|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
100.16.161.19
In Reply to: RE: Broskie is correct on this one. posted by Ralph on June 15, 2021 at 08:34:06
its Kirchoff once CCS is involved and plate loads are equal.
Broskie wrong on this one. But I dont wanna say totally wrong.
Follow Ups:
Which is won't be. But you can get them pretty good these days. We made a tube CCS using a 6SN7 that was good to about 17 parts per million. These days we use a solid state CCS that is about an order of magnitude better. But I'm convinced we can do better than that, although we're well within the margin of error- so matched plate resistors work just fine :)
"we're well within the margin of error- so matched plate resistors work just fine ..."
But Broskie has written that it's so unbalanced - even with a CCS - as to require a workaround, and that matched resistors are not sufficient. This would be a ludicrous statement if the CCS can indeed achieve 1.7 ppm as you say, so I fail to understand why you would claim that Broskie is correct.
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
I fail to understand why you would claim that Broskie is correct.
Well, I'm not a fan although he comes up with things from time to time.
As I mentioned before, I think I get hung up on the nomenclature. Put another way, since no CCS will be perfect, it will therefore be unable to perfectly simulate infinite resistance connected to an infinite voltage.
It'll come close though, close enough that no-one will care if the two plate voltages aren't equal. I'm speaking from experience here- if I get them within a few volts I'm happy. Succeeding amps downstream will always help out, and if the circuit happens to be that downstream amp, it'll be getting something closer to a balanced input anyway.
At any rate its no worries :)
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: