John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 3129 - 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 10th December 2012, 02:33 AM   #31281
fas42 is online now fas42  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
fas42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NSW, Australia
Blog Entries: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrlee View Post
We have the technology to get around wonky contacts!

The source is fed via a "hand crafted by virgins from solid Unobtainium" wire wound pot specially selected by JC himself to BOTH Blowtorch and the evil 4558 device. They feed matched Parasound A21s or some other choice device of JC's.

Switching is done by trained monkey ... I mean highly qualified engineer switching the speaker cables.
Sorry, Richard, you've just shot yourself in the foot ... how are we going to get around the "wonky contacts" between cable and speaker, eh? ...

Frank
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th December 2012, 05:02 AM   #31282
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Our double blind tests were not necessarily ABX tests. There are other forms that work better, in my opinion. You have my opinion from 32 years ago, IN PRINT. That is all I have to say.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th December 2012, 09:32 AM   #31283
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cooktown, Oz
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
Our double blind tests were not necessarily ABX tests. There are other forms that work better, in my opinion.
JC, would you like to describe YOUR double blind tests?

I've described an alternative to ABX which I call ABC. Is this a form that in your august opinion "works better"? If not, have you any suggestions to improve it.

Quote:
You have my opinion from 32 years ago, IN PRINT.
JC, your letter to the editor is somewhat vague about the test itself. Anyone have a copy of the original article so we can put JC's learned opinion in the correct context?

Quote:
Sorry, Richard, you've just shot yourself in the foot ... how are we going to get around the "wonky contacts" between cable and speaker, eh? ...
No problem with that Frank. We just weld the cable to the speaker terminals like JC recommends.

The problem is changing the cables over at the two matched Parasound A21 outputs. JC, what welding rods do you recommend for this?

We could use the A21s to do the welding by shorting the speaker terminals but it's probably less complicated to train our monkey to use a welding torch and angle grinder. I'm open to suggestions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th December 2012, 09:33 AM   #31284
1audio is offline 1audio  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by simon7000 View Post
OK you've convinced me to add the two bias resistors. However note the actual output is direct coupled and runs at 3.3 volts

The rubidium standard is the Stanford PERF10 Rubidium Frequency Standard - PERF10 which can lock to a GPS source for long term stability. The rated life of the lamp is greater than the design life of the system.

The VCXO details are not given on the schematic. It uses peltier devices to cool it. There are a few tricks in mounting it to reduce vibration transmission. Jitter is in the reasonable picoseconds range.

Using this quality of reference adds 0.12% to the cost of the entire system. The master clock syncs over 200 slaves.

As to the nice references, I can't disagree with the techniques shown, as I am using them to recover the signals from the fiber with them. Jitter is below what my AP can measure.

Schematic attached.

Now the issue is what will it take to measure the jitter?
Last to first, SRS has a really good new phase noise feature in their audio analyzer. Its also way cheaper than most commercial solutions. The sales guy claimed it can measure AES as well as the HF clocks. The floor I saw was in the -165 dB range and possibly below -150 at 1 KHz.

The SRS Rubidium is very good. Long term is better than a good crystal, but short term a free running really good crystal oscillator (Like a Wenzel) is better. And they can be made at audio clock frequencies. Getting ppb from one is well within their capabilities. The really good ones are export controlled so more trouble that they are worth. but cheaper than the SRS clock. You could use both and set the time constants to get the best of everything. Adding a GPSDO would be the final step and not expensive in this situation.

How much pulling on the oscillator do you need for this? Are you syncing to something like video?

Peltier coolers on a crystal is unusual to say the least. The high accuracy low phase noise (essentially very high Q) crystals (SC cut) need to be something like 80C to get stability from them. There is a whole science of double oven controllers for that. They don't pull very far but its probably not needed.
__________________
Demian Martin
Product Design Services
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th December 2012, 01:18 PM   #31285
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
As I recall, Moncrieff's test was what you might call a double blind ABA test, using a multi-position SILVER switch wired for ABABABABA ... Then A and B are found later, once the choice is made. Works for me!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th December 2012, 01:24 PM   #31286
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
Go for it, Ed Simon! It is refreshing to see an all-out effort made. This was the original principle that the Blowtorch was made. Cover EVERY BASE possible. Accept NO compromise that is made for cost saving or ease in construction. Heck, we only had enough parts to build 50 units, why not? There was no mass production involved where a small cost saving saves millions of dollars. The real EXPENSE of the CTC Blowtorch is in the LABOR of designing, building and testing it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th December 2012, 03:25 PM   #31287
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
This morning I thought that I might bring up the TRADE-OFF'S in audio design, that are of course necessary, to meet different cost levels and ease in construction.
For the record, for Parasound, I have 3 models of power amp that I put my name or reputation to. However, Parasound makes many more power amps, some at a similar price to some of my designs, most at a lower price.
The question is: Why buy a more expensive design than the cheapest one that will essentially fit your needs? I am not looking for ad hype here, or listening differences, just hard, cold facts about what the tradeoffs are. (more later)
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th December 2012, 04:11 PM   #31288
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cooktown, Oz
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
The real EXPENSE of the CTC Blowtorch is in the LABOR of designing, building and testing it.
JC, can you tell us a bit more about the testing seeing as Hirata, Quan and Listening were not on the agenda?
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th December 2012, 04:32 PM   #31289
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Oakmont PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1audio View Post
Last to first, SRS has a really good new phase noise feature in their audio analyzer. Its also way cheaper than most commercial solutions. The sales guy claimed it can measure AES as well as the HF clocks. The floor I saw was in the -165 dB range and possibly below -150 at 1 KHz.

The SRS Rubidium is very good. Long term is better than a good crystal, but short term a free running really good crystal oscillator (Like a Wenzel) is better. And they can be made at audio clock frequencies. Getting ppb from one is well within their capabilities. The really good ones are export controlled so more trouble that they are worth. but cheaper than the SRS clock. You could use both and set the time constants to get the best of everything. Adding a GPSDO would be the final step and not expensive in this situation.

How much pulling on the oscillator do you need for this? Are you syncing to something like video?

Peltier coolers on a crystal is unusual to say the least. The high accuracy low phase noise (essentially very high Q) crystals (SC cut) need to be something like 80C to get stability from them. There is a whole science of double oven controllers for that. They don't pull very far but its probably not needed.
Demian,

I plan on picking up the SR1 analyzer very soon.

I have attached a shot of the sweep noise from an eBay $60 rubidium oscillator.

The roadies today use an Apogee Big Ben word clock on their consoles because they notice an improvement.

So we are in agreement that a high quality crystal oscillator is adequate. As the screen shot shows the 200hz sweep noise from a rubidium source may be a problem if not used with a crystal oscillator.

Where we differ is that my system is not just playback. I also have A/Ds and record. Accurate time stamps are very useful in recording. So the full works with GPSDO is useful. I expect the video guys will take a clock from my system.

Now as to crystal temperature. You are right in that crystals have long been designed to work in an oven, so they cut them to work best at an elevated temperature. However if you look at the curves you will see they flatten out at lower temperatures. One issue is how accurately you can control temperature. So my playing around has shown lower jitter at freezing. Due to the properties of the frost formation the temperature is quite uniform and stable. (Moisture in the air is the actual regulation mechanism!)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Rubidium Sweep Noise.JPG (114.6 KB, 141 views)

Last edited by simon7000; 10th December 2012 at 04:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th December 2012, 06:17 PM   #31290
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Midwestern US
Quote:
Originally Posted by john curl View Post
The question is: Why buy a more expensive design than the cheapest one that will essentially fit your needs? I am not looking for ad hype here, or listening differences, just hard, cold facts about what the tradeoffs are. (more later)
John,

The only reason that has ever prompted me to purchase a particular audio component over another less-expensive, ostensibly comparably-performing audio component is the perceived sound of the component in my home music reproduction system. "Better sound" is the only cold, hard fact for the selection of audio gear, IMHO....

In my case, I only purchased my Audio Research D-79B power-amplifier (ARCDB - D-79) to replace my D76A power-amplifier (ARCDB - D-76) because the D-79B significantly raised-the-ante on the sonic performance of the D76A. Yes, these are "oldies, but goodies", but they've held their own in comparison with everything that I've tested in my reference system over the years.
__________________
Mullard EL34
  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 11:28 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