| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" emitted : Score! I again blew Art's mind so badly that he just posted my post with no comments. Why bother going out! My sticky mouse is Arny's big visotry for the week. Life is soooo goood. |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Prove that the claim was false at the time it was made. Others in this group have proved that you manufacured the false headers regasding those supposed emails. Nope, try again. The alleged proof was full of holes. I debunked them with relevant references from RFCs. All non relevant, or misinterpreted. BTW Art, why not tell us what an RFC is? request for comment How many cries for help did it take Art, before one of your brighter associates bailed you out? I think you should spend the next two weeks guessing and fantasizing about it. |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" emitted : Score! I again blew Art's mind so badly that he just posted my post with no comments. Why bother going out! My sticky mouse is Arny's big visotry for the week. Life is soooo goood. For sure, I had no visotry this week. |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear said:
In particular - a non-complementary output stage is a great leap backwards. I believe that this is done since it's difficult to integrate useful PNP power transistors on the same chip process used for NPNs. Are you familiar with the Quad 303 and 405? :-) Many "ppl" I know still use them, to their satisfaction. In fact, I know of several designs available today that still use the Triplet configuration or a variant thereof. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 said:
Are ICs more predictable despite (or due to) the greater number of less-rigorously matched component parts? In case of normal opamps, I would say yes. Their behaviour is very predictable. Also, since all transistors are on the same chip, they're probably better matched and have the same temperature coefficients than discrete components. As opposed to discrete, which must be absolutely correct? This depends on your definition of "correct". There are ca. 100 transistors in an average opamp (give or take). Since it's easier in IC technology to emulate "resistors" and "capacitors" as transistor functions, their behaviour can be more predictable than discrete components. However, and I'll have to agree with Graham Pooh Bear here, you can't "reach" the internal components in an opamp. Hence, it's less easy to alter the circuit. I prefer discrete technology as well, because it leaves more room for design features. I'm rather old-fashioned, you will note. For simple functions as line- phono- or even mic preamps, and if the application wouldn't be too demanding, I'd select opamps. As I wrote earlier, "designing" with opamps is as exciting as watching paint dry, note. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear said:
I'm familiar with Steven Rochlin's use of language. Forgive me if I'm a bit sceptical about this :-) For someone to 'wax lyrical' about a bog standard National Semiconducor power op-amp reinforces my suspicion that there's no shortage of audio charlatans ! I would rather refer to "ppl" like Steven Rochlin or Harvey Rosenberg as "colorful". A charlatan is something else, you will note. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
news  Pooh Bear said: I'm familiar with Steven Rochlin's use of language. Forgive me if I'm a bit sceptical about this :-) For someone to 'wax lyrical' about a bog standard National Semiconducor power op-amp reinforces my suspicion that there's no shortage of audio charlatans ! I would rather refer to "ppl" like Steven Rochlin or Harvey Rosenberg as "colorful". OK, so they are your heroes Saner, and objectivity went out the window at your house. A charlatan is something else, you will note. They are thus, something else. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" said:
I would rather refer to "ppl" like Steven Rochlin or Harvey Rosenberg as "colorful". OK, so they are your heroes Saner, and objectivity went out the window at your house. That would be a rather quick and unfounded conclusion, Arny. To think of someone as "colorful" doesn't mean they're to be seen as heroes in my book. I have no heroes, just inspiration sources. I can't say that objectivity went "out of the window", but I'm probably not your average audio designer, note. I wouldn't call myself a genuine designer, either. Just a tinkerer. I try to reach my own conclusions based on as many sources I can get my dirty hands on. That would include subjective reviews as well. To be honest, I think the duality between subjectivity and objectivity is kept as a status quo on purpose by some people. I still happen to think that both can be equally valid in life. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
"MINe 109" wrote in message
Are ICs more predictable despite (or due to) the greater number of less-rigorously matched component parts? IC's are less predictable in the details. The usual work-around is to give them the equivalent of headroom when it comes to performance. IOW, they have overkill performance. In a typical audio circuit, the IC's might have gain that varies over a wide range, but that range is way in excess of what it takes to make things work. The parts are essentially dumbed down by circuit parameters, that are set by stable parts. Another approach is to make component performance dependent on the ratio of internal *component* values as opposed to the magnitude. A *resistor* on an IC chip might have a value that varies all over the map from chip to chip, but the ratio of its resistance that of the *resistor* next door is tightly controlled and they can track each other closely with temperature changes. So you make the circuit dependent on the ratio which remains tightly fixed. As opposed to discrete, which must be absolutely correct? Actually the same basic philosophy applied to discrete-built equipment. Once SS came to town, people had to deal with parts with critical parameters that varied by 5:1 and more. They just designed equipment so that it performed in spec with parts all at the low end of spec, and didn't break just because all the parts were at the high end of spec. Case in point, a Dyna PAS-3. The phono preamp is built out of two trodes with gain of about 100 each. The product of gains is 10,000 or 80 dB, less in real-world circuits. At 20 Hz the operationional gain might be 60 dB leaving 20 dB gain in reserve, used up as the tubes wear out. A comparable IC op amp might have a gain of several million, but plus minus quite a bit from chip to chip. However, the gain margin is quite a bit greater, and the part isn't as subject to wearing out with use. This is all very old, well-understood technology with examples of it showing up in Western Electric power amps from the 1930s. WE wanted their equipement to require minimal maintenance, so they overbuilt it, and sacrified initial performance for predictable. long lived performance. By the time they were building intercontenental telephone cables that were under the sea, they had the art and science of this down pat as well as could be expected with tubes. The difficulty of replacing a tube in the middle of the Atlantic drove their quest for solid state. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" said: I would rather refer to "ppl" like Steven Rochlin or Harvey Rosenberg as "colorful". OK, so they are your heroes Saner, and objectivity went out the window at your house. That would be a rather quick and unfounded conclusion, Arny. To think of someone as "colorful" doesn't mean they're to be seen as heroes in my book. Yes, but like Richman and Weil, you're ignoring a lot of hi-jinks on the part of your *friends*. I have no heroes, just inspiration sources. Whatever. I can't say that objectivity went "out of the window", but I'm probably not your average audio designer, note. OK. I wouldn't call myself a genuine designer, either. Just a tinkerer. OK. I try to reach my own conclusions based on as many sources I can get my dirty hands on. OK. That would include subjective reviews as well. I always prefer technical materials for reference while performing technical tasks, as opposed to poetry. To be honest, I think the duality between subjectivity and objectivity is kept as a status quo on purpose by some people. In the end, it seems like working as part of a team with more and more other people puts a premium on objectivity. I still happen to think that both can be equally valid in life. In their places... In the end audio is about producing a subjective result, listening pleasure. However being able to effectively use objective means can get you there faster and with less wasted resources. I see Rosenburg and Rochlin as guides who don't know the location of the end of the trip, unless the goal of the trip is emptying one's pocketbook into theirs. |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:19:13 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote: To be honest, I think the duality between subjectivity and objectivity is kept as a status quo on purpose by some people. I still happen to think that both can be equally valid in life. Nicely said. In fact, it's impossible to have objectivity without subjectivity. At some point, you have to make a subjective judgment, even if it's generated by objective means. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote" "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message He also favors a high THD in his RAO "designs" - total human distortion. Right down your alley, Bruce. BYW, why not tell us again why this is a perfectly normal posting: "The Devil" wrote in message news:d1s1i0ljbvdr9b1asv7eh4o092ah9d7i4c@rdmzrnewst xt.nz Inspiration has been lacking in other areas today, so I allowed my mind to journey in another direction. I was wondering what events in your past would turn you into the hopping flea-pit of insanity we see today. I have it on good authority that your mother cleaned the floors of an asylum and that is where she met your father. He was tethered upside down to a board, with various metal apparatus attaching his teeth to the wall so he couldn't bite off anyone's feet. Your mother, enchanted by upside-down things (particularly people), decided that she would mop the floor of his dungeon first