John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 2739 - 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 7th September 2012, 07:15 PM   #27381
morinix is offline morinix  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
I was just trying to come up with a way to realize a low parasitic assembly option for the DIY'er and throw in field correct grounding to boot. After all this is DIYaudio.com not YOUCAN'TBUILDITaudio.com. The point to point thing was not intrinsically about making something more complex.
__________________
Robert
Lounge Audio

Last edited by morinix; 7th September 2012 at 07:18 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2012, 07:25 PM   #27382
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
As previously posted for some reason the email started to inform me of posts in this thread when I had contributed nothing to it.

The reason being that I could probably sit down right now and design half a dozen different pre-amps, and non of you could hear a difference between any of them in a double blind test.
rcw
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2012, 07:34 PM   #27383
RNMarsh is offline RNMarsh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
RNMarsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 2457 Cascade Trail; Cool, CA. 95614
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcw666 View Post
As previously posted for some reason the email started to inform me of posts in this thread when I had contributed nothing to it.

The reason being that I could probably sit down right now and design half a dozen different pre-amps, and non of you could hear a difference between any of them in a double blind test.
rcw
Then just use the Best one you have done.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2012, 07:37 PM   #27384
RNMarsh is offline RNMarsh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
RNMarsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 2457 Cascade Trail; Cool, CA. 95614
Default I agree -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
Click the image to open in full size.

Thats why my circuits have so few parts and still excellent result. But, I would only call it High-End 'circuit'. Not High-End 'product'.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2012, 11:57 PM   #27385
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
I refuse to participate in a double blind listening test that will prove NOTHING to me, and will be used as propaganda to discredit me. I tested myself 1/3 century ago, and proved to myself that I could not do an ABX double blind test successfully. Some engineers, faced with the same dilemma, got out of hi end audio design. However, AS SOON as I was allowed to listen more naturally, the differences came back. How can this be? Why would I fool myself to think that there are differences if they have been 'proven' to not be there? This is a deep and serious question that I answered in print in 1979 in TAS as a rebuttal to Lipshitz, et al. Now, of course, Lipshitz did not take me seriously, and I don't take him too seriously, because it flies in the face of my direct experience with listening to audio differences. NOW, if I could not easily pass an ABX test when I was in my 30's, how would I expect to get anything but NULL results when I am 70 years old?
I HEAR differences in various audio circuits. Sometimes easily, sometimes with difficulty, depending on the sophistication and philosophy of the designer. With my own designs, I have been able to hear virtually every one, except the CTC Blowtorch, and I suspect if I had a worthy contender here, I might hear something (slightly off) in the CTC Blowtorch. I have done A-B comparisons between Blowtorches, and IF I change the wiring from silver to copper (very high quality), I have heard a difference, but it would have been difficult to chose which I liked better. Source material limits this decision, and it is our source material, for the most part, that has real problems.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2012, 12:23 AM   #27386
SY is offline SY  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
SY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chicagoland
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
However, AS SOON as I was allowed to listen more naturally, the differences came back. How can this be?
Because you couldn't actually hear the differences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
Some engineers, faced with the same dilemma, got out of hi end audio design.
Others may have decided that the particular thing they couldn't hear wasn't important and moved on to examine issues that are.
__________________
You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.- Wilford Brimley
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2012, 12:41 AM   #27387
morinix is offline morinix  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
Source material limits this decision, and it is our source material, for the most part, that has real problems.
__________________
Robert
Lounge Audio
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2012, 12:46 AM   #27388
RNMarsh is offline RNMarsh  United States
diyAudio Member
 
RNMarsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: 2457 Cascade Trail; Cool, CA. 95614
It's interesting to me that the lay buying Public when told we can sell you a product whoich has no audible distortions say great then I'll buy that one. But hay! It doesnt sound like real music! $1,000,000 recording console was used? Same response from public; It doesnt sound like they are listening to perfect electronics - even if they are becsase it doesnt sound real. Just a better HiFi facsimile.

If you say it is perfect - in ABX - then they expect it will sound almost real. It doesnt sound real to them. They know what a voice in their room sounds like and a hifi recording isnt it. They hear live music and they dont get what they pay for in realism so they say f**k-it and buy cheap stuff. We might have 'perfect' electronics that no one can hear any difference in ABX tests but people still know its hifi and not real and they think you have scamed them by saying the electronics is perfect. --- In the consumer view.... perfect in tests means it must be perfect in sound realism. How could it be perfect if it doesnt sound real is thier thought. And, we dont deliver to that expectation. We deliver something else: HiFi.

Because of this view and expectation people (esp. audiophiles) are driven to find something which will explain or make the listening experience more 'real'. Thus, it must be that high gnfb or that cable C and L or tubes vs transistor or analog vs digital... their just HAS to be an explaination for why it doesnt sound real. ABX falls on deaf ears if you cant make the sound more real... not just higher resolving and lower noise and lower thd. -RNM

Last edited by RNMarsh; 8th September 2012 at 01:11 AM. Reason: In the consumer view -- they have expectation for High-End:
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2012, 01:06 AM   #27389
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
ABX? Draw your own conclusions

http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

P.S. I've worked with longer wordlenghts from the first day the workstations were able to handle them. Does the results of this double-blind test mean I was imagining things and should go back to 16/44.1? No way, only over my dead body!

Last edited by elektroj; 8th September 2012 at 01:19 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2012, 02:38 AM   #27390
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: ISRAEL
Richard, The beauty in a highly transperent piece of equipment is that it lacks the added flavor that is imposed on the sound field and looks you in the face on every recording you play. this is what always happends with inferior equipment. When you are able to clearly and easily hear the differences in soundfield and accustics of the different recorded events you know it instantly. But still, a highly transperent equipment do not mean that there will not be differences in presentation prespective or tonal balance between different pieces of audio gear that will satisfy different tastes of prospective buyers, and still maintain it`s transperncy and lack of artifects, and i`m not mainly talking about the different types distortion.
Taking care of this side of the preformance aspect is more of an art then pure engineering.
  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 07:40 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