"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


" wrote:

not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state
excepting
around the edges.

You are JOKING !

You can't understand much about modern solid state design.

Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago.
And
that's for starters !

35 years ago was 1971, and I had been building and repairing SS amps for
about 8 years at the time.

The true complementary pair was well-known and widely used in 1971. For
example, they were widely used as drivers for quasi-complementary output
stages. Common part numbers were 2N3053 and 2N4037 if memory serves.

As *drivers* !!!!!!!!!!!

You never said complementary pair of what. However below, I show a amp
design from 1967 below that had complementary pre-drivers, drviers, and
outputs.

Please pay attention Arny !

Say what you mean.

I said ' complementary output ' - NOT - ' quasi-complementary output' !
There's
a HUGE difference.Not least in the sound.

Actually, the post I responded to does not contain the word "output" or any
synonyms.

There were some issues with the costs of high powered complementary
pairs,
but their use was well-known. Bart Locanthi is well-known for his design
of
the full complementary "T circuit" which appeared in a JBL power amp in
the
mid - 1960s. Please see this 1967 article
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/.../tcir/tcir.pdf My
recollection
is that the amp was new on the market at the time this article was
published.

I may get round to reading that since you recommend it.

It proves my point, including outputs.

The simple truth however is that it was device technology advances that
made
proper fully-complementary outputs viable only in the mid 70s.

Check my reference which is clearly dated 1967.

Speakers will use
better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.

Also better materials for magnets.

What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

Or at least control it.

Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD /
somputer
modelling to optimise designs.

Agreed. Circuit modeling has greatly assisted the design of low
distortion
circuits.

It's actually a fascinating area. As long ago as 1989 I was using Mathcad
to
create my own models for amplifier gain/phase/stability calculations.
Today's
off the shelf packages make it so much easier but the user may not fully
understand the underlying principles any more though.

In 1965 I was writing Fortran programs that simulated the nonlinear
performance of transistors. I accurately predicted the distortion of an
emitter follower for example.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


" wrote:

not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state
excepting
around the edges.

You are JOKING !

You can't understand much about modern solid state design.

Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago.
And
that's for starters !

35 years ago was 1971, and I had been building and repairing SS amps for
about 8 years at the time.

The true complementary pair was well-known and widely used in 1971. For
example, they were widely used as drivers for quasi-complementary output
stages. Common part numbers were 2N3053 and 2N4037 if memory serves.

As *drivers* !!!!!!!!!!!

You never said complementary pair of what.

" complementary output " has a *very* clear definition as far as I'm concerned.
That's why your example is called a " quasi-complementary output ". No
possibility of misunderstanding at all.


However below, I show a amp
design from 1967 below that had complementary pre-drivers, drviers, and
outputs.

Please pay attention Arny !

Say what you mean.

Pay attention to detail.


I said ' complementary output ' - NOT - ' quasi-complementary output' !
There's
a HUGE difference.Not least in the sound.

Actually, the post I responded to does not contain the word "output" or any
synonyms.

Now you're being obtuse.

Anyone with any relevant knowledge would understand full well what I was
referring to !

Graham

Poopie said to the Krooborg:

Now you're being obtuse.

I can't believe it, Poopie -- you actually said something accurate.

Anyone with any relevant knowledge would understand full well what I was
referring to !

Maybe, but you've now entered the "debating trade" zone. In this
peculiar dimension, your human values of communication are meaningless.
Clarity of language is subordinate to Krooglish. Logic is supplanted by
reflexive contradiction. Argumentation replaces facts, knowledge is
subsumed by lying, and religion takes supreamacy over science.

Don't go too far without a guide, Poopie. Even a lesser 'borg has
something to lose in the "debating trade" zone.