As alluded to in my other reply, that's precisely my focus in this "enterprise": I aim to reduce the perceived, effectively audible distortion to zero, and I have consistently found that it's possible to achieve that. As an example of how this registers to others, my wife, who enjoys music, without any technical understanding of what I'm doing, will now and again turn the volume to maximum level (it's limited by the unit to roughly just at the point of clipping) without myself or her realising it. And leave it there comfortably for extended periods.
Frank
Not quite sure what you're saying, but there's hifi "loud", and there's realistic sound volume. Two entirely different things, and if one has never experienced the latter in audio replay then I guess you would call it Bose! Long, long time since I heard those, and with hindsight why it sorta worked is that the reflections philosophy attenuated some of the worst, audible distortion artifacts ...Bose 901's LOUD.
Frank
Yep. belongs in the sin bin, don't he?
Please check the last few pages of this thread, and tell me how much is about diy and line stages. By the way I enjoy very much John Curls anecdotes , but I disagree with his testing methods. Further more I wasn't born yesterday either, in 1978 I was 38 years old.
Sorry SY, would you accept a bet, that the question you´ve presented wasn´t the original hypothesis question in the Fremer test?
It seems more to be a matter of "dishonest recaster always fears that other could do the same" .
I understand that time is short, but what about the revolutionary concept to stop making assertions that you can´t back up ?
I´ve clearly stated that my source of information on this topic was the personal description of Michael Fremer. (written down in 1989).
According to an additional information from John Atkinson the number of participants was in fact 130 not 100 which would give P(1) = 0.06762 and P(>1) = 0.9162 .
And of course all reasoning takes place under the assumption that the facts reported were correct.
You really like cheap shots, don´t you?
At the time of the test Michael Fremer was writer for TAS, and Stereophiles Editior wrote his "anecdotal support" back in 1989.
I´ve constantly asked you for any source with other informations about that test in 1988/1989 and you haven´t provided anything at all.
You´ve introduced the quite new "missing scoreboard story" but hesitated to name the source for that.
It clearly supports my contention that in 1989 zero hits would not have been considered as an significant positive result.
Additional support comes from the statistics; if both (0 and 5 hits) would have been accepted it is very unlikely that a test with 5 trials would have been done, because you can´t meet the SL=0.05 criterion anymore.
You´ve failed to provide any evidence for your interpretation (or was it "recast" ? )
I live in Australia and despite a very large cultural Imperialist pressure we have largely managed to retain our values.
In the end because a portion of society can afford to own something that a larger proportion can't is that thing necessarily better?
In this context, "better ", is more exclusive , and not better in any other context.
We on the whole prefer to say that the exclusivity is conspicuous consumption, those that have one, have one, to demonstrate that they can afford it, it is ,"better" because of this.
In the audio context for the most part the objective performance is worse, but only the select few can afford one, so it must be, "better",
This is of course an assertion that those who can afford such devices are, "better".
This would seem to contradict a democratic egalitarian spirit.
rcw
In the end because a portion of society can afford to own something that a larger proportion can't is that thing necessarily better?
In this context, "better ", is more exclusive , and not better in any other context.
We on the whole prefer to say that the exclusivity is conspicuous consumption, those that have one, have one, to demonstrate that they can afford it, it is ,"better" because of this.
In the audio context for the most part the objective performance is worse, but only the select few can afford one, so it must be, "better",
This is of course an assertion that those who can afford such devices are, "better".
This would seem to contradict a democratic egalitarian spirit.
rcw
Somehow I doubt that a Zhongshan suit has a perfect fit.
Fact is that 1 in 16 US households can afford a preamp in the BT range without blinkin a wallet eye.
(I've been at the home of folks with +$100K audio sets, and a construction van on the driveway, many are willing to save seriously for this hobby)
Fact is that 1 in 16 US households can afford a preamp in the BT range without blinkin a wallet eye.
(I've been at the home of folks with +$100K audio sets, and a construction van on the driveway, many are willing to save seriously for this hobby)
Morinix, I don't know why you debate with the designer and final builder of the CTC Blowtorch. I have one here, for sale, if you wish to purchase it. Not mine, but my partner (T) who is now using the Para JC-2, (another mutual effort) due to the added convenience of remote control. I sold the last previous unit, myself, out of my apartment.
Those two sentences are contradictory, most people's wallet blinks more than once as $100K passes from it.
Listening and then there's listening -
The light bulb just went off overhead --- Many people talk about a certain state of mind when listening.... been saying this for a long, long time and that state of mind doesnt work well with DBT. There is no point is attacking DBT itself which is a proven methodology for many things. Here's is what just happened and I wonder if it applies -->
Last month I got a new pool table. I have been practicing hard and got not better. I was watching carefully how I held the cue stick, the angles, where I hit the cue ball -- I figured that if I had a bias, I could correct for it IF I was just consistant. The harder I focused on being consistant and all the factors involved with training the eye-hand coordination, I never got better. Then one day I said screw it, and rushed thru a set of practice and i did great! I have let go of the mental effort to try to force something and let my brian do what it already knows how to do... coordinate. Since then, I get a lot more balls in the pocket and on shots i never could make. A certain amount of non-focus on the test is necessary and that is the light bulb for me. Took awhile to get the experience defined is all. Perhaps this is where the DBT causes problems in a forced concentration to hear something. Anyway, I know it sounds strange to some (many?). But it works in pool and in sports in many ways just concious mental concentration alone isnt enough and doesnt work well for this DBT. Maybe someone in the training field knows how that works. Anyway, there it is. Now I'm going to go enjoy a round of pool. -RNM
The light bulb just went off overhead --- Many people talk about a certain state of mind when listening.... been saying this for a long, long time and that state of mind doesnt work well with DBT. There is no point is attacking DBT itself which is a proven methodology for many things. Here's is what just happened and I wonder if it applies -->
Last month I got a new pool table. I have been practicing hard and got not better. I was watching carefully how I held the cue stick, the angles, where I hit the cue ball -- I figured that if I had a bias, I could correct for it IF I was just consistant. The harder I focused on being consistant and all the factors involved with training the eye-hand coordination, I never got better. Then one day I said screw it, and rushed thru a set of practice and i did great! I have let go of the mental effort to try to force something and let my brian do what it already knows how to do... coordinate. Since then, I get a lot more balls in the pocket and on shots i never could make. A certain amount of non-focus on the test is necessary and that is the light bulb for me. Took awhile to get the experience defined is all. Perhaps this is where the DBT causes problems in a forced concentration to hear something. Anyway, I know it sounds strange to some (many?). But it works in pool and in sports in many ways just concious mental concentration alone isnt enough and doesnt work well for this DBT. Maybe someone in the training field knows how that works. Anyway, there it is. Now I'm going to go enjoy a round of pool. -RNM
Last edited:
You know, it is surprising that I can answer the best that I can, and YET get petty criticisms and even 'back-sass' from otherwise educated people.
The CTC Blowtorch was MADE mostly for the designers, so that we could have a 'reference' preamp to use, both at home, and even at CES, etc. Extra preamps would help pay us back for our initial efforts, and even put a little money in our pocket for the additional time and trouble. We STILL kept our 'day jobs'.
Bob built cables, and sold commercial insurance. Carl designed layouts for a number of manufacturers, and I worked for Parasound.
We PRICED the preamp for what it cost US to make, plus a little profit for our time and effort to make them, the primary cost was the parts and case. Still we had to pay techs to assemble the boards, me for designing them, selecting the specific devices that would work best, and troubleshooting the boards, after assembly.
Bob Crump built the rest of the unit, went back and forth with the vendors, and did ALL the hand wiring that was necessary for this design approach.
As time went on, the costs to us went up, substantially, and we HAD to raise the prices, accordingly. Finally, by about 2005, we gave up, trying to keep up with the price increases and parts unavailability, and stopped production. It just was NOT worth it, but we still had obligations from previous orders to fill. Unfortunately, Bob Crump suddenly died, before he finished the last 7 units, most of which were PREPAID for. I had to finish them, myself, and I would never want to do it again. Just too much work.
Now that does not take away the essential 'quality' of the CTC Blowtorch preamp, or whether it can be 'bettered' by any other design. I don't know, but I have not seen it yet. For the record, neither TAS or Stereophile had access to one of these units, except for listening to one at a CES exhibit, so far as I know.
The CTC Blowtorch was MADE mostly for the designers, so that we could have a 'reference' preamp to use, both at home, and even at CES, etc. Extra preamps would help pay us back for our initial efforts, and even put a little money in our pocket for the additional time and trouble. We STILL kept our 'day jobs'.
Bob built cables, and sold commercial insurance. Carl designed layouts for a number of manufacturers, and I worked for Parasound.
We PRICED the preamp for what it cost US to make, plus a little profit for our time and effort to make them, the primary cost was the parts and case. Still we had to pay techs to assemble the boards, me for designing them, selecting the specific devices that would work best, and troubleshooting the boards, after assembly.
Bob Crump built the rest of the unit, went back and forth with the vendors, and did ALL the hand wiring that was necessary for this design approach.
As time went on, the costs to us went up, substantially, and we HAD to raise the prices, accordingly. Finally, by about 2005, we gave up, trying to keep up with the price increases and parts unavailability, and stopped production. It just was NOT worth it, but we still had obligations from previous orders to fill. Unfortunately, Bob Crump suddenly died, before he finished the last 7 units, most of which were PREPAID for. I had to finish them, myself, and I would never want to do it again. Just too much work.
Now that does not take away the essential 'quality' of the CTC Blowtorch preamp, or whether it can be 'bettered' by any other design. I don't know, but I have not seen it yet. For the record, neither TAS or Stereophile had access to one of these units, except for listening to one at a CES exhibit, so far as I know.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.