Tonelux update

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

soundguy

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
2,041
Location
NYC, USA
hey kids

check out the tonelux website for some pictures of the new gear. The mic pre looks pretty neat, the tilt feature is incredibly interesting. The quality of construction on the boards looks really nice and it looks like he's using a custom output transformer, nice! I cant wait to hear this stuff.

dave
 
Check out the EQ:

http://www.tonelux.com/eq4pinfo.html

It looks like there are a bunch of standard opamps after each EQ stage and only one discrete opamp (surface mount) for the final gain stage, and the discrete amp is not in standard 2520 footprint either.

And is it just me... but where are the inductors?? Could this be a gyrator based EQ??

Interesting, doesn't look at all like the insides of a "Famous A Type" that they show on one of the graphs.

Justin.
 
I dont think that round potted thing is an input transformer, take a look at the mic pre, I assumed it was an opamp, could be wrong, no idea. The reissue of the api 560 replaced all the inductors with chips.

dave
 
So, the TX260 is not an opamp really (since it only has 4 pins, meaning only 1 input, and no gain) but a discrete buffer. Interesting.

Any bets on whether or not he is going to offer to sell the OA separately?
 
really nice stuff.
I talked to him at the AES show and the stuff really does look great. I'm pretty sure it sounds good too..
The only thing I wish it was different is the Tilt function. It only works for the "direct box" input. It would be great if it was on the mic input too. Specially when dealing with proximity problems.
I don't think he will start selling the pres by themselves. Unless sales on his rack systems are not doing so good. He makes more money by having you buy the rack and fill it with pres.... smart guy.

Gil
 
its really refreshing to hear a designer candidly discuss his design as part of the product marketing. Its sad that out of all the boutique compaines out there, there are very few designers doing their own thing. This is great stuff, I hope its cool to quote this.

[quote author="paul wolff"]There are two advantages with this design. Having the gain stage separate from the output stage allows a level control to be put between the two amps for gain control, like a fader, without having to put it across the transformer secondary, which changes the tone as it is adjusted because the load is changing. Another advantage is the power op-amp stage is not in the feedback loop of the gain stage, so the reflected distortion of the transformer does not become part of the feedback path. I have found that the distortion of the transformer is much more consistent from low level signals to high level signals. There is a good amount of low end distortion, which I prefer to call "love", and it is very even. The graphs under the EQ4P info page show the effect of this. The distortion of the transformer is a very "familiar" kind of distortion, with more stability.
[/quote]

so far with my experience building and using stuff, this is the best gain control method I have come across from an end user's perspective. Sure, its not applicable to every circuit out there, but going with a dual opamp design really has incredible advantages if you work with trying to keep a signal on the edge of or just over the edge of noticable distortion, which for me is common on a rock record. There's a lot in that above quote to digest.

Im really looking forward to hearing the mic pre, cant wait. AES in NYC this fall should be a big party.

dave
 
[quote author="JustinS"]Check out the EQ:

http://www.tonelux.com/eq4pinfo.html

It looks like there are a bunch of standard opamps after each EQ stage and only one discrete opamp (surface mount) for the final gain stage, and the discrete amp is not in standard 2520 footprint either.

And is it just me... but where are the inductors?? Could this be a gyrator based EQ??

Interesting, doesn't look at all like the insides of a "Famous A Type" that they show on one of the graphs.

Justin.[/quote]

Actually, there are 3 discrete op-amps. I chose to use the op-amps in the gyrator part of the circuit, and so far, no complaints. If I had used all of my new op-amps, they would have raised the cost too much.

The output amp is a buffer only, as layed out on my page.

It does sound great, so don't freak out...
 
[quote author="paul wolff"]There are two advantages with this design...[/quote]Believe it or not I?ve been researching this very thing! Great minds think alike, don?t they, Paul? Just kidding, of course, but I will catch up with you? in 2 or 3 lifetimes. :wink:

Seriously, I was only trying to get the power op-amp stage out of the loop. I never thought about the output transformer interacting like that. Great info - gives me even more to ponder when I?m lying awake unable to sleep at night. (Does anyone else have that problem? It?s getting rather severe!)

Anyway, let me join in with Jakob and say welcome!
 
[quote author="Flatpicker"][quote author="paul wolff"]There are two advantages with this design...[/quote]Believe it or not I?ve been researching this very thing! Great minds think alike, don?t they, Paul? Just kidding, of course, but I will catch up with you? in 2 or 3 lifetimes. :wink:

Seriously, I was only trying to get the power op-amp stage out of the loop. I never thought about the output transformer interacting like that. Great info - gives me even more to ponder when I?m lying awake unable to sleep at night. (Does anyone else have that problem? It?s getting rather severe!)

Anyway, let me join in with Jakob and say welcome![/quote]

Thanks.

This whole thing started as a sure way that nothing I did was similar to my old company, for 2 important reasons. One, I didn't want to be a cloner. Two, I wanted to stay clear of any legal issues. In the process of doing this, I defined the old days as "the box". I now had to think outside the box in a literal way. When I tried the output stage outside the loop, there were some interesting results. It's one of those "the way it used to be" things that was no more than simply the way they used to do it, not for technical reasons, but just because that's the way they did it. Once feedback came along, everyone thought that it was the grand solution. With this, it became clear that the strangeness in the transformer was getting fed back, then into the transformer and fed back over and over, almost like a real fast reverb. I haven't been able to measure it, but with live instruments it sounds clearer or more open, without being brighter. Very interesting.

I have always thought that op-amps with too much gain don't sound as good even though they have lower distortion. My new one has about 85 maybe. Most now days have between 120 and 200 dB of gain. There has to be an effect if you are feeding back 194 dB of signal. I also broke the bias rule of equal bias junctions per output junction. I found that with more bias junctions, the temp linking between them and the output stages reduces the bias if it gets too hot, which isn't a bad thing. At least it isn't like the old power amps that once they blow up, they can't be fixed because when you turn them on they go zzzzzzziiiiippppp POW as they bias themselves into a black hole.

By the way, I think Mackie finally got it right in their advertising when they say "if your songs suck, they will still suck, but you will be able to work faster" or something like that. Kind of sums up the whole industry.

Check this out: http://www.tonelux.com/PT.jpg I think this might be the first DAW.
 
More great info ? doesn?t look like I?ll get any sleep tonight either.

BTW, I enjoyed the pictures on your website. Good to finally put a face with the name. (You sort of look like my uncle! :shock: ) That?s a great shot of you and Rupert.
 
hi paul, great to see you here!

do your modules fit "in the box" or "out of the box"?

are you showing at the tapeop conference this summer?

dave
 
[quote author="soundguy"]hi paul, great to see you here!

do your modules fit "in the box" or "out of the box"?

are you showing at the tapeop conference this summer?

dave[/quote]

They are 1" wide and 3U tall, fit in our box, but we are also signing deals with 4 other "main stream" manufacturers to do their modules in our format.

I don't know if we are showing or not.

I am very depressed today. Brittney Spears has been soiled.
 
Welcome Paul, good to see you here.

We will not bother you about schematics.
It would be great if you consider to share some ideas, and mostly your philosophy about electronics and sound.
Good luck with your new company.

chrissugar
 
No, I will never give out schematics, but I feel that way because I would rather teach people about proper design techniques (tempered by reality and marketibility, keep in mind) so people can experiment on their own. No one ever invented anything by cloning other things. The real innovation doesn't always come from a formal education either, but from a realized need for a solution. So many things that I have designed were from trying to figure out how something worked and then falling upon something that works better, and added to that are things that I felt were missing from the industry. :idea: With those, I would start with a blank sheet of paper and stare at it.

I don't keep secrets about what I know. I do keep secrets about what I have designed. Too many designers are to protective of what they know because they don't want to get replaced, which is the first sign that they should be.
 
Hey Paul,
thanks for posting. and thanks for all your attention at the AES show.
your stuff looks great and I will hopefully hear it soon.. :grin:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top