| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Melquiades Amplifier » “Melquiades” amplifier: a year later. (34 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 2 of 2 (34 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  To Milq builders: corrections, simplification, modifica..  Talking about amp…....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     16  86347  05-17-2007
  »  New  Has anyone built the DIY Melquiades amp??..  You did not reply what music you are listening….....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  27020  08-24-2007
  »  New  Melquiades For Dummies™ - step by step...  Getting on board... Finally...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     25  145732  08-29-2007
  »  New  The “Melquíades” début...  Your builder shall know....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     10  74920  02-13-2005
12-05-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,216
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 21
Post ID: 3249
Reply to: 3240
Selling an amp to Everyman
Obviously I have not carefully read everything you've written about Melquiades, mostly because I have just been stopped in my tracks by the ML2s, so I still have a lot to think about as it is.  But if anything could "sell" Melquiades I'd guess it would be something that plays to the widely-held notion that the amp to have is either "the best" or it it "by far the best for the money".  That both of these statements mean squat out of context is neither here nor there, as far as I can tell.  So IMO the "universal" version of your amp would be most likely to "succeed", even if the pinnicle of your efforts is in fact the 4 or 5-way, band-specific version.  But then again, how many people own what you - the amp's designer - think of as high-efficiency speakers of the sort you'd deem acceptable for use with Melquiades?  If the answer is, "Lots of people", then this might just be the beginning of a surge in interest in your amp.

As for myself, I would not tackle something like Melquiades unless and until I felt I had sufficient understanding of your listening and design criteria, so I could compare those to my own wants.  So far, where your "taste" is concerned,  I'm one for one with the "vintage" ML2s, but still can only speculate about the other, super-esoteric gear you use, and I wonder how many people are familiar with your references.  After all, the way most manufacturers "succeed" selling hi-fi is just by mucking in with other mainstream manufacturers in the classic hi-fi version of the circle jerk.  And what this gets them, if nothing else, is recognition in terms that everyone "understands", for better or for worse.

As for the DIY crowd, those you'd think were most likely to pick up this gong, it may be that the most technically proficient among them are most interested in the projects, per se, and in some cases also the fellowship on their websites.

Basically, Romy, I think you have got a "niche product" on your hands.  Not many guys as vehement as you, and of those still fewer with the time, money and drive to see it through.

Best regards,
Paul S
12-06-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,650
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 22
Post ID: 3251
Reply to: 3249
Melquiades as a "niche product"

Well, it is always difficult to me to deal with audio people because any expressing any abstract notion in front of them those enslaved people perceived as a preamble to some kind of “deliverable good” and the sick audiophile imagination has already paint in their minds the pictures of a large brown truck, delivering a big and fully insured  package. When I couples days ago mentioned that I consider the Cessaro Horn Acoustics Gamma system is quite fruitful direction to go in sound reproduction then the readers minds inimitably interpreted it as a sign that Cessaro Horn are “better” then other speaker and  should be immediately considered as “strong buy”. What a Moronic and bogus way looking at the things! No wonder that in many instances I feel incredibly bored talking with audiophiles! Please, people, spare me from this primitive behavioral pattern on my site!!!

 Paul S wrote:
Basically, Romy, I think you have got a "niche product" on your hands.

The very same with the Melquiades. What does it mean "niche product"? Let leave aside all bogus motions of “prodactism”. An amplifier should amplify nothing else. All amplifiers amplify and all of them do “something else” but it is not the point. The point is that Melquiades is not a released DIY product but MY DESIRE TO SHARE A VISION how a 22-24dB gain amplifier, loaded into >100dB sensitive acoustic system should/might amplify. When I decided to release Melquiades to pubic I did not feel myself as I am some kind of person who found new good settings for a circuit and made a new amplifier-kit available to public. if you want THAT then there are quite many companies out there who sell kits allowing you to set the components in acceptable operational points. Melquiades is nothing like this. The Melq’s objective is to let people to learn what Sound the amp does and then, experiencing the effect of Melq’s Sound on prolonged period of time be able to experience some things about witch the people do not know yet. It might sound too pretense for someone but where did you see me care what the people who have no clue what I’m talking about think about my views?

