Parni_Valjak

Информацията за лампите рожба на Доктор Зигмунд Льове, която ditronix ми изпрати е във форма на HTML страница и не е подходяща за представяне във формата на форума. Все пак ще дам адреса на публикацията, за да може да се прегледа от желаещите. http://www.jogis-roe...ehren/Loewe.htm Тук помествам една статия, която разглежда споменатия феномен и може да го осветли достатъчно информативно. Лампи в лампи

Аз не бих могъл да бъда полезен за избор на съвременен усилвател,защото не ми харесва нито технологията им, нито това, което изкарват като звук. Еталон за чист канал са старите Фендери. Характерен чист канал имат старите Маршали (например plexi). Всичко това е резултат от твърде много инженерни неща, за да може лесно да се обобщи. За силен кривоч наистина трябва да се търси нещо съвсем модерно, грубо. И понеже това is not my cup of tea, демек не е мой звук, не мога да бъда компетентен. Тук metalhammer ще е полезен! Опитът с атенюаторите, ми дава възможност да съм достатъчно убеден, че характерният лампов звук се получава само с подходящо крайно стъпало и съответен режим в който е поставено. Важен елемент е регулирането на преднапрежението (BIAS). Различни настройки изваждат различни нюанси на звука. Обратната информация от хора, ползващи мои атенюатори е твърдо ЗА достатъчно добро лампово стъпало и атенюатор след него. Естествено зависи какъв е атенюатора. Може да звучи като реклама, но наскоро ми бе споделено, че мой атенюатор е предпочетен пред Маршалов Powerbrake. Свидетел съм от преди и на други смени на оригинални атенюатори. Явно има причини. Среднощно свирене без атенюатор не става. Нито качеството на звука, нито силата са приемливи. Това мога да споделя на този етап. Успех с избора!

Спомни си какво съм ти дал на лично съобщение!

Ама ти си бил един малък Рокфелер!

Преложение, което да отговаря на заданието НЯМА.

Венци, имаш противоречия в заданието. Фатални противоречия, т.е. неизпълними. Понеже не един път ми се е случвало да бъда атакуван с големи мераци и малки възможности, и резултатът винаги е бил без решение, предлагам да бъдеш съвсем конкретен за финансовото обезпечение. Така ще може да се пресее възможното от невъзможното. Дали ще може да се реализира на практика посоченото задание не се знае. Моето мнение е - не. Ще обясня съвсем елементарно. Наличието в една апаратура на посочените в заданието възможности (не всички, както споменах) се срещат само в големи и най-големи модели. А те , да влезна в стила на автора на темата , са за Рокфелеровци . За да има някакво съответствие цена/ възможности, малките модели са евтини без много екстри. Едрите пари на големите модели, позволяват повече екстри. Винаги има някакъв баланс. Тук искам да подчертая нещо много важно, за да не се подвеждат четящите с малко опит. По-евтините решения със подобен набор възможности НЕ СА ЛАМПОВИ. Те са много ралични като идея и звук. ПП. Ще отворя дума и за нещата втора ръка, за които надали някой във форума има повече опит от мен. Vintage апаратурите са много добро нещо (най-доброто), но за да станат такива, се налага доста допълнително инвестиране във възстановяването им. Какво искам да предупредя. Това, че се купува на ниска цена априори скъп модел, не означава, че възстановяването ще бъде също евтино! По-скоро ще съответства на оригиналната цена! ПП. Моля не въвеждайте в заблуждение за тихото свирене. Толкова е писано, но никой не чете! 20 вата , 10 вата, дори 5 вата са непоносими за домашно свирене! Лампов усилвател? Че какъв е смисълът от него, ако се ползва без да се усети неговата същност? В такъв случай по-добре послушайте TONY - вземете си моделиращ полупроводников евтинджан.

Не съм казал на лично!

The brainy ones. The backroom boys. The boffins.Genius! is all about celebrating those clever people whose inventions have transformed the world of professional audio – and the very first issue, the print version of which mails with the February issue of PSNEurope, is now available to read in handy digital-edition form. Read it online, or download as a PDF, using the links below. Умните. Скритите момчета. Техничарите. Гений! е изцяло за възхвала на онези умни хора, чиито изобретения са преобразили света на професионалната звукотехника - и е съвсем първото издание, на което печатната версия е приложена към Февруарското издание на PSNEurope. Сега може да се прочете в удобен цифров формат. Четете директно, или запазете в PDF , като използвате връзката по-долу. GENIUS !

