Math 101: you NEED a large (expensive) inductor and a large capacitor there simply because you are getting (not "simulating" but actually "getting", the real deal) a low frequency resonance peak, as what a real speaker provides, and that at speaker impedance level. It´s not just number of inductors alone, but only Aiken (that I know of) loads amp the same way as a speaker does, including the very important Bass resonance peak. "Bedroom" level, no one's recording career depends on this Hewitt's M2 version will likely be cheaper still with only 1 inductor. I assume that the bipolar cap does make the Aiken's circuit different/better but at the moment, my "ghetto" sensibilities tell me that a 1.1mH inductor is way cheaper than a 50mH one. I assume that the resistor values of the resistive part can stay the same even though the inductor values in the reactive part are significantly different, especially L2 (1.1 mH vs 50 mH Aiken's site has a typo where L2 is also marked as L1). ![]() I imagine something like taking Hewitt's stages 2, 3, and 4 (for his 16ohm version since Aikens' is 16 ohm) and tacking them on after Aiken's R3 (68 ohm 5W). Does the omission of the cap make it significantly different? If so, could I use his circuit ( ) and replace the front end with Aiken's circuit? Hewitt (user johnh on some sites) has a reactive load attenuator where his initial designs had 2 inductors but not the bipolar cap that Aiken's has. ![]() I've looked around and there are some implementations that resemble Aiken's circuit.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |