"Boutique" opamps from chinese vendors. Anyone tested?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll refresh.

Read Thor's post 141 at the beginning of this page. relating to the mains earth path.

Read the later posts carefully, he then makes the earth wires of both equipment high impedance, applies Kirchhoff's law and states that the noise currents become zero. What does this look like to you?

However, I can see that he changed his mind on his last post. Now, currents flowing out of the system into the mains earth path.

No. He doesn't say that wrt currents becoming zero. He says:

"The sum of all currents in any circuit must be zero."

This is not the same thing. I'm certain you know this.
And now you're making me defend Thor.
That ain't right 🤣

Let's all play nice 😊
 
No. He doesn't say that wrt currents becoming zero. He says:

"The sum of all currents in any circuit must be zero."

This is not the same thing. I'm certain you know this.
And now you're making me defend Thor.
That ain't right 🤣

Let's all play nice 😊

Indeed let's play nice but when somebody becomes obnoxious I do not really like it.

Read this.
.......

I said the current can be infinite, but with zero impedance in the loop there is no voltage difference and as we use voltage signaling there can be no noise.

.......


EDIT:

Sorry , literally you are right.

However, the current can be infinite but there is no voltage difference (between what?) and there can be no noise. So infinite current but no voltage???

How does that happen?

EDIT 2:

There is voltage difference in the loop. All you have to do is to look at the diagram.

The earth wires are connected to both equipment chassis. Now, there will be voltage difference between the two chassis ( + screen) and the earth wires as they are two dissimilar materials.
 
Last edited:
Read Thor's post 141 at the beginning of this page. relating to the mains earth path.

Read the later posts carefully, he then makes the earth wires of both equipment high impedance, applies Kirchhoff's law and states that the noise currents become zero.

Let's see what I ACTUALLY wrote:
View attachment 113606

Let's remember EE101, something called Kirchoffs law.

The sum of all currents in any circuit must be zero.

It is a textbook statement of Kirchoffs law, as I got it drummed into me in East Germany. The more common way to present this is:

The algebraic sum of currents in a network of conductors meeting at a point is zero.

What does this look like to you?

It looks like a restatement of Kirchoffs law, sounds like a restatement of Kirchoffs law, means exactly the same as Kirchoffs law. That's it.

However, I can see that he changed his mind on his last post. Now, currents flowing out of the system into the mains earth path.

I NEVER changed my mind. What do you think I am stating by referring to Kirchoffs law? Do you need an EE101 remedial?

And in my last post I am still ignoring the current that flows into the earth wire towards the distribution panel. Know why? Because it does in no way contributes to the noise current that causes problems.

Thor
 
Indeed let's play nice but when somebody becomes obnoxious I do not really like it.

Read this.


So, the current can be infinite but there is no voltage difference (between what?) and there can be no noise.
In reality current is not going to be infinite us it ? And Z isn't going to be zero ( if you're at zero degrees Kelvin then you have bigger problems 🤣). But it's always instructive to look at things at the limits.
But there would be no voltage differential in that case.

What is a noise, a burger, coke, chips?

Are you okay ? Hungry ?

It is voltage, it is noise voltage. So, no noise means no noise voltage, Zero impedance infinite current (which can not be) yet no noise voltage????
 
So, the current can be infinite but there is no voltage difference (between what?) and there can be no noise. So infinite current but no voltage???

Yup, with ONE additional stated condition. Let's see WHAT CONDITION, Shall we?
Let us assume that the lower part of the loop is truly zero Ohm and zero nanohenry.

That is the key and I used this illustration to make the concept of "Why we need low Impedance in the mains earth connection from our mains cable".

How does that happen?
Let's what I wrote how that happens, shall we?
What is the error signal present between two grounds in the presence of an infinite error current in one or both chassis IF the mains cable part etc. is 0 R & 0nH?

Now in the case of the (hypothetical) zero ohm and zero nH cable (and connectors) our resistance and impedance is ZERO.

To get the voltage dropped across a resistor we multiply the current flowing by the resistance.

Any multiplication by ZERO will give a result of ZERO, regardless of the second term in the equation. Basic Arithmetic's.

One Ampere multiplied by zero ohm is zero volt.

One million Ampere multiplied by zero ohm is still zero volt.

One gazillion bazillion megamillion ampere multiplied by zero ohm is STILL zero volt.

And yes, INFINITE Ampere multiplied by ZERO Ohm is STILL ZERO Volt!!!!

Goodness Gracious me!

Thor
 
I can not believe that you keep going on this. Madness.

You have infinite current within the conductor yet no voltage? Are you mad? Go and read some electromagnetism. Why do you think people are trying to build super conductor?

Apart from anything, your two zero impedance conductors are in parallel with the two equipment chassis which are conductively coupled together with the (unbalanced) signal screen with a total resistance. So, you have zero ohm in parallel with that resistance and you have voltage drop across that resistance. Please.
 
I can not believe that you keep going on this. Madness.

Actually, I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT YOU KEEP GOING ON.

You have infinite current within the conductor yet no voltage? Are you mad?

Nope, basic laws of physics.

Go and read some electromagnetism.

Retake EE101 and 2nd grade math please.

Apart from anything, your two zero impedance conductors are in parallel with the two equipment chassis which are conductively coupled together with the (unbalanced) signal screen with a total resistance. So, you have zero ohm in parallel with that resistance and you have voltage drop across that resistance. Please.

PLEASE, you literally CANNOT have any current flowing through this resistance in the state conditions and without current flow there cannot be any voltage. Again, absolute basic laws of physics and basic math.

Please just stop. This is getting, way, way, way too silly.





Thor
 
True, I missed an important point. Things are moving fast.

The center point of your zero ohm link is connected to the mains earth path. So, according to you, the noise developed on the equipment chassis are not running into the mains earth path. So you seem to have changed your tune again. just revisit your last diagram.

In terms of zero ohm conductor, infinite current ` and no voltage. How do you think the current is flowing without charge?
 
True, I missed an important point. Things are moving fast.

The center point of your zero ohm link is connected to the mains earth path. So, according to you, the noise developed on the equipment chassis are not running into the mains earth path. So you seem to have changed your tune again. just revisit your last diagram.

In terms of zero ohm conductor, infinite current ` and no voltage. How do you think the current is flowing without charge?

I only have one comment.

 
That will of course be your answer as this seems to be your style and class.

I am not communicating this to you. So, clear the eff out of my way. The forum members could look at and make up their own minds.

In the below diagram A and B are the two hi-fi equipment representing two noise voltage sources. The noise voltages are coupled onto their cases. Does not matter how. Naturally these two sources are at a higher potential.

The two cases are coupled together by a wire with zero ohm resistance.

The mains earth wire has a resistance R and is connected between the two noise sources and earth node. Earth node is naturally at a lower potential than the two noise sources.

As the current flows from higher potential to lower potential the noise currents will flow from the two sources into the ground through R.

So, the claim of ground earth wire having no bearing on this is plain wrong. And a super duper mains cable with thick earth wire the size of my wrist will still not change the fact that the two equipment cases are at higher noise voltage potential.

What happens if we remove R. As now both equipment are coupled together through a zero ohm wire both noise currents will look for low impedance paths to flow into within both equipment. This naturally will be the signal ground.

That was the essence of the argument and I hope this explains my position..
GDIY.jpg
 
That will of course be your answer as this seems to be your style and class.

I am not giving remedials, your local evening college is for that.

In the below diagram A and B are the two hi-fi equipment representing two noise voltage sources. The noise voltages are coupled onto their cases. Does not matter how. Naturally these two sources are at a higher potential.

The two cases are coupled together by a wire with zero ohm resistance.

So the voltage between the two chassis always must be zero, because they are linked by a zero ohm resistance.

The mains earth wire has a resistance R and is connected between the two noise sources and earth node. Earth node is naturally at a lower potential than the two noise sources.

The earth node has a different potential, as we are dealing with AC, everything depends on phasing and relative levels.

As the current flows from higher potential to lower potential the noise currents will flow from the two sources into the ground through R.

The above, the reverse may be true, the may be current sinking into the devices from mains earth.
So, the claim of ground earth wire having no bearing on this is plain wrong.

It has no bearing on what happens on the audio path.

And a super duper mains cable with thick earth wire the size of my wrist will still not change the fact that the two equipment cases are at higher noise voltage potential.

BUT RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER THEY ARE AT EXACTLY TH SAME POTENTIAL!!!

What happens if we remove R.

There is no path for the noise currents to drain into earth, so the chassis of each device float up to a voltage that is determined by the source potential driving the noise currents and the coupling impedances - the two chassis will be at exactly the same potential but it will be somewhere between the two voltages. Again phasing etc. matter.

If (as usual) the driving source is our mains voltage both voltages will be in phase and of the same magnitude, so both chassis will actually be at mains voltage.

That is the reason why you are not permitted legally to remove "R" as you just did.

As now both equipment are coupled together through a zero ohm wire both noise currents will look for low impedance paths to flow into within both equipment. This naturally will be the signal ground.

No, there is nowhere for the current to flow. As the impedance between the two chassis is zero and each chassis is linked to signal ground, any noise current flowing would flow through the lower impedance, it does not get lower than zero.

So there is just no way for any current to flow in the signal cable, UNLESS you remove the zero ohm link between the two chassis.
That was the essence of the argument and I hope this explains my position..
View attachment 113625

You are plain and simple completely wrong. In literally everything you wrote.
In reality we can assume an accumulated loop impedance between the two chassis that is not zero.

Let us assume a high grade IEC connector and good quality mains plug with 5mOhm each. 6.6foot of 10 AWG cable amount to 6.6mOhm.

Two fat mains cables then will produce a loop impedance of 33.2mOhm between the two chassis and 16.6mOhmper cable.

The line cable is a common type, with a ground resistance of 0.5Ohm and around 0.2 Ohm contact resistance at either end (signal cables are not designed inherently for low impedance) for a round trip of 0.9 Ohm.

Let's further presume one item is at the legal limit for earth leakage current, say a digital mixer with a SMPS, so item A at 10mA.

And Item B has 1mA from a well designed Mains transformer and is a linear power amplifier.

After the two mains cables at the duplex outlet 11mA current flow to return to earth.

Or if we disconnect the earth at the Duplex Outlet (do not try this at home kids), no current will flow into earth.

One Mains cable will drop ~0.166mV from passing ~10mA and the other will drop ~0.0166mV from passing ~1mA. In reality a tiny proportion of the ~10mA will flow through the line cable. We need to look at the whole circuits thevenin equivalent to get an accurate solution, but a close enough approximation is ~180uA.

So actually ~180uA pass through the line cable, ~8.82mA pass through mains Cable A and ~1.18ma pass through mains cable B.

Thus the potential between the two chassis will be ~183uV. For an SE connection that is directly the noise injected into the signal, degrading SNR. For a balanced connection the noise will be reduced by the CMRR which is strongly system dependendent.

Now let's replace the "fat" mains cable with standard 18 Gauge mains cables with shitty chinese IEC and Mains plug. Our contact resistance is easily up to ~20mOhm and 6.6' of 18 Gauge is ~42mOhm.

So our loop impedance per mains cable is ~80mOhm, 0.16 Ohm in total. Our line cable has not changed, 0.9 Ohm.

The higher impedance of the Earth connection changes the proportion of the current that flows in the line cable, the higher resistance of the mains cable means now ~1.78mA will flow in the line cable and ~8.22mA in Cable A and ~ 2.78mA in Cable B.

Thus the potential between the two chassis will be ~1,600uV, a nearly 20dB increase in Noise.

Now let us try to reduce the noise. Let us lift the Earth on Mains Cable A. This means the full 10mA will flow in the line cable and we will have ~9,000uV between the two chassis.

Now let's lift the second mains cable earth.

The potential difference between the two chassis becomes very close to zero, but now 220V are present on the chassis with a current capacity of 11mA. Touch that and you get a pretty painful Zap or worse, which is why electrical safety regulation disallow simple lifting of earth on Class 1 equipment.

The same incidentally holds true if we have both mains cables with earth but lift the earth at the duplex outlet. The voltage between the chassis becomes zero but the two chassis now are at a dangerous voltage.

Are we now clear what is going on and why all you write is wrong?

Thor
 
Thor:

I get a feeling that you're trying to flood the discussion with unneeded, overly-detailed and tangential writings, and very often I have found myself TLDR'ing out on this.

It's actually very resource consuming to read your writings, and quite often not at all worth the energy. When I put real effort into following your argument, it most often comes up void or at least insignificant measured against the sheer word flow used to convey it.

For a while I actually suspected you were using AI text generation here, apologies for that. :)

Is this perhaps a deliberate discussion strategy? - because it's surely is destructive for discussion and exchange of ideas, in threads it often ends up looking like no one is questioning your arguments, when in reality most users simply TLDR on you.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I feel you are contributing to the wrong side of our local S/N ratio

/Jakob E.
 
I told you to clear the eff out of my way and I will not be so polite the next time.

You try to bamboozle like a demented parrot.

The diagram I gave tells you everything.

You have two independent sources with their own internal impedances and connecting them together using zero ohm wire will not make their potential zero.

As for the infinite current no voltage, read some electromagnetism.

So, once more, clear the eff out of my way.
 
I get a feeling that you're trying to flood the discussion with unneeded, overly-detailed and tangential writings

Not at all. Here is what happens.

I make a casual statement in an on topic post that seems to violate the "common sense" according to highly opinionated people.

I do not put these things to cause controversy, but simply because they are true.

The result is that statements are challenged. Now I usually try to keep keep it minimal in my first answer to keep the SNR degradation minimal too.

This fails to derail the detractor, as we have seen here and in each post more incorrect (in the technical sense) statements are added.

I could just declare that these people are wrong and leave it at that. But that would lack evidence. So I provide a longer post with more details. Naturally, these details, proofs etc. fail to change the view of the detractor or to even just make them notice they are on shaky ground. So what I wrote is further challenged.

At least in my personal nothing I write SHOULD be controversial, as it's based in fact, usually well documented and hardly new.

Like the whole point of lowering the impedance of the earth wire in power cables and using connectors that ensure low contact resistance to reduce problems from circulating chassis currents.

Nothing I wrote there should be in any way controversial. You can find the same in papers and books covering industrial data acquisition for example, where many of the same challenges apply that we have in audio.

It is just that some in audio feel that a simple factual statement (e.g. a mains cable CAN make a measurable and audible difference) is unwanted because despite being factual and relevant in context there is a feeling with some "debunkers" that to just let it stand validates "snake oil" (it does not, obviously) and after sufficient engagement they find it even more difficult to admit the statement was true.

For a while I actually suspected you were using AI text generation here, apologies for that. :)

I use AI. Actual Intelligence.


Is this perhaps a deliberate discussion strategy?

Yes, but not on my part. I am interested in what is correct and true. I have no commercial or monetary interest here, instead I am interested in improving "the state of the art".

in threads it often ends up looking like no one is questioning your arguments

On the contrary, I notice them questioned a lot, but usually in ways that are not constructive. I respond in constructive ways.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but I feel you are contributing to the wrong side of our local S/N ratio

Ok, so I am the issue? Ok, thank you.

Can I suggest that others, before they just jump on something I write and that they dislike, they pause to think what may be behind my statement, why it is made and even if contrary to their deeply held beliefs there may be something to it.

It takes just a minute or two.

Thor
 
No, I am stating that sounds that arrive within the HAAS window are integrated with the first arrival sound, that is the first arrival sound appears louder.

This window is around 2mS or translated into an acoustic pathway, ~ 70cm total path.

Well you did actually state:
"the immediate reflection that passes your head will be integrated in the HAAS Window, so we can ignore that."

But anyway - I get the point wrt perception of location, first arrival dominant. But there are still real acoustical effects (hence fx plugins etc that exploit this window). Actually your estimate of 2ms for the window is significantly less than my understanding of it. I've (not literally) always thought of it as around 30ms. Checking around it seems that 5ms to 40ms seems a commonly quoted range depending on the sound. That's for the record btw - not a challenge !


Now that is strictly for relatively normal sized living spaces and not for concert halls.

These have different requirements as have open air venues and so on.
Yes. Understood. Whole other ball game.

I think we should really take speaker related debates out of this thread.
Agreed. Although tbh it might be more productive than trying to deal with the claim of "Infinite Current" that you didn't make :)
 
But anyway - I get the point wrt perception of location, first arrival dominant.

But there are still real acoustical effects (hence fx plugins etc that exploit this window).

Yes. Note I mentioned the integration of the second arrival sound with the first sound. This has a specific set of parameters. And is a specific subset.

Actually your estimate of 2ms for the window is significantly less than my understanding of it.
I've (not literally) always thought of it as around 30ms. Checking around it seems that 5ms to 40ms seems a commonly quoted range depending on the sound. That's for the record btw - not a challenge !

The actual HAAS window is frequency and signal dependent. Slow piano music will have a long HAAS window for the actual notes, but still a rather short one for the "parasitic" percussive sounds emanating from mechanisms of the Piano (are they distortion, BTW?).

The 2mS is one where we can reliably expect any kind of sound at any frequency (as walls and listeners do not move around depending on frequency and program material) to be integrated with the first arrival based on the best available current science.

More may be fine. I'm happy to go with 5mS, but a key fact is that there does not seem a single reliable absolute number that we can use, so prudence suggests we consider the worst case.

"BUT WHAT ABOUT COMB FILTERING?" some may shout? What about it?
We are not listening to sinewave frequency response. Nor do we listen to MLS Noise. Or correlated or decorrelate pink noise. these are all diagnostics/testing signals and not directly related to what we listen to and how we hear.

We listen to music or other sounds, which contains complex wavelets that can be decomposed (FFT) into a large to near infinite number of individual sinewave wavelets but in themselves are not sidewaves.

A sidenote on the speaker setup/directivity etc. we were discussing. Put on TL;DR if not interested, skip to the end.
Incidentally, yesterday night I had to sit on the armchair while watching news on TV (youtube and others, OSINT actually) which put me pretty in line with the left channel speaker. My GF was crashed out on the sofa.

The whole dialog was solidly centered mid TV, eyes closed. There was excellent intelligibility and no "mud" of any kind. The various recording recording spaces used by the Video creators could be easily discerned, as could be the various microphones.cOpen air on site recordings of artillery strikes etc. were quite substantial, despite coming mostly from smartphones.

My "den" and dedicated AV space is around 4.2 wide and 5.4m long and as my house could have been designed by Mies van der Rohe (which is quite frankly why I picked it), it has floor to ceiling glass on three sides.

The fourth side open to a open plan living and kitchen area with an irregular shape on two levels with around 70 sqm and considerable open space where the missing wall is. There are panel curtains, nothing that would absorb too much.

In short a total acoustic disaster sparsely decorated in a kinda mid century meets japandi style.

My speakers have a 60 degree beam width at ~ 600 Hz narrowing to ~ 40 degrees above 4kHz and are toed in at around 45 degrees. Below 600Hz they progressively turn into monopoles but that's ok as they are placed close to one of the glass walls.

Bass is a work in progress and needs EQ, as I used monopole Subs (two though). Room modes are a bit reduced by the glass walls being actually quite permeable to sound (single glass pane) and having a whole ceiling membrane bass absorber, so compared to a concrete bunker the room modes are not AS obnxious.

Despite the terrible acoustic situation things like stability of stereo image when moving to different seat positions, vocal intelligibility and actual transient response (on percussion) are excellent.

Given that the speakers work in this decor, they obviously are not THAT large, mind you, some might view a 10" upper bass/midrange and 15" subs as on the large side. I find them a bit weedy.

Agreed. Although tbh it might be more productive than trying to deal with the claim of "Infinite Current" that you didn't make :)

I really think this has run it's course. Jeremiah 5:21

Thor
 
@thor.zmt can't you just stop ? endless post for 5 pages that are not related to initial topic...
Already 3 mods point out the non sense of this hack. Just open a new topic if you have so much to say...

Sorry for the mods that I probably just put another coin in the junkbox...

Cheers
Zam
 
Hello All,
Sometimes i feel like in Kindergarten...
What the hell have all the comments in common with the thread title ?
Or the orher way speaking with a well known german commedian:
Einfach mal die Fresse halten
BR MicUlli
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top