and **** him afterwards. The impassioned upside-down **** created a child. To mother's delight, the child much preferred being kicked than hugged. It also enjoyed being taped upside down to the wall, with its pacifier in its arse, while mommy whipped it with light flex and breast fed its nostrils. Notice that Dr. Bruce Richman thinks that this is the absolute truth, and is a post from a perfectly sane individual. Note that David Weil, purported defender of truth, has nothing to say. What further indictment of the cowardice of Weil and Richman is needed? I agree with you, Arny, making fun of pompous frauds like Pooh Bear is right down my alley, especially after being targeted by him for unprovoked personal attacks. I'm sure he'll appreciate your support. As for the post you reproduced, I agree with you, Arny. The post, taken in its entirety, ie. Graham's (The Devil) commenjts, followed by your totally illogical and imaginary speculations about what the silence of others means ......... is a perfectly normal posting for Arny Krueger. It contains (1) an obviously satirical post from The Devil, (2) paranoid speculations about what a lack of response to The Dervil's post means when that lack comes from either Dr. Bruce Richman or Dave Weil, (3) an absence of similar paranoid speculations about the evil motives of others that didn't comment about The Devil's post - meaning that it's OK for everybody else to not respond, because they're not busily plotting against him, (4) Reaching the conclusion that Richman and Weil are coward, (5) Failing to mention that all the other people that didn't respond to The Devil's post are also cowards. What's wrong with this picture? You're right, Arny - For You, It's a Normal Post. For anybody else, P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A. Oh, and just to make you feel better, thanks for not commenting on 7 years of posts from Ferstler, and McKelvy in which numerous lies and libels have been written. You must be a coward, too. Get real, Krueger. Thanks for sharing Richman, you're a bigger fraud than I could have ever imagined. Prove it, liar. Your imagination is as flawed as your ability to keep in touch with reality. Your paranoia is a matter of public record. Your bull**** finally caught up with you and proved beyond any reasonable doubt that you're almost toally, irrationally paranoid and unable to accurately evaluate the world around you. So you rely on a 7 year history of pathological lying about others to delude yourself. I'd suggest you amend your post above to include the numerous individuals that failed to comment on The Devil's analysis of your childhood development. All the OTHER COWARDS that you forgot to mention are no doubt feeling terribly slighted by your serious failures to give them the credit they deserve. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message Sort of like your unprovoked personal attacks against others. You don't understand those either. Richman, I've lost count of your unprovoked attacks on me. If you want to go back to your *first* unprovoked personal attack against me, consisting of a complaint about email harassment which you sent to me via private email, then *nothing* according to the way you define"unprovoked" has been provoked. And no, Krueger, I can't prove it, but you threatened to report me to my ISP for an unsolicited email you lied and claimed I sent to you. I've never sent you any unsolicited email. Prove it. Disprove it. Sort of like th lies you're making now about people sending you kiddie porn. Prove it. Disprove it. Speaking of unprovoked personal attacks, Kruege, what would you call your recent (within the last few days) generation of an attack thread withi my name and Dave Weil's name in the title? I'm sure both Dave and I have lost count of the number of times you've tried to smear people by putting their names in the title of attack threads started by you. It wasn't an attack thread it was a defense againt the kind of libel that you promote, Richman. Bull****. Prove that you have not just committed another typical Krueger lie. You somehow came to the illogical conclusion that because I didn't comment one way or another on Graham's obviously satirical description of your early childhood upbringing - at least not at the time it was posted and until after you made your silly personal attack accusations. Wouldn't you call that an unp;rovoked personal attack? After all, it certainly was NOT based on anything I said about you, was it?:I Fact of the matter Richman, you've offered your justifcation of Devil's outragious post. It shows how your taste and judgment have gone down the sewer, and your conscience with it. Prove it. You don't have a conscience, Krueger. That's why you've been engaged in pathological llying and libeling about others for over 7 years. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" said:
To think of someone as "colorful" doesn't mean they're to be seen as heroes in my book. Yes, but like Richman and Weil, you're ignoring a lot of hi-jinks on the part of your *friends*. I think we all are quilty on that part. As I wrote recently: each and every one is responsible for his own words and actions. I'm not wasting my time commenting on everything everyone writes here. Unless my borders of decency are crossed, I'll keep my mouth shut. You may have noticed this last week. As far as "friends" go, any person I can have a nice chat with without being called names, could be a friend. Even if it's only via Internet. I have no heroes, just inspiration sources. Whatever. It's not the same, Arny. Not at all. In the end audio is about producing a subjective result, listening pleasure. This is what it's all about. How this result is achieved, isn't all that important. My new DAC runs on Biodiesel, note. However being able to effectively use objective means can get you there faster and with less wasted resources. I think you're right, but there's little fun in that for an old tinkerer like me. I see Rosenburg and Rochlin as guides who don't know the location of the end of the trip, unless the goal of the trip is emptying one's pocketbook into theirs. I think you're overestimating their influence and/or underestimating the intelligence of their readers. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote" "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message He also favors a high THD in his RAO "designs" - total human distortion. Right down your alley, Bruce. BYW, why not tell us again why this is a perfectly normal posting: "The Devil" wrote in message news:d1s1i0ljbvdr9b1asv7eh4o092ah9d7i4c@rdmzrnewst xt.nz Inspiration has been lacking in other areas today, so I allowed my mind to journey in another direction. I was wondering what events in your past would turn you into the hopping flea-pit of insanity we see today. I have it on good authority that your mother cleaned the floors of an asylum and that is where she met your father. He was tethered upside down to a board, with various metal apparatus attaching his teeth to the wall so he couldn't bite off anyone's feet. Your mother, enchanted by upside-down things (particularly people), decided that she would mop the floor of his dungeon first and **** him afterwards. The impassioned upside-down **** created a child. To mother's delight, the child much preferred being kicked than hugged. It also enjoyed being taped upside down to the wall, with its pacifier in its arse, while mommy whipped it with light flex and breast fed its nostrils. Notice that Dr. Bruce Richman thinks that this is the absolute truth, and is a post from a perfectly sane individual. Note that David Weil, purported defender of truth, has nothing to say. What further indictment of the cowardice of Weil and Richman is needed? I agree with you, Arny, making fun of pompous frauds like Pooh Bear is right down my alley, especially after being targeted by him for unprovoked personal attacks. I'm sure he'll appreciate your support. As for the post you reproduced, I agree with you, Arny. The post, taken in its entirety, ie. Graham's (The Devil) commenjts, followed by your totally illogical and imaginary speculations about what the silence of others means ......... is a perfectly normal posting for Arny Krueger. It contains (1) an obviously satirical post from The Devil, (2) paranoid speculations about what a lack of response to The Dervil's post means when that lack comes from either Dr. Bruce Richman or Dave Weil, (3) an absence of similar paranoid speculations about the evil motives of others that didn't comment about The Devil's post - meaning that it's OK for everybody else to not respond, because they're not busily plotting against him, (4) Reaching the conclusion that Richman and Weil are coward, (5) Failing to mention that all the other people that didn't respond to The Devil's post are also cowards. What's wrong with this picture? You're right, Arny - For You, It's a Normal Post. For anybody else, P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A. Oh, and just to make you feel better, thanks for not commenting on 7 years of posts from Ferstler, and McKelvy in which numerous lies and libels have been written. You must be a coward, too. Get real, Krueger. Thanks for sharing Richman, you're a bigger fraud than I could have ever imagined Prove it, liar. I just did, Bruce. Of course in your personal context, calling one's mother a pedophile might be considered normal, perhaps even complementary. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote" "Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message He also favors a high THD in his RAO "designs" - total human distortion. Right down your alley, Bruce. BYW, why not tell us again why this is a perfectly normal posting: "The Devil" wrote in message news:d1s1i0ljbvdr9b1asv7eh4o092ah9d7i4c@rdmzrnewst xt.nz Inspiration has been lacking in other areas today, so I allowed my mind to journey in another direction. I was wondering what events in your past would turn you into the hopping flea-pit of insanity we see today. I have it on good authority that your mother cleaned the floors of an asylum and that is where she met your father. He was tethered upside down to a board, with various metal apparatus attaching his teeth to the wall so he couldn't bite off anyone's feet. Your mother, enchanted by upside-down things (particularly