Why no threads on OTL amps?

Jtinn, your comments are appreciated but in my opinion are quite closed minded about this amplifer design which eliminates the need for an audio output transformer, hence "OTL". Sure, not OTL in the sense of the some 50 year old school of though about OTL tube amps but an OTL design nonetheless.

Please keep in mind this is a new kind of OTL amp design which requires the old school thought of conventional OTL designs to be tossed out entirely and a new sophisticated one to be layed out on the board from scratch.

Anyone want to compare the old school OTL with the new school OTL directly? Please come on by, I'd put this 270 against any other 70W OTL on the market today.

Chris

My reading of the schematic on the Berning patent shows no "output transformer." There is a coupling transformer for the RF carrier network that which is what actually performs the impedance matching function. Since this coupling transormer does not perform the function of "output transformer", with the attendant sonic weaknesses(ie phase shift, saturation, and HF rolloff), it cannot correctly be termed as one. So, if you want to nit-pick, here's a nit-pick in return. I will allow that the Berning could not be termed "total transformerless" but OTL does apply for the above stated reasons. The Zero Hysteresis moniker could not be applied if this amp had an output transformer. If you look at the square-wave response on an oscilloscope(as shown in Berning's "white paper") you can easily see the difference. No ouput transformer could behave like this. Perhaps you have been talking to Jennifer Crock, as she has been referred to in an article as saying the Berning is not OTL. I will not speculate on her reasons for saying this, but her misunderstanding of the circuit is not Berning's concern. He makes amps. So, yes it is OTL, no it is not TTL, it is radically creative and brilliant, and it sounds great. No knock on any other great OTLs out there, just my meager expanation on a minor technicality that I wanted to address about the OTL designation.

I say to-MAY-to, you say to-MAH-to. Every time there's a discussion of OTL amps and the Berning comes up, the thread eventually evolves into a debate (to put it politely) over whether the Berning is 'really' an OTL. Who cares? Obviously, some people do, or the issue would never arise. But why SHOULD anybody care? Isn't the issue whether the amplifier, OTL or not, does its job well--namely, accurately amplifying an audio signal? What additional value--financial, 'bragging rights', whatever- would a Berning amp gain from being a 'true' OTL, or lose from NOT being a true 'OTL'? "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet", said some famous poet.
By the way, I own a Berning 270, and love it with my Merlin Milleniums, whether it's an OTL or not.

Jtinn, just for the record it is not my goal to invalidate your comments entirely and perhaps my statement of being "quite closed minded" was going a bit far. My intent is not to create personal conflict in this forum, as I do not feel its necessary in order to make a point. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and interpretation of the design in question. Like many around here often state, "let your own ears decide".

Best Regards,
Chris

So let me understand. The idea of a OTL amp is that there is no transformer between the tubes and the speakers, right? So, here we have a transformer that's not a transformer because we don't want it to be a transformer, so the amp is OTL because we want it to be an OTL and be included in that class of amps.

Other than a desire to argue, what's the point of the debate?

Best wishes,

Bill E.
Owner of Tenor's