John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 1330 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Member Areas > The Lounge

The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion.

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 4th July 2011, 02:27 AM   #13291
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Actually, the 2300 was AUTOFORMER coupled. A small, but interesting difference.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2011, 02:36 AM   #13292
wahab is offline wahab  Algeria
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: algeria/france
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinh View Post
IIRC the 2300 was a 300W mono amp which was transformer coupled.
Wasnt it a stereo 2X300 ?...

McIntosh Amplifiers Part 2
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2011, 02:52 AM   #13293
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Yes, but it could not be MORE than 300W in stereo, whereas modern amps often give more power into lower impedance loads. The 2300 will not do that.
For example a single JC-1 will do more than 800W into 4 ohms. The 2300 in mono would give 600W into 4 ohms, or any other impedance. This is because of the use of the autotransformer. The actual drive impedance might have been 2 ohms or less, in actuality. This can be determined by the +/- 40V supplies that the power amp used for the output stage. We did not particularly like the 2300, but they were rugged, dependable, and available.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2011, 03:53 AM   #13294
kevinh is offline kevinh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
The bottom line about design and engineering in general is specifying what is and isn't important. So what measurements correlate with how the ear/brain system processes the music and of course which don't matter. Engineering is a process of making trade offs since nothing in the real world is perfect. When an engineer creates a specification for a piece of equipment (if the marketing guys let him ) it is defining and prioritizing what is important and what isn't so important.

Is it the goal to get vanishing low whatever spec, yeah but not if it comes at the expense of another parameter that is more important to the goal of the project. If the goal is to make the best sounding piece of equipment the designer is tasked with determining which specifications take precedence and which are secondary.

Then there is the issue that no two people hear things and prioritize things exactly the same way either aesthetically or musically.

So we make our choices. Components and topography.

To paraphrase CS Lewis if the devil can keep you from asking the right questions he never has to worry about the answers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2011, 04:18 AM   #13295
Bonsai is offline Bonsai  Taiwan
diyAudio Member
 
Bonsai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
Very nicely put!
__________________
bonsai
Amplifier Design and Construction for MUSIC! http://hifisonix.com/
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2011, 04:53 AM   #13296
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Francisco
Quote:
Originally Posted by wahab View Post
They play in front of the speaker s wall , so unless the performance
was in play back, wich wasnt the case , they had to use extremely
notching equalisations to tame down the inevitable and huge acoustic
feedbacks..
One of the interesting points of the Wall of Sound system was the differential noise cancelling mic arrangement that they used so they could be in front of the speakers and not get feedback. So no, they did not rely on notch equalization.

There were two omni mics close enough together to be sampling the sound field at effectively the same point. They were combined with reverse polarity, so most of the signal cancelled. When the vocalist stepped up to the pair, he sang directly into one, so there was effectively no cancellation. It may seem unlikely, but the system actually worked.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2011, 05:49 AM   #13297
diyAudio Member
 
Chris Hornbeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Little Rock
The microphone system was brilliant, but wasn't used for long. It effectively sampled a pressure differential between the diaphragm pair, giving a "phasey"ness.

IIRC the intent, beautifully achieved, was to put performers and listeners into the same sound field. Giants walked the Earth in those days.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2011, 06:06 AM   #13298
gk7 is offline gk7
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vienna, Austria
I just want to say that I believe that many people read this thread, just because there is a lot to learn from successful and experienced audio developers like John, Charles and others.
(And I wonder why people who deny that there are audible differences in high end design participate in in a thread called "Blowtorch preamplifier" at all...)

Last edited by wintermute; 4th July 2011 at 07:33 AM. Reason: removed quote of modeator directive, quoting official mod comments is against the rules
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2011, 07:22 AM   #13299
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by gk7 View Post
I just want to say that I believe that many people read this thread, just because there is a lot to learn from successful and experienced audio developers like John, Charles and others.
(And I wonder why people who deny that there are audible differences in high end design participate in in a thread called "Blowtorch preamplifier" at all...)
100% Agree.

The successful (over decades!) in the marketplace of high quality audio claim things, and those which are either not in this market or not successful are denying.
Putting down their succes solely because of good marketing, bribes, exxagerate prices or other similar things is cheap.
  Reply With Quote
Old 4th July 2011, 07:49 AM   #13300
Previously: Kuei Yang Wang
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Hi,

Quote:
Originally Posted by gk7 View Post
And I wonder why people who deny that there are audible differences in high end design participate in in a thread called "Blowtorch preamplifier" at all...
The charitable interpretation is that they feel the need to protect the poor ignorant souls reading this thread from being taken in by charlatans, snake oil merchants and the like, who try to convince these poor "marks" that actually all gear does not sound the same and try to somehow take these poor ignorant "marks" money. In other words they are debunking fraudulent claims and protect the consumers from evil schemers that try to become millionaires by peddling stuff that does not really work.

Though truth be told, how this scheme of extracting fabulous wealth from Diy'ers is supposed to work is a mystery to me, making money of DIY'ers is hard work...

The less charitable interpretation is that they have somehow conceived that those who do not comply with "all gear sounds the same" philosophy are having some kind of fun trying all this interesting stuff, fun they are constitutionally incapable of having, so they try to spoil that of others, on the principle that "If I'm not enjoying myself I don't see why anyone else should be having any fun!".

I shall leave it to the readers to decide which rings more true.

Ciao T
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:08 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2