John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[1audio]

Originally Posted by john curl

KBK, it is not that you are incorrect, but you are ahead of the topic at this time. Also, you have not specified HOW we could measure and weight 'transient information'. That is one serious reason that design engineers muddle on with conventional test equipment, and yet some reviewers of audio products don't even publish measurements.
In theory we would design audio products by 'ear' but we would be laughed at by most people, EVEN IF we were truly successful, like some Japanese tube equipment that I have heard over the years. Yes, true audio success, is NOT just TIM or low harmonic distortion, but it helps to eliminate these distortions if we can, and conventional testing helps us with this.

The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us

A mistake we all make is believing the issues we hear are common to all of us. The sound is but what we hear is really unique to each of us. Its a combination of what we have learned, our instincts and what we are looking to hear. The book and associated concepts are about observation issues. I suspect humans cannot process all they hear any more than they can process all they see. Given that what we hear is more of what we have learned to hear along with what we want to hear its surprising that there is as much consensus in audio issues as there is. The gorilla is the obvious thing we don't see because we are all looking at something else. It is also emblematic of the challenge of deciding how to weight audio analysis. If I don't see it and you do, but you don't see what I saw how would anyone rate the evaluations? There isn't a simple correct answer.

[janneman]

Originally Posted by 1audio

The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us

A mistake we all make is believing the issues we hear are common to all of us. The sound is but what we hear is really unique to each of us. Its a combination of what we have learned, our instincts and what we are looking to hear. The book and associated concepts are about observation issues. I suspect humans cannot process all they hear any more than they can process all they see. Given that what we hear is more of what we have learned to hear along with what we want to hear its surprising that there is as much consensus in audio issues as there is. The gorilla is the obvious thing we don't see because we are all looking at something else. It is also emblematic of the challenge of deciding how to weight audio analysis. If I don't see it and you do, but you don't see what I saw how would anyone rate the evaluations? There isn't a simple correct answer.

Demian,

I fully agree with your analysis; you said it very clearly.
One solution is to use the Scientific Method, to get observations and results that are somewhat more 'universal' than personal observations.
In this context, the Scientific Method has been called 'unnatural' in the sense that it is a method that does not come natural to us humans.

jan didden

[janneman]

...slightly /OT, while I'm at it:

John, your buddy Mark Levinson is at it again:

Sign In | LinkedIn

/OT off

jan didden

[ticknpop]

Why agonize over circuit design, discontinued low noise complimentary jfets, capacitor and circuit board dielectrics, local and loop feedback, the audabilty of servo cicuits, and mysterious Bybee filters, when the real missing ingredient we seek is here................

Gold Creams formulas

[jacco vermeulen]

Oh Dear, more stud formulae.

[john curl]

Before we go any further, Mark Levinson is no friend of mine, since he dropped my royalties on the JC-2 and gave me nothing for the JC-3, after 18 mo of development. This happened in 1976, a long time ago. That is why people here have access to the schematics of the JC-2 and the JC-3, as I published them in response.
Mark is a salesmen, not an engineer. He studied music, and was raised in an intellectually progressive family of college professors and doctors. He was the 'odd man out' so to speak, however he had a 'gift' of salesmanship. What we see today, is that he will promote just about 'anything', kind of like the guys on TV.

[janneman]

Originally Posted by john curl

Before we go any further, Mark Levinson is no friend of mine, since he dropped my royalties on the JC-2 and gave me nothing for the JC-3, after 18 mo of development. This happened in 1976, a long time ago. That is why people here have access to the schematics of the JC-2 and the JC-3, as I published them in response.
Mark is a salesmen, not an engineer. He studied music, and was raised in an intellectually progressive family of college professors and doctors. He was the 'odd man out' so to speak, however he had a 'gift' of salesmanship. What we see today, is that he will promote just about 'anything', kind of like the guys on TV.

Well, I don't know all that, but I agree with you John, from first-hand experience, that he is not an engineer but a sales/marketing person. I had an interview with him maybe mid-80's, the launch of his Audio Palette in Holland.
I tried to talk about tech subjects and he would say "You need to talk to my engineer about that". I never published the interview, it wasn't up my alley.
He did pay for lunch though

jan didden

[brianco]

Originally Posted by janneman

Demian,

I fully agree with your analysis; you said it very clearly.
One solution is to use the Scientific Method, to get observations and results that are somewhat more 'universal' than personal observations.
In this context, the Scientific Method has been called 'unnatural' in the sense that it is a method that does not come natural to us humans.

jan didden

Although I have to agree with Jan's sentiments in putting forward the above suggestion, we have only to pick out the correspondence in this topic regarding Otala and TIM. There is representation on the subject from a pretty good cross section of the audio community including those with very high levels of knowledge both theoretical and practical.....and many have both! Yet despite this we find that no basic underlying agreement has been reached between the parties involved.

A quick look at the cables issue - mercifully closed - shows that any agreement is impossible.

However the most important point is that we can (in theory) arrive at an acceptable standardisation of measurement. So what ..... we ALL have vastly differing hearing capability and also we listen to an immense variety of music. For some the fidelity of the slam of a rock drum is "the" signature of a good system, for others the pureness of tone, diction and position of a soprano voice!

Lastly, any system based on measurement will immediately lead us back to those awful adverts of Japanese kit as published in the 1970s!

[jacco vermeulen]

The ML Rose God watch is nice though.

(but they'd probably think i stole it, which is very likely)

[janneman]

Originally Posted by brianco

Although I have to agree with Jan's sentiments in putting forward the above suggestion, we have only to pick out the correspondence in this topic regarding Otala and TIM. There is representation on the subject from a pretty good cross section of the audio community including those with very high levels of knowledge both theoretical and practical.....and many have both! Yet despite this we find that no basic underlying agreement has been reached between the parties involved.

A quick look at the cables issue - mercifully closed - shows that any agreement is impossible.

However the most important point is that we can (in theory) arrive at an acceptable standardisation of measurement. So what ..... we ALL have vastly differing hearing capability and also we listen to an immense variety of music. For some the fidelity of the slam of a rock drum is "the" signature of a good system, for others the pureness of tone, diction and position of a soprano voice!

Lastly, any system based on measurement will immediately lead us back to those awful adverts of Japanese kit as published in the 1970s!

Mostly true. A lot of the problems come because we try to connect things that cannot be connected. Few people would disagree that an amp with 0.01%THD at some condition is more transparent, more faithfull than an amp with 1%THD at the same conditions. The problem starts when trying to conclude from that things about 'better reproduction' where better really means 'preferred by me'. Like weighing two tomatos and concluding that the one that is 3 ounces heavier is more red. Most people would just agree that the one that measures heavier has more mass.

jan didden