Anyhow, I have no idea how to interpret somebody’s view that Melquiades is "niche product", besides probably suggesting to those people to read less audio magazines and “pick” wisdom at audiogon.com. I find that the concept of “niche” is completely not suitable for the objectives I have with Milq. Perhaps you, Paul, after spending  a prolonged period of time with your vintage Lamm ML2, and after observing your listing habits changing, you might eventually understand that labeling  Melquiades as “niche product” was as bogus as labeling introduction of penicillin as niche medication…

Rgs,
Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-06-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,216
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 23
Post ID: 3252
Reply to: 3251
Ideas as commerce
Of course I meant the "niche product" appellation as a joke, skewing only slightly the original question of why are there so few Melquiades extant when the idea has been out there for so long.  And you only underscore my point when you mention the "Large Brown Truck delivering a "Big and Fully Insured Package".

To put it more bluntly, Romy, what you DON'T have is a product of any sort, let alone a "niche product", and I agree with you that your thinking on the subject, although plenty cogent, is way too far reaching to be easily distilled into a product; which, after all, is what people really want, obviously.

By the same token, how many read Hegel, or Musil?

Best regards,
Paul S
12-06-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Gregm
Greece
Posts 91
Joined on 02-16-2005

Post #: 24
Post ID: 3253
Reply to: 3252
Point taken Paul -- but isn't Musil* a tad rarified to serve as a ref:)?
As compared to the Melq, which is an amplifier. OK, it performs its job within a system... but, then, aren't other amplifiers "systemic" as well? 

I wonder whether other open designs are actually taken up by hobbyists... you do mention that diyers are often motivated by the design excercise rather than the replication of an existing design.

(*Having grown up in Central Europe, I didn't think anyone outside the area has heard of, let alone know and bother about, R Musil.)
12-06-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
darkmoebius
Posts 7
Joined on 12-04-2006

Post #: 25
Post ID: 3254
Reply to: 3244
And the skies clear....
 Romy the Cat wrote:

To simplify everything: the Melquiades was at attempt to make two stages, capacitor coupled, no feedback SET, having the cathodes sitting on ground and using the unique 6E5P as a driver. My selection of output tube was because at that time I meant to use it with Lamm ML2 but now only. The 6C33C has enough power to drive my bass and very good sound, at least in context of ML2 (I did not like any other amps that I heard with 6C33C)

Believe it or not, this very short, direct, explanation helps put everything else I have read about the Melq evolution in perspective. Thanks.
However, my objectives were much further then just proving a concept...Anyhow, after all events, mistakes, experiments, false concussions, moves to the wring directions and so on the Melquiades (as it reviled) is a tip of the iceberg of quite complicated though process about audio generally and amplification in particularly.

My goals, system, budget, and musical preferences are, obviously, not the same as yours, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lot to learned from your experiences.
Quite few people are turned off by obnoxious, demanding, overly confident and assertive tone of my release notes…. and I feel it great. The release notes are a low order filter that reduces the amplitude of Morons who might consider building the Milq.

It's not that bad once I learned to filter the tone/attitude from the information.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time and effort to pass on your experiences.

12-06-2006 Post mapped to one branch of Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,650
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 26
Post ID: 3255
Reply to: 3254
I have no idea why the skies clears for you....

 darkmoebius wrote:
Believe it or not, this very short, direct, explanation helps put everything else I have read about the Melq evolution in perspective.

Hm, darkmoebius,I really do not know why it clears skies for your in anyways. I have written about the very same subject many times within my “Milq’s diaries” (the posts that I made when I was doing through the Milq project) and within the Milq’s support forum. In fact, jut looking at the Melquiades circuit it is very clear what were the initial topological objectives. One of the things that is not immediately visible is that the 6C33C is in a way irrelevant tube for the Melquiades Sound. Beside the many other reasons I used 6C33C because I know this tube quite well (not a lot of people who use 6C33C know it). Anyhow, I relay do not know what “perspective” it helped you to discover as what I said were quite simplistic things. Anyhow, I am glad it gave you the “perspective”, whatever it was….

 Paul S wrote:
By the same token, how many read Hegel, or Musil?

Paul, I think you are entering dangers water in here. I very much NOT wiling to sound as a person who would suggest that Milq has such a “special sound” and  if a person is not able not recite from memory Inayat Khan then the person won’t be able to “understand” the Milq’s Sound. Melquiades is much simpler in a way and my objectives with Milq’s publicizing were, in a way, more “earthy”.

You see, people who do audio, do not do things together and they do not mutually peruse the “better sound”. We mostly think and act AGAINST each other. It only externally and superficially looks like they help, inspire and motivate each other and the idiots at the places like AA, DIYAudio and many others love to prostitute with this faulty believe that they embrace others. In realty everything is very much different.  Audio people disgust to learn from each other and they generally hate each others guts. The more they publicly kiss each out in their ass then more dirt they dump to each other privately. Only God knows how much filth I heard the audio people were saying about each other: private parties about the private parties, industry player about the industry player… Eventually I got sick form all that hypostatic chip crap and I say only what I feel, at least in audio. Anyhow, for most of the people in audio who are still in closet with their hate of audio people the satiation is difficult. For them, the audio success of failure of individual practically never server any composite beneficial value. The industry whores pretend that they try to “unify’ and generalize something in audio but unfortunately they mostly very restricted, conditioned, superficial,  ignorant in what is important… not to mention that when they just open months then you hear the sound of … a whore.

When Melquiades was taught to sound in the necessary way the question that I was faced was what to do with it next. I had some proposals from the people who know that I was not kidding to license out the Milq’s design. I also explored some other means to make Melquiades publicly available. Taking with few people and seeing their level of the “horrendous nothingness” I lost any interest to sign off Melquiades to the hands of fealty barbarians. Knowing the rules of engagement in the Industry I certainly had no intention to become one of them.  Still, I did have and still having intention to make Melquiades Sound as a part of public audio awareness, and here is why. I believe that I know something about sound, and I believe I know quite more then many audio people. The Milq is in a way a “residue” of that knowledge. I would like others experience it.  Perhaps they could via experiencing the Milq’s Sound are able to enrich own views about Sound or perhaps they might via own sonic experiences enrich my sonic views… I do not propose Melquiades to others as “better amp then they currently have”. It would be too primitive for my position, although Milq should audiophile-wise wipe most of the SETs of own class. I offer the Melquiades as a tool to learn what might be “next”, after juts a good hi-fi. Once again: to recognize it is not necessary to listen the amp but rather ourselves….

I do not look forward to develop friends, admires or devotee in Audio. (I have developed some admires at this site and I hate it). But I do not mind to participate in COLLABORATION with others about the Audio Boundaries of Possible.  The Milq was sent to the World with exactly this purpose: to show itself off. I would not have problems if people hear Milq and inform me that it is poor performing amplifiers - I just would like to hear their rational and reasoning – I hope that by thinking about thisr rational they (or I) might learn something about Sound….

In a way, I feel that any person who does audio seriously should have own implementation of the sound of his/her mind. Not the ready-to-go, cookie-cutter, pre-caned sound from a dealer showroom but deeply personalized sound via highly tailored installation. Stating form a CERTAIN LEVEL some people would discover some very interesting common things…  that might be perfectly use as a common denominator of composite audio consciousness. Music world use it for centuries but the idiots audiophiles still jerk entertain off by the “subjectivism of perception”….

