| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Audio Discussions » HELP: I’m a line-level looser. (23 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (23 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Preamplifiers: keys to mystery. (Lamm L1, L2)..  In analog domain...  Audio Discussions  Forum     2  63556  11-14-2004
  »  New  The ultimate buffer – light in the end of a tunnel..  A few minor corrections...  Audio Discussions  Forum     36  403434  04-28-2005
  »  New  The ultimate buffer #2...?..  invisible preamps...  Audio Discussions  Forum     3  45122  11-23-2006
  »  New  Lamm hybrids: M1.2 vs. Lamm M1.1..  Lamm hybrids: M1.2 vs. Lamm M1.1...  Audio Discussions  Forum     0  30265  12-12-2007
  »  New  Lamm introduced LL1 Signature Preamp…..  An Oscar for the most retarded comment printed in audio...  Audio Discussions  Forum     19  164627  05-16-2009
  »  New  A quests for an ultimate preamp...  This is a dreamlist - based on real life needs that I h...  Audio Discussions  Forum     9  73184  05-16-2009
04-01-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 21
Post ID: 857
Reply to: 856
My vision of transparency...
 Thorsten wrote:
Even a pair of RCA Jacks and a wire inbetween is not transparent.
T, thanks for the pitching of the 6AS7 SRPP.

I would disagree with the quoted statement. I think you guys are not correctly understanding my definition of “transparency”. My vision of transparency is a situation when tonal, contrast and dynamic DIFFERENTIATION of notes are not changed. There are no RCA jacks that can do it. The jacks might bring some tonal coloration but they NEVER change the "differentiation" capacity of a component. I would LOVE to have a buffer that would introduce only a RCA jack-level lack of transparency! It would be completely irrelevant for me what kind permanent tonal discrepancies the buffer would have – I can deal with it. Unfortunately the buffers I've seen did something more miserable – the vibrant discrepancies and minimization of sonic granularity ....this is what I would like do not have.

Rgs, The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
04-01-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul Scearce
Posts 12
Joined on 07-26-2004

Post #: 22
Post ID: 858
Reply to: 855
Re:Some more unexpected thoughts

symbicort

symbicort read

tiotropium

tiotropium
If the high ac voltage of the Melquiades amp is what allows it to operate with the same coupling cap that doesn't work with the buffer, perhaps there is some hysteresis going on in the capacitor. In that case I think it may help to use a smaller coupling cap inside a feedback loop. The feedback should restore the bandwidth lost by using a smaller capacitor, and I think reducing the amount of dialectric would reduce the hysteresis.

Is there something to be gained by using such a low rolloff frequency?

Paul
04-01-2005 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 10,184
Joined on 05-28-2004

Post #: 23
Post ID: 859
Reply to: 858
Further sonic humiliation.

abortion options at 6 weeks

abortion options

cialis generico prezzo in farmacia

acquistare cialis 5 mg open

Paul, I clearly have no idea; I am purely fishing in here.

Regarding use of feedback in my buffer there was an interesting experience with it. Among the buffers that I tried there was two that used feedback: one was a an exact replica of Melquiades input stage with a loop to kill it’s gain and another was a current-biased anode follower. Both feedback buffers sounded worth among all other buffers that I tried. 

Interesting that when I used the Melquiades input stage (with no feedback) as a buffer and reduced a sensitivity of the Melquiades power amp then I had a certain Result (not perfect result but just a Result). However, when I removed the voltage devider form the power amp and reduced the buffer’s gain via introducing of a feedback to the buffer then that Result was divided by 1000 quality-wise. The sound was completely killed and I did not even anticipated how bad it would be.

I have to note that I have no opinion of agenda about benefits of feedback and do know well performing equipment that use feedback and sound perfectly fine. However in my case the feedback was a complete sonic humiliation…

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 2 of 2 (23 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Preamplifiers: keys to mystery. (Lamm L1, L2)..  In analog domain...  Audio Discussions  Forum     2  63556  11-14-2004
  »  New  The ultimate buffer – light in the end of a tunnel..  A few minor corrections...  Audio Discussions  Forum     36  403434  04-28-2005
  »  New  The ultimate buffer #2...?..  invisible preamps...  Audio Discussions  Forum     3  45122  11-23-2006
  »  New  Lamm hybrids: M1.2 vs. Lamm M1.1..  Lamm hybrids: M1.2 vs. Lamm M1.1...  Audio Discussions  Forum     0  30265  12-12-2007
  »  New  Lamm introduced LL1 Signature Preamp…..  An Oscar for the most retarded comment printed in audio...  Audio Discussions  Forum     19  164627  05-16-2009
  »  New  A quests for an ultimate preamp...  This is a dreamlist - based on real life needs that I h...  Audio Discussions  Forum     9  73184  05-16-2009
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts