John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
It proves that intelligent people look at the whole problem rather than just lobbing more capacitors in a box with the belief that magic will occur.

Ironic how often that this magic word 'magic' is lobbed into discussion by people who profess not to believe in it :D

If you review that thread impartially you'll notice a blind spot in terms of the power supply details to the signal stages (THAT1200 and LM/OPA). Did you note that Tom originally claimed that the THAT1200 stayed in classA all the time?
 
He showed full power with an excellent and a merely adequate power supply. How is that not what you want to see? It proves that intelligent people look at the whole problem rather than just lobbing more capacitors in a box with the belief that magic will occur. Good engineering and good measurements. Works for me.
No, wrong again - the ingredients would be: "merely adequate power supply", two copies of his amplifier connected to that supply, one of which is being driven hard by a possibly complex signal, which means that the power supply is modulating very badly in voltage and current; and the other copy is fed, say, very low level, high frequency signals in an IMD test.

If you think this is "crazy", consider a recording where in the right channel a bass guitarist is hammering out a frenzied riff, and in the left the drummer is delicately brushing the cymbals, at the same time ...
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
I don't believe in magic. Frank clearly does.

I read the thread impartially as I only ordered boards 2 weeks ago and noticed you doing your usual rubbish with picking nits everywhere yes. Tom designs ICs for a living. I therefore trust his judgement. Even if some of the internal buffers go into AB at some point there is nothing in the measurements to suggest a detriment to performance. None at all, but a huge benefit (measurable) in having the THAT chip in the circuit.

he published data for the power supplies for those stages. And measurements of the completed board. I don't see what you have to grumble about.
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
If you think this is "crazy", consider a recording where in the right channel a bass guitarist is hammering out a frenzied riff, and in the left the drummer is delicately brushing the cymbals, at the same time ...

Yup you are crazy. If the full power channel has grot 115dB down from the fundamental there is no issue to answer. It's up there in SOTA territory with measurements. You fling components around and claim to have the answer. You are happy, which is good. Shame you troll so much.
 
Even if some of the internal buffers go into AB at some point there is nothing in the measurements to suggest a detriment to performance.

So you agree then that he overlooked the detail that his signal stages were not purely classA?

he published data for the power supplies for those stages.

I have looked for that data - link please?

I don't see what you have to grumble about.

Grumble? Moi? :D
 
Yup you are crazy. If the full power channel has grot 115dB down from the fundamental there is no issue to answer. It's up there in SOTA territory with measurements. You fling components around and claim to have the answer. You are happy, which is good. Shame you troll so much.
You are still missing the point - I want to know whether the nature of the distortion varies when amplifying a subtle signal, when the power supply is unstressed vs. when it is heavily stressed!

Why? Because that is exactly the behaviour I hear in real amplifiers: delicate signal, no stress - everything's fine; delicate signal, another instrument comes in, full bore - a bit of a mess is heard! Some people have never experienced an audio system do this sort of thing correctly, so they can't handle the concept - but doesn't mean it doesn't exist ... ;)
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
So you agree then that he overlooked the detail that his signal stages were not purely classA?

I don't think he overlooked anything. It is not IMO an issue. I'll take an immeasurable 'potential' smidge of x-over distortion for the 90dB CMRR you gain any day.

I have looked for that data - link please?
Grumble? Moi? :D
It was there, you argued with it around post 235. Tom gave numbers you argued semantics. The measurements do not indicate any area where this needs to be improved against established reference points. You clearly think its rubbish due to a class AB buffer deep in an IC and a +/15V regulator that he didn't share the exact design with you for. You are entitled to that opinion, but the end to end performance still stands as superb by any metric for that level of power.
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
Why? Because that is exactly the behaviour I hear in real amplifiers: delicate signal, no stress - everything's fine; delicate signal, another instrument comes in, full bore - a bit of a mess is heard! Some people have never experienced an audio system do this sort of thing correctly, so they can't handle the concept - but doesn't mean it doesn't exist ... ;)

Try a better amplifer? Or maybe, just maybe do some measurements to find out what is wrong with yours rather than just take pot shots at those who do measure?
 
I don't think he overlooked anything. It is not IMO an issue.

So you say he did not overlook anything that he (and you) consider an issue. CMRR is not the issue, crossover distortion is not the issue. More goalpost shifting going on here :D

It was there
Link please?

, you argued with it around post 235. Tom gave numbers you argued semantics.
Numbers (1mohm - 10mohm I seem to recall) were pulled out of a hat. Just the data please - what regulators did he say were being used? I'll examine the DSs myself.

... but the end to end performance still stands as superb by any metric for that level of power.
Performance as determined by measurements, undeniably.
 
Try a better amplifer? Or maybe, just maybe do some measurements to find out what is wrong with yours rather than just take pot shots at those who do measure?
Not taking pot shots at anyone, except those who are very close minded; again, I have no arguments with Tom's effort, whatsoever. But if I had one of his units I would do the subjective equivalent of the sort of testing I've just been talking about ... :)

When I went to the recent audio show most amps I heard failed in this area - easy to hear the symptoms, when you know what to listen for. I was pleasantly impressed by the few which showed good behaviour, and top of the class was the Bryston unit ...
 
Member
Joined 2014
Paid Member
So you say he did not overlook anything that he (and you) consider an issue. CMRR is not the issue, crossover distortion is not the issue. More goalpost shifting going on here :D

Link please?

Numbers (1mohm - 10mohm I seem to recall) were pulled out of a hat. Just the data please - what regulators did he say were being used? I'll examine the DSs myself.

Performance as determined by measurements, undeniably.

No goalpost shifting. You pulled a ****-arsed theory out the hat that the THAT1200 would limit sound quality due to power supply with nothing to back you up other than your belief system. The bom is published in the thread which you can find in the vendors forum. I am not going to find links for you if you are too lazy to look yourself.

You also have not pointed to anything on the given measurements that shows this sound quality theory of yours in action. Why are you so afraid of data when presented?
 
Weeellll ... I am playing with an amp design, discrete, that manages -130dB harmonics at 20kHz, while dumping well over 3kW into 1 ohm. Of course, silly stuff - and assumes everything's perfect, including PS's - but demonstrates what the circuitry can do ... might be a touch more than $150 though, :).
 
Last edited:
The normal process is that standards are supplanted by improved standards, where there is shown to be a necessity.

Unfortunately no superior and reliable standards of test have been invented, but sustained assaults on the validity of the existing ones are being mounted. None of these have been shown so far to be anything but scientific (or personal) ambitions out of control.

It is said that the test regime will be incomplete until 'dynamic' testing is implemented. OK, go ahead and implement it and show us the results to demonstrate your case, and how it correlates with hearing tests.

Complaining that other people aren't doing it is wearing a bit thin.
 
The key word there is "necessity" - and the frazzled mess in the current world of audio I would have thought should supply some of the motivation ...

Some people are in better places to do this research, because they have easy access to the right gear - and because their heads are in a clearer space; everyone has history, for various reasons, and sometimes this strongly gets in the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.