In Reply to: active xover + SoZ posted by toxicport.e on August 18, 2004 at 17:40:49:
active xover + SoZ= less problems because no passive filters with DCR?Yeah, but I don't think the SoZ's output impedance is terribly problematic in the first place.
I did read the Zenlightenment,but i couldnt afford to run it!
,energy is currently 14c/kwhr and no sign of getting cheaper(theyd rather make money than invest in the countrys power grid),i keep my 1kw heater on 1/2 for only a few hours at nite in winter(light snow)yet our power bill is too much still!.....student life!
I knew there was a reason I avoided college. :)
hugely inefficient amplifiers maynot be so useful for me for this reason, unless i want heat + music at the same time!Hey, could work out rather well in the winter months.
I think that a SoZ might well be worth it, i got some 19" rack cases with finned heatsinks covering the ENTIRE Top of it! which is about 2x the area on my dodgy '350w' plate ampIf I'm not mistaken, the original SoZ burns as much power as the Zenlightenment. The only differnece is that that Zenlightenment burns that heat in the light bulbs rather than in the resistors. Ultimately it's the same difference.
I photocopied the ELektor article today,il scan it sometime :-)Hehehe. Ok, I'll hold my breath just a little bit longer. :)
but yes its just an input buffer fet,constant current source fet and output in class A uses a 6v voltage regulator for gate voltageA dozen resistors,a dozen caps, BUZ72A and BS170 fets
Damn. Lots O' parts. I thought it would be far far simpler than that given that 4.3% distortion figure.
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: active xover + SoZ - Steve Eddy 21:31:36 08/19/04 (3)
- Schematic - toxicport.e 18:10:52 08/22/04 (2)
- Re: Schematic - Steve Eddy 18:58:47 08/22/04 (1)
- conclude - toxicport.e 20:31:40 08/23/04 (0)