Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave
oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that you could
leave out half the transistors.
I couldn't immediately see exactly how either of the circuits worked,
though I could get the simulations to run under LTSpice and see roughly
what was going on.
I've now dug a bit deeper. Here is a five transistor version of John
May's four transistor version.
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that you
could leave out half the transistors.
I couldn't immediately see exactly how either of the circuits worked, though I could get the simulations to run under LTSpice and
see roughly what was going on.
I've now dug a bit deeper. Here is a five transistor version of John May's four transistor version.
Out of curiousity,
I upped the currents through Q1A and Q1B by about an order of magnitude (R27 down to 27k, R17 down to 22kk and R28 down to 68k)
and the worst case harmonic became the second at 2kHz, 155dB below the the fundamental. The fourth was close behind at at about
157dB down.
Essentially, their incremental resistance has dropped by an order of magnitude, and the ripple on the gain-control signal produces
less voltage excursion.
--
Bill Sloman, sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtihob$sfdm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that you
could leave out half the transistors.
I couldn't immediately see exactly how either of the circuits worked, though I could get the simulations to run under LTSpice and
see roughly what was going on.
I've now dug a bit deeper. Here is a five transistor version of John May's four transistor version.
Out of curiousity,
Is that allowed Bill? I thought that making component changes to see if the circuit works better was design by evolution?
I upped the currents through Q1A and Q1B by about an order of magnitude (R27 down to 27k, R17 down to 22kk and R28 down to 68k)
and the worst case harmonic became the second at 2kHz, 155dB below the the fundamental. The fourth was close behind at at about
157dB down.
Essentially, their incremental resistance has dropped by an order of magnitude, and the ripple on the gain-control signal produces
less voltage excursion. >> > Did you mean R20? I don't see R27.
I think the only way forward with this circuit would be to build andtest it.
I'd do a first prototype with everything through hole except LT1679and NSS40301MDR2G.
I'd also put four more resistors in series with each 68k (maybereduce them to 56k) for the four diodes so I can make the current pulses
And add a capacitor (100n min) to ground where the resistors join.
And use the remaining LT4167 (two quad packs) as an output buffer sothat whatever is connected to the output doesn't disturb the
operation of D10.
On 15/04/2025 1:56 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtihob$sfdm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that you
could leave out half the transistors.
I couldn't immediately see exactly how either of the circuits worked, though I could get the simulations to run under LTSpice
and
see roughly what was going on.
I've now dug a bit deeper. Here is a five transistor version of John May's four transistor version.
Out of curiousity,
Is that allowed Bill? I thought that making component changes to see if the circuit works better was design by evolution?
I didn't make the change to see whether it worked better - I did it to see if I'd correctly understood what it was doing. The fact
that it made it work better was incidental.
I upped the currents through Q1A and Q1B by about an order of magnitude (R27 down to 27k, R17 down to 22kk and R28 down to 68k)
and the worst case harmonic became the second at 2kHz, 155dB below the the fundamental. The fourth was close behind at at about
157dB down.
Essentially, their incremental resistance has dropped by an order of magnitude, and the ripple on the gain-control signal
produces
less voltage excursion. >> > Did you mean R20? I don't see R27.
I did indeed.
I think the only way forward with this circuit would be to build andtest it.
Agreed.
I'd do a first prototype with everything through hole except LT1679and NSS40301MDR2G.
Why?
I'd also put four more resistors in series with each 68k (maybereduce them to 56k) for the four diodes so I can make the current pulses in the four diodes exactly equal.
Why? I can see an argument for removing all the 68k resistors so the current being fed through R11 is as high as possible, with
the smallest possible ripple. There is a risk that the diode current will turn off fast enough to drive them into snap-recovery,
but it is remote.
Increasing the 68k resisitors reduces the effect of the tolerance on the forward voltage drop through each diode, but choosing
diodes with a closer tolerance on the forward voltage drop would be a better way to go. The 1N914 doesn't seem to have one at all.
The Infineon-BAS3007ASERIES diodes at least specify 350mV typical and 400mV max at 100mA. I think NExperia had something better
back when it was Philips, but that's a long time ago.
And add a capacitor (100n min) to ground where the resistors join.
Adding more phase delay along the feedback path and make the settling time even longer.
And use the remaining LT4167 (two quad packs) as an output buffer sothat whatever is connected to the output doesn't disturb the
operation of D10.
What D10?
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtl0bc$364bt$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 1:56 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtihob$sfdm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that you
could leave out half the transistors.
I couldn't immediately see exactly how either of the circuits worked, though I could get the simulations to run under LTSpice
and
see roughly what was going on.
