Messy looking construction can function well, but for production, neat construction makes for better repeatability of good function, and also improves shipability (Things properly tied down and such won't get loose as UPS workers roll the box containing the product down a flight of stairs).
This modification might survive that:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I believe this will be my final comment on this thread, as it seems to me it's nearing the limit of usefulness for constructive discourse. I've just the following few points in response.
I think you confuse intolerance with the challenging of intolerance. Better re-check your footwear.
This thread returned to interest because the primary target of the thread dropped in to make a personal and rather cordial response. For which, he was immediately pounced upon. I do not see the mischief you suggest.
Lastly, my interest in this thread has never been in defending Luksz Fikus against criticism. As I have already stated, I have no relationship with him. I've never corresponded with him, nor have I ever heard, let alone owned any of his products. The issue, for me, has always been about fair treatment.
I have read this thread from the time it started and though I didn't like the tone of the postings, I had no real reason to post anything.
I agree with Ryelands postings here as they pretty are my own feelings about this thread. I find it all regrettable and shows the bad face of this forum. There was no constructive criticism of the unit supposedly being discussed! It all seemed to me to be the views of a few about how smart they are, and how stupid the product designer had to be to have such a piece of gear, and for sale to the public no less.
These kinds of threads come up from time to time, and they are always the same. And in time they go away, but they are still there for anyone to read in the future.
No instead of debating his technical choices, he used various things in his reply to make him seem badly done to, no defence of his technical ideas etc. It started of with his first line, not necessary and only there to get sympathy.
Why did he not respond like many others have to criticism, by providing some technical discourse to prove the baying hounds of reality wrong!
Instead its been like the 'Night of the Living Audiophiles' chasing us round the mall shouting "silver cable" "valve filtering" blah blah blah
So why bother chiming in you have nothing to add to the debate, oh sorry debate and criticism is not allowed even when a $4500 product of that standard is shown. I personally would be ashamed to produce a product that looked like that.
And I know what's coming nest, what have you ever worked on produced etc etc YAWN.
I once saw a video of popcorn kernels cooked with 3 cell phones ringing simultaneously. I work as a technician at the school of electronics in a prestigious South African university. I procured the raw kernels and challenged my colleagues to duplicate the experiment under controlled conditions. Do you know, nobody took me up on it? It seems people become attached to beliefs, and shun experiment. But I have yet to debunk the video ... maybe we should listen to bits of wood.
The bits of wood are just a simple solution for spacing the circuit board from metal panelling - magnetic coupling and all that sort of thing. Yes, one could use spacers but they make the job of stopping the board wobbling that much harder - a piece of wood is a very straightforward, simple way of stabilising the circuitry in a certain position.
marce:
3 pages of getting at us, not one scientific or engineering based argument to disprove what was said.
Nothing was "said" that could be disproved. As noted, all we had were erroneous claims made by "professionals" lambasting a device they had not heard and pouring scorn on a circuit for which no-one had a drawing, all based on a picture of a non-production build lifted from AA's resale site.
The "questions" you complained about not getting answers to were, I thought, too silly to merit a reply - "What are the wood blocks for?" [I've no idea]; "does this thing have valve outputs?"; "Are these valves filtering or just output?" and (though not strictly a question) "One thing that worries me is if different digital sections grounds are joined together by the star ground connections?"
How can one respond to that other than with ridicule? But I'll try.
Fikus's circuit, discussed at tedious length on his web site, is "original" only if you are unfamiliar with SRPP amplifiers and multi-stage pi-filter PSUs. It functions here as the I/V converter and is essentially similar to a dozen other valve-based I/V designs, DIY and commercial both. I'd expect an engineer familiar with audio circuitry who looks at the pic at the top of the thread to work that out in about five seconds tops.
So, yes, it's a "valve output", not filtering (whatever that is). No, the digital stage is not connected together with a star ground, it's on a PCB. As I said, there is no intrinsic merit in PCBs for simple analogue tube circuits (though they make for easier construction and prettier pictures).
The point that construction quality is poor is a valid one but it needs to be made of a production model, not a sample of unknown provenance. Again, suitable pictures are easily found.
Instead its been like the 'Night of the Living Audiophiles' chasing us round the mall shouting "silver cable" "valve filtering" blah blah blah
No-one on this thead has said any such thing. To portray yourself as some sort of martyr to cant and superstition is, frankly, childish: you and others got called for bad behaviour and incompetent comments and responded with more of both, resenting the mildest criticism even though you demand that others do.
DF96:
If you know anything about experimental psychology then you will be aware of how easy it is to fool someone, and how easy it is to fool ourselves even when we are aware of this fact.
Every wannabee psychologist trots this tosh out at the drop of a hat seemingly unaware that, yes, the point has been thought of before and, more importantly, that it applies as much to you as it does to those you regard as more gullible than you.
3 pages of getting at us, not one scientific or engineering based argument to disprove what was said.
Nothing was "said" that could be disproved. As noted, all we had were erroneous claims made by "professionals" lambasting a device they had not heard and pouring scorn on a circuit for which no-one had a drawing, all based on a picture of a non-production build lifted from AA's resale site.
The "questions" you complained about not getting answers to were, I thought, too silly to merit a reply - "What are the wood blocks for?" [I've no idea]; "does this thing have valve outputs?"; "Are these valves filtering or just output?" and (though not strictly a question) "One thing that worries me is if different digital sections grounds are joined together by the star ground connections?"
How can one respond to that other than with ridicule? But I'll try.
Fikus's circuit, discussed at tedious length on his web site, is "original" only if you are unfamiliar with SRPP amplifiers and multi-stage pi-filter PSUs. It functions here as the I/V converter and is essentially similar to a dozen other valve-based I/V designs, DIY and commercial both. I'd expect an engineer familiar with audio circuitry who looks at the pic at the top of the thread to work that out in about five seconds tops.
So, yes, it's a "valve output", not filtering (whatever that is). No, the digital stage is not connected together with a star ground, it's on a PCB. As I said, there is no intrinsic merit in PCBs for simple analogue tube circuits (though they make for easier construction and prettier pictures).
The point that construction quality is poor is a valid one but it needs to be made of a production model, not a sample of unknown provenance. Again, suitable pictures are easily found.
Instead its been like the 'Night of the Living Audiophiles' chasing us round the mall shouting "silver cable" "valve filtering" blah blah blah
No-one on this thead has said any such thing. To portray yourself as some sort of martyr to cant and superstition is, frankly, childish: you and others got called for bad behaviour and incompetent comments and responded with more of both, resenting the mildest criticism even though you demand that others do.
DF96:
If you know anything about experimental psychology then you will be aware of how easy it is to fool someone, and how easy it is to fool ourselves even when we are aware of this fact.
Every wannabee psychologist trots this tosh out at the drop of a hat seemingly unaware that, yes, the point has been thought of before and, more importantly, that it applies as much to you as it does to those you regard as more gullible than you.
I'm going to close my submissions to this thread as follows: many thanks to Lampizator for making the results of his personal research available for free to the public via his web-site. The same goes to John Broskie of TUBECAD fame. I respect any professional who follows the logic and measurements of electronics where it may lead, and who is even prepared to leave the beaten path toward a better solution.
But anything I do not try to build and measure for myself is hearsay, calculations notwithstanding.
But anything I do not try to build and measure for myself is hearsay, calculations notwithstanding.
Although I didn't ask them, they sound like perfectly good technical questions to me. The fact that you go on to give your answers to them seems to confirm this.Ryelands said:
So is it "tosh" or true? I assume if it applies to me (which is exactly what I said, since I am included in "ourselves") then it must be true, therefore not tosh. Are you disagreeing with me, or reluctantly agreeing with me?Ryelands said:
So "questions too silly to merit a reply" have been given a sensible reply by you. A statement made by me is both "tosh" and yet applies to me too. Do you usually hold two opposing opinions on everything? The Monty Python argument sketch comes to mind!
Last edited:
You go on about us being insulting, your just another troll who has jumped in.
AS to filtering the output of a DAC, I was under the impression that there was some low frequency filtering to recreate the audio waveform from the DAC output, a reconstruction filter.
As to the rest, you call us, yet you and others are being more personal in your attacks than we ever where, so try following your own pontifications..,
DF96:
"Questions too silly to merit a reply" have been given a sensible reply by you.
Sensible perhaps but answers to very basic questions indeed, emphatically not ones you'd expect anyone, professional or amateur, who claimed any knowledge of audio electronics to have to ask. To be honest, it hadn't crossed my mind until a moment or two back that marce didn't recognise a valve-based I/V stage when he saw one. (The SRPP bit, of course, needs sight of the schematic, not that that counts for much here.)
The Monty Python argument sketch comes to mind!
Your point is tosh (a) because it's so eye-gougingly, forehead-banging-on-the-table banal and (b) because it often gets trotted out when (as here) the argument has a logic gap, viz:
I think Device X generates distortion;
Group Y likes Device X;
Group Y is, as we all agree, prone to self deception;
THUS
I don't have to prove anything about Device X because Group Y's choice is down to that self-deception thing. Anyone who says different lacks my psychological insight.
Get it?
Probably not.
"Questions too silly to merit a reply" have been given a sensible reply by you.
Sensible perhaps but answers to very basic questions indeed, emphatically not ones you'd expect anyone, professional or amateur, who claimed any knowledge of audio electronics to have to ask. To be honest, it hadn't crossed my mind until a moment or two back that marce didn't recognise a valve-based I/V stage when he saw one. (The SRPP bit, of course, needs sight of the schematic, not that that counts for much here.)
The Monty Python argument sketch comes to mind!
Your point is tosh (a) because it's so eye-gougingly, forehead-banging-on-the-table banal and (b) because it often gets trotted out when (as here) the argument has a logic gap, viz:
I think Device X generates distortion;
Group Y likes Device X;
Group Y is, as we all agree, prone to self deception;
THUS
I don't have to prove anything about Device X because Group Y's choice is down to that self-deception thing. Anyone who says different lacks my psychological insight.
Get it?
Probably not.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.