Vux си е VUX

Защо пропускаш Nady Simmons Pearl Prophet Furman Vux Мисля, че знам защо... но няма да придирям. Nady Systems, Inc. Simmons (electronic drum company) Pearl Drums Prophet synth (Sequential Circuits ) Furmansound

PSNEurope February 2015 digital edition now available

Изпрати ми файла. Ще го публикувам в "техническа литература".

Може, но 80 е това. Ако не е 80, може да е 60, 40, 20... Може да е "Artist", но няма да е 80!!! Успях да видя, че е ARTIST !!! В началния пост да има някъде думата Artist? Защо ли се чудя...

Introducing USB Type-C -- USB for 21st Century Systems Max Maxfield, Designline Editor 1/29/2015 Industry leaders are poised to start rolling out devices enabled with a new form of USB -- USB Type-C -- featuring a small, robust connector that can handle 20Gbps and 100W. Have you heard about USB Type-C? If not, then you'd better prepare yourself, because this little beauty is poised to take the world by storm. The USB Implementers Forum (USB-IF) demonstrated USB Type-C at CES 2015, and industry leaders are expected to start launching USB Type-C-enabled products by mid-2015. This new USB incarnation offers so many advantages that I predict the rate of its deployment will make all of our heads spin like tops. The world before USB It seems strange to me that a lot of younger folks don't actually remember a time before the USB (Universal Serial Bus) standard appeared on the scene, so this portion of the proceedings may prove to be of interest to them. And, in the case of us "old timers," it may be fun to take a brief stroll down memory lane and remind ourselves just hard life used to be. Let's start by considering a typical desktop or deskside computer system circa the early-1990s. Each of the peripheral devices that plugged into this machine would do so using one of a cornucopia of capriciously convoluted connectors. On the I/O (input/output) panel on the back of the computer there would be two PS/2 connectors -- one for the keyboard and one for the mouse. Even though these connectors were physically the same, however, the devices weren't interchangeable because they used a different set of commands. The only clue you had in the early days were little mouse and keyboard icons next to the ports on the I/O panel. Unfortunate, these could be quite difficult to locate and decipher when on one's hands and knees in the gloom under one's desk. I can remember the first time I saw a computer that had color-coded plugs and sockets associated with these connectors and thinking to myself: "Wow, that's an amazingly clever idea!" (As you can tell, I was easily impressed in those days.) Next, you would have one or two 9-pin RS-232 connectors. These were referred to as serial ports or COM ports (for communications), and they could be used to connect a variety of external devices such as scanners, plotters, external modems, and so forth. On the one hand these ports were extremely useful; on the other hand they could be a real pain, because when you connected a new device you often had to set up a load of nitty-gritty communications details, such as the number of data bits, the number of stop bits, and the speed of the interface. But wait, there's more, because you'd almost certainly have a parallel port and/or a Centronics port to drive your printer, plus you might have a Scuzzy port to connect to external storage devices, and the list goes on. Oh, what fun we had! Quite apart from the fact that these connectors were bulky and expensive, they -- and the systems that employed them -- were somewhat limited in their capabilities. For example, there was no such thing as a hot-plug capability in which devices could be added or removed without powering down the computer. These things were cold-pluggable, which meant that if you wanted to add or remove a device, you would have to power-down your computer, make your change, and then power everything up again. Another big problem came when you ran out of connectors on the back of your machine. If you required an additional RS-232 port, for example, you would have to add an expansion card to your system. Actually you typically needed to add expansion cards for all sorts of things, such as modems and sound cards and suchlike. The problem was that adding an expansion card to an ISA (Industry Standard Architecture) bus-based system was a non-trivial matter. (ISA was the precursor to the Peripheral Component Interconnect (PCI) standard.) In order to add a card, you had to remove the cover to your PC, set a number of switches and/or jumpers on the card to configure it, and then insert the card into a free slot in the system. What? Did you think I forgot to mention replacing the cover on the PC? If only things were that simple. Generally speaking, this was the time when your problems really started. Once the system was powered up, you would typically have to load the software driver for this device from a floppy disk. Then you would have to juggle a limited number of interrupt request lines to ensure that the resources you had selected weren't already being used by another device. Adding a simple modem card, for example, could take hours -- and that was if you really knew what you were doing; for average users the whole thing was a nightmare of confusion and despair! USB 1.0 to 3.1 In order to address all of the connector-related issues presented on the previous page, a group of seven companies got together in 1994. These companies -- who we should all thank profusely -- were Compaq, DEC, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, NEC, and Nortel. What they wanted to was to make it fundamentally easier to connect external devices to computers. In order to do this, they set about addressing the usability issues of existing interfaces and simplifying the software configuration of any devices connected to the computer, as well as permitting greater bandwidths for external devices. The result, of course, was the Universal Serial Bus, or USB for short. USB 1.0 was released in January 1996, but there were a number of "glitches" and "gotchas," with the result that few USB 1.0 devices actually made it to the market. USB 1.1 was released in September 1998. This release fixed the problems in the 1.0 version and was the earliest version to be widely adopted. The first time I personally saw a USB connector was on the back of a tower computer I purchased in the summer of 1998. Unfortunately, these connectors didn't work for some time until a software patch became available. On the bright side, this really didn't affect me too much because -- at that time -- I didn't have any USB-enabled devices to plug into the computer anyway. Of course, this was soon to change, and it wasn't long before USB products of all shapes and sizes were to be found strewn all around my office. Now, if there's one thing we know for sure, it's that we have an ever-increasing demand to move more and more data around. USB 1.x specified data rates of 1.5 Mbps (megabits per second; known as Low Speed) and 12 Mbps (known as Full Speed). These bandwidths were OK for less-demanding applications -- like mice and keyboards and even printers and scanners -- but they were painfully slow when it came to transferring larger chunks of data. This led to the USB 2.0 specification, which was formally standardized by the USB-IF toward the end of 2001. In addition to adding new transfer mechanisms and other techno-weenie details, USB 2.0 also augmented the existing speed variants with a higher data transfer rate of 480 Mbps (High Speed), which was a 40-fold increase over the Full Speed maximum bandwidth offered by USB 1.x. The advantages associated with USB are difficult to overstate. I don't know about you, but I can no longer envisage a world without things like USB memory sticks (I find it hard to believe that an RS-232-based memory stick would have the same appeal). The fact that USB-enabled devices are hot-pluggable has saved the human race countless hours that would otherwise have been spent fruitlessly powering computers down and up again. Also, when you connect a new USB device to your computer, it can either use an existing driver or it will automatically download the required driver over the Internet. If you run out of USB ports on your computer, you can simply plug in a USB hub (port expander) and off you go again. And there's also the fact that USB cables can be used to power and/or charge peripheral devices like digital cameras and MP3 players. Now, before we proceed any further, this is probably a good time to consider USB cables. In the case of USB 1.x, we started out with two types of connectors called Type-A (which plugs into the computer) and Type-B (which plugs into the peripheral). As a point of interest, observe that the power contacts are longer than the data contacts, thereby ensuring that a USB-enabled device starts to receive power before the data pins make contact. Some devices, like a mouse or keyboard, are equipped with a cable coming out of them, where this cable boasts a Type-A connector. Other devices, like a printer, require a cable with a Type-A connector on one end and a Type-B connector on the other. Now, if I might make so bold, I fear that the creation of Type-A and Type-B connectors is where the creators of USB started to get a tad over-enthusiastic and went a little awry. First of all, these connectors are polarized, which means you have to work out which side is the "top" before plugging them in. I cannot tell you how many times I've tried to plug one in the wrong way over the years, which has resulted in much gnashing of teeth and rending of garb, let me tell you. And why do we need two different connectors in the first place? Why not stick a Type-A plugs on both ends of the cable and have Type-A sockets on both the computer and the printer (or other peripheral device)? Personally, I think this was where the USB designers over-engineered things. I believe they worried that the rest of us were so stupid that we might plug both ends of the cable into two sockets on the same PC -- or even two sockets on different PCs. In reality, the chances of this were pretty slight, and -- even if some drongo did end up doing this -- it would not have been beyond our capabilities to design the systems in question such that they could detect the fact that there was a problem, disable the ports, and inform us as to our mistake. Oh well, "what's done is done," as they say. It soon became obvious that the Type-A and Type-B connectors were too large for certain applications, and that more compact versions were required for use with smaller devices such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile phones, digital cameras, and so forth. These newer versions include the Mini-A and Mini-B and Micro-A and Micro-B connectors as illustrated below. Observe that both the Mini and Micro connectors have five pins (unlike the Standard A and B connectors, which have four). This extra ID pin permits distinction of an A plug from a B plug. In the case of an A plug, the ID pin is connected to signal ground; in the case of a B plug, the ID pin is left unconnected. This capability is used to support things like USB On-The-Go (OTG), in which a device can assume the role of a Host (acting as the link master) or a Peripheral (acting as the link slave). While we're here, we should also mention the concept of Wireless USB (unofficially known as WUSB), which is a short-range, high-bandwidth wireless radio communication protocol created by the Wireless USB Promoter Group at the USB Implementers Forum. Wireless USB may be of interest in applications like game controllers, printers, scanners, digital cameras, MP3 players, and hard disks and flash drives. But we digress... November 2008 saw the release of the USB 3.0 standard, which can support a SuperSpeed mode offering 5 Gbps. The really cool things about this is that a USB 3.0 port -- which is usually colored blue -- is backwards-compatible with USB 2.0 devices and cables. The way this works is via a dual-bus architecture that allows USB 1.x/2.0 (Low Speed, Full Speed, or High Speed) and USB 3.0 (SuperSpeed) operations to take place simultaneously. Take a look at the USB 3.0 Standard-A connector shown below (USB 3.0 Standard-B and Micro-B connectors are also available): Observe the front row of four pins providing USB 1.x/2.0 backwards-compatibility; these are augmented by a second row of five pins that support USB 3.0 connectivity. In July 2013, the USB 3.1 specification was released. By means of a new encoding scheme -- coupled with enhanced, fully-backwards-compatible versions of the same cables and connectors as USB 3.0 -- USB 3.1 doubles the maximum bandwidth to 10 Gbps. This new transfer mode is officially referred to as "SuperSpeed USB 10 Gbps" or "SuperSpeed+" for short. All of which means that we've now set the scene for USB Type-C to make its grand entrance (cue roll of drums and fanfare of trumpets)... USB Type-C There several different aspects to USB Type C, including the physical connector itself, a much more sophisticated power delivery scheme, and support for flexible new communication modes. Let's start with the 24-pin connector, which is both small (3mm high and 8mm wide) and robust (it's rated for 10,000 mate/de-mate cycles). A few of the key features associated with USB Type-C cables and connectors are as follows: The connector is non-polarized -- it plugs in either way -- no longer do we have to dork around trying to determine "Which side goes up?" The connecter is small enough that the same connector can be used everywhere -- on workstations, tablet computers, MP3 players, smartphones, digital cameras, etc. Unlike the vast majority of other USB cables, Type-C cables have the same male connector on both ends -- it's up to the things they are plugged into to "negotiate" with each other to determine who is in charge of doing what. The specification supports data bandwidths up to 20 Gbps and facilitates alternate, non-USB, vendor-defined modes (you'll need the right type of cable to support these higher bandwidths and advanced modes as discussed below). The specification supports power delivery of up to 100W for faster charging (you'll need the right type of cable to support the more advanced power delivery modes and higher power levels as discussed below). In the case of the simpler power delivery and data transmission modes, passive (unintelligent) cables may be used. When it comes to the more advanced modes, intelligent cables will be required, where such cables contain an electronic ID that can inform the other elements in the system as to that cable's power capacity and the data bandwidths it can handle. Now let's consider the pinout and primary signal assignments for the USB Type-C connector in a little more detail as illustrated below: (Click here to see a larger image.) The roles of the Vbus (power) and GND (ground) pins are reasonably self-explanatory, or so it would at first appear. In reality, things are a little more complex here than you might expect, but we'll return to this in a moment. First, we need to define a few terms, including Downstream-Facing Port (DFP), which we used to refer to as the host, and Upstream-Facing Port (UFP), which we used to think of as the peripheral device. There's also the concept of a Dual Role Port (DRP), which may be configured to act as a DFP or a UFP, and which may be dynamically switched back and forth between the two. The D+ and D- pins are used to support legacy USB 2.0 devices. All that is required in this case is for the DFP to supply 5V on the Vbus pins and "Bob's your uncle" (or aunt, as the case may be). Returning to the Vbus (power) pins, it used to be that the DFP always supplied power to the UFP; now, everything is up for grabs. Consider a USB Type-C-enabled tablet connected to a USB Type-C-enabled television, for example. In this case, the tablet may end up transmitting video data to the television, while the television ends up supplying power to the tablet. Alternatively, if a USB Type-C-enabled tablet were connected to a USB Type-C-enabled smartphone, the tablet may end up supplying the power while the smartphone returns video data for display. Initially, the DFP will supply 5V to the Vbus pins (i.e., the same as USB 2.0 and USB 3.x). USB 2.0 can supply at most 500mA per port, while USB 3.x boosted this up to 900mA per port. USB Type-C can support up to 100W per port (20V at 5A). The actual voltage and power that can be supplied by the DFP (or UFP), conducted by the cable, and accepted by the UFP (or DFP) is determined by the DFP and UFP, which negotiate to agree on the power delivery (PD) scheme; i.e., who is going to supply the power, who is going to receive the power, what voltage is to be used, and how much current will be made available. The end result is that -- depending on its capabilities -- sometimes a device may transmit both power and data; sometimes it may receive both power and data; sometimes it may transmit one and receive the other; and sometimes it may dynamically switch between all of the different possibilities. Once again, this is all subject to negotiation between the various devices. Next, let's consider the two sets of high-speed TX/RX signals. Each of these is capable of supporting the USB 3.1 SuperSpeed+ standard of 10 Gbps, which means USB Type-C can support up to 20 Gbps of raw data. Furthermore, these signals can be configured to support alternative modes and convey various flavors of non-USB data, such as video. We've also got the SBU1/2 sideband signals, which can be configured to transmit whatever data the DFP and UFP can agree upon; perhaps an audio stream, for example. The bottom line is that six of the USB Type-C signals (four TX/RX pairs and two sideband signals) -- highlighted in yellow in the illustration below -- can be configured to support alternative data modes as required (and as negotiated between the DFP and UFP). (Click here to see a larger image.) Several times in our earlier discussions we've mentioned the concept of the DFP and UFP negotiating with each other. Let's consider this concept in a little more detail and -- in order to do so -- let's start with a high-level view of a DFP (host) connected to a UFP (peripheral