John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 1333

john curl · 4th July 2011, 04:21 PM

About 20 years ago, I was a good phone-friend with Ed Dell, the founder of 'The Audio Amateur' and 'Audio Xpress'. Ed recommended a book to me in order 'to open my mind to new concepts', called:' The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat' by Oliver Sacks.
Contained in this book are many 'surprises' as to how people really perceive the world, or in this book, what happens when a certain part of the brain is damaged, and how it can either help or hinder someone. This got me to look toward 'Philosophy of Science' and other topics that I often denote here.
Ed Dell was one of the first 'tweakers' although he may see himself , differently. He had the courage to 'trust his ears' when modifying existing audio equipment like a Dyna tube amp, AND note the differences that were usually improvements in the sound.
This very concept is being debated here. Can we REALLY improve an existing piece of audio equipment, perhaps in ways that don't show obviously in a standard measurement, and not be victims of our own 'imagination'? I think so, but many here tend to think not. This is the problem.

DF96 · 4th July 2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedroskova

I cant' find any science in audio; only engineering. There's a difference between the two that all too often gets blurred. This is probably because many engineers like to think of themselves as scientists when, in fact, they're not - they're engineers.

Engineer and scientists do different things: scientists develop/discover science, engineers use it. Therefore audio ought to include a lot of science. It rightly includes other things too, but audio which contains no science is just voodoo.

pedroskova · 4th July 2011, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DF96

Engineer and scientists do different things: scientists develop/discover science, engineers use it. Therefore audio ought to include a lot of science. It rightly includes other things too, but audio which contains no science is just voodoo.

What science goes into the design and construction of an amplifier or loudspeaker? None, as far as I can see. Engineering, yes. Science, no.

Taking measurements is not science. Making sure something functions as intended is not science. It may take forethought and it may take discipline, but it isn't science.

ThorstenL · 4th July 2011, 04:40 PM

Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

Subjective improvement is rather uh.. subjective, isn't it?

Of course.

Hence I coached my suggestions as recommendations to try, not as requirements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

Define "perfect."

I believe I did...

Ciao T

Steve Eddy · 4th July 2011, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThorstenL

I believe I did...

I must have missed it. Could you repeat it or point me to where you originally defined it?

se

simon7000 · 4th July 2011, 05:10 PM

Here is the distortion plot of the first stage of the triode triple. There is no feedback added and the triode is run at full gain.

Anyone care to guess what the full 3 triode plot looks like?

How objectionable is the distortion plot as shown?

The high frequency spike is a problem that sometimes shows up. It is not from the circuit!

ThorstenL · 4th July 2011, 05:18 PM

Steve,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

I must have missed it. Could you repeat it or point me to where you originally defined it?

My pleasure.

Post #13316.

Ciao T

Ps, for those a little slow picking up on things....

"only something perfect is not capable of being improved."

Steve Eddy · 4th July 2011, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThorstenL

Ps, for those a little slow picking up on things....

"only something perfect is not capable of being improved."

You're the one who's slow picking up on things.

I asked you to define "perfect." Not show me where you use the word "perfect."

se

ThorstenL · 4th July 2011, 05:22 PM

Hi,

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon7000

Anyone care to guess what the full 3 triode plot looks like?

Yes, notable harmonics to the 64th harmonic (if above the noisefloor), less even HD than the first stage output.

Quote:

Originally Posted by simon7000

How objectionable is the distortion plot as shown?

Depends on who objects.

To me, looks like most speaker drivers I know, except not as bad. I normally do not object to my speakers...

Ciao T

ThorstenL · 4th July 2011, 05:26 PM

Steve,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

You're the one who's slow picking up on things.

I asked you to define "perfect." Not show me where you use the word "perfect."

I see you are cunning linguist Steve...

I showed the definition of "perfect", e.g. anything incapable of being improved upon.

BTW, perfection is also impossible, but that is not a definition, it is an observation.

Ciao T

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

4th July 2011, 04:21 PM	#13321
john curl diyAudio Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: berkeley ca	About 20 years ago, I was a good phone-friend with Ed Dell, the founder of 'The Audio Amateur' and 'Audio Xpress'. Ed recommended a book to me in order 'to open my mind to new concepts', called:' The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat' by Oliver Sacks. Contained in this book are many 'surprises' as to how people really perceive the world, or in this book, what happens when a certain part of the brain is damaged, and how it can either help or hinder someone. This got me to look toward 'Philosophy of Science' and other topics that I often denote here. Ed Dell was one of the first 'tweakers' although he may see himself , differently. He had the courage to 'trust his ears' when modifying existing audio equipment like a Dyna tube amp, AND note the differences that were usually improvements in the sound. This very concept is being debated here. Can we REALLY improve an existing piece of audio equipment, perhaps in ways that don't show obviously in a standard measurement, and not be victims of our own 'imagination'? I think so, but many here tend to think not. This is the problem.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (4 members and 5 guests)
rob4988, bmcevers, jcx