I've now dug a bit deeper. Here is a five transistor version of John May's four transistor version.
Out of curiousity,
Is that allowed Bill? I thought that making component changes to see if the circuit works better was design by evolution?
I didn't make the change to see whether it worked better - I did it to see if I'd correctly understood what it was doing. The fact
that it made it work better was incidental.
test it.I upped the currents through Q1A and Q1B by about an order of magnitude (R2o down to 27k, R17 down to 22kk and R28 down to 68k)
and the worst case harmonic became the second at 2kHz, 155dB below the the fundamental. The fourth was close behind at at about
157dB down.
Essentially, their incremental resistance has dropped by an order of magnitude, and the ripple on the gain-control signal
produces less voltage excursion.
I think the only way forward with this circuit would be to build and
Agreed.
I'd do a first prototype with everything through hole except LT1679and NSS40301MDR2G.
Why?
Changing almost anything in this circuit in LTSPice changes the residual harmonic levels.
Assuming the same is true in reality I'd want to be able to change components easily.
I'd also put four more resistors in series with each 68k (maybereduce them to 56k) for the four diodes so I can make the current pulses in the four diodes exactly equal.
Why? I can see an argument for removing all the 68k resistors so the current being fed through R11 is as high as possible, with
the smallest possible ripple. There is a risk that the diode current will turn off fast enough to drive them into snap-recovery,
but it is remote.
Increasing the 68k resisitors reduces the effect of the tolerance on the forward voltage drop through each diode, but choosing
diodes with a closer tolerance on the forward voltage drop would be a better way to go. The 1N914 doesn't seem to have one at all.
The Infineon-BAS3007ASERIES diodes at least specify 350mV typical and 400mV max at 100mA. I think NExperia had something better
back when it was Philips, but that's a long time ago.
Changing to schottky diodes changes the distortion but not always down.
So I'd want to be able to make changes easily on a real prototype.
And add a capacitor (100n min) to ground where the resistors join.
Adding more phase delay along the feedback path and make the settling time even longer.
One of us doesn't care if he has to wait 5 minutes for the purest sinewave.
The other seems to put higher priority on the circuit settling in a few seconds.
I think we'll just have to differ there.
And use the remaining LT4167 (two quad packs) as an output buffer sothat whatever is connected to the output doesn't disturb the
operation of D10.
What D10?
The one that's D14 in your circuit.
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtl0bc$364bt$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 1:56 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtihob$sfdm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that
you
could leave out half the transistors.
I couldn't immediately see exactly how either of the circuits worked, though I could get the simulations to run under LTSpice
and
see roughly what was going on.
I've now dug a bit deeper. Here is a five transistor version of John May's four transistor version.
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtm2og$4v8e$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 11:12 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtl0bc$364bt$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 1:56 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtihob$sfdm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that
you
could leave out half the transistors.
I couldn't immediately see exactly how either of the circuits worked, though I could get the simulations to run under LTSpice
and
see roughly what was going on.
I've now dug a bit deeper. Here is a five transistor version of John May's four transistor version.
Out of curiousity,
Is that allowed Bill? I thought that making component changes to see if the circuit works better was design by evolution?
I didn't make the change to see whether it worked better - I did it to see if I'd correctly understood what it was doing. The
fact
that it made it work better was incidental.
test it.I upped the currents through Q1A and Q1B by about an order of magnitude (R2o down to 27k, R17 down to 22kk and R28 down to
68k)
and the worst case harmonic became the second at 2kHz, 155dB below the the fundamental. The fourth was close behind at at
about
157dB down.
Essentially, their incremental resistance has dropped by an order of magnitude, and the ripple on the gain-control signal
produces less voltage excursion.
I think the only way forward with this circuit would be to build and
Agreed.
I'd do a first prototype with everything through hole except LT1679and NSS40301MDR2G.
Why?
Changing almost anything in this circuit in LTSPice changes the residual harmonic levels.
Assuming the same is true in reality I'd want to be able to change components easily.
I never had much trouble changing surface mount parts.
Then you haven't changed very many or you have better equipment than I do.
I'd also put four more resistors in series with each 68k (maybereduce them to 56k) for the four diodes so I can make the current pulses in the four diodes exactly equal.
Why? I can see an argument for removing all the 68k resistors so the current being fed through R11 is as high as possible, with
the smallest possible ripple. There is a risk that the diode current will turn off fast enough to drive them into snap-recovery,
but it is remote.
Increasing the 68k resisitors reduces the effect of the tolerance on the forward voltage drop through each diode, but choosing
diodes with a closer tolerance on the forward voltage drop would be a better way to go. The 1N914 doesn't seem to have one at
all.
The Infineon-BAS3007ASERIES diodes at least specify 350mV typical and 400mV max at 100mA. I think NExperia had something better
back when it was Philips, but that's a long time ago.
Changing to schottky diodes changes the distortion but not always down.
So I'd want to be able to make changes easily on a real prototype.
There are lots of different Schottky diodes. If I remember right they don't do step-recovery, which might help. The first thing
I'd go for would be a tight tolerance on the forward voltage drop.
You might find that in a quad diode pack. I used to browse Farnell catalogue for that sort of stuff. Searching their data-base
doesn't work as well.
You might still want to equalise the currents because the four diodes aren't driven 100% exactly the same.
The best I could do was the BAS40-05 common cathode dual from Nexperia and Infineon. That offers 250mV min, 310mV typical and
380mV max at 1mA, and looser tolerances at higher currents. Within the part the two diodes are matched to better than 20mV.
What I actually want is critically damped - dead-beat - settling. Having a long period while the amplitude is ringing down isAnd add a capacitor (100n min) to ground where the resistors join.
Adding more phase delay along the feedback path and make the settling time even longer.
One of us doesn't care if he has to wait 5 minutes for the purest sinewave. >>
evidence that the circuit designer doesn't know what they are doing. This isn't the first time I've called your attention to this.
There's no need to state the obvious, which is that I don't care if it takes 5 minutes for the circuit to settle.
You have it heavily damped, under damped, over damped, lightly damped, critically damped, slightly damped or whatever damped you
want. I'm ok with that.
The other seems to put higher priority on the circuit settling in a few seconds.
I think we'll just have to differ there.
And use the remaining LT4167 (two quad packs) as an output buffer sothat whatever is connected to the output doesn't disturb the
operation of D10.
What D10?
The one that's D14 in your circuit.
If John May didn't bother it's probably not worth doing.
John May did show that separately buffering the signals to the four diodes improves performance.
This is similar to equalising the currents through them.
More to the point, it's easier fit complex layouts around dual op amps rather than quad packages, and you'd be better off using
the LT1678.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/16789fs.pdf
A very low distortion sine wave source does call for careful layout, and quad packs would be an invitation to disaster.
Yes I have to agree that use of the dual version (four packages or five with some unused) would be a good idea here.
On 15/04/2025 11:12 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtl0bc$364bt$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 1:56 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtihob$sfdm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that
you
could leave out half the transistors.
I couldn't immediately see exactly how either of the circuits worked, though I could get the simulations to run under LTSpice
and
see roughly what was going on.
I've now dug a bit deeper. Here is a five transistor version of John May's four transistor version.
Out of curiousity,
Is that allowed Bill? I thought that making component changes to see if the circuit works better was design by evolution?
I didn't make the change to see whether it worked better - I did it to see if I'd correctly understood what it was doing. The
fact
that it made it work better was incidental.
test it.I upped the currents through Q1A and Q1B by about an order of magnitude (R2o down to 27k, R17 down to 22kk and R28 down to
68k)
and the worst case harmonic became the second at 2kHz, 155dB below the the fundamental. The fourth was close behind at at
about
157dB down.
Essentially, their incremental resistance has dropped by an order of magnitude, and the ripple on the gain-control signal
produces less voltage excursion.
I think the only way forward with this circuit would be to build and
Agreed.
I'd do a first prototype with everything through hole except LT1679and NSS40301MDR2G.
Why?
Changing almost anything in this circuit in LTSPice changes the residual harmonic levels.
Assuming the same is true in reality I'd want to be able to change components easily.
I never had much trouble changing surface mount parts.
I'd also put four more resistors in series with each 68k (maybereduce them to 56k) for the four diodes so I can make the current pulses in the four diodes exactly equal.
Why? I can see an argument for removing all the 68k resistors so the current being fed through R11 is as high as possible, with
the smallest possible ripple. There is a risk that the diode current will turn off fast enough to drive them into snap-recovery,
but it is remote.
Increasing the 68k resisitors reduces the effect of the tolerance on the forward voltage drop through each diode, but choosing
diodes with a closer tolerance on the forward voltage drop would be a better way to go. The 1N914 doesn't seem to have one at
all.
The Infineon-BAS3007ASERIES diodes at least specify 350mV typical and 400mV max at 100mA. I think NExperia had something better
back when it was Philips, but that's a long time ago.
Changing to schottky diodes changes the distortion but not always down.
So I'd want to be able to make changes easily on a real prototype.
There are lots of different Schottky diodes. If I remember right they don't do step-recovery, which might help. The first thing
I'd go for would be a tight tolerance on the forward voltage drop.
You might find that in a quad diode pack. I used to browse Farnell catalogue for that sort of stuff. Searching their data-base
doesn't work as well.
The best I could do was the BAS40-05 common cathode dual from Nexperia and Infineon. That offers 250mV min, 310mV typical and
380mV max at 1mA, and looser tolerances at higher currents. Within the part the two diodes are matched to better than 20mV.
And add a capacitor (100n min) to ground where the resistors join.
Adding more phase delay along the feedback path and make the settling time even longer.
One of us doesn't care if he has to wait 5 minutes for the purest sinewave.
What I actually want is critically damped - dead-beat - settling. Having a long period while the amplitude is ringing down is
evidence that the circuit designer doesn't know what they are doing. This isn't the first time I've called your attention to this.
The other seems to put higher priority on the circuit settling in a few seconds.
I think we'll just have to differ there.
And use the remaining LT4167 (two quad packs) as an output buffer sothat whatever is connected to the output doesn't disturb the
operation of D10.
What D10?
The one that's D14 in your circuit.
If John May didn't bother it's probably not worth doing.
More to the point, it's easier fit complex layouts around dual op amps rather than quad packages, and you'd be better off using
the LT1678.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/16789fs.pdf
A very low distortion sine wave source does call for careful layout, and quad packs would be an invitation to disaster.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Edward Rawde" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:vtlm0g$21p4$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com...
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtl0bc$364bt$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 1:56 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtihob$sfdm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that
you
could leave out half the transistors.
I couldn't immediately see exactly how either of the circuits worked, though I could get the simulations to run under LTSpice
and
see roughly what was going on.
I've now dug a bit deeper. Here is a five transistor version of John May's four transistor version.
As a first prototype I'd build the circuit below using only through hole components except where through hole is either not
available or not desirable such as ceramic capacitors.
Resistors may be done with pads so that through hole resistors can be soldered on in such a way that they're rather easier to remove
than an 0402.
In recent years I've been asked if I can repair equipment such as a music keyboard.
If the internals are surface mount and the problem isn't an obvious one (eg wrong power adapter) I will generally decline to try.
Find someone who can get the dried up surface mount electrolytics off without damaging the board, if it hasn't been damaged already
by leaking electrolyte.
There may well be equipment which can do it but I don't have it.
The second prototype for this circuit would be all surface mount.
Unless I win a lottery I won't be either building it or figuring out what I need to test it.
I'm done with sinewave oscillators except for being curious about how to design a suitable sample and hold circuit in the other
circuit JM posted.
Use of a comparator to obtain the sampling signal might reintroduce all the harmonics we want to get rid of.
On 16/04/2025 3:22 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtm2og$4v8e$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 11:12 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtl0bc$364bt$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 1:56 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtihob$sfdm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that
you
could leave out half the transistors.
I couldn't immediately see exactly how either of the circuits worked, though I could get the simulations to run under
LTSpice
and
see roughly what was going on.
I've now dug a bit deeper. Here is a five transistor version of John May's four transistor version.
Out of curiousity,
Is that allowed Bill? I thought that making component changes to see if the circuit works better was design by evolution?
I didn't make the change to see whether it worked better - I did it to see if I'd correctly understood what it was doing. The
fact
that it made it work better was incidental.
I upped the currents through Q1A and Q1B by about an order of magnitude (R2o down to 27k, R17 down to 22kk and R28 down to
68k)
and the worst case harmonic became the second at 2kHz, 155dB below the the fundamental. The fourth was close behind at at
about
157dB down.
Essentially, their incremental resistance has dropped by an order of magnitude, and the ripple on the gain-control signal
produces less voltage excursion.
I think the only way forward with this circuit would be to build and >>>>> test it.
Agreed.
I'd do a first prototype with everything through hole except LT1679 >>>>> and NSS40301MDR2G.
Why?
Changing almost anything in this circuit in LTSPice changes the residual harmonic levels.
Assuming the same is true in reality I'd want to be able to change components easily.
I never had much trouble changing surface mount parts.
Then you haven't changed very many or you have better equipment than I do. >>
I'd also put four more resistors in series with each 68k (maybereduce them to 56k) for the four diodes so I can make the current pulses in the four diodes exactly equal.
Why? I can see an argument for removing all the 68k resistors so the current being fed through R11 is as high as possible,
with
the smallest possible ripple. There is a risk that the diode current will turn off fast enough to drive them into
snap-recovery,
but it is remote.
