Robin L
Master Contributor
Spiraling Asperation. Like something Caroline Casey would cook up. Or Nicholas Slonimsky. A portmanteau word."Aspiraling"?
Spiraling Asperation. Like something Caroline Casey would cook up. Or Nicholas Slonimsky. A portmanteau word."Aspiraling"?
lolall the harmonics
My Ampex MX-10 needed a cathode follower if one wanted to hook it up to solid state gear. However, that 60 year old piece of gear was not consumer audio and was intended to attach to an Ampex tape recorder, so there might have been a different sort of impedance matching going on with that microphone preamp and that recorder.I have a question; why would anybody need a buffer, whether tube or transistor? I can see their use in distribution boxes where one input is routed to multiple outputs and each of those outputs must be isolated from the others or to transform a high impedance to a low one, but surely no consumer HiFi gear needs that. Is there some need in HiFi which I'm not aware of?
This is an honest question - and I'm not looking for answers like the box which is the subject of this thread.
No, I returned it to its owner already.Amir, have you tried the buffer in your system?
I'm familiar with the MX-10. I hope you still have it because they're going for crazy-high prices on the interwebs, because, tubes. I'm surprised it needed impedance transformation though since the point of a cathode follower is to give it a lower source impedance, but still, it wouldn't be happy with a too-low input impedance. Ampex made balanced input transformers for their recorders which wouldn't load upstream gear with higher output impedances, and the typical input impedance of the tube machines was around 100k unbalanced.My Ampex MX-10 needed a cathode follower if one wanted to hook it up to solid state gear. However, that 60 year old piece of gear was not consumer audio and was intended to attach to an Ampex tape recorder, so there might have been a different sort of impedance matching going on with that microphone preamp an that recorder.
Probably a wise move.No, I returned it to its owner already.
I was looking at a buffer between my AVR pre-outs and amp. Amp input impedence only 10k ohm and this loads the pre-outs a bit causing measurable distortion at high levels. Using a buffer definitely (ie measured) reduced it but at practical volume levels the slightly added noise was more an issue than the slightly reduced distortion.I have a question; why would anybody need a buffer, whether tube or transistor? I can see their use in distribution boxes where one input is routed to multiple outputs and each of those outputs must be isolated from the others or to transform a high impedance to a low one, but surely no consumer HiFi gear needs that. Is there some need in HiFi which I'm not aware of?
This is an honest question - and I'm not looking for answers like the box which is the subject of this thread which just adds distortion.
Nope. I had lots of different bits of tube gear. I think it's safe to say that's all behind me now.I'm familiar with the MX-10. I hope you still have it because they're going for crazy-high prices on the interwebs, because, tubes. I'm surprised it needed impedance transformation though since the point of a cathode follower is to give it a lower source impedance, but still, it wouldn't be happy with a too-low input impedance. Ampex made balanced input transformers for their recorders which wouldn't load upstream gear with higher output impedances, and the typical input impedance of the tube machines was around 100k unbalanced.
This is an honest question - and I'm not looking for answers like the box which is the subject of this thread which just adds distortion.
I remember the tape loop of my Scott 299B always cut bass when hooked up to a handheld digital recorder. Again, a 50 y. o. design, not intended to work into the 21st century.I had a Dynaco PAS 3 driving a Haffler DH-500... the problem with the PAS 3 is it needs at least 300 K input impedance to work right and the Haffler was more like 20 K Ohm so I needed to use a "buffer". I just built a simple buffer with op-amps and a 9 volt battery and it worked well.
You are, of course, correct and I was out in space... I'll blame it on hypocaffeination
I guess a 6922 can do less harm as a buffer than they do in, say, a phono preamp/EQ
If it was already added during the mastering and mixing process, why do we need to add it again through our playback system?
I have a question; why would anybody need a buffer, whether tube or transistor?
That is interesting. There are a couple of snippets of the PCB on the manufacturer's web site, and I was trying to reverse the circuit, and I gave up thinking "this can't be right, there must be stuff I can't see". But no, it really is that simplistic. But yes, the philosophy is curious at best. Given the effort and cost that has gone into the rest of the design, one wonders why such an approach was taken. As a device to create the usual tube bloom, this isn't how I would have gone about it.This post is very telling of the design ... uh ... philosophy? ... yeah! ... philosophy! behind the buffer.
In a proper double blind test he would not.To the owner of the buffer: have you noticed differences in sound - for better or worse - when the buffer is plugged into your system?
Amir, have you tried the buffer in your system?
That was my reaction exactly. With the two transformers in there you could easily have made one of them provide, say, 200 V B+. Then use a CCS load and you get a very linear cathode follower. You could get fancy and choose something like a White cathode follower or SRPP stage.Given the effort and cost that has gone into the rest of the design, one wonders why such an approach was taken.