Nope, I do not advocate DIY but I advocate a personality and ability to render that personality via audio expressionism.  Unfortunately all that crap cost a lot of time and efforts and not a lot of people can afford it or wiling to do into that extend. To built the first Milq cost me near $15.000 and almost 6 months of time off. As the result Melquiades was too precious for me top sell the design and the Melquiades’ sound was too significant to me to cash it out. Long time ago, when I was a teenager, my “adult” girlfriend taught me that the most beautiful things come to life for free, as gift. The Melquiades is such a gift and it is given out not only to “drive speakers” but to make the people who might be using it to think that “the thighs” might be different in Audio. Melquiades is a tool in a way but it would be very difficult for me explain how to use it. Lamm ML2 is also a tool but if I begin to explain what is relation between the ML2’s best performance and boundaries of “conceived realty” then hardly anyone undusted it. Melquiades also operates “out there” but differently, and it is up to you to learn it or not. Of course some Morons do not care and they have the only demand for an amplifier is to maintain the resale value….

Rgs,
Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-06-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
darkmoebius
Posts 7
Joined on 12-04-2006

Post #: 27
Post ID: 3256
Reply to: 3255
The Lexicon of Romy...
"Romy the Cat" - Hm, darkmoebius,I really do not know why it clears skies for your in anyways. I have written about the very same subject many times within my “Milq’s diaries”...

Concise: marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail

Your "diaries", while informative, have a Faulkner-esque quality to them. Sometimes a few words can be far more effective than many.

Anyhow, I relay do not know what “perspective” it helped you to discover as what I said were quite simplistic things. Anyhow, I am glad it gave you the “perspective”, whatever it was….

It wasn't what you said, but how it was said. For once, your response was concise and free of the usual semantical debate, of which, the preceeding sentence is a classic example.



12-06-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,216
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 28
Post ID: 3258
Reply to: 3255
A New Paradigm
Regardless of whether or not I understand you and your Milquiades, I do understand for the first time in 40 years the value of a real change in my audio perspective, which the ML2 immediately provided for me.  This is not to say that I have already formed a new paradigm, rather I have been forced to loosen my grip on my old one.  Now, whether another amp or preamp or whatever is "better" will in itself take on an entirely different meaning, or at least it feels like that at this point, early in this new phase of the game.  And it certainly seems like I am "listening differently", and certainly with different expectations.

Frankly, I am annoyed that I have been unable to grasp your notions of the "X Factor" and the "Beach Effect", because the "X-Factor" at any rate is something that you speak of as a major shift in performance criteria, and I am eager to compare this to my own recent experience, see how the experiences stack up.

So then I imagine Milquiades as another serious shift, which you abandoned the ML2s for, which does not strike me as odd so much as it facinates me.  Hell, I'd start to work on those amps right now if it didn't also entail re-thinking and re-tooling my speakers, etc. in the bargain, just to give the suckers a listen.

Is it so strange to you that someone would act to build your amps simply because he thinks he "takes your word" on the subject and "goes along"?  And I do not mean myself, but now that I've said this I'm thinking also that the amps will get built by the people who build them, for the reasons they build them.  In that sense, it seems you have lost control of the future of your creation, which I am not saying to inform but rather to remind.

I do hope I and many others get chances to hear Milquiades, and then we can test the notions that it does/does not require special sensibilities to appreciate.  This may mean I am more of a cynic than you, but although I am often annoyed I am seldom surprised when people aspire to and settle for nothing more than patent mediocrity, nor when they eschew that which I most admire, for any reason.  I say, that's how it is, you just can't let that sort of thing stand in your way.

Hegel?  Musil?  You might count on one hand the number of people who really do share your taste, sensibilities and commitment.  And your observations about division apply to "us" also, ne c'est pas?  You must get bored without relevant feedback.

But I wish you would compare and contrast the "relation between ML2's best performance and boundaries  of 'conceived reality' ", at least give us a shot at it...

Best regards,
Paul S
12-07-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,650
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 29
Post ID: 3259
Reply to: 3258
"Libertarianism" in amplification.

 Paul S wrote:
Frankly, I am annoyed that I have been unable to grasp your notions of the "X Factor" …

Borrow L2 for a weekend and you will be able to see it. I it hard to explain.

 Paul S wrote:
So then I imagine Milquiades as another serious shift, which you abandoned the ML2s for, which does not strike me as odd so much as it facinates me.  Hell, I'd start to work on those amps right now if it didn't also entail re-thinking and re-tooling my speakers, etc. in the bargain, just to give the suckers a listen.

Nope, the Milq are not “serious shift” from ML2. What the “vintage” ML2 did was very fine and I was trying very hard to now loose many of the ML2 befits. However, when I went for my next amp I have the very specific objectives that were targeted to address some ML2 limitation that I clearly identified over the years (I’m not wiling to explain what it was). The Milq did addressed, even in it’s fist revision, many demanded aspects but then it took some work to “slow” the Milq down and make some other Sonic changes. As I have writhen the Milq’s Sound was initially completely conceptualized even for 2 years before I started to work with Dima I called my next amp during those years as an AmplifierX, clearly know how it should sound but without havingit. Then, when the Melq come to existance, the amp was taught to sound in a specific way, still, the Melq itself did taught me something as well....  It was approximately 2001-2003 when realized that I wanted more then ML2 and within a year or so I knew what exactly I wanted from my next amp.  Unfortunately at that time I was not able to deal with Lamm about “more then ML2” because as soon I expressed that ML2 was good but NOT AS GOOD AS IT COULD BE the Vladimir become to feel threaten and begin to loaded on me his typical self-serving lying and deceptions.

 Paul S wrote:
Is it so strange to you that someone would act to build your amps simply because he thinks he "takes your word" on the subject and "goes along"?  And I do not mean myself, but now that I've said this I'm thinking also that the amps will get built by the people who build them, for the reasons they build them.  In that sense, it seems you have lost control of the future of your creation, which I am not saying to inform but rather to remind.

Sure, I have no problems with it. Still I do not propose to “take my word” and I strongly encourage anybody who considered the Milq to make juts on channel prototype and to try. It is what I would do if I have an interest in some kind or design.

 Paul S wrote:
But I wish you would compare and contrast the "relation between ML2's best performance and boundaries  of 'conceived reality' ", at least give us a shot at it...

Try to “compare” the “boundaries of conceived reality” between vintage ML2 and vintage M1.1. Yes, the ML2 is way more interesting amps but not in ALL aspects.  To be intestionally-abstractive: The M1.1 is way more liberal in music rendering (disregard electrical characteristics) then ML2 and give more “space for imagination". ML2 is “stiff” and stubborned and forces the things in it’s own way…  I am not talking that the ML2 ways are bad ways; in fact they are phenomenally useful… but only at certain level. When listening awareness get developed and the boundary where the ML2 operates too closed then ML2’s “forthfullness” might not be as effective anymore, quite opposite… it become self-suffocating….  However, here is where we enter the realms of the Lamm’s personal limitations where control and republican “love” are the “operational parameters”….

The CaT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-07-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,216
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 30
Post ID: 3260
Reply to: 3259
Well, I hear that

You may remember my first impression of ML2 was its "organizing".  And you may also remember my saying that SET just "allows" the signal, including its dissipation.

Not to "sell" Milquiades, but how (other than multi-channel and bandwidth limiting) would an SET not crap out full range?  Even the "big" ones just give out at too soon, and they can't maintain balance under any sort of pressure.  I love your Milquiades image of every note "open to infinity", because that is the SET promise, although the SET never fulfills its promise.  So far I am still waiting for the "cap" sitting on ML2 notes to actually restrict dynamics, at least compared to other amps.  OTOH, even my 2A3s sound "wide open" - until something actually happens, and then they collapse.

The truth is, all I was looking for in the ML2s was an SET powerful enough to drive my +/- "fullrange" speakers without gross distortion.  You can imagine my surprise when I fired them up for a first listen!  I expected a steroidal SET and got instead Stokowski - plenty to keep me excited and busy for a while yet.

Pisser about Lamm's limitations.  Might have been a fruitful collaboration for both of you.

Best regards,
Paul S

12-07-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,650
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 31
Post ID: 3261
Reply to: 3260
Do not be too fast with “vintage” ML2

 Paul S wrote:
Not to "sell" Milquiades, but how (other than multi-channel and bandwidth limiting) would an SET not crap out full range?  Even the "big" ones just give out at too soon, and they can't maintain balance under any sort of pressure. 

It has nothing to do with Melquiades. Yes, SET is bandwidth limited machine that is why I advocate DSET. However, you said that that your SETs “give out at too soon, and they can't maintain balance under any sort of pressure”. This is completely different subject that has no relation to bandwidth. What do you mean “give out at too soon”? It sounds to me as somebody use SETs with inadequately made power supplies and drive with then impropriate speakers….

 Paul S wrote:
I love your Milquiades image of every note "open to infinity", because that is the SET promise, although the SET never fulfills its promise.  So far I am still waiting for the "cap" sitting on ML2 notes to actually restrict dynamics, at least compared to other amps.  OTOH, even my 2A3s sound "wide open" - until something actually happens, and then they collapse.

Well, the ML2 dynamics is VERY complicated subject. I would in a way agree with you but then you said “compared to other amps”. Then ML2 dynamics could not be directly compared with most of other SET’s dynamics. You need to look in the subject deeper and perhaps longer… Do not write off ignorantly the “vintage” ML2 dynamics limitations and there is a lot of merit in ML2 to maintaining exactly the same dynamic stricture as it has. There is actually number of meaning of word “dynamics” in context of ML2….

Rgs,
Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
12-07-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,216
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 32
Post ID: 3263
Reply to: 3261
Playing to strengths
You are correct about misuse of the SETs in my experience, I suppose, because I have only started with an SET amp as a pivot on one occasion, but then I wound up loving the speakers more than the amp that couldn't drive them.  But I have heard many SETs in many systems supposedly better suited, such as Cogent, and the same problems happen.

Damn, I have to run!  Didn't mean to waste the space.  Please delete if you like.

Best,
Paul
12-17-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 33
Post ID: 3310
Reply to: 2904
Just a boy and his soldering iron...
Regarding the "complexity" of these amps :

Not being a DIY electronics guy, the Melquiades schematic makes me want to reach for a cigarette... However, naive fool that I am, having no formal training in electronics, I look at it and think to myself, I should be able to do this… I should be able to get all these parts, lay them out on the table in front of me, and link them up as illustrated by Romy's nice diagram. Well I plan on doing exactly that, and provided I don't overcook anything with the soldering iron, it should all... um, work !

I am still not to the point in the over all project where I can actually start construction of the amps (the house looks like a bomb went off, as I am currently up to my neck in horn construction), but looking over the diagram, and what there is of a parts list, the information is certainly adequate for the DIY-electronics crowd.

For the purposes of this project, I sort of wish I could count myself amongst them, but… Never mind… I can still interpret the schematic.

As a way of forcing myself to see the thing as a whole, I will start by converting this schematic to a 3D CAD model, illustrating each component and its relation to the others (with more distance between the parts than in photos of the completed amps) so that I can really see it, turn it all around in space, zoom in and tour the site like goldfish. The more experienced may laugh, but this exercise will help me get familiar with the composition… something like the act of writing. This is exactly the appraoch I use whenever I set out to rob a bank... its what they call "casing the joint".

Once I create the data, if I feel it really is a help, I will make it (or at least high res static images of it) available to anyone interested.

Back to the horns...

jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
12-17-2006 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,650
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 34
Post ID: 3311
Reply to: 3310
Considerations about Melquiades’ layout.

 jessie.dazzle wrote:
As a way of forcing myself to see the thing as a whole, I will start by converting this schematic to a 3D CAD model, illustrating each component and its relation to the others (with more distance between the parts than in photos of the completed amps) so that I can really see it, turn it all around in space, zoom in and tour the site like goldfish. The more experienced may laugh, but this exercise will help me get familiar with the composition… something like the act of writing. This is exactly the appraoch I use whenever I set out to rob a bank... its what they call "casing the joint".

Once I create the data, if I feel it really is a help, I will make it (or at least high res static images of it) available to anyone interested.

I thought it would be worth if I pass some comments about out Milq layout. Whatever methods you use: 3D CAD model of getting the actual parts and moving them around there are some basics that you should take under consideration. I will pass the rules that I used, feel free disregard them, to employ them or alter them.

Let look at the Milq circuit:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/PDF/Melquiades_SET.pdf

First thing first you have to decide what version of Milq you intend to build. There are two major layout-affecting versions available: using input choke filter and using input capacitors. The Milq second stage must be input choke filter – this is not negotiable, but driver stage and bias supplies might be input capacitors. The benefits of input capacitors is that entire PS become more compact, and we are talking about 3 power supplies. With CRC you have no hot running bleeder resistor, no chokes and lower voltage transformers – it all will make the Milq simper. I would like to avoid in this post arguments about input choke vs. input capacitor – I juts would say that input choke has own benefits as well. It would be worth however to note that I have built Milq with input choke and with input capacitors supply and I would not say that there was a whole a lot of sonic differences. Once again, in the outs stage to use the input choke is a must. So, if you go for input capacitors then you have only few large parts: 3 power transformers, output transformer, C2, C10… and it’s it, the Milq is really simple circuit to build from there…

I would also suggest that for sake of simplification and space saving it is perfectly possible to drive the positive gas tube form the power supply of the driver stage, droving voltage on a resistor. I did it and it does sound perfectly fine.

Some other things that you should under consideration I the Milq layout:

1. Prototype-position your parts, as they will be positioned, and determine the shape and location of your main ground terminal. This is important. I usually make my circuit’s main ground with 3 cross-wired 8ga copper stranded cables, then bend it in the shape I need and then fill it with solder. All the rest companies are just portioned with this “minus” around the main ground terminal.
2. Keep R2 as close as possible to the pate of the driver tube. Actually solder the resistor leg right at the tube socket.
3. R5 and R6 should also have this legs sitting right on the tube socket
4. Keep R4 right at the left side of R5
5. Keep the returns legs from C4 and C5 right at the socket of V1 and V2
6. If your negative supply is not too far from your out stage then c12 is unsavory.
7. Run a fat “ground” cable form the cathode of the driver stage to the chasses in the very single point: the negative terminal of you RCA into jack.
8. Position C10 as close to the OPT as possible.
9. Position OPT as close to the tube plate as possible.
10. R20 should go directly to the V4 grid.
11. C3 should bridge the stage and be very short but beware the heat dissipated by 6C33C. You might position the cap relatively close to the 6C33C but it will depend from the air-flow in your amp, elevation of the components and so on.
12. Be carefully with positioning anything within 3” from 6C33C – it will be running hot. Use high temperature melting solder to solder the 6C33C’s filaments.
13. Try to use the native element’s leads wherever is possible. The shorter pass is better.
14. All AC runs should be crossed-wired. Use crossed-wired with DC feeds if it is applicable.

It would be pretty much it, at least t is all that it atop of my mind at this moment.

The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 2 of 2 (34 items) Select Pages:  « 1 2
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  To Milq builders: corrections, simplification, modifica..  Talking about amp…....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     16  86347  05-17-2007
  »  New  Has anyone built the DIY Melquiades amp??..  You did not reply what music you are listening….....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     2  27020  08-24-2007
  »  New  Melquiades For Dummies™ - step by step...  Getting on board... Finally...  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     25  145732  08-29-2007
  »  New  The “Melquíades” début...  Your builder shall know....  Melquiades Amplifier  Forum     10  74920  02-13-2005
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts