FUNDAMENTELE VERSTERKERTECHNIEK MET ELEKTRONENBUIZEN PDF

Fundamental Amplifier Techniques with Electron Tubes is the English translation of Fundamentele versterkertechniek met elektronenbuizen. Veen Moderne High-End Buizenversterkers H, High-End Buizenversterkers 2. H2.)4 Rudolf Moers Fundamentele versterkertechniek met elektronenbuizen. amplifiers, and relays by Edwin P. Anderson (1 times); Fundamentele versterkertechniek met elektronenbuizen theorie en praktijk met ontwerpmethodieken.

Author: Shaktirr Tetaxe
Country: New Zealand
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Literature
Published (Last): 17 January 2007
Pages: 457
PDF File Size: 17.30 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.69 Mb
ISBN: 922-4-59832-612-2
Downloads: 42379
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dorr

This is a project that sort of evolved from an interest to see how good a particular phonograph preamplifier was. Not the one I designed, but one from a DIY kit. If I would have known how difficult and possibly inconclusive it would become, I might have not done it. As it was, the experience was valuable in several ways. It was concerned with only those preamps that I had available at the time and your thoughts and results could be quite different.

The comparison demonstrated that without a top notch system nearly any preamp might be OK. The flip side was also true that in a top notch system, many preamps would be unacceptable. Another thing that came from the listening and testing is that compliance with RIAA equalization varies from company to company but in many cases might not be audible.

My method for comparison had two parts. The first was to listen to various selections of music with each preamp and then score them on various things I felt meaningful. The second was to check various parameters with my test gear. The following six phonograph preamps were the ones compared: The various phonograph preamps cover a wide range of designs and prices.

One has an undetermined price at this time Groove and is likely to be above the upper end of the group even in kit form. Design variations range from entirely IC to all tube. All are designed as stand alone devices with the exception of the DH which is a complete preamp. All, but one, are solid state devices. There will be two phases, bench testing and listening. Listening tests were performed first to avoid prejudging performance based on what the test measurements might indicate.

Music selections consisted of new and older records.

Vanderveen

The music selected was varied and covered a wide range of genre. Different selections might have provided different results, but I tried to span a wide range. There were acoustic stringed instruments, male and female vocals duets tooclassic rock music, music with keyboards, solo jazz singers and big band. Each preamplifier was played in turn with the order mixed up with the same selection.

The listening performance was subjective and the various ratings are solely those of the tester. Scoring was as follows: Numeric grade of 1 to 10 with 10 being the best. It seems that price and to a certain degree complexity matters.

The three most pricy or complex designs were clearly better than the lower cost three.

All of the top three excelled in some areas. There is a different versterkertechnie to each that shows up in how they rendered the different musical tracks.

The Groove was a clear standout in the bass region. Solid, deep and well controlled bass was noted in all cases. Other preamps occasionally got into the sub 50 Hertz range, but none with such authority. The LP3 was second in this area and was clean and well controlled, but not nearly as funeamentele.

  CATALOGO DIPAC ECUADOR PDF

The DH had deeper bass than the LP3, but it was not as clean and well controlled. At the opposite end of the range, the LP3 had a slight edge on all others in treble presentation. The Groove was a close second and often they were tied. In the areas of inner detail, imaging and sound stage width the differences were often linked to the particular music being reproduced. It was largely a toss up between the LP3 and Groove with the edge going to the Groove.

The primary difference between the top two preamps is one of flavor. The LP3 has a crisp clean leaning toward neutral sound and the Groove a warmer more delicate sound. Either would be satisfactory in many systems.

The DH fell slightly short vetsterkertechniek the performance of the top two, but was in most areas a rather nice sounding preamp. They clearly were in a different category from the top performers. In some cases they would be good entry level preamps for someone just starting in vinyl. The TC even with upgraded components was at the bottom of the group. It performed in what I would generally characterize as less than average manner. It mmet has no place in a quality system. The other two Jaycar KC and the K are fairly well matched.

Each is slightly above the average level, but well short of the top performers. Generally their shortcomings were by omission and not commission.

Tag: amplifiers

They are characterized by things such as less detail, less response in various parts of the spectrum and the like. They did exhibit some sibilants and edgy sounding behavior on various selections, but were mostly listenable.

I felt that the level of listening involvement suffered from the omissions. I would not recommend them for use in systems above the rather modest level. It must be noted that the two are diy kit based and low cost and would not be expected to compete in the same arena as the top performers. For entry level systems dlektronenbuizen might be a reasonable option.

The K has two gain options and the recommended setting less gain resulted in an output significantly below all the other preamps. I changed the setting to the higher level and the output them was approximately equal to the other preamps. Equipment For The Bench Testing. All bersterkertechniek phonograph preamps were bench checked with my typical set up of equipment.

My results may or may not agree with results by other individuals, but are consistent among themselves. A long standing issue in my workshop is a relatively high level of electronic noise.

All my equipment is fitted into a fairly small area and a lot of it generates noise. The noise floor in the shop is typically fundamejtele dBv. Fundamentwle necessarily limits my ability to test really quiet equipment. This was the case with two elektronenbuiaen the preamps. On the day of the tests the noise floor was dBv.

All those results can tell me is that both units are very quiet.

  GOV UK FORMS SA100 PDF

June 15, – HD MEDIA PARK

The specification for the Moon is dBv and the Groove has been previously measured consistently right at the noise floor to The remaining 4 preamps did measure within the capability of my equipment.

They ranged from as low as dBv to a high of dBv more negative is better. The gain of the preamps ranged from a low of 34 dBv DH to The remaining 4 units were all clustered around 40 dBv. Initially the K was about 2 dB lower than all the others at an estimated 32 dB and I made the kit indicated modification for additional gain.

In my opinion the original gain would be insufficient for many systems especially those using passive preamps. For signal to noise level I used a combination of the noise floor and the gain. It might be better called effective difference between the level of output and the noise floor for a given input signal.

That way it would provide an indication of how quiet a preamp would seem in any particular system. The more output you have from a preamp the less follow on gain you will need to use for a comfortable listening level. Then turning down of the system gain will apparently lower the noise floor of the entire system. The opposite is equally valid. An apparently excellent noise floor could be offset by low gain with the result being an apparent higher overall noise level in the final sound level from the system.

The results here favored the Groove with its higher gain; however the Moon would probably be better if the actual noise level could have been measured. Both are extremely quiet in use. The remaining units were within a 5 dB span with the DH with the lowest apparent signal to noise ratio. None however exhibited sufficient noise to detract from the listening experience. Distortion levels were measured at Hertz at the 1 volt RMS level into a 10k-ohms resistive load. Capacitance was minimal at approximately pF due primarily to the short cables used in the test set up.

DIY AUDIOFILE – Page 3 – HD MEDIA PARK

Deviating from my usual procedures, I used a battery powered signal generator. This eliminated a number of possible noise sources that would be considered by my distortion analyzer as distortion. For it anything that is not the fundamental is considered distortion. The penalty in doing this is that the residual distortion in the generator was 0.

However, since all preamps were tested the same the results while not definitive do provide a comparison. It should be noted that doing a complete test of the distortion levels and subsequent matching to the RIAA standard is a very time consuming process and was not the focus of this comparison.

The actual distortion levels ranged from 0. As noted in the listening tests there were no specific instances of audible distortion, but rather some less than stellar performances.

Of particular note were issues with the TC

Author: admin