And I prefer the most basic Indian food.
John,
I'm going to build a DAC, I/V and a pre-amp and am going to try to make them sound as good as I can. I have no delusions that neither of them may sound even close to Blowtorch, since I don't have what it takes to do it, namely: knowledge, experience and finances. However, I'm going to try and make them sound as good as I can, with whatever I have. Of course, all circuits will be based upon existing ones, may be with some changes of my own. My hope is that I have enough technical sense to choose good ones – and good enough case and components.
Towards this end I learned a lot here and I keep learning.
To all those who call me a groupie of yours.
The reason I appreciate so much what you did and what you do is that from my little experience I recognize that you are doing the right things. Only, you went much further in your approach than I initially thought of going.
John,
I'm going to build a DAC, I/V and a pre-amp and am going to try to make them sound as good as I can. I have no delusions that neither of them may sound even close to Blowtorch, since I don't have what it takes to do it, namely: knowledge, experience and finances. However, I'm going to try and make them sound as good as I can, with whatever I have. Of course, all circuits will be based upon existing ones, may be with some changes of my own. My hope is that I have enough technical sense to choose good ones – and good enough case and components.
Towards this end I learned a lot here and I keep learning.
To all those who call me a groupie of yours.
The reason I appreciate so much what you did and what you do is that from my little experience I recognize that you are doing the right things. Only, you went much further in your approach than I initially thought of going.
G.Kleinschmidt said:
You ought to. Scott ought to. Everyone who is participating in a discussion of what makes or does not make this unreasonably high priced but "simplistic" circuit in a box called the Blowtorch good or bad ought to.
The key idea is that there was a report that something sounded "bad" whereas otherwise it usually sounds "good".
Being that Scott is an engineer, he ought to be able to measure what is making it "bad" (his opinion, running his gear) or measure what is "different" that makes it bad ...and yet his MET-7 speakers sound "good" with the very same gear??
The key concept is to correlate the subjective experience (it sounds "bad") with the engineering and science - to the extent possible.
Otherwise why would one dork with various circuit topologies to begin with? Is it just an exercise of techniques and numbers on paper?? I suppose that could be fun, but is that what it is ultimately all about??
At least for Scott Wurcer this is an opportunity to investigate and perhaps learn something. Then report back to the rest of us.
Seems to me like he perhaps fears the investigation, as it may force him to alter his "world view" WRT these things audio?
A mere interpolation and simplification of positions that some have espoused during this thread. The key element is the differential between "good or bad" subjective perception and "good or bad" engineering/scientific/technical equipment.
Presumably if all your gear was "good" in the latter department, it would without fail necessarily sound "good" - never could it sound "bad"? RIGHT??
Yet... yet, here we have a report from someone who doubtless has nothing but gear that is "good" from the engineering/scientific/technical standpoint, and still he reports that it sounds 'bad"!
Remember now, he volunteered this report.
Quite frankly, I am flabbergasted by this report!
You are not, Glenn? If not, why?
How do you explain what has transpired then?
I am losing sleep over this, please help me to resolve these two seeming contradictions?
_-_-bear
PS. Glenn, your designs that I have seen are interesting, imaginative and usually built very well - do you care how they sound? Do you notice any "variances" between say your many amplifiers? Do you ever find that some things that you expected to sound "good" fall short? Just would like to know.
bear said:
Let's not get too carried away with this. Bad in this context was intended to mean revealing of more of the recordings flaws. Probably also one of the reasons I don't particularly like headphone listening. Remember I'm of the school "all electronic reproduction is an illusion". That 80's system that I mentioned made everthing in a way sound like and old Mercury or RCA LP.
I simply was asking if the headphones used as an "instrument" could possibly "measure" these differences since I can not verify most of them. And yes they allow me to finally tell the difference between 16/44.1 and MP3.
I have been accused of always talking about 'discoveries' from the past, usually more than 20 years ago. This is accurate, because most of my independent research in audio was done more than 20 years ago. I stopped writing papers and LTE's about 1988, when exchange of ideas over the computer started.
This is the same time that I had to scramble to make Vendetta Research pay the rent, because my last company (Lineage) went out of business, after an initial investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Once I had to scramble to make ends meet, do my own bookkeeping, and office maintenance, I just could not fool around the lab, anymore. My bench was filled with technicians' mistakes and final checkout of completed units. Boring, but necessary.
This is where I learned the art of improving what is already good, and much of what I try to impart here to the few who would learn from my experience.
For the most part, I have seen few technical papers from the AES or elsewhere, that I have found as 'groundbreaking' as earlier papers, since 1990 or so. The few that are, are condemned on this website, for the most part. I try to avoid bringing those up.
This is the same time that I had to scramble to make Vendetta Research pay the rent, because my last company (Lineage) went out of business, after an initial investment of many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Once I had to scramble to make ends meet, do my own bookkeeping, and office maintenance, I just could not fool around the lab, anymore. My bench was filled with technicians' mistakes and final checkout of completed units. Boring, but necessary.
This is where I learned the art of improving what is already good, and much of what I try to impart here to the few who would learn from my experience.
For the most part, I have seen few technical papers from the AES or elsewhere, that I have found as 'groundbreaking' as earlier papers, since 1990 or so. The few that are, are condemned on this website, for the most part. I try to avoid bringing those up.
ok, ok... all good then.
however, now you have arrived at a critical point!
Here's the idea. You now can plainly hear the difference between 16/44.1 and MP3. So, in practical terms you have passed a threshold. Now the next step is to find out if in fact the recordings are at fault, or if it is actually the pathway through which the electronic signals are passing - or not.
I am quite serious.
You are suggesting that many of the recordings seem to have "flaws". I am going to suggest that there may be something else going on, and that a vast majority of recordings (at least the non-pop, over processed variety) do not have objectionable flaws. Surely some do. For example the recording of the young singer Lee Ann Rimes is profoundly dissapointing to me because it has had some processing (assuming that - there is an electronic artifact present)applied to her otherwise pristine voice, which ruins the playback on a good system. It sounds fine on the radio, fwiw.
It is a worthwhile investigation now that you have reached a threshold of shall we say "clarity" or "resolution" to try to determine if one or more of these less significant and "higher order effects" that have been discussed here and elsewhere may be playing a role in what you hear and your subjective impression.
Once one reaches beyond certain (nebulous as they are) thresholds, one discovers (often to one's great chagrin) that all sorts of things are effecting and changing the subjective presentation of the sound. Few if any of these "changes" can be correlated back to any parameterized set of measurements, but they can be heard.
The only question that really exists about this, is where is the point where the changes become too minor to be reliable discerned. You have just discovered that there is at least one level of "threshold" beyond where you were happily ensconsed for so long.
Now that you have "broken through" you have the opportunity to explore by any means available this area.
I suggest that if you work on it even a little bit, you may surprise yourself by hearing things "change" (better or worse) by doing things to your system. Change some opamps? Change some power cables? Change capacitors? See if you can hear any changes in the presentation of the sound - especially for those recordings that are "bad"!! Certainly try some things that you know for certain are BS and will absolutely not work or make a difference, or shouldn't.
It's a simple enough investigation.
I'm reasonably confident that you will find what I found when I reached the same exact juncture as you now have. Things confound your standard, normal, view of the audio world.
Ultimately, I am suggesting that if you really follow through you'll discover that the "bad" you are/were hearing was not actually in the recordings themselves - especially if you are hearing the same subjective sort of bad from a wide range of recordings - but was in some rather intangible elements elsewhere in your system.
Peel back the onion.
It's actually worth it, once you get a handle on it, and you no longer have to deal with that "bad" sound aspect again!
_-_-bear
however, now you have arrived at a critical point!
Here's the idea. You now can plainly hear the difference between 16/44.1 and MP3. So, in practical terms you have passed a threshold. Now the next step is to find out if in fact the recordings are at fault, or if it is actually the pathway through which the electronic signals are passing - or not.
I am quite serious.
You are suggesting that many of the recordings seem to have "flaws". I am going to suggest that there may be something else going on, and that a vast majority of recordings (at least the non-pop, over processed variety) do not have objectionable flaws. Surely some do. For example the recording of the young singer Lee Ann Rimes is profoundly dissapointing to me because it has had some processing (assuming that - there is an electronic artifact present)applied to her otherwise pristine voice, which ruins the playback on a good system. It sounds fine on the radio, fwiw.
It is a worthwhile investigation now that you have reached a threshold of shall we say "clarity" or "resolution" to try to determine if one or more of these less significant and "higher order effects" that have been discussed here and elsewhere may be playing a role in what you hear and your subjective impression.
Once one reaches beyond certain (nebulous as they are) thresholds, one discovers (often to one's great chagrin) that all sorts of things are effecting and changing the subjective presentation of the sound. Few if any of these "changes" can be correlated back to any parameterized set of measurements, but they can be heard.
The only question that really exists about this, is where is the point where the changes become too minor to be reliable discerned. You have just discovered that there is at least one level of "threshold" beyond where you were happily ensconsed for so long.
Now that you have "broken through" you have the opportunity to explore by any means available this area.
I suggest that if you work on it even a little bit, you may surprise yourself by hearing things "change" (better or worse) by doing things to your system. Change some opamps? Change some power cables? Change capacitors? See if you can hear any changes in the presentation of the sound - especially for those recordings that are "bad"!! Certainly try some things that you know for certain are BS and will absolutely not work or make a difference, or shouldn't.
It's a simple enough investigation.
I'm reasonably confident that you will find what I found when I reached the same exact juncture as you now have. Things confound your standard, normal, view of the audio world.
Ultimately, I am suggesting that if you really follow through you'll discover that the "bad" you are/were hearing was not actually in the recordings themselves - especially if you are hearing the same subjective sort of bad from a wide range of recordings - but was in some rather intangible elements elsewhere in your system.
Peel back the onion.
It's actually worth it, once you get a handle on it, and you no longer have to deal with that "bad" sound aspect again!
_-_-bear
Sigurd Ruschkow said:
Sigurd, this sounds like a great idea. Why don't you start a thread about it where we could try and compare the best features/techniques in high end preamps.
This thread is getting a bit stale anyway with all these "contributors" who have shown zero interest in quality audio but a passionate zeal in exposing JC as a charlatan and the BT as a fraud.
It is difficult to know what people want. Sometimes they want confidential info, such as detailed schematics. Other times, they just want me to go away, so they can be happy in their existing belief pattern. I am still open to REAL questions about amp and preamp design that don't impinge on my making some sort of living.
For the record, I have a part time business partner who is almost incensed that I contribute here, because it makes me no money, and just wastes time that might be directed toward stabilizing my income stream. He makes a good point, but I often learn here from many who respond on this and other threads, especially through 'links' that I was previously unaware of.
That alone, makes it worthwhile for me.
For the record, I have a part time business partner who is almost incensed that I contribute here, because it makes me no money, and just wastes time that might be directed toward stabilizing my income stream. He makes a good point, but I often learn here from many who respond on this and other threads, especially through 'links' that I was previously unaware of.
That alone, makes it worthwhile for me.
John --
Have you experimented with virtual ground power supplies? Richard Marsh published a scheme long ago in Audio Amateur and I think he might even have been modifying a commercial amp using one channel as the power supply. Jonathan Carr has mentioned these in this forum and I guess most recently justcallmedad posted a schematic for a virtual ground power supply in this thread. Any thoughts on these, especially for MC preamps?
thanks
Phil
Have you experimented with virtual ground power supplies? Richard Marsh published a scheme long ago in Audio Amateur and I think he might even have been modifying a commercial amp using one channel as the power supply. Jonathan Carr has mentioned these in this forum and I guess most recently justcallmedad posted a schematic for a virtual ground power supply in this thread. Any thoughts on these, especially for MC preamps?
thanks
Phil
- Status
- Not open for further replies.