Never liked Altec multi-cellular HF horns. The 90-degree single-cell horns sounded about as good as anything at the time (w/ a 288C driver, IIRC).
Folded bass horns, not so good. But, some later straight-flare bass horns were nice.
Actually, once knew a guy who reinforced an Altec A7 cabinet until it was quite solid and didn't ring any more. Sounded much better, but still not much extension due to horn cutoff. Then for fun we put up some Altec "wings" around it (reinforced plywood sheets to make a virtual wall, with the A7 cabinet flush in the wall). Wow, it sounded quite good. Deep, tight, chest thumping bass with the wings there. Not very practical for temporary installations though, but not unreasonable for a movie theater installation.
Folded bass horns, not so good. But, some later straight-flare bass horns were nice.
Actually, once knew a guy who reinforced an Altec A7 cabinet until it was quite solid and didn't ring any more. Sounded much better, but still not much extension due to horn cutoff. Then for fun we put up some Altec "wings" around it (reinforced plywood sheets to make a virtual wall, with the A7 cabinet flush in the wall). Wow, it sounded quite good. Deep, tight, chest thumping bass with the wings there. Not very practical for temporary installations though, but not unreasonable for a movie theater installation.
Last edited:
That seems pretty apt analogy.
If it's that I'm being entirely negative, I'd certainly love more, robust, information about people's listening preferences (and also where they go astray), but I simply see that best done by more blinded studies than by attempting to intervene with imaging/EEG. The cost of a few fMRI runs (and the attendant IRB/etc) would pay for several more test subjects, and additional information about said subjects (hearing tests, listening preference surveys, etc).
I'm still upset that the "M" and backspace key are so closely tied on the Android keyboard. It's generated some serious incomprehensible text.
The two-way A7 dropped after 8KHz. I measured it. Really needed a tweeter. I had a similar to A7 but JBl.... I finally just cut out all the internal horn path and turned the cabinet into a bass reflex. Cleaner at lows and lower freq extension. But for movie installs.....and with wings.... amazing.
The high efficiency speakers always seem to be able to get the small/fine signal details out to the listener best.
-Richard
We had them in two auditoriums at MIT both were set up as full 35mm/16mm film venues, old school, valve amps and 70V distribution. The sound was always decent and you could play it too loud even for 1100 people.
Daniel, what you suggest is probably worth trying, and at least help move the ball forward.
I guess one thing that is bothering me is that when people like JC prefer sighted listening for their own purposes, some people seem quite skeptical that he could be doing anything other than fooling himself. It may be that he happens to able to effectively work that way despite the fact that it probably wouldn't work for most people, and despite some people's skepticism. So, if we want to try to measure if, and to what extent, some people can usefully apply sighted listening to practical benefit, we would probably have to find some way to get around self-reporting by the test subject. For that type of problem, we might be able to do it, but the use of medical instrumentation and clever experimental design probably could not be avoided.
I guess one thing that is bothering me is that when people like JC prefer sighted listening for their own purposes, some people seem quite skeptical that he could be doing anything other than fooling himself. It may be that he happens to able to effectively work that way despite the fact that it probably wouldn't work for most people, and despite some people's skepticism. So, if we want to try to measure if, and to what extent, some people can usefully apply sighted listening to practical benefit, we would probably have to find some way to get around self-reporting by the test subject. For that type of problem, we might be able to do it, but the use of medical instrumentation and clever experimental design probably could not be avoided.
Anyone looking for work? Apply here: https://www.glassdoor.com/Jobs/Lawrence-Livermore-National-Laboratory-Jobs-E35235.htm
-Richard
-Richard
Don't forget JC's own statement that the differences vanish if not sighted.
My opinion goes along the lines of what Nezbleu wrote earlier about most of my life being unblinded. And if I get enjoyment out of this or that for whatever reason I come to (and everyone else as well), it's all well and good. But I hope I'm careful to state that as my own opinion.
I tire of anyone trying to generalize their preferences (whatever they may be) as "good/better/best". Doubly so when the generalization flies in the face of so much other evidence/fundamentals of physics (as applied to electronics on this thread). It's not that unblinded/uncontrolled data is entirely useless, BUT it is not actionable unto itself. Too many confounding variables and liberal use of logical fallacies makes most people's "testimonies" a tour-de-ego more than an exchange. Being brow-beaten by people's un-validated opinions gets a rise out of me.
That may be. If true, it could mean that learning to hear was linked to looking. Maybe in some way similar to someone who learned to play guitar by always watching the left hand. Then they have to learn all over again in order to play without looking. In the case of JC, it could be that looking triggers engagement of certain listening DSP. It may also be that he could have learned to hear with out looking, but that's not what he did. The only way I have seen to sort out such potential confounders is though the use of instrumentation and clever experimental design. Could be other ways as well, though, particularly for this case.
That could be risky. Their budget was cut significantly in the proposed budget. "The proposal would nearly eliminate DOE's Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy, cutting the program more than 93%" I doubt that will fly but it would be chancy and UC is not going to prop it up from their already tight budget. its a shame because they have fantastic benefits and fun work.
Guys, I appreciate your discussion on my hearing methods and abilities, BUT let's get it straight, especially with you, Scott Wurcer.
First I prefer NON ABX TESTING methods. This can just be open listening, or it can be 'A-B-C which do you prefer?' testing. I have done well with both. I never really 'look' at anything. I just listen to differences that are labeled so that I don't get lost as the music changes.
For example, in Japan at the HK facility there in 1978, I was given three choices of preamp circuits designed by another designer. Everything was matched and balanced for amplitude, etc. The listening facility was professional, and I chose the best of them without knowing what they were and in the proper order. They were astounded that I could do this at the time, but I just said that it was my job to do so, as I saw it. Now that was a long time ago. Could I do it at 75? I doubt it.
Now, what did I learn from that time? First, the preamp that I designed for HK FAILED in listening comparisons to the 'other designer'. I had to find out why. Then, on my own, I designed a new preamp, and it sounded relatively lousy too, (compared to a Levinson JC-2, that I designed years earlier). Finally, I was given the JC-80 to design and I finally made something better than the JC-2. Was it perfect? NO WAY, and I know this because my unit sits in my closet today, unused. I just hear its problems when I use it. In fact, I actually preferred NO PREAMP, just a volume control for years, until the Blowtorch was available. Why?
It was darn inconvenient surely. Now I am happy, but at what cost and yet still some inconvenience? I keep trying to convey what I have learned over the decades since 1973 when the JC-2 was designed, and how anyone here could make a better audio product, and I get continually rebuffed as if it could not be possible to improve over a typical IC or a Radio Shack part used to make an audio product.
For example, what caused my preamp 'sonic failures' between 1978-1983 for example? If I told you, I would be mostly laughed at by my critics. Does this promote progress?
First I prefer NON ABX TESTING methods. This can just be open listening, or it can be 'A-B-C which do you prefer?' testing. I have done well with both. I never really 'look' at anything. I just listen to differences that are labeled so that I don't get lost as the music changes.
For example, in Japan at the HK facility there in 1978, I was given three choices of preamp circuits designed by another designer. Everything was matched and balanced for amplitude, etc. The listening facility was professional, and I chose the best of them without knowing what they were and in the proper order. They were astounded that I could do this at the time, but I just said that it was my job to do so, as I saw it. Now that was a long time ago. Could I do it at 75? I doubt it.
Now, what did I learn from that time? First, the preamp that I designed for HK FAILED in listening comparisons to the 'other designer'. I had to find out why. Then, on my own, I designed a new preamp, and it sounded relatively lousy too, (compared to a Levinson JC-2, that I designed years earlier). Finally, I was given the JC-80 to design and I finally made something better than the JC-2. Was it perfect? NO WAY, and I know this because my unit sits in my closet today, unused. I just hear its problems when I use it. In fact, I actually preferred NO PREAMP, just a volume control for years, until the Blowtorch was available. Why?
It was darn inconvenient surely. Now I am happy, but at what cost and yet still some inconvenience? I keep trying to convey what I have learned over the decades since 1973 when the JC-2 was designed, and how anyone here could make a better audio product, and I get continually rebuffed as if it could not be possible to improve over a typical IC or a Radio Shack part used to make an audio product.
For example, what caused my preamp 'sonic failures' between 1978-1983 for example? If I told you, I would be mostly laughed at by my critics. Does this promote progress?
Last edited:
Happy to see you here Patrick, yes I am fine, I am retired now since beginning of the year, I now hope to have more time to dedicate in audio.
I did not look very much to the audio sites since a while, are there interesting things?
Have you done good realizations?
The preamp schematic in post 92631 (referring to post #92589) is what I did at the time, following a lot of discussions with Gerard Perrot. The real one I did was balanced with some base stopper resistors, the circuit is a little tricky and a bit prone to oscillation .
I have the schematics of what Gerard Perrot did, but I am not at home and I have to scan them. If you are interested I can post them but not before mid june.
Except his three transistors memory circuit (constant voltage constant current) the overall schematic is more classical.
The rule is to forget the rules but knowing all the rules.
I did not look very much to the audio sites since a while, are there interesting things?
Have you done good realizations?
The preamp schematic in post 92631 (referring to post #92589) is what I did at the time, following a lot of discussions with Gerard Perrot. The real one I did was balanced with some base stopper resistors, the circuit is a little tricky and a bit prone to oscillation .
I have the schematics of what Gerard Perrot did, but I am not at home and I have to scan them. If you are interested I can post them but not before mid june.
Except his three transistors memory circuit (constant voltage constant current) the overall schematic is more classical.
The rule is to forget the rules but knowing all the rules.
Special treatment, just for me? Your past comments are here as public record, you speak for yourself.
Hi John , hi all
I just went back 20 years to find a paper from the 100th AES Convention that somehow I had overlooked that appears interesting and important. Yet I am pretty sure that this paper has been debated by many of my critics here, and dismissed. Am I right?
The paper is: 'Measurement of a Neglected Circuit Characteristic' by Gerard Perrot.
This paper appears to parallel much of our work over the last 40 years when we are TRYING to improve audio, rather than dismiss it as easy and already done. I'm glad that somebody I don't know is still trying.
Maybe you don’t remember it but I told you (on the Blowtorch thread) as well as to Charles Hansen and Yoko Homo about 10 years ago about the findings of this guy, Gerard Perrot, I knew him. He died on the road, he was a biking and a car hit him. He use to write in a French audiophile magazine, after his findings on “memory distortion he founded a company named Lavardin with an associated, this company still exist and is now helded by his son and probably the associated, I don’t remember his name.
Here some links to patents and papers.
Lavardin Technologies audio systems
https://www.google.com/patents/US5512858
https://www.google.com/patents/US5635874
index
Search amplification => Héphaïstos
This is mine preamp with no GNFB and quite similar, link is here. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analog-line-level/223835-current-conveyor-voltage-amplifier.html
Damir
Attachments
Last edited:
John, it looks like maybe you have some past history with Scott that you would probably better off and happier to let go of.
It certainly didn't look to me like Scott was trying to make you look bad when he reminded me of something I believe you said before that could have been applicable to what I was interested in researching. And I don't think what he said made you look bad either.
What does seem to be making you look not all that good is when you seem to overreact and become angry with Scott when he hasn't really done anything wrong.
On the other hand, I think people do appreciate when you write posts sharing some of what you have learned about audio design. It makes you look more worthy and respectable for trying to help others, and for setting a good example of civility.
That being the case, I hope you will find a way to let yourself cool off, and to consider other possible interpretations and intentions relating to whatever Scott may say here, more the way a neutral person would, and not so much like someone still holding an old grudge. If it still seems like he has wrongfully insulted you, maybe worth talking to a friend or two to see how they interpret it. If nobody else thinks it reasonably ought to be considered an serious insult, then probably best to avoid making something out of it in public until you have a chance make sure that's really, really what you want do, and that it would be your best and wisest choice.
I'm hoping over time whatever may have happened in the past can willfully be allowed to fade away and become forgotten, and you guys can come closer to starting over fresh. And you would probably be happier that way too. I hope you will be.
It certainly didn't look to me like Scott was trying to make you look bad when he reminded me of something I believe you said before that could have been applicable to what I was interested in researching. And I don't think what he said made you look bad either.
What does seem to be making you look not all that good is when you seem to overreact and become angry with Scott when he hasn't really done anything wrong.
On the other hand, I think people do appreciate when you write posts sharing some of what you have learned about audio design. It makes you look more worthy and respectable for trying to help others, and for setting a good example of civility.
That being the case, I hope you will find a way to let yourself cool off, and to consider other possible interpretations and intentions relating to whatever Scott may say here, more the way a neutral person would, and not so much like someone still holding an old grudge. If it still seems like he has wrongfully insulted you, maybe worth talking to a friend or two to see how they interpret it. If nobody else thinks it reasonably ought to be considered an serious insult, then probably best to avoid making something out of it in public until you have a chance make sure that's really, really what you want do, and that it would be your best and wisest choice.
I'm hoping over time whatever may have happened in the past can willfully be allowed to fade away and become forgotten, and you guys can come closer to starting over fresh. And you would probably be happier that way too. I hope you will be.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.