Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 36 to 57 of 57

Thread: LTPI balance

  1. #36
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,039
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 296/1
    Given: 237/0
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Sulzer View Post
    Given how cheap Ds and ECs are these days, just add a negative supply and use a large resistor from the cathodes. Then it is easy to add in two channels, or use the second input for negative feedback.
    I like this approach as well. Wouldn't this give comparable performance to an active source? Would you need to add some protection for the BJT in the event of a Tube Failure as well?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  2. #37
    Lifetime Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,394
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 351/1
    Given: 3/0
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Sulzer View Post
    Given how cheap Ds and ECs are these days, just add a negative supply and use a large resistor from the cathodes. Then it is easy to add in two channels, or use the second input for negative feedback.
    I was thinking much the same, excepting that I was thinking that given how cheap high voltage MOSFETs are these days, why not put in a MOSFET constant current source for the tail current and have it be really constant? The advantage that a current source has in a long tailed pair is that you get the performance of a long tail with a very short (voltaged, at least) actual tail.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Amazing!! Who would ever have guessed that someone who villified the evil rich people would begin happily accepting their millions in speaking fees!

    Oh, wait! That sounds familiar, somehow.

  3. #38
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,039
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 296/1
    Given: 237/0
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by uneumann View Post
    Perhaps we're using some terms differently. In post #26 I'm showing a NON-NFB example. Maybe there's confusion since the spkr signal still comes back to create the tail signal. Yes, that's a fraction of the spkr signal getting fed into the tail, but it's not negative feedback (NFB) since that signal only goes to the tail and it has no impact on the gain of the circuit. The circuit is essentially open loop. To have negative feedback (NFB) you have to connect some version of the spkr signal into the V2 input. That's grounded in this example, so there is no global negative feedback in that circuit.

    As for the open loop uncorrected balance, that's shown when R2 is replaced by a wire (in post 26). That's grounding the tail as a standard PI would.
    Okay, I was confused about this as well but I see what you mean... I think. In order to implement Global Feedback in this case the grid of V2 would have to be AC grounded to the junction of R39 & R2. I just realized that I've misunderstood how feedback was integrated in a LTP! Ha... ugh It seems so obvious now I feel dumb. I've been mistakenly thinking that the tail was the input for the NFB at the junction of the tail/feedback resistors. (I guess I thought that since this was the source of the non-inverting input, GFB was coupled in via the cathode voltages).
    So, am I correct in understanding that this location (node of R39 &R2), is only really used because it is a convenient location to AC couple the grid of V2 with the feedback dividers, without really changing the DC operating point?
    Some questions still remain; doesn't the speaker signal have some sort of modulating effect on the cathodes? how does this not affect the signal at the grid of V2? ...asking for a friend

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  4. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Lancashire
    Posts
    649
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 16/0
    Given: 0/0
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulFetish View Post
    So, am I correct in understanding that this location (node of R39 &R2), is only really used because it is a convenient location to AC couple the grid of V2 with the feedback dividers, without really changing the DC operating point?
    Injecting the NFB into the tail as well as the second grid is a historical artefact from Fender. Really the NFB 'ought' to go to the second grid only. The small portion injected into the tail basically just subtracts a little of the overall NFB from the grid, but not enough to crow about. From my book:

    Early editions of the Fender Twin Amp and Bassman used cathodyne phase inverters driving 6L6Gs, with feedback applied to the gain stage preceding the phase inverter. In 1957 the designs underwent a fairly radical change with the phase inverter being converted into a long-tailed pair to drive the new 5881 power valves (although they were not much more difficult to drive, really), and feedback was applied to the tone stack. It is likely that this arrangement –with so many capacitors in the feedback loop– resulted in questionable stability and possibly parasitic oscillation because, in the following year, the designs were modified again by moving the point of feedback injection to the phase inverter. However, adopting the logical scheme of fig. 9.10 would have required either changing the layout completely, or mounting the second grid capacitor Cg2 directly across some other components, whereas only one wire needed to be moved to create the [familiar Fender arrangement] circuit in fig. 9.11. Other amps in the Fender range adopted the same scheme shortly after, presumably in the interests of standardisation.

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  5. #40
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,039
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 296/1
    Given: 237/0
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Merlinb View Post
    Injecting the NFB into the tail as well as the second grid is a historical artefact from Fender. Really the NFB 'ought' to go to the second grid only. The small portion injected into the tail basically just subtracts a little of the overall NFB from the grid, but not enough to crow about. From my book:

    Early editions of the Fender Twin Amp and Bassman used cathodyne phase inverters driving 6L6Gs, with feedback applied to the gain stage preceding the phase inverter. In 1957 the designs underwent a fairly radical change with the phase inverter being converted into a long-tailed pair to drive the new 5881 power valves (although they were not much more difficult to drive, really), and feedback was applied to the tone stack. It is likely that this arrangement –with so many capacitors in the feedback loop– resulted in questionable stability and possibly parasitic oscillation because, in the following year, the designs were modified again by moving the point of feedback injection to the phase inverter. However, adopting the logical scheme of fig. 9.10 would have required either changing the layout completely, or mounting the second grid capacitor Cg2 directly across some other components, whereas only one wire needed to be moved to create the [familiar Fender arrangement] circuit in fig. 9.11. Other amps in the Fender range adopted the same scheme shortly after, presumably in the interests of standardisation.
    Funny you should mention that. Just so happens I was just reading...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	59A8AD9C-6438-46F9-A705-A20EDE9355DC.jpeg 
Views:	27 
Size:	2.66 MB 
ID:	52677

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  6. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,478
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 1,072/1
    Given: 674/2
    Rep Power
    4
    To study the effect of frequency dependent speaker impedance on the "enhanced tail" LTPI I suggest to replace the load resistor in the sim with a circuit like this:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ZsMod.png 
Views:	22 
Size:	392.0 KB 
ID:	52679

    as proposed by Mike Sulzer.
    Details ae discussed here: https://music-electronics-forum.com/...ad.php?t=47723

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    - Own Opinions Only -

  7. #42
    Member uneumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    249
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 50/0
    Given: 18/0
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmholtz View Post
    To study the effect of frequency dependent speaker impedance on the "enhanced tail" LTPI I suggest to replace the load resistor in the sim with a circuit like this:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ZsMod.png 
Views:	22 
Size:	392.0 KB 
ID:	52679

    as proposed by Mike Sulzer.
    Details ae discussed here: https://music-electronics-forum.com/...ad.php?t=47723
    Right - My spkr model does include some inductance/capacitance, but I don't recall where these models came from (maybe the Duncan site?) or exactly what the model is. I do know the model behaves more realistically (and differently) that a simple 8 ohm resistor.

    Model's aside, the real test would be an implementation, and I have not yet built/tested a version.

    This all started as an observation that the tail in the Fender LTPI was not optimally bootstrapped and a separate divider for NFB and tail bootstrapping could improve things. Then there was the observation that better bootstrapping could lead to a lower tail resistor and thus more headroom (post 26 showed good balance with a 100 ohm tail). Pushing that to it's limit begs the question, could one build a zero-tail PI (ZTPI)?
    Well - it seems one can. If we remove the tail altogether and split the bias resistor to allow for bootstrapping, the circuit looks like this.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture1.JPG 
Views:	14 
Size:	376.4 KB 
ID:	52680

    The 470 ohm bias resistor is split into 30 and 440 resistors. The grids are now ground referenced, so no dc blocking caps are needed so the NFB grid input is simply grounded. The signal input can feed the V1 grid directly (if it's ground referenced, as say from a Master Vol pot). This example has no NFB, so it's an open loop output stage, and the spkr feedback is only used to bootstrap the lower 30 ohms of the bias resistor. The traces show good balance between the two PI outputs.

