Well, my amp designs discussed behind my back?
PMA is partially right, the Parasound designs are similar to what I first designed 40 years ago, (just like what PMA often uses today) and they are designed for cost/benefit, rather than all out hi end hi fi. However, the DIFFERENCES in the Parasound JC-1 and standard amps is not on the schematic itself, so PMA is a little in the dark as to what these improvements might be. Often it's parts quality and selection, but it is also other factors, that are often omitted in commercial designs. I have plenty of competition and some of it could well be better sounding, but NOT at the same price-point.
Could I make an even better power amp? Yes, and I hope to do it, but there is no funding for it at the moment. I just don't have the energy or 'eyesight' to do it on my own, as I once did 30 years ago.
However I stand behind the CTC Blowtorch as my 'final' effort in making a preamp. Other hi end preamps can be as good or better, but that is my last best effort.
Phono stages? The original Vendetta SCP-2 was OK, but I have designed better, in prototype form, but I am not going to share those schematics here either. Also there is the Constellation phono preamp at $27,500. So there we are. '-)
PMA is partially right, the Parasound designs are similar to what I first designed 40 years ago, (just like what PMA often uses today) and they are designed for cost/benefit, rather than all out hi end hi fi. However, the DIFFERENCES in the Parasound JC-1 and standard amps is not on the schematic itself, so PMA is a little in the dark as to what these improvements might be. Often it's parts quality and selection, but it is also other factors, that are often omitted in commercial designs. I have plenty of competition and some of it could well be better sounding, but NOT at the same price-point.
Could I make an even better power amp? Yes, and I hope to do it, but there is no funding for it at the moment. I just don't have the energy or 'eyesight' to do it on my own, as I once did 30 years ago.
However I stand behind the CTC Blowtorch as my 'final' effort in making a preamp. Other hi end preamps can be as good or better, but that is my last best effort.
Phono stages? The original Vendetta SCP-2 was OK, but I have designed better, in prototype form, but I am not going to share those schematics here either. Also there is the Constellation phono preamp at $27,500. So there we are. '-)
John, everyone is just busting for you to hand out a list of those "other factors" ...
The price tag tells this phono preamp can't be anything but amazing. For that kind of money I could get Thom Yorke singing live in my apartment and still have money left for beer and pretzels.
2 bob either way at the moment, perhaps ... I found 4 links via Google: 2 said one figure, and 2 said the other ...
The one I saw originally was Bruno Putsey’s Optional Built-in Phonostage for the Makua Preamp is in! | Philip O'Hanlon's Higher Note.
The one I saw originally was Bruno Putsey’s Optional Built-in Phonostage for the Makua Preamp is in! | Philip O'Hanlon's Higher Note.
Specifying only the current noise on MM makes no sense, both of these look wrong how about .9nv/rt-Hz and 5fA/rt-Hz? This makes sense for a discrete JFET MM though one would hardly need .9nV for most MM.
John, I simply must press you for at least a small elaboration of what you mean by topology.
Does that mean any particular topology, or the topology the designer is best acquainted with and knows how to control, or what? Just a little more precisely, please.
To me, grounding and shielding topology is 50% or more of the game.
I guess that ‘topology’ for JC means what type of circuitry is used (discrete, IC, single ended, complementary symmetrical) and what kind of active devices are used (BJT, FET, Tube )
George
It's an odd phenomen, I think, and it's not limitd to audio only.
If you look back, you'll notice that this has happened in reverse trend with the advent of simulators of all types, in all fields. On the one hand, they have popularized many a field of endeavor, but on the other hand, today any kid who half understands a simulator thinks that's all there is to it. Heck, he just switches on his router and he's home and dry.
It sometimes surprises me how superficial that "knowledge" can be, right down to the point of having absolutely no notion than there's anything a sim cannot do just as well as a human being. The young generation seems to deny anything that has "experience" built into it.
I hit on this quite some time ago, when the sims started offering their own routers as a part of the package deal. I used to be quite good in placing components and routing myself in the stone age of pens and paper, from basic things like keeping inputs well away from the outputs, like making power and ground traces as thick as possible and so forth. So I gave the sim the job of placing components, defining it as much as I could then, and not even looking at its work doing it by hand. We came up with two very different outlays, and while I can't swear that my hand job would sound great, I can swear that the router's version would not sound good.
The point is, it's good to know how to use a sim, in purely practical trms it's a must, but if one doesn't understand what's going on in there to at least some meaningful degree, the end result at best will be so-so sounding gear. Sims are just tools, and as any tool, they are only as good as the hand using it.
Just my 2 cents' worth.
Last edited:
I agree essentially with what you all have to say, but let me put my perspective into view.
First, I do very little, if anything, for effect. However, I do find that a really good circuit layout on a really high grade circuit board material does tend to work the best. The same topology, with a marginal layout will work OK, most of time. Most of my Parasound designs are not provided circuit board layouts by my long time associate, Carl Thompson, who is an expert on layout, so we can only hope for success on this end. The JC-1,2,3 are a dual contribution by Carl and me, and it seems to work OK.
I did not start this way. I have hired a number of layout 'specialists' and I still have prototypes, going back 35 years. They work, but the new layouts are better sounding (in my experience), so I stick with Carl when I can.
Grounding is usually done by someone else, I am not really good at optimum grounding, but my stuff works OK. It is interesting that debates in proper grounding approach still happen among my colleagues, even today (on a new design for example). I am usually so removed from the design at this time, that my input would not really help.
PMA may well do better shielding and grounding than my products have, after all, he is an expert in this area. However, the REAL test is what is sounds like to OTHERS, not related to the designer. Go for it PMA!
First, I do very little, if anything, for effect. However, I do find that a really good circuit layout on a really high grade circuit board material does tend to work the best. The same topology, with a marginal layout will work OK, most of time. Most of my Parasound designs are not provided circuit board layouts by my long time associate, Carl Thompson, who is an expert on layout, so we can only hope for success on this end. The JC-1,2,3 are a dual contribution by Carl and me, and it seems to work OK.
I did not start this way. I have hired a number of layout 'specialists' and I still have prototypes, going back 35 years. They work, but the new layouts are better sounding (in my experience), so I stick with Carl when I can.
Grounding is usually done by someone else, I am not really good at optimum grounding, but my stuff works OK. It is interesting that debates in proper grounding approach still happen among my colleagues, even today (on a new design for example). I am usually so removed from the design at this time, that my input would not really help.
PMA may well do better shielding and grounding than my products have, after all, he is an expert in this area. However, the REAL test is what is sounds like to OTHERS, not related to the designer. Go for it PMA!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.