Any audiophile amp forum?

[J M Fahey]

Dear Alan, I don't deserve your angry words in big bold red letters, specially because I write nothing you haven't said before, all by yourself and by your own will.
Just copying and pasting your own words:
(from DYAudio thread Power supply for power amp. - diyAudio )

Old 1st April 2014, 03:05 AM #1
Alan0354 is offline Alan0354 United States
diyAudio Member

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: US

Default Power supply for power amp.
Hi

I am new here and I am interested in building a SS power amp. I have been an EE for a long time and designed guitar electronics before, but I absolutely know nothing about audiophile electronics. My first question is about power supply.

1) What is the requirement of the power supply other than the obvious reason to supply power?

2) Is regulated power supply good for audiophile amp or you want to add some sag like in guitar amps?

I know this is kind of stupid question, in guitar amps, people don't like stiff supply, they want sag. So I don't want to take for granted one way or the other.

[jazbo8]

My Dear Alan - Please calm down , you are the one that has been RUDE to many members on this and other threads, you have been accusing people that disagree with you, including published authors of not knowing their stuff all the while ignoring helpful suggestions. Sometimes I think you made these stuff up just to get a rise out of people - reminds me of Monty Python's Argument Sketech. Take it easy before you bust a vein...

[Alan0354]

My Dear Alan - Please calm down , you are the one that has been RUDE to many members on this and other threads, you have been accusing people that disagree with you, including published authors of not knowing their stuff all the while ignoring helpful suggestions. Sometimes I think you made these stuff up just to get a rise out of people - reminds me of Monty Python's Argument Sketech. Take it easy before you bust a vein...

I know you are talking about the noise of parallel tubes. I never accusing anyone in the other thread, disagree is rude? I presented my case, I don't agree, I backed up with calculation. I don't use sarcasm and I don't appreciate sarcasm, I get to the point. If you don't agree, state your case. Just because it's the author does not make him right, not to mention he agree with my finding, just not the conclusion. You cannot take something as golden and dismiss anything else.

Noise is a subject that is a well researched, well proven in the last 40 years. Those are the basics that can be found in books that deal with noise. I did not invent anything or making stuff up, just follow the standard procedure in books. If you care to stop and read the articles provided by JMF in post #14 http://users.ece.gatech.edu/mleach/papers/Parallel.pdf. I am glad I did not even site this article, JMF did, and I agree with the article and that's what I have been doing.

But of cause, if you refuse to read this, then you just treat me as rude and make up stuff to get a rise out of people.

[jazbo8]

Do you even have a high end system at home? Or you are just talking only with the experience in the recording studio?

If you are not into audiophile, I don't think you can appreciate this.

Not even going to bring back the noise thread, glad it is over and done with... May be it's just me, but the above comments seem rude (there are many more along the same line) - may be that's not your intention and perhaps it's just your wording, however, this sort of reaction from you seems to be quite common - when someone has an alternate view, you would "suggest" that they don't know what they are talking about, or they lack the "proper persepctive" or they are plainly in no position to comment for one reason or another. You may not see it that way, but that's how your posts read to many members. At times, you do make some good points, and for that we are thankful, but please get off your high horse and talk like a normal person for a change.

[Alan0354]

Not even going to bring back the noise thread, glad it is over and done with... May be it's just me, but the above comments seem rude (there are many more along the same line) - may be that's not your intention and perhaps it's just your wording, however, this sort of reaction from you seems to be quite common - when someone has an alternate view, you would "suggest" that they don't know what they are talking about, or they lack the "proper persepctive" or they are plainly in no position to comment for one reason or another. You may not see it that way, but that's how your posts read to many members. At times, you do make some good points, and for that we are thankful, but please get off your high horse and talk like a normal person for a change.

How do you feel if someone keep telling you over and over the way you enjoy listening to music is wrong?

[überfuzz]

How do you feel if someone keep telling you over and over the way you enjoy listening to music is wrong?

Hm, you must refer to comments like:

If you are not into audiophile, I don't think you can appreciate this.

Right? Depends on who says it. In this case it's just fun to listen in on the conversation.

[km6xz]

Alan, I doubt anyone was even mentioning how you "enjoy listening to music", that is pure subjective aesthetic taste with cultural training. What got comments, and rightly so, was your jumping to conclusions about technical hardware claims as causes of subjective preferences. That sort of thing belongs in forums on religion or homeopathy or other non-reality based beliefs.
What is curious to several of us is how someone trained in engineering so easily puts that out of mind to jump to illogical conclusions without questioning the root causes. Without an attempt to limit uncontrolled variables, the subjective tests you are basing your claims on, are totally worthless and misleading at best. An engineer by nature would look for those variables that influence the apparent results.
Make purely subjective preference statements all you want, few people would even pay attention to them but making claims of causes with insufficient or missing evidence is going to raise eyebrows and get comments.
I have a feeling that you are not an engineer, since you do not approach problems like one, or are an engineer who likes to stir up shit on forums to get a rise out of everyone.

[überfuzz]

km6xy - But lest be honestly parts of this forum thrive on people postings questions where they tells us what they want or would like to build. Then veterans, occasionally me, go in and tell them what they really want. Well, sometimes we come across posters that have invested pride and prestige into their dream gizmo's.

[J M Fahey]

Well, of course Alan is not an Engineer (or he's a very dogmatic and poorly trained one )

I've found him all over the Net, showing always the same modus operandi.

1) he starts by asking questions in a very humble, self dismissing tone, both to trigger our "helping hand" side and get answers in good faith, and to make us not suspect his technical errors.

"He's a newbie asking a few questions, right? "

2) soon he starts to contradict answers, start changing the subject, rules, etc.

3) he's *often* suggested some books and articles and suggested he should read them carefully ("go study something, kid")

4) amazing as you would imagine, *********he disagrees with textbooks ******** , says they are wrong or just plain typos.

5) when everybody is fed up with him, he moves on to another Forum where he starts the cycle again.
Funny thing is that he introduces himself as an "expert" on a field he ignored and lheard about in the earlier forum !!!!!

Examples:

>>in DIY Audio he introduces himself as a Guitar Amp designer ..... while here he was just a stumbling toddler learning to walk

>> here he introduced himself as an RF/antenna/etc. 30 year experienced EE .... yetI found him in a July 2013 post (hardly 30 years ago ) wondering about "an antenna book" he was reading, asking for help about some basic equations he didn't understand, and ..... wait for this .... finding the book *wrong*
>> also found him in an advanced Math Forum, cutting and pasting huge equations which he clearly didn't understand.
Yes .... you guessed right .... he found errors in the books.
And when he was gently explained how to solve his doubts, that he was seeing the equations wrong, that he failed to see that two answers were exactly the same ..... he kicked the table, said "they still are different to me" and left never to return again.

Then I found him in "Strat Talk" Forum, with over 4500 posts .... but we all know such Forums are 99% opinion/emotion based (with a few honourable exceptions) so there he's happy and well adapted.

But on FACT based Forums .... sparks and smoke start quickly.

Some Net findings, backing what I said above:

1) in Help deriving this Bessel function formula - My Math Forum
he starts by:
A - "I am studying Bessel Function in my antenna theory book"
Really??
A "30 years experienced EE" is wondering about Antennas 101 stuff?
If he didn't learn it some 34 years ago, he would never have become an EE to begin with.

2) in Question on interval of integration of Bessel Function - My Math Forum
"the books are wrong" .... REALLY ???????

A - "I have issue with this. Here is my reasoning: ZZZZZ
On the first pass, it looks reasonable. BUT the fraud is it is using the original assumption that only JJJJ. This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE
I think the book and the article have typos."

And so on and on in countless Forums.

EXPERTS are WRONG

BOOKS are WRONG

ALAN0354 is the only one who KNOWS THE TRUTH.

Not sure whether it's somebody with a twisted sense of what's fun or simply a mental case, anyway I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.

[Alan0354]

My Dear Alan - Please calm down , you are the one that has been RUDE to many members on this and other threads, you have been accusing people that disagree with you, including published authors of not knowing their stuff all the while ignoring helpful suggestions. Sometimes I think you made these stuff up just to get a rise out of people

You want to know what is so frustrating and must be showing in my response?