    If you add NFB, you get the circuit below using the 820/47 ohm ratio for the NFB grid input. The R49 value for the bootstrap signal also changes to produce more signal. Again the plate signal traces are shown and they're well balanced.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture2.JPG 
Views:	12 
Size:	370.2 KB 
ID:	52681

    Ok - so these are two extreme examples. The simulations show they're feasible, but I won't argue that they're practical. I just show them since its interesting to see how far you can push an idea. In both cases, tuning the tail signal requires high accuracy resistors. A change of a few ohms in R49/R39 has a noticeable balance effect.

    Using even a small tail resistor (say 1K) only adds a few volts of elevation, but it makes all the resistor ratios far less sensitive and therefore practical.

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Old Tele man: Equations provide theoretical values, SPICE provides approximate values; but, the ears provide exact values.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

    https://sites.google.com/site/stringsandfrets/

  8. #43
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,137
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 179/0
    Given: 0/0
    Rep Power
    16
    That you do. What you suggest has better performance. But I like the simplicity of connecting the grids to dc ground (makes me think of a simple differential amplifier). I also think about the current source misbehaving under extreme overdrive conditions. I do not see how this could happen, but guitar amps get subjected to some weird behavior sometimes..

    Quote Originally Posted by R.G. View Post
    I was thinking much the same, excepting that I was thinking that given how cheap high voltage MOSFETs are these days, why not put in a MOSFET constant current source for the tail current and have it be really constant? The advantage that a current source has in a long tailed pair is that you get the performance of a long tail with a very short (voltaged, at least) actual tail.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

  9. #44
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,039
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 296/1
    Given: 237/0
    Rep Power
    6
    uneumann, have you run any simulations for operation under overdriven conditions? Im curious what happens to the balance when the signal is clipping. But I like what you’ve done here. It’s simplicity is elegant, and seems quite effective. Hallmarks of good design

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  10. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,478
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 1,072/1
    Given: 674/2
    Rep Power
    4
    Here is a different approach (tentative) to explain the observed results of „tail-enhancing“:

    Injecting a speaker signal at the bottom of the tail means a feedback into a common-mode input of the LTPI. Part of this feedback voltage (it is attenuated by voltage dividing between the upper part of the tail and the 2 parallel internal cathode impedances) appears at the cathode junction and gets amplified by the triodes both acting as non-inverting common-grid amplifiers. If/as this voltage is in phase with the PI input, it makes the plate output voltage of the inverting (first) triode decrease and the output of the non-inverting triode increase. In other words, the method produces NFB in one triode and positive FB in the other. By adjusting the level of the injected speaker signal (via voltage divider) the method allows to balance the PI outputs.

    The check the validity of my hypothesis, I suggest to invert the phase of the speaker signal (not using the „normal“ NFB loop for now) and watch PI output balance getting worse than without „enhancing“.

    At least in theory it should be possible to make the non-inverting output signal larger than the inverting one by further increasing the speaker feedback signal. It would probably require the signal at the bottom of the tail to be larger than the signal at the cathodes.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by Helmholtz; 02-26-2019 at 03:23 PM.
    - Own Opinions Only -

  11. #46
    "Thermionic Apocalypse" -JT nickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    3,401
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 619/1
    Given: 531/1
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by uneumann View Post
    Interesting, I only did a quick test with a mosfet to compare these two circuits.
    At 1Khz the tail currents are basically the same (in ua range). The CCS holds that level while the upper circuit slowly degrades at higher and lower freqs.

    Comparing the upper circuit to the "normal" LTPI (without the added tail amplitude) shows a much bigger difference.
    The signal traces below show how balanced the upper circuit outputs are at 500Hz with both plate load resistors at 100K.

    Attachment 52649

    Attachment 52648
    As the subject of "real" current sources got raised again, here are my results comparing bipolar, NMOS and JFET current sources. All have great performance.

    As far as operation when clipped, I'd expect the version uneuman disclosed will be still fairly well balanced as the lpti is pretty good on its own, the 'traditional' type will be unbalanced and the current source version will remain balanced. The more balanced the less even harmonic distortion which IMHO will be preferable since there will be less intermodulation products.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ltpi_sim_4.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	273.9 KB 
ID:	52684

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Experience is something you get, just after you really needed it.

  12. #47
    Member uneumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    249
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 50/0
    Given: 18/0
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by SoulFetish View Post
    uneumann, have you run any simulations for operation under overdriven conditions? Im curious what happens to the balance when the signal is clipping. But I like what you’ve done here. It’s simplicity is elegant, and seems quite effective. Hallmarks of good design
    Thanks - appreciate your comments, but really, I didn't design much of anything.
    If I can claim credit for anything, it's that I questioned why the Fender circuit didn't bootstrap the tail properly. After that, the rest follows. I have to say it is interesting to see how much changes once you do get the bootstrap idea. Also note that the bootstrap signal to the tail bottom doesn't even have to come from the spkr. It could be a buffered copy of the cathode signal, for example. That may even work better, but I used the spkr signal because it's already there and the NFB signal comes from the same place and it doesn't take any more parts to use it.

    As for descriptions and explanations, keep it simple. The tail bootstrap connection signal doesn't feed current into anything or change gain or do anything complex. The whole point of that signal is to make tail current constant. The cathode voltage will move with an input signal, but the tail/bias resistor currents should not change. I refer you to my site where I have a pretty detailed description of the idea. I was figuring all this out pretty much as I was writing (or the other way around) so I tried to be really clear in what I wrote.

    As for overdrive examples/comparisons, here are two circuits - the left one is the original Deluxe Reverb with 820/47 feedback to the tail and NFB input. It also has the 82k and 100k load resistors to "balance" the output. The right circuit uses two 100K load resistors and the "enhanced tail" (ETPI?) bootstrap signal and the 820/47 feedback to the NFB input. Both circuits get the same 4v peak input. The first set of curves show the plate signals and spkr signal for the left (Fender) circuit. Both the plates and the spkr signals are clipped. The bottom traces show the same signals for the ETPI (right circuit). Those plate signals do look more balanced, although I don't think that means much once the spkr signal is clipping. I didn't show it, but when I overlay traces of the two spkr signals, they are identical (visually). I suspect the output tubes are clipping before the PI outputs clip so the PI output waveforms probably don't matter much after that.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture1.JPG 
Views:	16 
Size:	393.0 KB 
ID:	52685
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Capture2.JPG 
Views:	10 
Size:	242.4 KB 
ID:	52686

    Edit: Thanks Nick for the added details/comments.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Old Tele man: Equations provide theoretical values, SPICE provides approximate values; but, the ears provide exact values.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

    https://sites.google.com/site/stringsandfrets/

  13. #48
    Member uneumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    249
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 50/0
    Given: 18/0
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by nickb View Post
    As the subject of "real" current sources got raised again, here are my results comparing bipolar, NMOS and JFET current sources. All have great performance.

    As far as operation when clipped, I'd expect the version uneuman disclosed will be still fairly well balanced as the lpti is pretty good on its own, the 'traditional' type will be unbalanced and the current source version will remain balanced. The more balanced the less even harmonic distortion which IMHO will be preferable since there will be less intermodulation products.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ltpi_sim_4.JPG 
Views:	22 
Size:	273.9 KB 
ID:	52684

    Well - seems transistors are still important for such things. Thanks for that comparison.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Old Tele man: Equations provide theoretical values, SPICE provides approximate values; but, the ears provide exact values.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

    https://sites.google.com/site/stringsandfrets/

  14. #49
    Supporting Member loudthud's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Near Dallas Texas
    Posts
    3,479
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 151/0
    Given: 90/1
    Rep Power
    18
    I tried ground referenced inputs and transistor current source from the -80V bias supply. When the amp is in Standby mode, all the current goes through the grids. I ended up using a 30K resistor instead of the current source.

    Dumble amps have a pot to balance the plate resistors. Most people who will tell you how to adjust the pot, set it for a slight imbalance.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    WARNING! Musical Instrument amplifiers contain lethal voltages and can retain them even when unplugged. Refer service to qualified personnel.
    REMEMBER: Everybody knows that smokin' ain't allowed in school !

