KevinH, Charles do this for a living and we have done it for a long time. We are not here to teach the ABC's of electronics construction, we are trying to help people make world class electronics similar to what we win awards with.
Ultimately, we rely on our customers to give us feedback as to where we are developing products in a successful direction.
Ultimately, we rely on our customers to give us feedback as to where we are developing products in a successful direction.
Jam, I have said, over and over, that 'I don't teach high school'. There are others here that gladly and successfully teach the ABC's of electronics construction. What I have tried to contribute is an 'advanced' course in audio electronics design that might 'improve' some DIY efforts made here and make them better sounding overall and more competitive with hi end designs. You know this yourself, as you are always asking me advanced questions by telephone, and I have given you more time than most.
Charles and I win international awards for our designs. We have done so for decades. Perhaps that it is OT, for most of you, but if you want to learn a bit about how we do what we do, what gives us audio product designs that win awards from persons we have never even met, then maybe we should be taken somewhat seriously. We must be doing something 'right' and we want to help others to do the same thing. What is wrong with this?
Last edited:
Steve I fail to understand what good comments like this do for the casual viewers that might come here. It sounds like sour grapes that you have not reached the level of public praise that Mr. Curl and Mr, Hansen have for their efforts. These types of comments do little to make you look better.
Tell me, John, exactly what "international" body issues these "international awards" you speak of?
The United Nations?
The World Trade Organization?
Look, John, there are so many products out there which have won various magazine "awards" that vary dramatically in terms of design approach, level of competence, etc. that there is no "formula" for winning awards. They're as varied as the marketplace itself.
"Awards" are nothing more than cheap, cynical marketing tools for magazines and the manufacturers' products that are given these "awards."
se
And yet you include a quote from Positive Feedback on your website! Waht, no award for how they smell?
Ah, the ol' sour grapes canard.
Sorry, no sour grapes here.
First and foremost for me is the pleasure and enjoyment I get from that which I've designed.
Second is the pleasure and enjoyment others may get from it.
Beyond that I really couldn't give a rat's ***.
Bragging about "winning awards" is one of the most shallow, superficial things I can possibly think of and is aimed only at the most shallow and superficial among us. Anyone who would tip toward buying any of my products because of an "award" is someone I would just as soon purchase from someone else.
"Award" is nothing more than a cheap marketing buzzword, along with "patented," "proprietary," etc.
se
But you have never presented one design here and yet this is a diy site so what is it that you are trying to do other than to confuse people with bits of this and bits of that ?? It's just like ideas that are written on the back of used envelopes and somehow you expect people who don't necessarily have any design skills to join up all of the dots. They may as well go and buy your finished products
regards
Trev
Hi Charles,
Hi sottomano,
Because we humans are a curious lot, and also logical (well, some of us are anyway). Charles is saying a lot, and much is misleading when he is arguing with others. The very basic issue is this. Claims are being advanced without one shred of information that might allow anyone to duplicate the experience. In any scientific community, blindly accepting any idea without so much as the most half-hearted attempt to discover why is really going on would make someone a laughing stock. Understand that in no way have I ever suggested that experimental proof is always required. What I am saying is that some attempt must have been made to sort things out, and that the testing procedure be published along with the claimed phenomenon. Any of you who have taken high school science will have been exposed to the proper methods to define an experiment, account for unknowns and document the entire thing. Yet we have a couple of grown men who don't seem to understand how to investigate ... well, anything! I have a hard time believing this is the case, which leaves me a depressing alternative. No, these two are going on the force of their reputation <only> in order to sell us a story. They are not showing anyone else any respect.
In the name of being rational - absolutely! Cables just off the floor pose a tripping hazard for one. They are plain ugly as well, so there are your serious family problems. (with your wife) See? Yes on all counts.
Consider this. The magnitude of sound problems created by the room and it's furniture is far greater than anything else in a half decent system. The loudspeaker (system) is another large source of issues. Then you have ambient noise, wax in your ears or simply not the right mood for listening and enjoying music. So how much will lifting the speaker wires bring in improvement compared to everything else going on? Hint: this change is several orders of magnitude smaller than even ambient noise often is.
Anyone who works at improving any system will always define where the bottlenecks are before changing anything at all. Then they will prioritize what changes to be made so that each gives you the most bang for your buck. This also follows the law of diminishing returns so you can quit at any time at a point where the returns don't justify the money to be spent. That is real world engineering. What is being suggested lately in this thread is a path that squanders money and effort.
Just sit down and think about this for a bit.
Hi John,
For one, anything you have discovered can also be discovered by another. Considering some of the expensive stuff you and friends recommend, failing to follow suit means there will be enough money to buy real parts and finish the project.
You want to know what sounds good? Ask a child, you might even get a two thumbs up!
John, you are the leader of "can't tell you, it's a secret". How about, "I make my living doing this, so I'm not about to tell you <place whatever is being discussed here>". You are the most secretive, close to the chest member here as far as I know. Well, you or Charles maybe. The point is, you throw out some comments, refuse to support anything with backup evidence and prop up the egos of people you admire. You do throw out some information from time to time, but the info isn't complete typically. On one hand you tell us how smart you are, and then on the other you admit you haven't a clue. I don't know John, but that part of your post has mandated that I clean my monitor screen.
Hi Jakob2,
-Chris
Why? I wasn't apologizing. I am attempting to figure out whether your design awards are a fluke, or you know exactly what you are doing. The noises you are making here strongly suggest fluke, but your track record disagrees. My point was, your products are said to sound really good I'm told. Then all this silliness comes out in this thread about how one can design by ear. I'm telling you now, a design guided by listening tests alone will not be a good one. The fact that you may not do every test on the bench is attributable to the fact that you already have in made these tests in the past, so you understand how various circuits might perform and sound. Hell, even I can do that.
Hi sottomano,
Yes.
Because we humans are a curious lot, and also logical (well, some of us are anyway). Charles is saying a lot, and much is misleading when he is arguing with others. The very basic issue is this. Claims are being advanced without one shred of information that might allow anyone to duplicate the experience. In any scientific community, blindly accepting any idea without so much as the most half-hearted attempt to discover why is really going on would make someone a laughing stock. Understand that in no way have I ever suggested that experimental proof is always required. What I am saying is that some attempt must have been made to sort things out, and that the testing procedure be published along with the claimed phenomenon. Any of you who have taken high school science will have been exposed to the proper methods to define an experiment, account for unknowns and document the entire thing. Yet we have a couple of grown men who don't seem to understand how to investigate ... well, anything! I have a hard time believing this is the case, which leaves me a depressing alternative. No, these two are going on the force of their reputation <only> in order to sell us a story. They are not showing anyone else any respect.
Actually, yes on all counts.
In the name of being rational - absolutely! Cables just off the floor pose a tripping hazard for one. They are plain ugly as well, so there are your serious family problems. (with your wife) See? Yes on all counts.
Consider this. The magnitude of sound problems created by the room and it's furniture is far greater than anything else in a half decent system. The loudspeaker (system) is another large source of issues. Then you have ambient noise, wax in your ears or simply not the right mood for listening and enjoying music. So how much will lifting the speaker wires bring in improvement compared to everything else going on? Hint: this change is several orders of magnitude smaller than even ambient noise often is.
Anyone who works at improving any system will always define where the bottlenecks are before changing anything at all. Then they will prioritize what changes to be made so that each gives you the most bang for your buck. This also follows the law of diminishing returns so you can quit at any time at a point where the returns don't justify the money to be spent. That is real world engineering. What is being suggested lately in this thread is a path that squanders money and effort.
Just sit down and think about this for a bit.
Hi John,
Now that's a crock!
For one, anything you have discovered can also be discovered by another. Considering some of the expensive stuff you and friends recommend, failing to follow suit means there will be enough money to buy real parts and finish the project.
There's that rating thing again. Whoopee!
You want to know what sounds good? Ask a child, you might even get a two thumbs up!
Did you type that with a straight face?? I mean, really!
John, you are the leader of "can't tell you, it's a secret". How about, "I make my living doing this, so I'm not about to tell you <place whatever is being discussed here>". You are the most secretive, close to the chest member here as far as I know. Well, you or Charles maybe. The point is, you throw out some comments, refuse to support anything with backup evidence and prop up the egos of people you admire. You do throw out some information from time to time, but the info isn't complete typically. On one hand you tell us how smart you are, and then on the other you admit you haven't a clue. I don't know John, but that part of your post has mandated that I clean my monitor screen.
Hi Jakob2,
I always test the results of any changes I make. I've repeated this so often over the years here that I just get tired typing all that stuff out every time. Unlike some famous individuals here, I can measure differences. Admittedly the measured differences are often small ones, but they are there and can be repeated by anyone else using equipment similar or better than mine. The measured parameters often explain the sound heard by others. I'm extremely critical of my own work. I leave it to other people to assess my work. I ask equipment owners to relax and listen for a couple weeks before reaching a conclusion about it. It's also important to let them know that a completely positive report is totally useless to me, hearing about problems if they exist tells me far more that an overly enthusiastic report. My friends understand the viewpoint now, so I get the truth. My wife hasn't any problem letting me know where I have fallen short.
-Chris
Yes, I do confuse beginners. However, you are incorrect about my schematics. There have been many threads on this website that show how to build the Levinson JC-2 line amp and the JC-3 power amp, designs that I published many decades ago.
I would never pretend to be able to give you enough information so that you could build a modern Parasound JC-1 or 2. Only experts would have the resources to do so. The same goes for the CTC Blowtorch.
As far as understanding what I am doing with the CTC Blowtorch, in a general way, everything is here, IF you have the education and training to understand it. Charles and I have previously agreed on this, and several designers have made their own versions of the CTC design, based on info from this website.
For the record, I work for a living, and I don't give my latest designs away for free. However, I think that I am very generous with the design concepts, and I try to answer serious questions.
I would never pretend to be able to give you enough information so that you could build a modern Parasound JC-1 or 2. Only experts would have the resources to do so. The same goes for the CTC Blowtorch.
As far as understanding what I am doing with the CTC Blowtorch, in a general way, everything is here, IF you have the education and training to understand it. Charles and I have previously agreed on this, and several designers have made their own versions of the CTC design, based on info from this website.
For the record, I work for a living, and I don't give my latest designs away for free. However, I think that I am very generous with the design concepts, and I try to answer serious questions.
Hi Scott, Simon,
You know, I feel right at home in those amps. They are elegant in design while delivering boatloads of power. They make sense to me, but that took a couple years to get all of it.
Then don't forget that Bob has a couple designs that are unlike the others he has worked on. But in no way should you feel they are scary. I guess they are more complicated a design than the average consumer product. Despite this, they were very reliable and can continue to be with a proper service (look at how old they are now). The Lightstar is an interesting design as well.
-Chris
Really?
You know, I feel right at home in those amps. They are elegant in design while delivering boatloads of power. They make sense to me, but that took a couple years to get all of it.
Then don't forget that Bob has a couple designs that are unlike the others he has worked on. But in no way should you feel they are scary. I guess they are more complicated a design than the average consumer product. Despite this, they were very reliable and can continue to be with a proper service (look at how old they are now). The Lightstar is an interesting design as well.
-Chris
But you have never presented one design here and yet this is a diy site so what is it that you are trying to do other than to confuse people with bits of this and bits of that ?? It's just like ideas that are written on the back of used envelopes and somehow you expect people who don't necessarily have any design skills to join up all of the dots. They may as well go and buy your finished products
regards
Trev
Why should someone give away all their Intellectual Property? People like John, Nelson P, Earl G are very generous with their insights. If you have learned enough to design a piece of equipment and read what they are saying there are many ideas on how to improve your designs. Some of these aren't going to appeal to everyone. So if anyone here finds an idea/approach useful use it, if not don't bother.
IF one of these guys published a current design (understanding the readers here probably don't have 20k for the real thing) how long do you think before a 'clone' ripping off their design appeared on ebay?
Then people buy the 'cheap' knockoff, which has say, a poor pcb counterfeit parts and so on. Then the people who build the 'clone' trash the design since it didn't live up to it's reputation?
Why would someone expose themselves to that?
I would recommend for the people who can't use these ideas as presented currently to buy D Self's or B Cordell's books and start there then these idesa from a construction/design sense will make more sense.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.