600 Ohm inputs

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Think it over. When the overcurrent protection operates it does the same as a resettable circuit breaker, limits delivered power.

Been a SE and designer all my life.

I see you have a pretty good opinion of your competnces and a rather bad of others. You may find that some members here have a pretty good record of designing, building and using stuff.
Learned alot of awesome stuff on this DIY SITE and I have experienced your argumentative nature on every post I've made. Your input leaves a sour taste in my mouth and makes me sad for others. No comment about me calling you out on being a commercial equipment designer with commercial interest in selling sub par equipment to customers who don't know better and praying on people's lack of knowledge instead of enlightening them.
 
Learned alot of awesome stuff on this DIY SITE and I have experienced your argumentative nature on every post I've made. Your input leaves a sour taste in my mouth and makes me sad for others. No comment about me calling you out on being a commercial equipment designer with commercial interest in selling sub par equipment to customers who don't know better and praying on people's lack of knowledge instead of enlightening them.
How do you know he designed/sold sub par equipment or that he is somehow a below average designer? Under what metric or under what objective fact are you basing this slander? Also, he wasn't rude to you, you are the one who really started being rude to him. But not only to Abbey, you even smugly and sarcastically dissed Samuel Groner's opinion; I invite you to Google his work and CV, do you consider Weiss Engineering to be a company making sub-par equipment? And it doesn't end there, it appears you have this same attitude with Paul Wolff (FIX), again, Google him.

I suggest you take two steps back and try a different attitude, you might learn something.
 
Last edited:
Learned alot of awesome stuff on this DIY SITE and I have experienced your argumentative nature on every post I've made. Your input leaves a sour taste in my mouth and makes me sad for others. No comment about me calling you out on being a commercial equipment designer with commercial interest in selling sub par equipment to customers who don't know better and praying on people's lack of knowledge instead of enlightening them.
Funny thing is that Abbey is the kinder gentler moderator. 🤔

Don't be nice to him because he is a moderator, be nice to him because he is a forum member.

JR
 
This one has me "scratching my head...."

I work with more than a few studios located here in what is called "fly over country" by the "experts" on each coast...

MORE than a few of my clients own devices with a 600 ohm input impedance. Examples: LA-2 or LA-3 (new or reissue)..earlier 1176 comps.

Many/most desks use stuff like a TL072 for the driver to those units. A 5534 is supposed to happily drive a 600 ohm load...but then, some folks decide NOT..and do things like "pull up/down" loads.

It becomes a task, making a patch bay "work every time" with the possibilities running into 600 Ohms as well as a bridge/10K load.

Shrug...to make it "bullet proof'... then EVERY output HAS to pump out...say... +24 dBM.

The LA-2 lists max input +16dBm (we call that dBu now) which is less than 5V. So no need for +24dBu into 600 Ohm at 0.0000001% THD.

A 2:1 line interface could be used to make +22dBu from the solid state output into +16dBu and make a 2.4k load for the solid state output out of the 600R input.

Make a nice looking box in a neon colour and with some decent parts from Jensen or Cinemag stuck on the top, call it the "[insert made up hyperbolic brand name] (Missing) RetroLink" and offer it for sale for a modest cost of at least 1/4 of a new LA-2 (4,700 USD/4) and carry one for the Studio's you visit to try.

I'm sure you will sell one or more each and every time. Nice little earner on the side.

Past that, not sure if anyone mentioned it.

TI markets the OPA1678 (dual) and OPA1679 (quad) as TL07X replacements for the musicians/pro audio market.

They are basically resymbolised OPA1652/54 die's that failed some of the tests for the main part number and/or are tested to lesser standards for parameters not relevant to audio (IIRC).

Here THD & N vs frequency for 3V into 600 R:

1689232907518.png

I think these are fine into 600R even at +22dBu.

If needed use two or more sections in parallel.

Or get smart and use "Sandeman Error Takeoff" or "Technics Class AA" (aka the Matsushita Bridge, also referred to as a Wheatstone coupling) instead of simple paralleling so the "driving Op-Amp" sees a much higher load than the second "current dumper".

1689233927031.png
1689234106527.png

You could even use a different Op-Amp as "driver" and "dumper". How about an NJM4560 as "dumper" and a OPA1678/9 as driver?

Dual NJM4560 & OPA1679 make a stereo balanced output able to drive as much as 100mA peak (practical result, not datasheet) and with +/-18V Rails can drive > +22dBu into 200 Ohm.

So many circuits, so little time (as Homage to Miquel Brown):



Damn do I miss the 80's, so politically incorrect.

In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and crazy circuits conceived tripping balls on acid were real crazy circuits conceived tripping balls on acid and 4" was a tweeter not a subwoofer size.

And all dared to brave known terrors, like M.A.D. or "B..." and "A...", to do mighty deeds and to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before...

In these enlightened woke days, of course, no one will have any of it.

Thor
 
The ears are the main test...stuff that sounds good for 'testing 1- 2 ' might sound terrible under actual studio use when a client is sitting in the control room w/ you. ALSO different gear is different colors on the paint pallet...ALL YOU PEOPLE LIKELY HAVE MORE TECH KNOWLEDGE THAN I. PLAY NICE PLEASE.
 
The ears are the main test...stuff that sounds good for 'testing 1- 2 ' might sound terrible under actual studio use when a client is sitting in the control room w/ you. ALSO different gear is different colors on the paint pallet...ALL YOU PEOPLE LIKELY HAVE MORE TECH KNOWLEDGE THAN I. PLAY NICE PLEASE.
Untrue, in my experience, well designed gear which, when measured, gives good results sounds good. I have yet to see a great circuit, well implemented, that sounds bad.
 
Thx...my builds are getting better...a few sound great. I am just starting to implement test gear...but still count on my ears as the final judge....I have unracked store bought gear that had good published specs and kept the IEC cord...I have a pile of power cords!!! DIY IS THE WAY TO GO....Thx for the help on various things
 
Thx user 37518...just because I have had several good sounding...very usable tube front end builds does not mean I know anything... I should be humbled and grateful for the big fish and their willingness to share their hard earned knowledge especially of the tech & math side of things of which I have no training I also play jazz piano but that doesn't make me wanna follow Oscar Petersen on stage...you are of course correct....thx
 
Untrue, in my experience, well designed gear which, when measured, gives good results sounds good. I have yet to see a great circuit, well implemented, that sounds bad.
How about a bad circuit, questionably implemented, that sounds good?
 
How about a bad circuit, questionably implemented, that sounds good?
It is possible, a distortion pedal would fit that category. However, there is a tendency present in many people who believe that the crappier the circuit the more "mojo" it has. This seems to contradict decades of sound engineering; Neve didn' t have in mind a circuit that would purposely alter or distort the sound, nor did he add transformers just for the sake of "color". In fact, if you listen to some interviews of him, he always tried to get the most well-spec'd and carefully designed equipment, which turned out to sound great.
 
.."bad circuit", nonlinearities, are the main reason our ears often prefer hardware to software implementations. Off course, 97% of distortions are unwelcome, but the last 3%, when identified and nourished right, makes all such difference that it keeps hardware alive - possibly for some time still, judging from the relatively slow progress towards this in digital..

/Jakob E.
 
.."bad circuit", nonlinearities, are the main reason our ears often prefer hardware to software implementations. Off course, 97% of distortions are unwelcome, but the last 3%, when identified and nourished right, makes all such difference that it keeps hardware alive - possibly for some time still, judging from the relatively slow progress towards this in digital..

/Jakob E.
I wouldn't define that as a "bad circuit", when I mean bad circuit, I mean those circuits which are obviously wrong; transformers used just for the sake of saturation, lousy amplifier stages, or preferring a non-degenerated common emitter amplifier just because it distorts like a banshee. Or even those circuits you see in some Behringer equipment, like semi-Cohen mic pre-amplifiers with no feedback and stuff like that. Those are the crappy circuits I am referring to.

I've seen some of the Neve schematics, those circuits are definitely not state-of-the-art by today's standards, but they are brilliant in many ways, especially when placed into the context and era they were created.
 
Hi user 37518
I envy your ability to look at a schematic like the Neve you. Mentioned and assess it's worth and why...I struggled to build my recent Federal am864 clone...What type of gear do you build. Do you design or clone? Are any of these creations in production so I can look for the on the net...too bad you are not my next door neighbor 😉
 
Hi user 37518
I envy your ability to look at a schematic like the Neve you. Mentioned and assess it's worth and why...I struggled to build my recent Federal am864 clone...What type of gear do you build. Do you design or clone? Are any of these creations in production so I can look for the on the net...too bad you are not my next door neighbor 😉
Well, I don't DIY anymore because I no longer have or work in a studio. I am just an academic EE working for a university, who designs stuff but in an academic context rather than for the industry. Also, audio is not where I do most work, but rather RF. When it comes to analog audio equipment, what we have now is basically as good as it gets; there are of course some improvements and some innovations possible, but not that many as in other areas.
 
Last edited:
Neve didn' t have in mind a circuit that would purposely alter or distort the sound, nor did he add transformers just for the sake of "color". In fact, if you listen to some interviews of him, he always tried to get the most well-spec'd and carefully designed equipment, which turned out to sound great.
I would have to agree here having worked on many consoles, including Neve and SSL. The 51 series Neve consoles used a VMOS output to drive insert sends and also direct outs. I’ve never had any problems with those driving a 600Ω load like 1176 or Pultec on the inserts or direct outs, or going straight into an audio interface for recording. They can drive +26dBu into a load as low as 150Ω. Bit of a tricky circuit to copy for other uses as a driver stage for 600Ω gear.
The SSM2142 as a driver (and SSM2143 as a receiver) is maybe a possibility for anyone wanting to DIY a simple balanced line output. They are still available.
 
Well, I don't DIY anymore because I no longer have or work in a studio. I am just an academic EE working for a university, who designs stuff but in an academic context rather than for the industry. Also, audio is not where I do most work, but rather RF. When it comes to analog audio equipment, what we have now is basically as good as it gets; there are of course some improvements and some innovations possible, but not that many as in other areas.
I find this nice to read. Although I do not support every institution or the way the things are going. But that doesn’t mean I support the labs and teachers. Very nice job indeed! + cool you (and others) are hanging out on forums like this.

Maybe off topic (but it was already?) I can imagine adda converters are improving fast. But still not many in diy studio space. For example there was the svartbox. But it’s disc. And it would I guess make the audio world a lot richer if there are going to be more high end (mastering even) converters in the diy realm. Do you agree upon this as a EE working academically?

And what others improvements / innovations come to you mind? :)

Cheers,
P

Edit: converts also need impedance match / clippers or amps
 
I find this nice to read. Although I do not support every institution or the way the things are going. But that doesn’t mean I support the labs and teachers. Very nice job indeed! + cool you (and others) are hanging out on forums like this.

Maybe off topic (but it was already?) I can imagine adda converters are improving fast. But still not many in diy studio space. For example there was the svartbox. But it’s disc. And it would I guess make the audio world a lot richer if there are going to be more high end (mastering even) converters in the diy realm. Do you agree upon this as a EE working academically?

And what others improvements / innovations come to you mind? :)

Cheers,
P

Edit: converts also need impedance match / clippers or amps
I think that ADCs and DACs are also already very good, especially at low frequencies such as audio; the bit depths and resolutions they are capable of achieving is beyond the noise floor of any analog equipment and completely unnecessary if you ask me (32 bits? yeah, right; you'd be lucky if you get more than 20 bits of useful dynamic range in a practical application), the clocks are extremely precise and the accuracy of the converters is stellar; I don't expect any huge improvement in the next few years when it comes to audio in that area. The biggest problem is to make them work at high frequencies (like 5 GHz, and so on, where some of the modern communications lie today); but some really interesting things have been done in this regard, for example, they purposefully sample at a lower than needed sample rates, so the alias frequency created lies in a frequency interval where it is possible to process it more easily.

In my experience, most of the things being published today with regards to audio have to do with DSP or something similar among those lines, multichannel techniques, spatial processing, etc..., we should also be seeing more AI-related stuff coming through; pure analog is no longer the main focus of attention. And, if I knew about some immediate improvements or innovations, I would probably be publishing them :LOL: . That being said, there is still room for analog innovations or rather improvements; I have some ideas in mind which I might submit to a journal some time in the near future, but, again, AFAIK no one is reinventing the wheel in that regard.

JR, Abbey, and others here were fortunate of living in an era in which most innovations in analog took place, they also played an important role in the developments that we today take for granted.

If being completely honest, in pro audio, it is very difficult to compete with IC solutions by THAT, TI, AD and others like them. With the exception of power amplifiers, it is very hard to attain the same figures of merit that those chips are capable of obtaining at such low cost. However, it is true that not everyone likes that kind of perfection and some are biased against ICs and similar technologies; many still have a fascination with everything old, everything re-issue, or everything "design based on such and such equipment of the past", but my experience tells me that the newer generations are less interested on hardware than they are in software. In my opinion, the whole "Gearslutz" culture of using outboard gear such as compressors and so on will tend to fade away, perhaps it will not completely disappear, but it will become a very small circle of romantics who yearn for the good old days.

I know for a fact from a very close friend of mine, who is a top executive at one of the 3 biggest record labels, that, even less than a decade ago, many mixers used to still work at big studios and even included studio time as part of their fee; however, these days, he told me that the vast majority of mixers (many of the big names out there) are working with plugins in their computers, either at studios or at home, but those mixers working at large studios with outboard gear represent the minority. Record labels are also less willing to spend extra on a big studio for the mixes (or even recordings) of all of their artists, but I digress....
 
Last edited:
I can imagine adda converters are improving fast.

I know you did not ask my opinion. But I will give it anyway.

For a lot of system components (AD/DA, Op-Amp's, line drivers, headphone drivers, Amplifiers, even passives), the low end, low cost components are dramatically improved over what was available in, say, 1990.

There is very little complete garbage left. Also, manufacturers got smart and first of all limit device features and flexibility and issue very limited datasheets and avoid complex and "interesting" Reference designs.

This means every engineer (even the Chinese Kopy Kat) simply copies the data-sheet/reference and reliably gets the datasheet performance. So in many ways the bar at the bottom of performance has been raised substantially.

For example, with OPA1678/79 available to pretty reliably replace NE5532, TL072 & TL074 in "commodity" audio designs at very low cost, there is no excuse to use these rather poorly performing dino's.

At the same time anything that we could call genuinely "High Performance", that is well above average, has basically disappeared from parts catalogues, be it IC's or passive parts, or is priced well past "la-la land" territory and usually not meant for Audio (e.g. 20 Bit / 1MspS Multibit ADC's and DAC's) making them hard to use.

As a result audio quality has kind of settled generally at a level that is high compared to low end products from over 30 Years ago, but at the same time is WELL, WELL, WELL below the best designs available 30 Years ago. And it has become hard to even make anything that approaches the subjective audio quality of the best designs of yesteryear.

Further, to illustrate Sturgeon's Revelation and Sod's Law the current day "copy & pasta" "engineers" manage to find whole new levels of messing up designs by not thin king things through.

As an example (also at the bottom range of products) let's take a common Bluetooth or Wifi Speaker. The BT and/or WiFi SOC nowadays are often in principle capable of 24 Bit / 48 kHz (aptX-HD) and 24 Bit / 96kHz (LDAC) Audio, while WiFI usually at least manages 24 Bit / 192kHz.

The Bluetooth/WiFi SOC/Module has a 90dB dynamic range, very poor audio quality AD/DA on board and ~2nS RMS Jitter which will degrade a 16 Bit dynamic range from 96dB to 70dB (we are nearly back at K7 levels) in "high quality" mode that needs to be explicitly enabled (and up to 20nS RMS Jitter in the default "power saving" mode).

Now both I2S and SPDIF outputs are possible but need modified firmware and modifying BT Chip firmware is slightly non-trivial. And 192kHz DSP hardware is expensive as are ASRC.

So what I see in many BT/Wireless Speakers I tore down is that the analogue output from BT and/or WiFI modules (usually with similarly bad AD/DA and high jitter) is then applied to the AD build into a 48kHz max DSP Chip, which is often of a similar quality as what is other SOC's.

The Output commonly passes through the DA on the DSP Chip and is then applied to a low end, analogue input Class D Amplifier Chip, often with excessive gain on the amplifier commonly followed by passive crossover speakers (single cap on tweeter).

The DSP programming often tries to do too much with too little DSP horsepower, leading to compromises in DSP operation. Or the programmer is simply doing "textbook" because he is just a coder who fails to understand audio, music etc.

So in principle, each device in the chain can deliver acceptable performance if hardly high quality used stand alone.

But daisy chained brainlessly the performance is lowered sufficiently, that any upper end 1980's boombox playing cassette tape with DolbyHx and Metal tape will be objectively and subjectively ahead!

Using literally mostly the same parts and switching the amplifier IC's to digital input, we can make a fully digital chain instead, but I see it very, very, very rarely in teardowns or service manuals.

By adding a low cost ASCR/Jitter-Cleaner we can ensure we accept all input signals and output a digital audio signal at 24/48 or 24/96 depending on DSP and Amplifier IC's used (fixed rate in DSP simplifies the DSP design).

Even low cost ASRC's nowadays have dealt with most issues and are sonically quite transparent and output 50ps or less Jitter (17 Bits or better DNR) using internal PLL, even less using Crystals for the output. Cost can be as low 2 USD for a 32 Bit / 384 kHz capable part in QFN32.

Naturally, crossovers are best realised digital in this case, which also affords us time/impulse correction. And lets spend an extra dollar or two (that we save elsewhere) by using a better, digital I/O only DSP Chip with professional mastering grade DSP Routines.

Now, using 80% identical parts, likely have a neutral budget, we have shifted from a system with very low actual dynamic range, to one limited by the Power Amplifier IC's.

The digital input power amplifier IC's I would use, manage 110dB(A) or better DNR @ ~ 20W/6Ohm @ 1% THD power output (and 0.01% THD&N from 0.1W to ~ 5W, H3 dominates HD) and can be used without or with minimal output filter while passing EMC easily.

And we have created a transient perfect system and overall improved acoustic system, without actually touching the acoustic system (except adding a little damping material, which is often considered optional).

Which system will sound better? Pretty obvious really.

While semi-pro recording/playback devices CAN be better, many are designed in the same way as the BT Speakers I mention, at the bottom end of the range, and perform accordingly.

Anyway, my two Thai Baht on the subject. Try not to spend all in one place, which is kinda difficult seeing a bottle or beer is 80 Baht at a cheap "Night Market".

Thor
 
, he told me that the vast majority of mixers (many of the big names out there) are working with plugins in their computers, either at studios or at home,

OR AT THE BEACH in Portugal with good ol' Whoops ! :)

but those mixers working at large studios with outboard gear represent the minority. Record labels are also less willing to spend extra on a big studio for the mixes (or even recordings) of all of their artists, but I digress....

YES, ... ahem ... er ... and yet I wonder whether this translates into better sounding audio, or merely a simplified process and/or lower financial bottom line? (Just posing the question, not being critical of what you wrote.)

James
 
YES, ... ahem ... er ... and yet I wonder whether this translates into better sounding audio, or merely a simplified process and/or lower financial bottom line? (Just posing the question, not being critical of what you wrote.)

James
In the majority of cases I don't think it even matters, what is the life span of your average one hit wonder these days?
 
And that is a "good thing"? The product is poor, so why bother creating great tools that would allow great products? Is that the logic.

Thor
Yes, that is the record label's logic. For decades now, but more accentuated in the past years. But I wasn't referring to creating tools, I was referring to record labels not wanting to pay extra, and big name mixers no longer mixing in big studios, but with plug-ins at home. Making much of the hardware somehow obsolete in most scenarios.

My argument was that the newer generations are not so much interested in hardware, and I also gave some of the industry issues. So my assumption is that there won't be much hardware demand in the future, at least not for outboard compressors and stuff like that.
 
OK, so in order to identify the problem clearly, you need two measurements:
  • xfmr output unloaded
  • xfmr output loaded with 600-620r

A true Pultec has a 620r resistor across its input, which, driven by a 600r source, is supposed to result in nominal frequency response.
However, it would be instructive to assess the real influence of the source impedance over the operation.
Of course level will change, but I think the frequency response and EQ range will not change much between a 600 ohm source and a near-zero one.
At least that's what simulations lead to conclude.
Hi @abbey road d enfer

I've finally taken some measurements of my G-Pultec as you suggested. I made frequency measurements using the driver with 10kOhm and 600ohm resistor across the input transformer, and with it open. I made measurements with the EQ switched in (with all controls set to 12 o' clock) and bypassed.

Is this data helpful? I can capture more data or present it differently if necessary. I can post THD measurements as well but I'm not sure these are useful if the EQ is switched in?

It looks to me that 600 ohm and open are very similar in operation, while 10k suffers from bass rolloff and lower level.


EQ Out Freq Response.jpgEQ In Freq Response.jpg
 
It looks to me that 600 ohm and open are very similar in operation, while 10k suffers from bass rolloff and lower level.
I believe you may have inverted graphs. The one with lower level and bass cut should be the oe with the secondary loaded with 600 ohms.
What is the impedance of your signal source?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top