  15. #50
    "Thermionic Apocalypse" -JT nickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    3,401
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 619/1
    Given: 531/1
    Rep Power
    13
    Look at what I just spotted on a Fender Supersonic. They finally parted with tradition.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ltpi_5.JPG 
Views:	31 
Size:	47.1 KB 
ID:	52705

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by nickb; 02-27-2019 at 09:04 AM.
    Experience is something you get, just after you really needed it.

  16. #51
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,039
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 296/1
    Given: 237/0
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by nickb View Post
    As the subject of "real" current sources got raised again, here are my results comparing bipolar, NMOS and JFET current sources. All have great performance.
    Nick, sorry if this is a stupid question, but what what measurement is represented by the Y axis on the graph(expressed in dB)?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  17. #52
    Lifetime Member Enzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lansing, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    31,590
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 1,478/7
    Given: 0/0
    Rep Power
    54
    Better Y Axis than a Y Pestis.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Education is what you're left with after you have forgotten what you have learned.

  18. #53
    Senior Member SoulFetish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,039
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 296/1
    Given: 237/0
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Enzo View Post
    Better Y Axis than a Y Pestis.
    Is that a Black Plague joke?

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    If I have a 50% chance of guessing the right answer, I guess wrong 80% of the time.

  19. #54
    "Thermionic Apocalypse" -JT nickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    3,401
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 619/1
    Given: 531/1
    Rep Power
    13
    It's the signal current thru the tail. Ideally it should be zero. Here it is again but done as a ratio to the signal current in the left half of the amplifier which is a much more meaningful number.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ltpi_sim_5.JPG 
Views:	23 
Size:	341.0 KB 
ID:	52708

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Experience is something you get, just after you really needed it.

  20. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,478
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 1,072/1
    Given: 674/2
    Rep Power
    4
    The Mosfet circuit - while good enough - shows the behaviour of some shunt capacitance.

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    - Own Opinions Only -

  21. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,478
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 1,072/1
    Given: 674/2
    Rep Power
    4
    As for descriptions and explanations, keep it simple. The tail bootstrap connection signal doesn't feed current into anything or change gain or do anything complex. The whole point of that signal is to make tail current constant.
    Of course you are feeding current into the tail. Adding a signal voltage to a finite impedance network means injecting AC current. If you look at the AC equivalent circuit, you will see that changing the voltage at the bottom of the tail will also change the voltage at the cathodes to a lesser extent. While this change may be small, it gets amplified by each triode by a factor of around 25 (this being the voltage gain of the 12AT7 in common/grounded-grid mode).

    I am not saying the bootstrapping explanation is wrong. The 2 explanations do not mutually exclude each other.

    Did you try to invert the speaker signal for a test?

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Last edited by Helmholtz; 02-27-2019 at 11:18 PM.
    - Own Opinions Only -

  22. #57
    "Thermionic Apocalypse" -JT nickb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    3,401
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 619/1
    Given: 531/1
    Rep Power
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmholtz View Post
    The Mosfet circuit - while good enough - shows the behaviour of some shunt capacitance.

    Indeed yes. It's the reverse transfer capacitance that does it. Adding another bipolar fixes it (see below) with an astounding 120dB or so. But now it's just getting a LOT more complicated than the original idea. Take into account that the output tubes will never be anywhere nearly as well matched and it seems rather pointless for this application.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ltpi_sim_6.JPG 
Views:	15 
Size:	332.5 KB 
ID:	52712

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!
    Experience is something you get, just after you really needed it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. MOSFET LTPI
    By Zozobra in forum Theory & Design
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-14-2017, 06:09 PM
  2. LTPI on a 6G2?
    By ron vogel in forum Mods & Tweaks
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-12-2014, 01:22 PM
  3. LTPI ?
    By catnine in forum Theory & Design
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 09-27-2013, 03:54 PM
  4. Adding NFB to LTPI
    By EFK in forum Theory & Design
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-12-2010, 06:15 PM
  5. 5E3 w/ LTPI
    By hasserl in forum 5 E 3
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-21-2007, 06:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •