording technology in the early days of hifi, but they didn't keep up with the technology or the market. No self respecting concert master or PA mixer would touch 'em! Irrelevant criteria because concent masters play violins, not audio production equipment. Secondly, Studiomaster should probably be compared with (favorably) Behringer, and lots of self-respecting PA mixers work with Behringer equipment these days. The audio production market has changed Iain, and you're obviously not keeping up. They rate a long way below Yamaha, Soundcraft, Allen and Heath and most of the other budget names. Actually, none of those are budget names. All of them sell volumes of mixers in the high 5 figures and up. Now if you told me you had designed the Crown MacroTech 5000 Actually, not a bad amp. Too bad you wallow around with all that retro-technology drek, Iain. amp, or the SSL C200 console then I *would* be impressed:-) There is very little market left for mixers in the mid-six figure range. Your problem Iain is that you just haven't kept up. BTW here is SSL's latest-greatest: http://www.solid-state-logic.com/music/duende_home.html |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Andy Evans" wrote in
message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message Andy Evans wrote: Unfortunately his ideas are plain bonkers If you don't believe me, read Lynn Olsen. http://www.clarisonus.com/blog/ Worshipper of the late Harvey Rosenberg If you don't believe him, read Jeff Medwin True believer in the holy rite of the 2A3 If you don't believe him, read Gary Pimm http://www.pacifier.com/~gpimm/ Believes in tubes with solid state biasing circuits. If you don't believe him, read Dave Slagle http://www.intactaudio.com/ True believer in autotransformer volume controls If you don't believe him, read Morgan Jones Wrote many books touting the superiority of tubes If you don't believe him, read Thorsten Loesch http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/intere.html "In my experience all stranded Cables where each single conductor is made from several strands of copper that are not insulated from each other imparts an unpleasant harshness and brightness to the sound." If you don't believe him, read Poindexter real name is apparently Eric Kingsbury Audio Asylum regular, you guessed it, Tubes Asylum to be more specific, http://ekingsbu.users4.50megs.com/ If you don't believe him, read Pete Millett Self-proclaimed "tubehead". http://www.pmillett.com/ If you don't believe him, read Kevin Carter U.S. Importer of Lundahl transformers, it seems http://www.kandkaudio.com/ Is that simply a list of the deluded you're offering ? A little googling shows that this is a list of people who have suspended disbelief and promote tubes as a superior high fidelity alternative. Or in your immortal words, "Character assassination seems to be the only debating tool you tubie vinylite bigots have left" Sue me for inspecting a bowl of nuts and pronouncing them nuts. I sometimes think it should be you writing books not Andre Jute, though I would suggest sitcoms if you can come up with a steady stream of one liners like that. Unfortuntately all of those folks seem to be deadly serious - deadly seriously deluded in public for personal profit. |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Eeyore wrote:
So, the idiot Joot would argue in favour of restricted bandwidth too ? Heck, why not roll it off @ 8k ? What a charlatan ! This overall wisdom is hardly new or innovative or wrong: Quoting from RDH 4th edition, Chapter 14: "If the output transformer and loudspeaker are incapable of handling frequencies below a criticial value without serious distortion, it is wise to filter out these lower frequencies and so rid the amplifier of their bad effects. It is better to have a clean bass limited to say 80 or 100 c/s, than to have a distorted condition..." Now, I don't always agree with Jute, but I also don't pick fights with him on points where he's obviously correct. You are welcome to read the RDH and criticize me for leaving off the end of the last sentence :-). Tim. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: So you're suggesting I should bow to you because you wrote a book or two of nonsense ? You bleat on about the scientific method, yet you're always the first person to rubbish something you know absolutely nothing about. And so it goes on. You haven't offered anything worth taking seriously. Talk about 'fast capacitors' because you say they sound like it. in defiance of the scientific facts, makes you look very foolish. There used to be ppl who belived in 'magic cables' too and some even fell for the Tice clock. You sound like one of them. Graham |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Andy Evans" wrote in
message oups.com You bleat on about the scientific method, yet you're always the first person to rubbish something you know absolutely nothing about. And so it goes on. I scratch-built audio gear during the days when tubes were all we had. I built kits. I bought stuff off the shelf. I worked in an audio store where the shelves were full of tubed equipment ranging from Lafayette LA 224 to KT 550 & 600, Sherwood, Dyna, Eico, H. H. Scott, Fisher, etc., etc. So remind me again how I know nothing about tubes. ;-) |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
|
#95