This is a technical forum, that people are technical oriented, that people have the knowledge, not like in other guitar forums that people believe in snake oil.

You mentioned the parallel tube thread, did you and a few other people really stop, read my presentations, read the article JMF sited? Pages of response saying "the books said if you parallel two devices, you reduce noise by 3dB". No matter how I tried to proof, no matter the article JMF showed using the EXACT approach and calculations, coming to the EXACT same conclusion I came to....................."Sometimes I think you made these stuff up just to get a rise out of people"!!! If only people just stop, don't even have to listen a single word I said, just spend an hour reading the article JMF sited, you would understand EXACTLY what I was trying to convey. But no, I can just read between lines that "Sometimes I think you made these stuff up just to get a rise out of people"!!! That was in the theory section and I thought people will spend the time understanding each other when there is a disagreement. I am sure my frustration showed AND I am not going to apologize for that. BECAUSE, I did spend over an hour reading the articles..........and I am glad the article drew the same conclusion.

Here, I was being told I was wrong in the way I listen!!! This, is not theory. This, there is no right or wrong!!! How many times I had to say "I don't care how the recording is done, I just want to listen to the end product......the DVD and the CD that were being recorded? What took the cake is when I said I brought my own CD.....a CD of the music I like Spiro Gyra to be specific..................The response was......"You .... own ... a .... CD? Wow" !!!!............"You are crazy, it's exactly the opposite."

[Alan0354]

Well, of course Alan is not an Engineer (or he's a very dogmatic and poorly trained one )

I've found him all over the Net, showing always the same modus operandi.

1) he starts by asking questions in a very humble, self dismissing tone, both to trigger our "helping hand" side and get answers in good faith, and to make us not suspect his technical errors.

"He's a newbie asking a few questions, right? "

2) soon he starts to contradict answers, start changing the subject, rules, etc.

3) he's *often* suggested some books and articles and suggested he should read them carefully ("go study something, kid")

4) amazing as you would imagine, *********he disagrees with textbooks ******** , says they are wrong or just plain typos.

5) when everybody is fed up with him, he moves on to another Forum where he starts the cycle again.
Funny thing is that he introduces himself as an "expert" on a field he ignored and lheard about in the earlier forum !!!!!

Examples:

>>in DIY Audio he introduces himself as a Guitar Amp designer ..... while here he was just a stumbling toddler learning to walk

>> here he introduced himself as an RF/antenna/etc. 30 year experienced EE .... yetI found him in a July 2013 post (hardly 30 years ago ) wondering about "an antenna book" he was reading, asking for help about some basic equations he didn't understand, and ..... wait for this .... finding the book *wrong*
>> also found him in an advanced Math Forum, cutting and pasting huge equations which he clearly didn't understand.
Yes .... you guessed right .... he found errors in the books.
And when he was gently explained how to solve his doubts, that he was seeing the equations wrong, that he failed to see that two answers were exactly the same ..... he kicked the table, said "they still are different to me" and left never to return again.

Then I found him in "Strat Talk" Forum, with over 4500 posts .... but we all know such Forums are 99% opinion/emotion based (with a few honourable exceptions) so there he's happy and well adapted.

But on FACT based Forums .... sparks and smoke start quickly.

Some Net findings, backing what I said above:

1) in Help deriving this Bessel function formula - My Math Forum
he starts by:
A - "I am studying Bessel Function in my antenna theory book"
Really??
A "30 years experienced EE" is wondering about Antennas 101 stuff?
If he didn't learn it some 34 years ago, he would never have become an EE to begin with.

2) in Question on interval of integration of Bessel Function - My Math Forum
"the books are wrong" .... REALLY ???????

And so on and on in countless Forums.

EXPERTS are WRONG

BOOKS are WRONG

ALAN0354 is the only one who KNOWS THE TRUTH.

Not sure whether it's somebody with a twisted sense of what's fun or simply a mental case, anyway I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.

I am not going to response to your down to the dirt style, I don't stood down to your level.

If you disagree with me in the other forums, you can join in and we debate. These are not subject relevant to this forum here, I am not going to challenge you whether you even know those stuff. I don't call names, and talk like you. And I don't have time to research on you to trash talk.

[walkman]

So Alan give us a design, an original design and provide references and some sort of documentation or guidance of how you realized that design. I may have disagreed with J.M.Fahey on an occasion but know that most of the members on this forum who are electronics experts ( unlike myself ) are also very good at explaining things too (I have been told that I ramble somewhat at times). This is what makes this forum a pleasure to read.

By that yardstick explain yourself .... and make it brief, and to the point!

[walkman]

So Alan give us a design, an original design and provide references and some sort of documentation or guidance of how you realized that design. I may have disagreed with J.M.Fahey on an occasion but know that most of the members on this forum who are electronics experts ( unlike myself ) are also very good at explaining things too (I have been told that I ramble somewhat at times). This is what makes this forum a pleasure to read.

By that yardstick explain yourself .... and make it brief, and to the point!

[jazbo8]

You mentioned the parallel tube thread, did you and a few other people really stop, read my presentations, read the article JMF sited?

Dear Alan, there you go again, you are "suggesting" that ONLY YOU bother to read or know how to interpret the results from the paper or what you posted - if that is not arrogance, I don't know what you call it. Look man, I hate to keep beating on a dead horse - as others and I have already said (even if you did not want to or unwilling to hear) that the 3dB noise reduction is the theoretical upper limit - you did not need to provide us with a proof - we already know that. In fact, Dr. Leach's opening paragraph clearly stated exactly the reason why - unless you have neglegible source resistance, the noise from the paralleled devices will have correlation, thus the 3dB noise reduction can not be realized in the actual circuit. Now can we please move on to something more productive and enligtening...

[Alan0354]

So Alan give us a design, an original design and provide references and some sort of documentation or guidance of how you realized that design. I may have disagreed with J.M.Fahey on an occasion but know that most of the members on this forum who are electronics experts ( unlike myself ) are also very good at explaining things too (I have been told that I ramble somewhat at times). This is what makes this forum a pleasure to read.

By that yardstick explain yourself .... and make it brief, and to the point!

Design on what? You mean other designs of my own in my career?

These are my idea and design and were published in the prestige American Institution of Physics, Review of Scientific Instruments. My name is Yungman Alan Liu:

Ultrafast charge division imaging detector

Reduced electron multiplier dead time in ion counting mass spectrometry

I attached one of the paper in pdf. I have to find the second one as there is no option to download the pdf online. I'll post it when I find it.

I own a patent:

United States Patent: 7561438

I have the second patent will be issue at the end of this month. This is on noise cancellation for single coil pickup for guitars and other stringed instruments.


Yes, I/we question everything of existing designs, that's how we improve things. There are two active noise cancellation patents by Leo Fender and Musicman. That did not stop me from designing a better one. That is how science are. YOu question and you improve. People here make it a crime to challenge the establishment!!!! Please don't ask me why I dare to challenge Leo Fender. My design will not change the sound of the guitar. The guitar will work, sound exactly the same even if you remove the battery, only difference is there will be no noise cancellation without battery ( obviously). So people don't have to worry about battery running out in the middle of a performance. My invention only have 3 solder connections to the existing pickup circuit of the Stratocaster, The circuit can fit into the control cavity of the strat without cutting any wood of the body. I use a 3V battery that can be put into the jack pocket for ease of changing. This is the only design that can retrofit into a vintage strat without ruining the value and totally reversible. This also support both reverse and non reverse middle pickup.

BTW, I actually learn and wrote the whole patent application for the second one on my own as I don't have a company to pay the attorney to write for me like the first one.


EDIT: I looked around to get the pdf file of the second paper I wrote in AIP and there is no free download. I just scanned the paper from the journal I have at home and attached here. The heart of this invention is a fast self reset integrator that can catch a very narrow pulse of sub nS rise time and pulse of about 4nS, integrate the pulse charge, stretch the result of the integration for 25nS for a slower ADC to capture the level. Then the integrator is self reset after 25nS or so and ready for another pulse coming in. there is no way at the time for the existing ADC to capture the Representative height of the pulse that narrow accurately.