In Reply to: Re: Sorry, I don't see the basis for your statement.. posted by Triode_Kingdom on March 19, 2007 at 21:04:06:
You weren't misquoted - your actual quotes are in my post so there is no possible way to misquote you. No way."You said earlier that you are confident the choice was made for performance reasons."
Yes, and that was based on a number of different things as I said.
"To that, I asked which of HK's product specifications improved as a result of applying the UL technique? I was of course referring to HK's previous/parallel, non-UL power amplifier products and circuitry."
There was VERY little in the Cit II that was common to any earlier H-K stuff. No other H-K product up to that time had used that tube set, those OPTs, the multiple loop NFB, the low impedance power supply, and so on. What is it about "clean sheet of paper" that you don't understand? Do you really want to compare the Cit II to an A-300?? It's ludicrous.
If the change to U/L was the only change (or the only significant change) then your narrow-focused question could be answered. But there really is no H-K product to draw a direct comparison to!!
It doesn't mean anything, but since you seem intent on having some sort of answer (relevant or not), here is a quick list.
Compared to prior H-K designs, the Cit II...
1. Had octaves wider bandwidth
1a. Had an OPT resonant frequency in the 450K area! This made a lot of other things possible in the design.
2. Had much higher RMS and peak power
3. Had lower THD at a given power output
4. Had lower hum and noise
5. Had a higher damping factor
6. Used much higher total NFB. Used lower loop NFB.
And probably others I can't think of right now.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Sorry, I don't see the basis for your statement.. - Jim McShane 06:45:45 03/20/07 (0)