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Arny Krueger wrote: "Andy Evans" wrote in message oups.com You bleat on about the scientific method, yet you're always the first person to rubbish something you know absolutely nothing about. And so it goes on. I scratch-built audio gear during the days when tubes were all we had. I built kits. I bought stuff off the shelf. I worked in an audio store where the shelves were full of tubed equipment ranging from Lafayette LA 224 to KT 550 & 600, Sherwood, Dyna, Eico, H. H. Scott, Fisher, etc., etc. So remind me again how I know nothing about tubes. ;-) Hello Arny - I was referring to Graham rubbishing books he hadn't read, which I think you'll admit is about as unscientific as it gets. I know you have knowledge of tubes and many other things besides. Andy |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Tim wrote:
Eeyore wrote: So, the idiot Joot would argue in favour of restricted bandwidth too ? Heck, why not roll it off @ 8k ? What a charlatan ! This overall wisdom is hardly new or innovative or wrong: Quoting from RDH 4th edition, Chapter 14: "If the output transformer and loudspeaker are incapable of handling frequencies below a criticial value without serious distortion, it is wise to filter out these lower frequencies and so rid the amplifier of their bad effects. It is better to have a clean bass limited to say 80 or 100 c/s, than to have a distorted condition..." Now, I don't always agree with Jute, but I also don't pick fights with him on points where he's obviously correct. You are welcome to read the RDH and criticize me for leaving off the end of the last sentence :-). Tim. Straightforward and sensible, yes, but am I being picky if I point out that you are at the opposite end of the spectrum here? The reason for restricting bass is that otherwise, consequent transformer distortion and/or malfunction can disrupt everything else. Not true for HF. One poster was talking about HF, the other about bandwidth...some of these plots are hard to follow on my erratic server. cheers, Ian |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Eeyore said:
Any honest person knows full well that your hearing can vary significantly over even a short period and is readily and hugely influenced by 'stimulants' and state of mind too. Then why rule those factors out in a (double) blind test? ;-) Rule out which ones though ? Exactly! -- - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? - |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Ian Iveson wrote: Tim wrote: Eeyore wrote: So, the idiot Joot would argue in favour of restricted bandwidth too ? Heck, why not roll it off @ 8k ? What a charlatan ! This overall wisdom is hardly new or innovative or wrong: Quoting from RDH 4th edition, Chapter 14: "If the output transformer and loudspeaker are incapable of handling frequencies below a criticial value without serious distortion, it is wise to filter out these lower frequencies and so rid the amplifier of their bad effects. It is better to have a clean bass limited to say 80 or 100 c/s, than to have a distorted condition..." Now, I don't always agree with Jute, but I also don't pick fights with him on points where he's obviously correct. You are welcome to read the RDH and criticize me for leaving off the end of the last sentence :-). Tim. Straightforward and sensible, yes, but am I being picky if I point out that you are at the opposite end of the spectrum here? The reason for restricting bass is that otherwise, consequent transformer distortion and/or malfunction can disrupt everything else. Not true for HF. One poster was talking about HF, the other about bandwidth...some of these plots are hard to follow on my erratic server. cheers, Ian Here's an idea for you that addresses this issue. Bi-amplifaction is regularly used in high-end monitors. If the LF and HF amps are specifically designed to be bi-amp only, then the HF amp need only have a very much lighter transformer that doesn't need to deal with LF and its characterisitics can be so optimised. Likewise the LF transformer can be designed for effortless 20Hz reproduction without compromising its HF abilities. (c) Graham Stevenson 2006 Graham |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Hi Ian
I really haven't experimented with listening to small power supply configuration changes. The transformer I used for prototyping was a bit under spec'd for two 300B's. I was trying to get a near-choke input supply to a decent ripple level and b+ level without adding additional stages. Each stage decreases available b+. The 10uf cap at the choke input gave me the best bang for the buck. I'll have more leeway when I switch to 2a3's, and then will have the margin to experiment with power. It should be sometime in 2008, give or take five years. I ended up starting out with small capacitance levels, and gradually increased the values until ripple was very low and I got a decent voltage and frequency range on a 300B SE amp. I ended up with two 7-10 henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per stage. I figure that I ended up with optimal capacitance, which enables me to use oil caps without a huge amount of real estate on the chassis being required. Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough of the small amount of time I have for this hobby. Bob H. Iain Churches wrote: "Bob H." wrote in message ups.com... I find that a smallish cap, like 10 uf before the first choke sounds nice, Hi Bob, Now we are getting to the crux of the question:-)) Does is sound *different* to a long string of high capacitance electrolytics? Iain |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Bob H." wrote in message ups.com... Hi Ian I really haven't experimented with listening to small power supply configuration changes. The transformer I used for prototyping was a bit under spec'd for two 300B's. I was trying to get a near-choke input supply to a decent ripple level and b+ level without adding additional stages. Each stage decreases available b+. The 10uf cap at the choke input gave me the best bang for the buck. I'll have more leeway when I switch to 2a3's, and then will have the margin to experiment with power. It should be sometime in 2008, give or take five years. I ended up starting out with small capacitance levels, and gradually increased the values until ripple was very low and I got a decent voltage and frequency range on a 300B SE amp. I ended up with two 7-10 henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per stage. I figure that I ended up with optimal capacitance, which enables me to use oil caps without a huge amount of real estate on the chassis being required. Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough of the small amount of time I have for this hobby. Bob H. Hi Bob, I have little or no experience with SET amps, except to have been very impressed with a Russian-built Resnekov owned by a cellist acquaintance of mine. We share a passion for the Shostakovich Quartets, and despite its modest bench performance, this amp with a pair ELS gave perhaps the mot realistic listening experience I have ever enjoyed. I would have thought that for SET, without the common mode rejection offered by PP output stages, would have required a very well designed psu. The 100µF-10H-100µF-10H-100µF which you ended up with is the sort of thing I had in mind. I have made a promise to myself to build a SET amp one day. Regards Iain |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
I ended up with two 7-10
henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per stage. I figure that I ended up with optimal capacitance, which enables me to use oil caps without a huge amount of real estate on the chassis being required. Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough of the small amount of time I have for this hobby. Bob H. Bob - that sounds exactly like the configuration that a few of us have ended up with after prolonged listening tests. Only difference is that some of us 'cheapies' use modern motor runs rather than the oil filled ones. Did you find there was much audible difference? Andy |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
Ian Iveson wrote:
Straightforward and sensible, yes, but am I being picky if I point out that you are at the opposite end of the spectrum here? In fact they are entirely correlated. If you want to reduce bass response below say 200Hz, it probably makes perfect sense to also be reducing HF response above 8kHz. Otherwise you get what my ears today call "computer speaker" sound: Unbalanced, Tinny, Crappy. Unfortunately this phenomenon has spread far beyond "computer speakers" (which you expect to sound crappy considering their completely ass-backward cabinet design with a bazillion buzzy resonances and supposed 80 watt power handling in a 2 inch speaker and a $5 price tag) and today can be found in lots of craptacular home AV systems and even a bunch of crappy speakers that the stereo discounters bizarrely push as "studio monitors". But this is all unrelated to the OP which was asking about sizing power supply capacitors to handle 2Hz audio content (which for better or worse is often correlated with the coupling capacitors also being sized to handle 2Hz which is what launched us into this subthread). Tim. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
The 100µF-10H-100µF-10H-100µF which you ended up with
is the sort of thing I had in mind. I have made a promise to myself to build a SET amp one day. Regards Iain I think Bob meant 10uF-10H- 100uF-10H- 100uF. Particularly the second cap can be some way below 100uF. Usually it measures better when you step up the cap values if you look in PSUD. Andy |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: I ended up with two 7-10 henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per stage. I figure that I ended up with optimal capacitance, which enables me to use oil caps without a huge amount of real estate on the chassis being required. Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough of the small amount of time I have for this hobby. Bob H. Bob - that sounds exactly like the configuration that a few of us have ended up with after prolonged listening tests. Only difference is that some of us 'cheapies' use modern motor runs rather than the oil filled ones. Did you find there was much audible difference? Andy Only a complete ninny would fall for the capacitor dielectric voodoo. Graham |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Eeyore" wrote in
message Andy Evans wrote: I ended up with two 7-10 henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per stage. I figure that I ended up with optimal capacitance, which enables me to use oil caps without a huge amount of real estate on the chassis being required. Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough of the small amount of time I have for this hobby. Bob H. Bob - that sounds exactly like the configuration that a few of us have ended up with after prolonged listening tests. Only difference is that some of us 'cheapies' use modern motor runs rather than the oil filled ones. Did you find there was much audible difference? Andy Only a complete ninny would fall for the capacitor dielectric voodoo. Agreed - the leading perpetrators of capacitor dielectric mythology dug their own grave when they lined up and promoted the practice of putting small caps with sacred dielectrics in paralell with larger value caps. It's easy to show that while this can help with ESR, it does absolutely nothing for DA. Capacitor dielectric mythology is just another example of snake oil that washes out with proper subjective testing. The home audio gear construction hobby is profoundly affected by "constructor's ear" where people do something that they would know is crazy were they well-educated, and then brag to high heavens when the equipment they butcher is robust enough to continue to work despite their naive and inexpert ministrations. The ESR problem was always a matter of naive construction techniques, and was corrected by just about every manufacturer that was serious about making good caps. People who are sensitive to authentic appearances would be wise to gut the cases of NOS classic cap designs and put modern pieces inside. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
wrote in message
ups.com Ian Iveson wrote: Straightforward and sensible, yes, but am I being picky if I point out that you are at the opposite end of the spectrum here? In fact they are entirely correlated. If you want to reduce bass response below say 200Hz, it probably makes perfect sense to also be reducing HF response above 8kHz. There has long been the idea of balancing your high and low frequency roll-offs so that their product is a constant number such as 400,000. Otherwise you get what my ears today call "computer speaker" sound: Unbalanced, Tinny, Crappy. This would be the consequence of having more octaves of response 1 KHz than below. Unfortunately this phenomenon has spread far beyond "computer speakers" (which you expect to sound crappy considering their completely ass-backward cabinet design with a bazillion buzzy resonances and supposed 80 watt power handling in a 2 inch speaker and a $5 price tag) and today can be found in lots of craptacular home AV systems and even a bunch of crappy speakers that the stereo discounters bizarrely push as "studio monitors". If a speaker is smooth but unbalanced, it can be amazing how well a properly-implemented subwoofer can restore the necessary balance. But this is all unrelated to the OP which was asking about sizing power supply capacitors to handle 2Hz audio content (which for better or worse is often correlated with the coupling capacitors also being sized to handle 2Hz which is what launched us into this subthread). I've always been under the impression that one favorable result of very large PS caps combined with modest coupling caps can be reduction of power supply-related turn on, and turn-off thumps. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. : "Eeyore" wrote in : message : Andy Evans wrote: : : I ended up with two 7-10 : henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per : stage. I figure that I ended up with optimal : capacitance, which enables me to use oil caps without a : huge amount of real estate on the chassis being : required. : : Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough : of the small amount of time I have for this hobby. : : Bob H. : : Bob - that sounds exactly like the configuration that a : few of us have ended up with after prolonged listening : tests. Only difference is that some of us 'cheapies' use : modern motor runs rather than the oil filled ones. Did : you find there was much audible difference? Andy : : Only a complete ninny would fall for the capacitor : dielectric voodoo. : : Agreed - the leading perpetrators of capacitor dielectric mythology dug : their own grave when they lined up and promoted the practice of putting : small caps with sacred dielectrics in paralell with larger value caps. It's : easy to show that while this can help with ESR, it does absolutely nothing : for DA. : : Capacitor dielectric mythology is just another example of snake oil that : washes out with proper subjective testing. The home audio gear construction : hobby is profoundly affected by "constructor's ear" where people do : something that they would know is crazy were they well-educated, and then : brag to high heavens when the equipment they butcher is robust enough to : continue to work despite their naive and inexpert ministrations. : : The ESR problem was always a matter of naive construction techniques, and : was corrected by just about every manufacturer that was serious about making : good caps. : : People who are sensitive to authentic appearances would be wise to gut the : cases of NOS classic cap designs and put modern pieces inside. : .................................................. ................................ ........................... B&W used extended listening tests configuring their crossover filters - they use Mundorf caps for best results. Are you saying B&W engineering doesn't know what they're doing ? (the 802D's being regarded as some of the finest speakers available) Snake oil ?? Rudy |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Arny Krueger wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in Andy Evans wrote: I ended up with two 7-10 henry chokes and capacitance values below 100 uf per stage. I figure that I ended up with optimal capacitance, which enables me to use oil caps without a huge amount of real estate on the chassis being required. Listening to amp configuration changes takes up enough of the small amount of time I have for this hobby. Bob H. Bob - that sounds exactly like the configuration that a few of us have ended up with after prolonged listening tests. Only difference is that some of us 'cheapies' use modern motor runs rather than the oil filled ones. Did you find there was much audible difference? Andy Only a complete ninny would fall for the capacitor dielectric voodoo. Agreed - the leading perpetrators of capacitor dielectric mythology dug their own grave when they lined up and promoted the practice of putting small caps with sacred dielectrics in paralell with larger value caps. It's easy to show that while this can help with ESR, it does absolutely nothing for DA. Capacitor dielectric mythology is just another example of snake oil that washes out with proper subjective testing. The home audio gear construction hobby is profoundly affected by "constructor's ear" where people do something that they would know is crazy were they well-educated, and then brag to high heavens when the equipment they butcher is robust enough to continue to work despite their naive and inexpert ministrations. The ESR problem was always a matter of naive construction techniques, and was corrected by just about every manufacturer that was serious about making good caps. People who are sensitive to authentic appearances would be wise to gut the cases of NOS classic cap designs and put modern pieces inside. Now *that* would be really amusing ! Graham |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Ruud Broens wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message .......................... B&W used extended listening tests configuring their crossover filters - they use Mundorf caps for best results. Are you saying B&W engineering doesn't know what they're doing ? (the 802D's being regarded as some of the finest speakers available) Snake oil ?? If you think a *brand* of cap affects the sound then you truly are barking mad. Yes, that's snake oil. I have little doubt that plastic film caps can outperform bipolar electrolytics in crossover filters though. Can polypropylene outperform polyester ? I see no logical basis for that at all. As for B&W, it's more a case of their marketing dept knowing what it's doing ! You fell for it didn't you ? Graham p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ? |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... : : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : "Arny Krueger" wrote in message : .......................... : B&W used extended listening tests configuring their crossover filters - : they use Mundorf caps for best results. Are you saying B&W engineering : doesn't know what they're doing ? : (the 802D's being regarded as some of the finest speakers available) : Snake oil ?? : : If you think a *brand* of cap affects the sound then you truly are barking mad. Yes, : that's snake oil. : : I have little doubt that plastic film caps can outperform bipolar electrolytics in : crossover filters though. Can polypropylene outperform polyester ? I see no logical : basis for that at all. : : As for B&W, it's more a case of their marketing dept knowing what it's doing ! You : fell for it didn't you ? : : Graham : : p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ? : silly question - a brand in itself: nothing. it is the technical merits of the product that (may) make differences. so you're saying that from an armchair theoretical viewpoint, you're quite able to dismiss any real-world reported sonic qualities ? ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly - as, in theory, they can't ! Rudy |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Ruud Broens wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message : : p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ? : silly question - a brand in itself: nothing. Thank goodness for that at least ! it is the technical merits of the product that (may) make differences. so you're saying that from an armchair theoretical viewpoint, you're quite able to dismiss any real-world reported sonic qualities ? Armchair ? I'm an experienced pro-audio designer with hundreds of thousands of units in use worldwide of my designs. As for sonic qualities I just looked at the Mundorf capacitor data with their alleged superiority and it reminds me of the 'magic cable' snake oil claims. It's certain that they're very nicely made using excellent grade materials - which is all well and fine but it's an entirely different matter to then extrapolate that to sonic differences with a total absence of an accompanying scientific basis. ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly - as, in theory, they can't ! There is no theory that says they can't fly. It's a popular myth. Now ask me something about audio electronics. Graham |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Now ask me something about audio electronics. Graham
Why on earth would anyone want to ask you questions about audio electronics? - You are a bigoted old fool who seems incapable of digesting the slightest idea that didn't come out of whatever electronics textbook you read in 1943. |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... : : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : "Eeyore" wrote in message : : : : p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ? : : : silly question - a brand in itself: nothing. : : Thank goodness for that at least ! : : : it is the technical merits of the product that (may) make differences. : so you're saying that from an armchair theoretical viewpoint, you're : quite able to dismiss any real-world reported sonic qualities ? : : Armchair ? I'm an experienced pro-audio designer with hundreds of thousands : of units in use worldwide of my designs. : : As for sonic qualities I just looked at the Mundorf capacitor data with their alleged : superiority and it reminds me of the 'magic cable' snake oil claims. It's certain : that they're very nicely made using excellent grade materials - which is all well : and fine but it's an entirely different matter to then extrapolate that to sonic : differences with a total absence of an accompanying scientific basis. : so we have to take _your_ word for it that B&W uses Mundorfs, not because they gave the best sonic results, but because the marketing dept. said to use 'm ? Somehow, i'm not convinced :-) : : ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly - : as, in theory, they can't ! : : There is no theory that says they can't fly. It's a popular myth. Nope. has to do with bodyweight vs lift capacity with the given wingsize. : : Now ask me something about audio electronics. : : Graham : Hmm. If the result is some theoretical prose on why a poster is deluded in thinking this or that, why would he want to ? Try to go for a constructive tone first, eh ? (Some info on where to get specific items, what potmeters have given reliable, long term performance, those are the kind of subjects where you could contribute, for sure) Rudy |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Andy Evans wrote: Now ask me something about audio electronics. Graham Why on earth would anyone want to ask you questions about audio electronics? - You are a bigoted old fool who seems incapable of digesting the slightest idea that didn't come out of whatever electronics textbook you read in 1943. If you mean I'm biased against idiotic tomfoolery with no remote scientific basis - you're right. Even in the 80s there was still much to be learnt about quality audio recording and reproduction but you seem wedded to 1930s technology. Graham |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Ruud Broens wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message : Ruud Broens wrote: : "Eeyore" wrote in message : : : : p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ? : : : silly question - a brand in itself: nothing. : : Thank goodness for that at least ! : : : it is the technical merits of the product that (may) make differences. : so you're saying that from an armchair theoretical viewpoint, you're : quite able to dismiss any real-world reported sonic qualities ? : : Armchair ? I'm an experienced pro-audio designer with hundreds of thousands : of units in use worldwide of my designs. : : As for sonic qualities I just looked at the Mundorf capacitor data with their alleged : superiority and it reminds me of the 'magic cable' snake oil claims. It's certain : that they're very nicely made using excellent grade materials - which is all well : and fine but it's an entirely different matter to then extrapolate that to sonic : differences with a total absence of an accompanying scientific basis. : so we have to take _your_ word for it that B&W uses Mundorfs, not because they gave the best sonic results, but because the marketing dept. said to use 'm ? Somehow, i'm not convinced :-) In order to believe that one film cap can sound better than another you'd also have to believe in a basis for that. Since there isn't a valid one, all you have left is the audiophool religion which apparently allows anything someone allegedly heard to trump science. Besides, It totally stinks to high heaven of the marketing dept ! :~) I've already said that there is a sound basis for preferring film caps over bipolars btw and the close tolerance on value of the Mundorfs as standard also means that unit to unit variation will be small which is certainly a desirable thing. : ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly - : as, in theory, they can't ! : : There is no theory that says they can't fly. It's a popular myth. Nope. has to do with bodyweight vs lift capacity with the given wingsize. Now tell me how you calculate that lift capacity. Heck, if a bumblebee "can't fly" because it wings are 'too small' what hope does a helicopter have ? If you apply the 'wrong science' you'll get the wrong answer for sure. : Now ask me something about audio electronics. : : Graham : Hmm. If the result is some theoretical prose on why a poster is deluded in thinking this or that, why would he want to ? Try to go for a constructive tone first, eh ? (Some info on where to get specific items, what potmeters have given reliable, long term performance, those are the kind of subjects where you could contribute, for sure) That depends on what performance criteria you're looking for. For sheer longevity nothing really beats cermet or wirewound parts but cermet have vastly greater resolution. Wirewounds have high rotational noise too. For very low rotational noise combined with long lifetime - conductive plastic is the