device) via a USB Type-C cable as illustrated below. (Click here to see a larger image.) Observe that there's only one CC conductor in the cable itself; the Vcon pins at either end are connected to ground via Ra (pull-down) resistors in the cable. The Rp (pull-up) resistors in the DFP have different values to the Rd (pull-down) resistors in the UFP, and both types are different to the pull-down resistors in the cable. These differences allow the DFP and UFP to determine who is who and which way round the cable has been plugged into each of them. Simple USB Type-C cables will be passive, which means they look like the one illustrated above. In order to support the more advanced power and data communication modes, some cables will also be equipped with an electronic ID that can inform the system as to that cable's power capacity and the data bandwidths it can support. Here's a highly-simplified view of how all of this works. First of all, you plug the USB-Type C cable into both devices (or only one device in the case of something like a keyboard, which has the cable attached). We now enter the Cable Detect (CD) phase in which -- by means of the various pull-up and pull-down resistors -- the DFP and UFP determine which way round the cable is plugged into them and who is doing what to whom. Once the DFP has determined which pins on the cable are its CC and Vcon pins, it applies a 5V signal to the CC pin. This is used to power the electronic ID in the cable (if it has one). In turn, the electronic ID in the cable will transmit data on the Vcon pin describing things like its power capacity and data bandwidths. The next step focuses on Power Delivery (PD), in which the DFP and UFP talk to each other to decide who will be supplying power and who will be receiving it. Based on this -- and on the capabilities of the device supplying the power and the ability of the cable to convey it -- the DFP and UFP will come to an agreement regarding the voltage to be used and the current to be made available, and they will then proceed accordingly. The DFP and UFP will also negotiate with regard to the types of data to be transmitted over the high-speed signal channels. In addition to regular USB protocols, the standard also incorporates the concept of Vendor-Defined Messages (VDM), which can support non-USB applications such as PCIe, VGA, HDMI, DP, etc. Furthermore, the sideband channels can also be vendor-defined (e.g., audio). So, to summarize USB Type-C in a nutshell, we have a single small, rugged, non-polarized connector -- along with associated cables and sub-systems -- that can support up to 100W for faster charging and up to 20 Gbps for faster data transmission. The whole shebang is extremely flexible and can support additional vendor-defined modes like audio and video. And, just in case you were wondering, we can expect a host of little dongles to appear that will allow USB Type-C devices and cables to interface with their USB 2.0/3.x counterparts (Type-C devices will "talk down" to whatever capabilities are supported by the legacy devices). FPGAs to the rescue! I'm sure you'll agree with me that the whole USB Type-C concept sounds extremely exciting. However, there are a few issues to consider, not the least that standards like USB Type-C tend to mutate and evolve over time. Furthermore, at the present time, existing PHY devices, microcontrollers (MCUs), and application processors (APs) don't include the hardware necessary to support the critical functions required to unlock the power of USB Type-C interfaces, including things like Cable Detect (CD), Power Delivery (PD), SuperSpeed+ Switch (SS) control, and Vendor-Defined Messaging (VDM). All of this cries out for an FPGA-based solution. One FPGA vendor that is really leaping into this arena with gusto and abandon is Lattice Semiconductor. The folks at Lattice have been putting a lot of thought and effort into implementing USB Type-C, and have generated all sorts of useful intellectual property (IP) blocks for use with their FPGAs. Let's consider one of the simplest possible scenarios. As soon as USB Type-C-enabled devices like tablets, smartphones, MP3 players, and digital cameras start to appear on the scene, one of the first products we can expect to see are appropriate chargers. These chargers will need to be able to take advantage of the new Cable Detect (CD) and Power Delivery (PD) functionality in order to negotiate a power contract that best utilizes the charger's capabilities and meets the device's requirements. Once such a contract has been negotiated, the PD function will be used to control a Power Management Integrated Circuit (PMIC), which will provision the negotiated current and voltage. Remember that this is one of the simpler scenarios. Since chargers and power supplies do not need access to high-speed data streams, there is no need to include the switch control logic for these signal paths in this design. The folks at Lattice have a whole slew of application examples that encompass much more sophisticated designs, including switch control logic for high-speed data streams and Dual Role Port (DRP) support. To be honest, most of what I know about USB Type-C I learned from Gordon Hands -- Director of Marketing (New Initiatives) at Lattice Semiconductor. Don’t let the marketing title fool you; in addition to a Master's degree in Business Administration, Gordon also holds a Bachelor's degree in Engineering (he's one of us, not one of them). In fact, Gordon was kind enough to say that he would be happy to answer any questions we may have with regard to using Lattice's FPGAs to implement USB Type-C functionality in our products, and that we can contact him at Gordon.Hands@latticesemi.com (he may live to regret this). So, having read all of the above, what do you think about USB Type-C? Personally, I cannot wait. I'm sure that the initial transition period will have its interesting moments, but my mind is focused on how wonderful things are going to be in the not-so-distant future. Please share your thoughts in the comments below. Max Maxfield, Editor

Всъщност ние нищо не мислим, хората които са ги създали са си измислили "термини" както казваш. Повечето делят микрофоните на две основни групи : прихващащи и насочени , като вторите се делят на три под групи: кардиоиден, суперкардиоиден и "пушка". Дано да съм бил полезен. Никак не си полезен! Моля да посочиш оригиналния термин на "прихващащ" микрофон! Явно някой също не мислещ и незнаещ е сътворил поредния НОНСЕНС. Съжалявам за чуждицата, но термин "прихващащ" НЯМА! Освен в главата на псевдоспециалист, учил се от интернет! И моля да не ми се предлага цитат от ТЪРГОВСКА публикация, защото няма силата на доказателство.

Абсолютно си е лампа, но разбира се не от вида, който ви е известен . Има много други разновидности на лампите. Разработки на прибори със студен катод във форма на интегрална схема има още от 70-те години на миналия век на SANDIA... Този вариант е с директно отопление. Катодът е самото отопление. Тази тънка жичка, която върви хоризонтално над подложката е отоплението / катода. Параметрите на лампата се определят от много неща, които са вън от тематиката на форума. Но те са взети предвид от разработилите устройството. При това разработката е насочена към специфични изкривявания, за да се получат именно кривочите за инструменталните усилватели и дори за синтезаторите (нали е ясно, че KORG правят синтезатори). От преди много години KORG имат патенти за използване на триодни лампи за работа като изкривители с ниско напрежение на захранване. Предполагам, че сега са продължили разработката и явно имат вече резултат, който да позволи съобщаването в обществото. PS. Долните изображения са от Sandia, известна с военните и специални разработки. Работят с DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), ако това ви говори нещо .

Не са! Катод си има! Даже се вижда на снимката.

Korg & Noritake Introduce Futuristic Nutube Vacuum Tubes At the 2015 NAMM Show, Korg and Noritake introduced the Nutube, a new miniaturized and high performance vacuum tube. In cooperation with Noritake Itron Corporation, Korg has developed the Nutube to offer improved reliability and efficiency, while still generating the same rich harmonics which vacuum tubes are known for. As with previous vacuum tubes, the Nutube is structured with an anode, grid, and filament, and operates as a complete triode tube, generating the same rich harmonics that are distinctive of conventional vacuum tubes. By applying technology from Noritake Co., Limited’s vacuum fluorescent displays, though, the structure of the vacuum tube has been modified, dramatically reducing its size and allowing it to consume less power. Korg outlines these benefits to the new ‘tube on a chip’ technology: Power Consumption. Miniaturization dramatically reduces power consumption, allowing the Nutube to operate using less than 2% of power required by conventional vacuum tubes and making it easy to power the unit on batteries. Compact. The Nutube occupies less than 30% of the volume of a conventional vacuum tube. Its small size and low thermal output allows it to be easily mounted directly on a high-density circuit board without using a socket High reliability and long life. The unique design and state of the art Japanese production facility ensures the Nutubes are built to the highest standard and offer up to 30,000 hours of continuous operating life. The high reliability means that it can be attached directly to the circuit board with confidence knowing that it will not need to be replaced regularly like a 12AX7. “As an electronic component, a vacuum tube has the disadvantages of being larger than a transistor, having a shorter lifespan, and a higher power consumption, and although many people like the sound of a vacuum tube, historically they have been more difficult to deal with,” states Korg’s Fumio Mieda, who has helped develop Korg synth going back all the way to the MS-20. “The Nutube sets us free from these many limitations, making it possible for us to think about using it in new products,” added Mieda. The Nutube 6P1 is designed specifically to generate rich harmonics when used with a musical instrument. Products using the Nutube are currently under development, with announcements expected during 2015.

Не съм кафеджия, но това ми хареса, затова го споделям с кафеджиите...

Първият мощен краен усилвател за домашна и студийна употреба. The Phase Linear 700 amplifier got its name from its combined output of 350 watts per channel. Introduced in 1970, it was, for a while, Phase Linear's only amplifier. The 700 put both Bob Carver, the amp's designer, and Phase Linear on the high end audio map. The early 1970's were heady times for Bob Carver as he worked to expand North American distribution and beat the drum for Phase Linear. The 700 soon became a favorite of recording studio engineers (at 19-inches wide, it was designed for rack mounting), rock bands, jazz musicians and audiophiles. This first generation 700 was laid out asymmetrically, with the VU meters and control knobs toward to right side of the front panel. Carver did two things with the 700 that were meant to eliminate the need for a cooling fan, lower operating temperature and aid in servicing when it became necessary: he placed both the output transistors and the power transformer outside the amplifier enclosure. The output transistors were mounted to the rear heatsinks. The 700 was a 45 pound powerhouse. The 700 listed for $749.00 in 1970, and rose slightly to $779.00 in 1972 and 1973. In 1974 it was replaced by the 700 B