• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Class D popping up everywhere. Innovation?

The invention appears to be a tube stage followed by a switchmode impedance converter that eliminates the output transformer. But isn't the transformer vital to the magic of tube sound? If all's you want is the transfer function of the tubes, you could just feed the output of a flea-powered tube amp into a Class-D power amp.
 
Confirmation Bias? :hiding:

If it does matter - why can't other circuits simulate the effects that a transformer would have? i.e. Gyrators work.

Hey, gyrating worked for Elvis. :D

DSP's work too. You could build a "tube amp" which starts up and measures the characteristic curves of the tubes, then shuts them down and models them using DSP.
 
The invention appears to be a tube stage followed by a switchmode impedance converter that eliminates the output transformer. But isn't the transformer vital to the magic of tube sound? If all's you want is the transfer function of the tubes, you could just feed the output of a flea-powered tube amp into a Class-D power amp.

Alternately, run the flea-powered amp with a transformer through a speaker DI and into a dummy load.
 
Alternately, run the flea-powered amp with a transformer through a speaker DI and into a dummy load.

I'm currently considering building a preamp to feed a lightweight (although not class D) poweramp in almost exactly this manner.

Small 5-10W integrated tube amp - convert the front end to a typical preamp circuit, leave the phase splitter/power section alone.

Drive a small speaker for bedroom practice.

Drive a dummy load+speaker di -> poweramp for volume.
 
I'm currently considering building a preamp to feed a lightweight (although not class D) poweramp in almost exactly this manner.

Small 5-10W integrated tube amp - convert the front end to a typical preamp circuit, leave the phase splitter/power section alone.

Drive a small speaker for bedroom practice.

Drive a dummy load+speaker di -> poweramp for volume.

With a 12au7 as a power tube, you could make a tiny amp with ~.5W output. That seems like it would be suited well to an full tube amp within a hybrid integrated head.
 
What are the changes of an amps speaker DI output with resistive vs. reactive load? I know Geddy Lee uses/used a 410 instead of a dummy load when he used amps because he preferred the tone.

This will be an unpopular response but it's ohms law.
See the frequency response versus ohms on the dummy load link? What happens is that with a low damping factor amp, (high internal resistance) the frequency response starts to follow the impedance curve - and you get a smiley face eq curve.

With a hi-fi amp, if you were to take a DI tap off of In1 / In2 - it would be pretty flat, if you took the di off the other side of R1 - it would look like you eq'd it like the impedance curve that is shown. A real MI tube amp somewhere in-between this. So really - just start adding some series resistors in path of the dummy load and you'll see the EQ change. Nothing you couldn't do with the tone knobs but for some reason people want to keep them at high noon and just have the amp naturally eq'd to their liking.
 
What are the changes of an amps speaker DI output with resistive vs. reactive load? I know Geddy Lee uses/used a 410 instead of a dummy load when he used amps because he preferred the tone.

The difference would be minimal because bass amps tend to have a high damping factor.

The simulated load would be convenient for testing amps without waking up the neighbors.
 
Given this situation the wonder is why most amps don't use switching power supplies. And in fact why all TUBE amps don't. Half of that weight that is due to the old style 60 Hz power transformer would be gone. And as an added plus you could power the tube heaters with DC as well to reduce hum.
 
See the types under 'Amplifier classes explained' about halfway down the page.

That's fairly good except for this part: "In class AB and B, the amplifier is slower than in Class A because there is a finite time between the application of the input signal and when the devices are turned on to produce a flow of current to the speakers."
 
The invention appears to be a tube stage followed by a switchmode impedance converter that eliminates the output transformer. But isn't the transformer vital to the magic of tube sound? If all's you want is the transfer function of the tubes, you could just feed the output of a flea-powered tube amp into a Class-D power amp.

That would seem to describe a digital hybrid type amplifier, in which tubes perform some function, and then the signal is forwarded to a class-D power output stage which then provides audio power amplification to the speaker. There seems to be limited sonic zen in this method, as many have discovered, possibly because the "transfer function" of the tubes is buffered and almost if not totally removed / insulated / distanced / obscured / overpowered by the class-D power amplification, and so what the speaker actually "sees" (or "hears", rather) and responds to is in fact largely or completely the transfer function of the class-D audio power amplification.

In GAGA, however, the power tubes perform 100% of the audio power amplification in linear, push-pull manner WHILE the patented ZOTL impedance converter bidirectionally transfers that power (without losses or limitations normal to traditional audio frequency magnetics) between the low impedance of speakers and the high impedance of the power tubes. Some magic in GAGA is that the necessary impedance conversion that otherwise must be performed by a bulk of iron is now instead performed in a (measurably) nearly perfect manner: Masking by the audio output transformer is eliminated, essentially unleashing the true performance of the power tubes.

Most persons have never played power tubes this way, without audio output transformers; it is exquisite and exhilarating.

Were ZOTL merely some pre-existent technology then it would not have been granted patent. And if it had been erroneously granted patent without technical merit then it would not sustain scrutiny. In fact, ZOTL was patented and remains patented because it is something genuinely unique. Attempting to describe ZOTL in old terms and old paradigms is confusing - which is why it has a new name and why there are sometimes honest misunderstandings.

Ultimately, it's the tone and feel and emotion that matter most, not any particular technique of achieving or amplifying it. After all, many great-sounding amps employ semiconductors (GAGA employs some in new places), and had the digital hybrid scheme of 'tubes buffered by class-D power amplification' actually sounded 'great enough' then anything after would have likely been obviated. Feedback from musicians who play GAGA includes praise for clarity, richness, faithfulness, purity, impact, dimensionality, depth, speed, musicality.

The 1972 AES paper "Tubes vs. Transistors - Is There An Audible Difference?" shows that tubes used in amplifiers seem to matter most at the input and output stages. GAGA of course uses tubes at the input/preamp stages, and ZOTL in GAGA practically perfectly connects power tubes at the output stage, including the crucial bidirectional conversion of impedance between power tubes and speaker.
 
I'm not starting a Analog vs Digital debate...just wondering if others like me who have made up their mind in the Analog camp feel the same concerns/questions.

I'm with you on this one I think.
Many people have told me that the power section being digital has no negative effect on the performance of an amp, yet, I have not heard one that I liked...I think. :)
 
That would seem to describe a digital hybrid type amplifier, in which tubes perform some function, and then the signal is forwarded to a class-D power output stage which then provides audio power amplification to the speaker. There seems to be limited sonic zen in this method, as many have discovered, possibly because the "transfer function" of the tubes is buffered and almost if not totally removed / insulated / distanced / obscured / overpowered by the class-D power amplification, and so what the speaker actually "sees" (or "hears", rather) and responds to is in fact largely or completely the transfer function of the class-D audio power amplification.

In GAGA, however, the power tubes perform 100% of the audio power amplification in linear, push-pull manner WHILE the patented ZOTL impedance converter bidirectionally transfers that power (without losses or limitations normal to traditional audio frequency magnetics) between the low impedance of speakers and the high impedance of the power tubes. Some magic in GAGA is that the necessary impedance conversion that otherwise must be performed by a bulk of iron is now instead performed in a (measurably) nearly perfect manner: Masking by the audio output transformer is eliminated, essentially unleashing the true performance of the power tubes.

Most persons have never played power tubes this way, without audio output transformers; it is exquisite and exhilarating.

Were ZOTL merely some pre-existent technology then it would not have been granted patent. And if it had been erroneously granted patent without technical merit then it would not sustain scrutiny. In fact, ZOTL was patented and remains patented because it is something genuinely unique. Attempting to describe ZOTL in old terms and old paradigms is confusing - which is why it has a new name and why there are sometimes honest misunderstandings.

Ultimately, it's the tone and feel and emotion that matter most, not any particular technique of achieving or amplifying it. After all, many great-sounding amps employ semiconductors (GAGA employs some in new places), and had the digital hybrid scheme of 'tubes buffered by class-D power amplification' actually sounded 'great enough' then anything after would have likely been obviated. Feedback from musicians who play GAGA includes praise for clarity, richness, faithfulness, purity, impact, dimensionality, depth, speed, musicality.

The 1972 AES paper "Tubes vs. Transistors - Is There An Audible Difference?" shows that tubes used in amplifiers seem to matter most at the input and output stages. GAGA of course uses tubes at the input/preamp stages, and ZOTL in GAGA practically perfectly connects power tubes at the output stage, including the crucial bidirectional conversion of impedance between power tubes and speaker.

If you made say a 300W in a price range that competed with other 300W bass amps then people around here might listen. You have the patent, you could license it to others and get the thing out of the lab.

How about doing a double blind test between a GAGA and several other tube and Solid-State amps and publish the results?

You could also, take a signal before and after the ZOTL, and compare it to signals before and after transformers.

You must have some state of the art test and measurement gear and you could publish some real measurements of GAGA versus several traditional tube amps versus several SS amps
 

Latest posts