What the difference?
I see no difference. Any hobby is equally great, if it does not do any harm.
Not in this thread, no. This thread is dedicated to discussing how to solve problems that were solved 40 ears ago, at which time the rest of the world moved on.
Zinsula's remarks are certainly true.
It was about that long ago that the basic problem of recording and amplifying audio signals was solved.
After that comes the problem of recording the exact sound field that occurred in the original performance, or in the mind of the the one who was producing it.
We new how to do this then and we still know now, its just that covering your room with 10mm. across transducers over the walls and ceiling, and driving each one with the original sound field, is beyond any convenient technology that is available.
So we still have to press on with what we can practically do now.
rcw
It was about that long ago that the basic problem of recording and amplifying audio signals was solved.
After that comes the problem of recording the exact sound field that occurred in the original performance, or in the mind of the the one who was producing it.
We new how to do this then and we still know now, its just that covering your room with 10mm. across transducers over the walls and ceiling, and driving each one with the original sound field, is beyond any convenient technology that is available.
So we still have to press on with what we can practically do now.
rcw
Most of the people who solved this stuff are dead, so have difficulty accessing their accounts.
I know now why 741 opamp was so popular. Look what I found on Facebook:
More here maybe you can find some of your favorites.
Secret Teachings of All Ages: Fifteen Rosicrucian and Qabbalistic Diagrams
"The Magical, Qabbalistical, and Theosophical Writings of Georgius von Welling, on the Subject of Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury. This extremely rare volume was published at Frankfort and Leipzig in 1735 and 1760. The numbers and figures on the charts refer to the chapters and sections of the Writings. These fifteen charts constitute a remarkable and invaluable addition to the few other known admittedly authentic Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian diagrams.
Lucifer is the greatest mystery of symbolism. The secret knowledge of the Rosicrucians concerning Lucifer is nowhere so plainly set forth as in these plates, which virtually reveal his true identity, a carefully guarded secret about which little has been written. Lucifer is represented by the number 741."
Yes, once you specify exactly in electrical terms what it has to do and not do.
That number is derived from the simple cyclical mapping of the standard alphabet. Many insist the Chaldean correspondence works a lot better
But it is much harder to remember.
EDIT: With the Chaldean correspondence and following the curious supposedly Rosicrucian methodology from Wave's quote, repeated here:
"Lucifer has nothing to do with the Devil or anything evil and demonic. THis is what Christianity wants us to believe. Lucifer, is the Light Bringer/Light Bearer. Lucifer is also represented by the planet Venus…the “Morning Star”. Moreover, Lucifer has nothing to do with the number 666…Lucifer is represented by the number 741, in numerology(according the ancient Rosicrucians).
Lucifer = L(12) + U(21) + C(3) + I(9) + F(6) + E(5) + R(18) = 74
The sum of all the individual digits add to 38. All the numbers 1 through 38 when added together = 741.
-yourmajesty"
...the number is 406
Last edited:
In the end audio is like fashion design. No matter how great and perfect it turns out someone will tire of it and try something new. Even if the "new" is tattered rags. In my world all audio except the technology the begot the RCA Living Stereo would be illegal. That is considered by many as a pinnacle. Would you like to live in that world? No matter how good it is in recording quality it would get boring. There are basics that have been spelled out in the early part of part 1 of this thread. Digest them and make an evolved Blowtorch.
Groner just made that point to me about a Halcro preamp, in response to my speculation about who, in a commercial product, might have deployed synthetic low-noise input terminations for cartridge damping. There must be new fashions periodically or the market loses interest.
Anatoliy, I am a bit surprised. The fact is that there are clearly audible differences in sound of preamplifiers that have distortion even below 0.001%. The difference of preamp's sound is similar to the difference between power amplifiers. Regardless the fact there were 20 opamps in the recording chain during recording session. Please try to make thorough listening tests and you should come to the similar conclusion.
Deal!
Here's what I have in mind: I am hoping to build four systems all the way from preamp to speakers. I can't with any degree sanity commit to that just yet but as the late Steven Covey always said..."begin with the end in mind."
Why four, I have three grown kids who I think would get a kick out of having something nice that was crafted by Dad...me. Again, I can't commit to that fully just yet but I do want to start and see how far toward that goal I can get. Oh, yes, one of the systems is a prototype to develop the other three that ole dad will keep.
Actually, I started out to work backwards, starting at the speakers. Pano, don't go anywhere, I will be calling on you when I get to that point (he had given me some advice early on).
Now for the design. This isn't necassarily a project to save costs so I want to use the best components available within reason; we all know there are rapidly diminishing returns beyond a certain point - good sense should rule here.
The preamp should be very low noise. I would like to explore internal sub-compartmets to isolate various modules. I see many designs that don't do this and end up with everything from switching noise to PS hum to crosstalk. I'm not trying to set myself up in the league of you guys by any measure but it occurs to me that a great electical design can be dimished by a poor mechanical design.
I don't care about tone controls, if they could be there for the sake of my kids that would be ok if they could be defeated and in the process have no impact on sound. Personally, I don't need or want them. If you ever came into my world of many sound gadgets you would find everything set to flat that has tone controls.
I would like to have the ability to switch between sources.
balanced inputs and outputs
Since the name of this thread is John Curl's Blowtorch Preamlifier, that might be a good place to start. I get the vibe from Mr Curl that he is more than a little annoyed by being beat up by detractors on this thread. His input would be much appreciated but he may be unwilling considering. His designs are well respected and well reviewed from what I have been able to glean. Some have suggested that because other designs were also well reviewed, that are probably not as good, that the validity of the reviewer is in question. To me, that is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I am sure I am a touch idealistic, but wouldn't it be nice if a man's work could be recognized, appreciated, and honored, without him feeling like that a bunch of punk kids are working him over. Mr Curl, if you are listening Sir, remember that Will Rogers didn't have the good fortune of making the acquaintence of everyone, and in particular, some on this thread.
Back to my preamp,
in summary, good parts, good design, well executed.
Is that a good start?
Mike
- Status
- Not open for further replies.