Pars -
Quote:
| What do I think? Rapidshare absolutely sucks for hosting! |
Well, it is used for most of the hosting I ever saw concerning bigger files, so, suggest alternative
Or better not and let's concentrate on the subject
Quote:
| I would agree that that thing uses alot of caps in the output stage |
I hope this is typo and you mean the input stage. And yes, there is overhelming number of caps. Let's look at this:
Inputs switching:
Did not do the deblocking caps blur the audio a little? I mean these C99 - C104. I think removing them will only help. Also I think that it is brain-dead first lower the signal 1/9 (the R129 / R135 divider, 1k / 10k) and then pass it thru the switcher as then any inperfect contact in the switcher play major role in audio quality and since the switcher is general use crap and there is vibrations... I think this is a bad idea. I probably can get rid of this by hard-soldering the switcher connectors in the AC3 input position.
Remote control and electric motor for volume scheme - nothing interesting anyway:
Complete audio scheme of the Genius SW-5.1 HT
Now this is the most interesting stuff.
As anyone can see, each input is, once again (?!) blocked to the ground with another cap, a C1 for example. Then decoupled of any possible DC offset by 10uF 25V cap C3 and then pass thru opamp and again (?!) decoupled to kill DC offset by 10uF 25V cap C9.
And before the poor Front Left channel even reach the aplifier, then there is yet another decoupling capacitor - again 10uF 25V C13.
I cannot help thinking that these caps (mainly because they are NOT audio grade ones AND there is too much of them) will badly affect quality of the output.
How about keeping only the C13 and using a 22uF 25V Elna RFS instead of known bad cap CapXon?
Holly Grail would be no cap, of course. But then I need to worry about DC offset, I suposse.
AudioCats -
Quote:
| prefer AD8599 over LM4562? |
Well, you did extensive work there, thanks a lot. The way I look at the results it mean that the LM4562 is still a good choice for me, because they are fast-enough for the guitar music
(and electronic music/games)
But you made me think, if the subwoofer opamp should not be better other that LM 4562
Did it can help, since the source of audio signal is my modified X-Fi with all four of the LM4562 opamps???
majkel -
Quote:
| Both OPA2134 and especially LM4562 are total sonic crap. |
I quess your ears are too good - or too spoiled by too good outputs. I did not yet hear anything like that, so... Please bear in mind, that the X-Fi Fatal1ty is nothing supergreat, even modified, and that I already modified the card to use the LM4562 opamps...
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f6/x-f...lution-216791/
So do you think that it really can change anything, what opamps I use there?
Check out the schematics. There is IMHO much more that kill the audio.
Frankly spoken, as I see it, the whole schematics is one big failure - to be taken from a audiophile point of view.
All I see is one opamps in X-Fi, then their signal lost on resistors and then yet another opamps and then the output amplifiers.
Now the best way would probably be to get rid of the second opamps at all and drive the output aplifiers directly from the X-Fi opamps.
Of course with the potentiometer to regulate the volume, but that it is. Nothing else.
That would require top-to-bottom rework of the speakers, tough.
But if I keep the X-Fi opamps not too much overloaded, then I probably can get the highest quality possible this way - eg. the best opamp is not two good opamps in line, but only one
What do you think?
Quote:
| AD8599 is a great and safe idea. |
What if I'm a big fan of electronic music, old demos and guitars?
AudioCats mentioned in his testings (
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f6/sta...9/#post3536731 ) that a "not as sharp as I want for playing Rock/electric guitar though" ...
What about use it just for the subwoofer opamp?
I think I want remove most of them, if not all 
Just like on my X-Fi 
