John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I'm an 'expert' in my field, and I politely disagree with Randi about hi end audio in general. I find that there really are sonic differences that people can both hear and appreciate. I have spent my life putting engineering'improvements' into both pro and consumer audio and getting famous doing so. It is in the 'feedback' from the listeners that I get my understanding of what 'works' and what doesn't. Now, I don't like being accused of being a 'shuck and jive' kind of guy. I am always as honest and straight-forward on this site and others, as I possibly can be, and that is at as high a standard as anyone here.
Now, why do I seem to get into 'trouble'? I just happen to believe there is more than just typical measurements in audio reproduction that make improvements in audio quality. I would like to continuing sharing what I have found, but I get continually dissed for trying. That is the dilemma.
 
I had one like that. The seal bearing on the bottom of the liquid container would bind, sometimes to the point of stalling the motor. Took some work to free it up.

Do you know if it's a shaded pole motor?

John

The sleeve bearing in the blender blade has always been quite loose and smooth. They are relative loose from the factory, unless you get a non-Oster source blades which have a tendency to rust and scrape internally until you wear them loose. I usually don't use thick liquids in the blender and when washing my blades the fluid layer in the bearing is effective enough that I can spin the blade in my hand and it will take a good several seconds to stop. Of course it's not so good if I blend stuff with fiber and more solids. The bearing is essentially open to the liquid so it's lubricated by what you're blending (I used a lot of coconut oil). At high speeds the blended material actually starts coming out of the bottom of the sleeve bearing.

The motor in it uses carbon brushes and the electromagnets are enameled wire wound on a typical star shaped laminated core. Here is a related patent:

https://www.google.com/patents/US31...X&ei=lrBvVMqSCdLGsQS9zYHQBg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCTgy
 
John,
There is a large group of people who I think understand that the current sets of measurements for audio components is lacking in some way. There has to be more to it that the standard number of measurements that most agree don't seem to give all the answers.

I know the subject has been breached probably many times somewhere in this long thread but how about taking about power supplies and how to design the best supplies for our audio circuits. It seems to be a fairly universal thought that the sound of any audio circuit is only as good as the power supply will allow. I see there is a definite disagreement about whether regulated power supplies are better or worse for sound quality, I see a strong opinion leaning towards non-regulated power supplies and recently unregulated smps. What say you about all of this?
 
Keantoken,
I have had one of those 12 speed Osterizer blenders for a long time and I have never seen it leak out through the bottom of the blade assembly, perhaps the seals are bad and that liquid is seeping down to the motor though I would imagine you would have noticed that by now. I never have smelled anything coming from the motor assembly even at high speed with a full container and a very thick viscosity mixture that it can barely cause a vortex to form. Something isn't right here.
 
Deception occurs for everyone - those who wish to simplify "reality" attempt to force all phenomena into easy to understood, easy to control boxes of 'truth' - and can get quite angry if their world view is challenged.

Those who take listening to systems, for pleasure, reasonably seriously know that the normal measurements are quite hopeless at "measuring" anything worthwhile - hence the pervasive chaos in the audio componentry world. But intelligent overviewing, and experimenting, demonstrates that there is a coherent foundation of integrity that all systems need to have, for them to subjectively step up to the plate. Unfortunately, this is hard to measure and typically even harder to engineer in some areas - but as an exercise is very well worthwhile pursuing, because it always results in highly satisfying sound.

Power supplies are extremely important - I've just been investigating a highly performing design exercise, which, as is, has a major Achilles Heel: significant voltage rail fluctuations will continually destabilise the operating conditions - which will do nothing for a real life unit being able to deliver the theoretical performance.
 
The Osterizers and most blenders are designed so the liquid can't get into the motor; it will drip down the side before that happens. I have two blades, one is new and not genuine, both of them leak, but only after using them at high speed for at least a minute. However the motor fan produces air flow and that can bring dust and moisture into the motor if your countertop is not clean.

I don't think the Oster blades have any seal except whatever the long sleeve bearing provides. The blade bearings knock metal on all axes and I don't feel any friction, this is with a new blade.

The motor itself is decoupled from the chassis using spring washers, plastic fibrous and metal bushings/washers. It came with two spring washers per mount. At some point I discovered the washers seemed to be added randomly by someone who took it apart, so I put it back together with the motor mount suspended between the two spring washers so there would be complete freedom of movement within the spring range. This seemed to improve the behavior. However now I'm wondering if the movement should be restricted more, IE have both spring washers on one side, pressing the motor mounts into the chassis mounts through washers? This way there is a little freedom to slide into center but after that the motor is held against the chassis with springs and by friction.
 
I think that even if Randi was wrong in some cases, the good he does by showing people to be more critical and aware of the dangers of outright fraud, outweighs the bad he could have done. After all he doesn't even claim the phenomena he tests don't exist. He still gives people the option to believe whatever they want.

However there are people who are so focused on the mystical side of things that they miss the whole point of what Randi does. They seem to think he is attacking beliefs or trying to hide something, and they miss that he is actually doing a very helpful thing - showing people how they can avoid being taken advantage of, and making them aware that they will be if they are not critical about when they choose to believe something.
 
Member
Joined 2002
Paid Member
I think John has posted quite a bit of information on his power supplies from transformer favorites to regulation circuitry. Yes these things matter a great deal. I have seen circuits measure the same on a standard suite of tests and yet have big variations in sound with different power supply designs. The final choices become subjective on the home stretch.
Looking at current SOA designs I see many similarities, maybe because these techniques work.
 
I have seen circuits measure the same on a standard suite of tests and yet have big variations in sound with different power supply designs. The final choices become subjective on the home stretch.
I disagree. Either the full assembly works correctly, or it doesn't - if your measurements aren't differentiating, then they are inadequate as tools.

Even at a simulator level it is easy to see how power supply behaviour is vitally important - there is no "magic" here, just a general lack of desire to understand ...
 
Last edited:
www.hifisonix.com
Joined 2003
Paid Member
I think that even if Randi was wrong in some cases, the good he does by showing people to be more critical and aware of the dangers of outright fraud, outweighs the bad he could have done. After all he doesn't even claim the phenomena he tests don't exist. He still gives people the option to believe whatever they want.

However there are people who are so focused on the mystical side of things that they miss the whole point of what Randi does. They seem to think he is attacking beliefs or trying to hide something, and they miss that he is actually doing a very helpful thing - showing people how they can avoid being taken advantage of, and making them aware that they will be if they are not critical about when they choose to believe something.

Just buy a Philips or a Zojirushi and get done with it.
 
Now, why do I seem to get into 'trouble'? I just happen to believe there is more than just typical measurements in audio reproduction that make improvements in audio quality. I would like to continuing sharing what I have found, but I get continually dissed for trying. That is the dilemma.


Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.
 
diyAudio Senior Member
Joined 2002
Hi,

Well, I'm an 'expert' in my field, and I politely disagree with Randi about hi end audio in general. I find that there really are sonic differences that people can both hear and appreciate. I have spent my life putting engineering'improvements' into both pro and consumer audio and getting famous doing so. It is in the 'feedback' from the listeners that I get my understanding of what 'works' and what doesn't. Now, I don't like being accused of being a 'shuck and jive' kind of guy. I am always as honest and straight-forward on this site and others, as I possibly can be, and that is at as high a standard as anyone here.
Now, why do I seem to get into 'trouble'? I just happen to believe there is more than just typical measurements in audio reproduction that make improvements in audio quality. I would like to continuing sharing what I have found, but I get continually dissed for trying. That is the dilemma.

Much appreciated John.
Spot on and well captured. An uphill battle, one we can all be proud of. "They" won't admit it but the facts speak for themselves.

There are those who merely stick to known scientific fact of today and then there are those who know now what science will discover later.

That's the difference between being a "visionaire" and an "ombrilist".

Cheers, ;)
 

Attachments

  • ella_1966.PNG
    ella_1966.PNG
    61.4 KB · Views: 245
Status
Not open for further replies.