Increasing the 68k resisitors reduces the effect of the tolerance on the forward voltage drop through each diode, but choosing
diodes with a closer tolerance on the forward voltage drop would be a better way to go. The 1N914 doesn't seem to have one at
all.
The Infineon-BAS3007ASERIES diodes at least specify 350mV typical and 400mV max at 100mA. I think NExperia had something
better
back when it was Philips, but that's a long time ago.
Changing to schottky diodes changes the distortion but not always down. >>>> So I'd want to be able to make changes easily on a real prototype.
There are lots of different Schottky diodes. If I remember right they don't do step-recovery, which might help. The first thing
I'd go for would be a tight tolerance on the forward voltage drop.
You might find that in a quad diode pack. I used to browse Farnell catalogue for that sort of stuff. Searching their data-base
doesn't work as well.
You might still want to equalise the currents because the four diodes aren't driven 100% exactly the same.
The best I could do was the BAS40-05 common cathode dual from Nexperia and Infineon. That offers 250mV min, 310mV typical and
380mV max at 1mA, and looser tolerances at higher currents. Within the part the two diodes are matched to better than 20mV.
And add a capacitor (100n min) to ground where the resistors join.
Adding more phase delay along the feedback path and make the settling time even longer.
One of us doesn't care if he has to wait 5 minutes for the purest sinewave.
What I actually want is critically damped - dead-beat - settling. Having a long period while the amplitude is ringing down is
evidence that the circuit designer doesn't know what they are doing. This isn't the first time I've called your attention to
this.
There's no need to state the obvious, which is that I don't care if it takes 5 minutes for the circuit to settle.
You have it heavily damped, under damped, over damped, lightly damped, critically damped, slightly damped or whatever damped you
want. I'm ok with that.
Then you don't know enough about what's going on. This low distortion sine wave exercise is - to an appreciable extent - an
exercise in keeping audiophools happy, and you need to give them a product that doesn't make them anxious.
The other seems to put higher priority on the circuit settling in a few seconds.
I think we'll just have to differ there.
And use the remaining LT4167 (two quad packs) as an output buffer so >>>>> that whatever is connected to the output doesn't disturb the
operation of D10.
What D10?
The one that's D14 in your circuit.
If John May didn't bother it's probably not worth doing.
John May did show that separately buffering the signals to the four diodes improves performance.
Loading the op amps in the ring oscillator with a rectifier diode is going to affect the output current a little - op amps don't
have zero output impedance. Buffering everything might be the ideal, but it is extravagant and offers extra interactions which you
may have to tame separately.
This is similar to equalising the currents through them.
It isn't. Even if you equalise the current drawn (and they should be very similar) the current is only being drawn during when the
sine wave is appreciably positive, and that's going to generate some distortion, though probably not enough to get excited about.
More to the point, it's easier fit complex layouts around dual op amps rather than quad packages, and you'd be better off using
the LT1678.
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/16789fs.pdf
A very low distortion sine wave source does call for careful layout, and quad packs would be an invitation to disaster.
Yes I have to agree that use of the dual version (four packages or five with some unused) would be a good idea here.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtm616$6vpo$1@dont-email.me...
On 16/04/2025 3:22 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtm2og$4v8e$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 11:12 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtl0bc$364bt$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 1:56 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtihob$sfdm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
Edward Rawde posted an eight-transistor low distortion sine wave oscillator circuit recently, and John May pointed out that
you
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtm616$6vpo$1@dont-email.me...
On 16/04/2025 3:22 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtm2og$4v8e$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 11:12 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtl0bc$364bt$1@dont-email.me...
On 15/04/2025 1:56 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vtihob$sfdm$1@dont-email.me...
On 12/04/2025 6:27 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
There's no need to state the obvious, which is that I don't care if it takes 5 minutes for the circuit to settle.
You have it heavily damped, under damped, over damped, lightly damped, critically damped, slightly damped or whatever damped you
want. I'm ok with that.
Then you don't know enough about what's going on. This low distortion sine wave exercise is - to an appreciable extent - an
exercise in keeping audiophools happy, and you need to give them a product that doesn't make them anxious.
LOL I'm no audiophool but I do know that you would seize on any opportunity to tell someone else that they don't know what they're
doing Bill.
Actually the low distortion sine wave exercise was an exercise in finding out whether you can make a low distortion 1Khz oscillator
without using lamps, thermistors, opto devices or FETs as voltage variable resistors.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with audiophoolery.
If any aspects of the circuits make you anxious then I'd advise consulting a doctor for the appropriate meds.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 30:20:08 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Calls today: | 17 |
| Files: | 13,749 |
| Messages: | 6,188,695 |