A numbers game, and/or, a listening game, depending on the designer.
But isn't that "a good thing"?
How is it not enough or somehow not good, as you have implied?
How is it not good, or not good-enough, for someone to do everything they possibly can, and, with no holds barred, to try to wrestle every audio gremlin to the ground (and try to kill them however they can) and create the best system they can?
But isn't that "a good thing"?
How is it not enough or somehow not good, as you have implied?
How is it not good, or not good-enough, for someone to do everything they possibly can, and, with no holds barred, to try to wrestle every audio gremlin to the ground (and try to kill them however they can) and create the best system they can?
Last edited:
Well, one could argue that the ability to keep the "numbers" below what any human is likely to ever be capable of actually hearing was achieved decades ago. And that to continue improving the "numbers" is little more than a numbers game.
se
I refer you to my patent #5376899, figs 2, 3 and 4 and dated 1994. I did use
feedback however.
😎
Nelson, congratulations! I just looked at your patent, and it is right up there with the best topologies. I'm glad that I didn't use global feedback, or I might have copied your efforts.
Uh, I didn't patent that topology per se, just the concept of the feedback
arrangement. The complementary 2 stage folded cascode was the example
vehicle. It became the 1,000 watt X1000 in 1997, but used feedback only
around the front end.
😎
arrangement. The complementary 2 stage folded cascode was the example
vehicle. It became the 1,000 watt X1000 in 1997, but used feedback only
around the front end.
😎
One could argue that. But one would be assuming that the motive of the designer was only to beat the existing best numbers, which would likely be wrong, in my opinion.
For many designers, this is an art form, and/or a playground, and is pursued for the sheer love and joy of it. And others have other motivations, such as a way to make a living, or become famous, or just to be very good at something unusual, or even just because they want others to experience musical bliss and they can help make that happen.
The same argument could be applied to many, maybe even most, human endeavors. But, luckily in many cases, people don't stop trying to create or improve just because something has been done pretty well already, by someone else.
Music itself is but one example. In every genre, there are masterworks that are so satisfying that it's difficult to imagine the need for anything better. According to the "just a numbers game" argument, would you suggest that no new music needs to be created? Should athletes cease to train and perform just because they have little hope of ever setting a world record? Should people stop getting educated because they'll probably never be like Einstein? What's left for mountain climbers? And so on.
Besides, even in this audio design game, there are a lot of ways to combine the numbers that might not have been done, or done as well as possible, yet.
Even if it just comes down to the fact that an individual has the right to "waste their time" on whatever their passion is, to the best of their ability, that is their valid right and how I or others might judge it does not matter and does not decrease its validity nor its value.
Now I see. You've just been yanking my chain, right? <smile>
It's OK. I guess I'm usually "easy", that way.
One does not waste time designing 'better and better' audio components, unless they love to see if they can make something even better than their last attempt.
I have made many preamps over the last 40 years. Several, including the Levinson JC-2, the JC-80, and finally the CTC Blowtorch were the very best that I can do. I have examples of both the JC-2, and the JC-80 here. They are not bad units, in fact, without anything else to compare with, they would be as good as I intended them to be, but I 'live and learn' and so try to make an even better model.
Let me give an example: Let's say I was a Porsche designer and I designed the first 911. Now would you think that was the 'ultimate' automoble today? Yet, for many of us, if it were in good shape, it would be more than we would normally have in a sports car, even today. The Levinson JC-2 is about the same. Back in 1973, when I designed the electronics, I threw virtually everything that I could think of at it, including complementary diff. jfet input stage, ultra low noise input fets in the phono, high slew rate, highest quality coupling caps, multi-stage power supply regulation. We were very successful with this design, and I was very proud of it, thinking that it was so advanced that it would be almost impossible to beat, at least in solid state, but as the years wore by, I noticed a few problems. One was in 'imaging'. Both Mark and I had made some subtle errors that needed to be corrected to fix the 'imaging', but it never was done in the JC-2, so it ultimately became 'obsolete' in my mind, AND in the listening opinions of other serious listeners.
I am sure, while the original Porsche 911 would be a wonderful collectors item, the newer Porsches have fixed inherent problems in the early Porsches and are really better, just like the JC-80 is better than the JC-2, yet the CTC Blowtorch is better than the 'JC-80, and that is due to avoiding the 'mistakes' or compromises, made in previous years. If you cannot learn about and fix your 'mistakes' you are never going to be a first rate audio designer.
I have made many preamps over the last 40 years. Several, including the Levinson JC-2, the JC-80, and finally the CTC Blowtorch were the very best that I can do. I have examples of both the JC-2, and the JC-80 here. They are not bad units, in fact, without anything else to compare with, they would be as good as I intended them to be, but I 'live and learn' and so try to make an even better model.
Let me give an example: Let's say I was a Porsche designer and I designed the first 911. Now would you think that was the 'ultimate' automoble today? Yet, for many of us, if it were in good shape, it would be more than we would normally have in a sports car, even today. The Levinson JC-2 is about the same. Back in 1973, when I designed the electronics, I threw virtually everything that I could think of at it, including complementary diff. jfet input stage, ultra low noise input fets in the phono, high slew rate, highest quality coupling caps, multi-stage power supply regulation. We were very successful with this design, and I was very proud of it, thinking that it was so advanced that it would be almost impossible to beat, at least in solid state, but as the years wore by, I noticed a few problems. One was in 'imaging'. Both Mark and I had made some subtle errors that needed to be corrected to fix the 'imaging', but it never was done in the JC-2, so it ultimately became 'obsolete' in my mind, AND in the listening opinions of other serious listeners.
I am sure, while the original Porsche 911 would be a wonderful collectors item, the newer Porsches have fixed inherent problems in the early Porsches and are really better, just like the JC-80 is better than the JC-2, yet the CTC Blowtorch is better than the 'JC-80, and that is due to avoiding the 'mistakes' or compromises, made in previous years. If you cannot learn about and fix your 'mistakes' you are never going to be a first rate audio designer.
It really does not matter what any of our ideas are.
Since it is " John curl's blowtorch " thread what matters is how John defines things.
If you don't like John's ideas you should not be in his thread.
I'm sorry, but that is the most nonsensical analogy I recall seeing in quite some time.
se
I wasnt talking about Mr Curl, perhaps you should look to the actual conversation (the 2 posts) directly before mine, instead of posting a blind knee-jerk response?
John is a very common name you know ...
also, sorry to inform you, but I was heavily involved in the particular conversation this thread followed on from in the BT thread, which it seems you havent read and perhaps dont really know what this thread is about?
Maybe you should maintain radio silence instead of jumping in half cocked?
Last edited:
I disagree, that would a very boring and very short thread. This is a forum and everyone should feel free to challenge others' points of view. the posters who challenge John Curl's design criteria make the tread interesting and make it all that more informative.
Nothing against JC and his designs, but there are many very successful audio designs whose topogies a design philosophies vary all over the place. A part of JC's design criteria is based on subjective listening which can also vary all over place.
This thread is a poll asking people who've posed in JC's Blowtorch their opinion. Why do you think only JC's opinion matters?
Last edited:
thanks John (sorry I just assumed your name was also John), agreed. Rational conversation on that front seemed unlikely, so I stuck to the bleedingly obvious fact that he was in fact the one posting irrelevant, off-topic nonsense.
haha no, its worse than I thought, he has been ranting on about it for the last few pages! perhaps somebody needs to explain the concept of an opinion poll, with pictures?
might I suggest taking a look at the conversation it sprang from? since its pretty obvious this is just rabid defence of someone he doesnt know, who isnt even being attacked.
haha no, its worse than I thought, he has been ranting on about it for the last few pages! perhaps somebody needs to explain the concept of an opinion poll, with pictures?
might I suggest taking a look at the conversation it sprang from? since its pretty obvious this is just rabid defence of someone he doesnt know, who isnt even being attacked.
Last edited:
I like these terms "no holds..", "The Best money can buy" yada yada yada. Every design has limits. I have yet to see anyone actually fab a fet actually dedicated to the lowest noise possible for audio, for example. I remember an engineer telling me about calling, Motorola, I think, and asking about doing this. The guy said "got a million bucks?" to him. And this, at the time when the Toshiba parts were in production. So I have to assume that my engineer friend had a die design that would beat out the Toshiba stuff.
And John, you have done designs since CTC. You had to lower the bar since the Jfet landscape has changed for the worse. Waste of time? or well, making money makes it ok to do a design even though the design can't be better due to exterior forces?
I'm a pain I know! I just can't stay silent when I smell hypocrisy.
And John, you have done designs since CTC. You had to lower the bar since the Jfet landscape has changed for the worse. Waste of time? or well, making money makes it ok to do a design even though the design can't be better due to exterior forces?
I'm a pain I know! I just can't stay silent when I smell hypocrisy.
Morinix, we do what we have to do, to make audio products. IF we CAN get the best parts, then we use them profusely. If we can't get the parts (this is factory specific) then we make do with the best that we can find.
I seriously doubt that you will find better parts than the Toshiba series of jfets. The trade-off, even with those parts is input capacitance. Of course, a bigger part would be quieter, BUT it would have much higher input capacitance.
When we need lower noise, we parallel jfets. Then we control the compromise.
I seriously doubt that you will find better parts than the Toshiba series of jfets. The trade-off, even with those parts is input capacitance. Of course, a bigger part would be quieter, BUT it would have much higher input capacitance.
When we need lower noise, we parallel jfets. Then we control the compromise.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.