John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
... why get bogged down in 1968, except for reasons of nostalgia and historical recollection?

I´m interested in John´s elegant engineered circuits, and I hope he
continues to post and explain them, despite personal attacks and snide
remarks. And BTW if all this is "sorted since 30 years", then it makes
sense to look at circuits from 30 years (and more) ago, no ? (At least this
is something where I could agree, in so far as I prefer a competent 30 years
old amp to the crap sold today).
 
And BTW if all this is "sorted since 30 years", then it makes
sense to look at circuits from 30 years (and more) ago, no ?

As historical recollection, sure; that's one major reason I love designing stuff with tubes. For modern design (outside of the fashion audio niche), no, there's much simpler, more efficient, and less expensive ways of doing things.
 
Administrator
Joined 2007
Paid Member
There you go...you learned something from my thread.

Here's to share to others here...Pale blue dot: Voyager 1 signal from interstellar space photographed - NBC News.com

22 watts across 12 billion miles will do...

I never said I didn't :D

The real time updated distance of the Voyagers is quite something to watch,
Where are the Voyagers - NASA Voyager

And all that technology at a time when John was designing audio stages. Wonder what the technology of the Voyager transmitters was, devices used and such.

Enough, enough :D back on topic... for now.
 
I´m interested in John´s elegant engineered circuits, and I hope he
continues to post and explain them, despite personal attacks and snide
remarks. And BTW if all this is "sorted since 30 years", then it makes
sense to look at circuits from 30 years (and more) ago, no ? (At least this
is something where I could agree, in so far as I prefer a competent 30 years
old amp to the crap sold today).

I hope too.

So, the " actual " electrons are more beautiful than 30 years ago ?! :rofl:

I do not make my life with audio but I spent much of my free time panning for what I can learn from him.

I like the way of John and I appreciate very much your dedication and altruism with us.


God bless him and long life to John !
 
Last edited:
Well for grins here is my latest speaker test box under construction.

ES
 

Attachments

  • 2013_1010Misc0001.jpg
    2013_1010Misc0001.jpg
    834.4 KB · Views: 255
  • Preliminary-Anechoic-Box.pdf
    241.6 KB · Views: 64
Don't forget that $10k challenge guy who's run a few thousand trials. And the peer-reviewed work published in JAES by people like Lipshitz, Vanderkooy, and several others decades ago. Or the work cited by Clark. And, and, and. Like I said, this has been referenced here numerous times, and if someone with a track record of making wild claims is too lazy to look it up, I'm not going to do it for him.

Could you cite a documentation about the results of the "$10k challenge guy" that meets any serious scientific standard?
I am pretty sure that you would call something like that handwaiving (or dishonest or recasting of the statistics) if it were presented as proof of audible differences in amplifiers which measure ok. (ok means that no single parameter is measured above the known thresholds of hearing).

It is simply impossible to show that these tests were objective, valid and reliable in most cases.
 
Obviously i already knew the information which was, according to you, linked a couple of thousands times, but i failed to find some documentation that meets the usual scientific standards.

But if something like this is good enough than we have to conclude that Fremer and others already delivered evidence for some assertions of the GEB. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.