people), decided that she would mop the floor of his dungeon first and **** him afterwards. The impassioned upside-down **** created a child. To mother's delight, the child much preferred being kicked than hugged. It also enjoyed being taped upside down to the wall, with its pacifier in its arse, while mommy whipped it with light flex and breast fed its nostrils. Notice that Dr. Bruce Richman thinks that this is the absolute truth, and is a post from a perfectly sane individual. Note that David Weil, purported defender of truth, has nothing to say. What further indictment of the cowardice of Weil and Richman is needed? I agree with you, Arny, making fun of pompous frauds like Pooh Bear is right down my alley, especially after being targeted by him for unprovoked personal attacks. I'm sure he'll appreciate your support. As for the post you reproduced, I agree with you, Arny. The post, taken in its entirety, ie. Graham's (The Devil) commenjts, followed by your totally illogical and imaginary speculations about what the silence of others means ......... is a perfectly normal posting for Arny Krueger. It contains (1) an obviously satirical post from The Devil, (2) paranoid speculations about what a lack of response to The Dervil's post means when that lack comes from either Dr. Bruce Richman or Dave Weil, (3) an absence of similar paranoid speculations about the evil motives of others that didn't comment about The Devil's post - meaning that it's OK for everybody else to not respond, because they're not busily plotting against him, (4) Reaching the conclusion that Richman and Weil are coward, (5) Failing to mention that all the other people that didn't respond to The Devil's post are also cowards. What's wrong with this picture? You're right, Arny - For You, It's a Normal Post. For anybody else, P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A. Oh, and just to make you feel better, thanks for not commenting on 7 years of posts from Ferstler, and McKelvy in which numerous lies and libels have been written. You must be a coward, too. Get real, Krueger. Thanks for sharing Richman, you're a bigger fraud than I could have ever imagined Prove it, liar. I just did, Bruce. Of course in your personal context, calling one's mother a pedophile might be considered normal, perhaps even complementary. All you did, Krueger, was deceptively delete part of my response that like those that so many make about you, exposed your raging paranoia and pathological lying. Your obsessions with pedophilia are your own creation, since you posted the contents of your child pornography email collection on RAO several years ago. If you hadn't posted them, they would not have come back to haunt you. No doubt you'll delete this portion of my response in a futile effort to cover up the truth about you which 99% of RAO has already realized. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message Are ICs more predictable despite (or due to) the greater number of less-rigorously matched component parts? IC's are less predictable in the details. The usual work-around is to give them the equivalent of headroom when it comes to performance. IOW, they have overkill performance. In a typical audio circuit, the IC's might have gain that varies over a wide range, but that range is way in excess of what it takes to make things work. The parts are essentially dumbed down by circuit parameters, that are set by stable parts. Another approach is to make component performance dependent on the ratio of internal *component* values as opposed to the magnitude. A *resistor* on an IC chip might have a value that varies all over the map from chip to chip, but the ratio of its resistance that of the *resistor* next door is tightly controlled and they can track each other closely with temperature changes. So you make the circuit dependent on the ratio which remains tightly fixed. Thank you. That's more or less what I wondered about. As opposed to discrete, which must be absolutely correct? Actually the same basic philosophy applied to discrete-built equipment. Once SS came to town, people had to deal with parts with critical parameters that varied by 5:1 and more. They just designed equipment so that it performed in spec with parts all at the low end of spec, and didn't break just because all the parts were at the high end of spec. Case in point, a Dyna PAS-3. The phono preamp is built out of two trodes with gain of about 100 each. The product of gains is 10,000 or 80 dB, less in real-world circuits. At 20 Hz the operationional gain might be 60 dB leaving 20 dB gain in reserve, used up as the tubes wear out. A comparable IC op amp might have a gain of several million, but plus minus quite a bit from chip to chip. However, the gain margin is quite a bit greater, and the part isn't as subject to wearing out with use. This is all very old, well-understood technology with examples of it showing up in Western Electric power amps from the 1930s. WE wanted their equipement to require minimal maintenance, so they overbuilt it, and sacrified initial performance for predictable. long lived performance. By the time they were building intercontenental telephone cables that were under the sea, they had the art and science of this down pat as well as could be expected with tubes. The difficulty of replacing a tube in the middle of the Atlantic drove their quest for solid state. I had a better handle on this stuff. Thanks. Stephen |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote: MINe 109 said: Are ICs more predictable despite (or due to) the greater number of less-rigorously matched component parts? In case of normal opamps, I would say yes. Their behaviour is very predictable. Also, since all transistors are on the same chip, they're probably better matched and have the same temperature coefficients than discrete components. As opposed to discrete, which must be absolutely correct? This depends on your definition of "correct". There are ca. 100 transistors in an average opamp (give or take). Since it's easier in IC technology to emulate "resistors" and "capacitors" as transistor functions, their behaviour can be more predictable than discrete components. This is what I meant! However, and I'll have to agree with Graham Pooh Bear here, you can't "reach" the internal components in an opamp. Hence, it's less easy to alter the circuit. I prefer discrete technology as well, because it leaves more room for design features. I'm rather old-fashioned, you will note. For simple functions as line- phono- or even mic preamps, and if the application wouldn't be too demanding, I'd select opamps. As I wrote earlier, "designing" with opamps is as exciting as watching paint dry, note. Doing that now, note, thanks to the re-striping crew's visit to my parking lot. Thanks. Should we all start calling you "Saner"? You do seem to have it together. Stephen |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
MINe 109 said:
Should we all start calling you "Saner"? You do seem to have it together. I have my lucid moments, note. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
MINe 109 said: Are ICs more predictable despite (or due to) the greater number of less-rigorously matched component parts? In case of normal opamps, I would say yes. Their behaviour is very predictable. Also, since all transistors are on the same chip, they're probably better matched and have the same temperature coefficients than discrete components. As opposed to discrete, which must be absolutely correct? This depends on your definition of "correct". There are ca. 100 transistors in an average opamp (give or take). Since it's easier in IC technology to emulate "resistors" and "capacitors" as transistor functions, their behaviour can be more predictable than discrete components. However, and I'll have to agree with Graham Pooh Bear here, you can't "reach" the internal components in an opamp. Hence, it's less easy to alter the circuit. I prefer discrete technology as well, because it leaves more room for design features. I'm rather old-fashioned, you will note. For simple functions as line- phono- or even mic preamps, and if the application wouldn't be too demanding, I'd select opamps. As I wrote earlier, "designing" with opamps is as exciting as watching paint dry, note. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote: There are ca. 100 transistors in an average opamp (give or take). Actually more like in the region of 15-20 typically ( per opamp). So a quad op-amp package would have around 60-80 transistors. Graham |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote:
Pooh Bear said: In particular - a non-complementary output stage is a great leap backwards. I believe that this is done since it's difficult to integrate useful PNP power transistors on the same chip process used for NPNs. Are you familiar with the Quad 303 and 405? :-) Many "ppl" I know still use them, to their satisfaction. In fact, I know of several designs available today that still use the Triplet configuration or a variant thereof. I know of them, have seen their schematics, have heard them on occasions etc. Neither ever impressed me. Graham. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote: Pooh Bear wrote: I don't understand its relationship to audio matters. Sort of like your unprovoked personal attacks against others. You don't understand those either. Unprovoked ? You, BJR are the expert in the field of personal attacks. I'm not sure I've actually seen a post of yours that had meaningful content relating to audio but plenty containing abuse. As has been posted by others, if you really are a practicing psychiatrist, it is deeply disturbing. Graham |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:
If you want to go back to your *first* unprovoked personal attack against me, The classic sign of a real fruit and nut case - a self-absorbing interest in the 'history' of the attacks on him. Been fretting over that for how many years ? Graham |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear said:
Are you familiar with the Quad 303 and 405? :-) I know of them, have seen their schematics, have heard them on occasions etc. Neither ever impressed me. Me neither, but in their days they were the top of the bill. There was a Dutch manufacturer, Hawk Audio (still exists!) that sold kits in the '80s based on the triplet output and Quad topology in general. They sounded fairly well for class B amps. As recently as the mid-'90s, Audio Innovations launched their "Alto", which also used some form of triplet. Hardly an "Innovation", but a decent amp altogether. Especially for the money ( about $500). -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pooh Bear said:
There are ca. 100 transistors in an average opamp (give or take). Actually more like in the region of 15-20 typically ( per opamp). So a quad op-amp package would have around 60-80 transistors. Thanks for the correction. As you probably noted, I don't like ICs much. -- Sander deWaal "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient." |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Paul Dormer" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" emitted : Score! I again blew Art's mind so badly that he just posted my post with no comments. Why bother going out! My sticky mouse is Arny's big visotry for the week. Life is soooo goood. For sure, I had no visotry this week. "Visotry" is not listed at Dictionary.com Maybe you meant victory. Or is "visotry" some kind of religious term for the voices you hear in your head? |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: My sticky mouse is Arny's big visotry for the week. Why don't your misspellings ever make me laugh? Hey, thats a good one. I made up a new word for the voices in Arnie's head |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Dormer" wrote in message ... For the uninitiated, the Gaincard is a simplistic amplifier produced by 47 Laboratory, which at it's heart uses apparently mundane National Semiconductor's IC opamps. The DIY fraternaty reverse engineered the Gaincard and now *hundreds* of people worldwide are building Gaincard clones or modifications thereof, referred to as Gainclones. I have now read a few reviews of these amps and, for the most part, it seems reviewers have *transandental* experiences with them. Comments..? **The Gaincard is a con-job. It is far from a "simplistic amplifier". Like all single chip amps, it is exceedingly complex. It just happens to be simple and cheap to manufacture. The gaincard has other limitations, however. Most are power supply related. The power supply is so pitiful that the gaincard has difficulty driving full range and/or difficult loads. Given an easy load and/or a restricted LF speaker system, it sounds OK. Kinda like a Naim Nait. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... The classic sign of a real fruit and nut case - a self-absorbing interest in the 'history' of the attacks on him. Sounds like "Krueger" to me!! |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Paul Dormer" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" emitted : Score! I again blew Art's mind so badly that he just posted my post with no comments. Why bother going out! My sticky mouse is Arny's big visotry for the week. Life is soooo goood. For sure, I had no visotry this week. "Visotry" is not listed at Dictionary.com Maybe you meant victory. Or is "visotry" some kind of religious term for the voices you hear in your head? It might be. Krueger and his little sockpuppet pal, Torresists, are trying to write a new dictionary. According to them, repetition of factual information about Krueger ............ equals "insanity". It looks like they are hoping that silence will take its place. Sort of like Holocaust deniers. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
"George M. Middius" wrote in message .. . Clyde Slick said: My sticky mouse is Arny's big visotry for the week. Why don't your misspellings ever make me laugh? Hey, thats a good one. I made up a new word for the voices in Arnie's head Here's are a few other words for the voices in Arny's head - Torresists, McKelvy and Lionel. Bruce J. Richman |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... I'm serously considering the purchase of a rather expensive integrated amplifier, but have wondered if the compromises involved - compared to separates - are all that serious. For the particular brand involved, the separates would be at least twice as expensive, offer no power advantages, but *do* feature Class A operation whereas the integrated runs in A/B. Both their integrated amplifiers and their power ampliiers regularly get accolades from many reviewers. The brand is Plinius. Comments are welcome. **Plinius do not operate their amps in Class A. They are heavily biased Class A/B designs. Just the same as most competent designs. BTW: IMO, there are better amps than Plinius, though Plinus amps are decent enough. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Paul Dormer" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" emitted : Score! I again blew Art's mind so badly that he just posted my post with no comments. Why bother going out! My sticky mouse is Arny's big visotry for the week. Life is soooo goood. For sure, I had no visotry this week. "Visotry" is not listed at Dictionary.com Maybe you meant victory. Or is "visotry" some kind of religious term for the voices you hear in your head? oops, was my typo "at least " I accidently made up a new word to describe the voices Arny hears in his head |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote: Pooh Bear said: Are you familiar with the Quad 303 and 405? :-) I know of them, have seen their schematics, have heard them on occasions etc. Neither ever impressed me. Me neither, but in their days they were the top of the bill. Some ppl thought so. Can't say I was convinced. There was a Dutch manufacturer, Hawk Audio (still exists!) that sold kits in the '80s based on the triplet output and Quad topology in general. They sounded fairly well for class B amps. As recently as the mid-'90s, Audio Innovations launched their "Alto", which also used some form of triplet. Hardly an "Innovation", but a decent amp altogether. Especially for the money ( about $500). IIRC the 'triplet' on the 303 was still only quasi-complementary. A power device, a driver and a pre-driver I think. One of my own designs - early 90s - used a 'quadruplet' : same as above but 2 stages of pre-drivers. A reason for this was to present a *very* high reflected impedance to the prior voltage gain stage which effectively eliminated amplifier load impedance from affecting the loop gain and phase response - and also hence stability. DC current gain alone didn't require it. It was also fully-complementary too. Worked rather well. My best measuring and sounding power amp designs would have to be lateral mosfet output device based types though. Sadly, the price performance required of modern pro-audio today prevents their use in mainstream products now. Graham |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ... I'm serously considering the purchase of a rather expensive integrated amplifier, but have wondered if the compromises involved - compared to separates - are all that serious. For the particular brand involved, the separates would be at least twice as expensive, offer no power advantages, but *do* feature Class A operation whereas the integrated runs in A/B. Both their integrated amplifiers and their power ampliiers regularly get accolades from many reviewers. The brand is Plinius. Comments are welcome. **Plinius do not operate their amps in Class A. They are heavily biased Class A/B designs. Just the same as most competent designs. http://www.pliniusaudio.com/pro/pro02.htm Then the Plinius SA-102 described on their web site is being misrepresented? Most of the reviews I've seen of this power amplifier, its predecessor and the larger power amplifiers made by Plinius describe these products as basic power amplifiers operating in Class A, and not just for the first few watts. Their integrated amplifiers, of course, and I think perhaps some of their less expensive power amplifiers, are A/B biased as you say. I haven't had a chance to personally audition one yet, so I have a very open mind re. their sound. Nor am I questioning your claim. However, please note that the company's web site specifies in several paragraphs that the SA-102 is a Class A operated amplifier. BTW: IMO, there are better amps than Plinius, though Plinus amps are decent enough. The brand your company represents is, to the best of my knowledge, not currently being distributed in the US. So, if that's what you meant by there being "better amps", I probably can't compare them without taking a rather lengthy trip  -- Several years ago, before Steve Zipser passed away, I had the opportunity to some of the Class A amplifiers made by Pass for which he was a dealer. (These were the small, single-ended, one- or two-gain stage Aleph amplifiers). I felt they were very musical, with no evidence of edginess, sterility (for want of a better descriptive term) or thinness I've heard with some other SS amplifiers (Krell is the first that comes to mind). Unfortunately, the ones I heard were either too small (25 or 50 watts in to 8 ohms) or too expensive for me to even consider at the time. (And yes, I know that watts per se is not the most important determinant of how well an amplifier and speaker will interface). All that said, I've wondered whether the hype surrounding Class A amplifiers is warranted. Many subjective reviewers claim they sound better. OTOH, they throw a lot of heat, and all other things being equal, appear to cost a lot more than similarly spec'd A/B designs. Your opinions would be welcome. Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au Bruce J. Richman |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Prove that the claim was false at the time it was made. Others in this group have proved that you manufacured the false headers regasding those supposed emails. Nope, try again. The alleged proof was full of holes. I debunked them with relevant references from RFCs. BTW Art, why not tell us what an RFC is? Just popping in to say HI. I understand that an RFC is a 'request for comment' as when setting internet standards. Graham |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Audio Myths was "System I'm designing - two questions" | Car Audio | |||
| Audio Myths was "System I'm designing - two questions" | Car Audio | |||
| amps, amps, amps | Car Audio | |||
| Tons of stuff to sell - amps, head unit, processors, etc. | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