clear leader. Vishay Sfernice are very good for example. Overall the best parts for audio use IMHO. At the lower end of the scale, a carbon wiper on a standard carbon track helps prolong life and reduce rotational noise. Graham |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Eeyore" wrote in message ... : : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : "Eeyore" wrote in message : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : "Eeyore" wrote in message : : : : : : p.s. what exactly do you think a specific brand of cap can affect ? : : : : : silly question - a brand in itself: nothing. : : : : Thank goodness for that at least ! : : : : : : it is the technical merits of the product that (may) make differences. : : so you're saying that from an armchair theoretical viewpoint, you're : : quite able to dismiss any real-world reported sonic qualities ? : : : : Armchair ? I'm an experienced pro-audio designer with hundreds of thousands : : of units in use worldwide of my designs. : : : : As for sonic qualities I just looked at the Mundorf capacitor data with their : alleged : : superiority and it reminds me of the 'magic cable' snake oil claims. It's : certain : : that they're very nicely made using excellent grade materials - which is all : well : : and fine but it's an entirely different matter to then extrapolate that to : sonic : : differences with a total absence of an accompanying scientific basis. : : : so we have to take _your_ word for it that B&W uses Mundorfs, not because : they gave the best sonic results, but because the marketing dept. said to use : 'm ? Somehow, i'm not convinced :-) : : In order to believe that one film cap can sound better than another you'd also have : to believe in a basis for that. Since there isn't a valid one, all you have left is : the audiophool religion which apparently allows anything someone allegedly heard to : trump science. : : Besides, It totally stinks to high heaven of the marketing dept ! :~) : : I've already said that there is a sound basis for preferring film caps over : bipolars btw and the close tolerance on value of the Mundorfs as standard also : means that unit to unit variation will be small which is certainly a desirable : thing. : This is still your belief that a (limited) understanding of the theoretical aspects trumps the real-world perceived quality differences. Anyway, you cannot proof from theory there is no perceivable difference, the best you can hope for is stating that, according to what is currently know about the subject at hand, it is highly unlikely that a difference can be heard. problem being, you have to know a thing or two about both theoretical physics and perceptive psychology, neither of which seem to be your forte... : : ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly - : : as, in theory, they can't ! : : : : There is no theory that says they can't fly. It's a popular myth. : : Nope. has to do with bodyweight vs lift capacity with the given wingsize. : : Now tell me how you calculate that lift capacity. the problems arise from modeling the way the wings flex during movement. i don't think we want to pursue this further.. : : Heck, if a bumblebee "can't fly" because it wings are 'too small' what hope does a : helicopter have ? If you apply the 'wrong science' you'll get the wrong answer for : sure. : : : : Now ask me something about audio electronics. : : : : Graham : : : : Hmm. If the result is some theoretical prose on why a poster is deluded : in thinking this or that, why would he want to ? : Try to go for a constructive tone first, eh ? : (Some info on where to get specific items, what potmeters have given : reliable, long term performance, those are the kind of subjects where : you could contribute, : for sure) : : That depends on what performance criteria you're looking for. : : For sheer longevity nothing really beats cermet or wirewound parts but cermet have : vastly greater resolution. Wirewounds have high rotational noise too. ok, nice. i used a Bourns cermet 10 turns pot to set up an LM317T voltage, but was surprised - and rather appaled - at the amount of noise some positions on the trimmer gave - explenations ? R. : : For very low rotational noise combined with long lifetime - conductive plastic is : the clear leader. Vishay Sfernice are very good for example. Overall the best parts : for audio use IMHO. : : At the lower end of the scale, a carbon wiper on a standard carbon track helps : prolong life and reduce rotational noise. : : Graham : |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Ruud Broens wrote: "Eeyore" wrote in message : Ruud Broens wrote: : "Eeyore" wrote in message : : Ruud Broens wrote: : : : so we have to take _your_ word for it that B&W uses Mundorfs, not because : they gave the best sonic results, but because the marketing dept. said to use : 'm ? Somehow, i'm not convinced :-) : : In order to believe that one film cap can sound better than another you'd also have : to believe in a basis for that. Since there isn't a valid one, all you have left is : the audiophool religion which apparently allows anything someone allegedly heard to : trump science. : : Besides, It totally stinks to high heaven of the marketing dept ! :~) : : I've already said that there is a sound basis for preferring film caps over : bipolars btw and the close tolerance on value of the Mundorfs as standard also : means that unit to unit variation will be small which is certainly a desirable : thing. : This is still your belief that a (limited) understanding of the theoretical aspects trumps the real-world perceived quality differences. What's limited about it ? Do please tell ! Anyway, you cannot proof from theory there is no perceivable difference, the best you can hope for is stating that, according to what is currently know about the subject at hand, it is highly unlikely that a difference can be heard. problem being, you have to know a thing or two about both theoretical physics and perceptive psychology, neither of which seem to be your forte.. Psychology probably is the reason for perceived differences in this regard notably the wish to hear a desirable result in response to a wish to do so. You could of course choose to dismiss all capacitor theory ( and measurements ) to make the perceived sonic differences fit the facts if you like. Better than that is to make some measurements though. In order for one type of capacitor to sound different to another there simply has to be an electrical difference in their properties. I have in fact measured various types of plastic film caps and have not been able to find any difference whatever bewtween them in audio circuitry with test equipment capable of measuring effects less than 100dB down. This simply confirms that electronic theory is indeed correct. If you can hear something that more than 100dB down, you've a fine set of ears indeed, but there's no reason to imagine that there's anything there anyway ! Let's suppose there *was* an effect say 110dB down that I couldn't measure. That would be like that 'difference' being equivalent to the background noise in a very good studio whilst in the close proximity to a jet engine at takeoff power ! : : ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly - : : as, in theory, they can't ! : : : : There is no theory that says they can't fly. It's a popular myth. : : Nope. has to do with bodyweight vs lift capacity with the given wingsize. : : Now tell me how you calculate that lift capacity. the problems arise from modeling the way the wings flex during movement. i don't think we want to pursue this further.. Good. : Heck, if a bumblebee "can't fly" because it wings are 'too small' what hope does a : helicopter have ? If you apply the 'wrong science' you'll get the wrong answer for : sure. : : : : Now ask me something about audio electronics. : : : : Graham : : : : Hmm. If the result is some theoretical prose on why a poster is deluded : in thinking this or that, why would he want to ? : Try to go for a constructive tone first, eh ? : (Some info on where to get specific items, what potmeters have given : reliable, long term performance, those are the kind of subjects where : you could contribute, : for sure) : : That depends on what performance criteria you're looking for. : : For sheer longevity nothing really beats cermet or wirewound parts but cermet have : vastly greater resolution. Wirewounds have high rotational noise too. ok, nice. i used a Bourns cermet 10 turns pot to set up an LM317T voltage, but was surprised - and rather appaled - at the amount of noise some positions on the trimmer gave - explenations ? The cermet track hasn't got a very smooth surface AIUI and that gives rise to the rotational noise. This is where conductive plastic scores over it. The surface is almost mirror smooth. Incidentally, if you want an accurate trim but don't need it over a wide range I'd use a ordinary single turn pot with 'end stop' resistors in series. Graham |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
On the origin and workings of "Fast" Power supplies
"Arny Krueger" said:
I've always been under the impression that one favorable result of very large PS caps combined with modest coupling caps can be reduction of power supply-related turn on, and turn-off thumps. Thanks for admitting Arns that you don't own a decent amplifier, Arns. Any decent amp has a DC-protection by means of a relay. They're avaliable cheap from Velleman and many others as a kit. You *do* still remember how to solder nicely, Arns? ;-) LOL, LoT;'s etc. ;-) Note: this can't be done in just software, but rest assured: Velleman kits come with thorough, detailed instructions and many, many pictures. -- - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? - |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
"Ruud Broens" said:
ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly - as, in theory, they can't ! With sufficient thrust, pigs can fly just fine! ;-) -- - Ever seen someone with 5.1 ears? So, what does that tell you? - |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Fast" Power supplies
Sander deWaal wrote: "Ruud Broens" said: ok, please give us an explanation as to why bumblebees can fly - as, in theory, they can't ! With sufficient thrust, pigs can fly just fine! ;-) Try this one..... http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...5/bllcrtaa.gif This is today's btw. I love it. One of the best I've seen in ages, http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...2/07/steve.jpg Graham |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FA: Vintage Neve Console Modules, Panels, Power Supplies + much more | Pro Audio | |||
here is how firewire ports fail | Pro Audio | |||
List of NOS mostly tubes | Vacuum Tubes | |||
"The Audibility of Power Supplies" | Vacuum Tubes | |||
FS: SOUNDSTREAM CLOSEOUTS AND MORE!! | Car Audio |