John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II - Page 803 - 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 26th December 2010, 11:52 PM   #8021
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA


By the way, if you're interested, check out jj's patent, 7,149,315.

se
__________________
The Audio Guild
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2010, 12:04 AM   #8022
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHEONIX View Post
Hello Soundminded

May I ask what speakers you run in your audio system.
I have many speaker systems and many sound systems in a large house. It hardly matters which one I mention, I've re-engineered all of them according to my own criteria for performance. It is not easy. Right now my main system, the one I listen to most remains Teledyne AR9. However, they don't sound anything like the way they did when they left the factory.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2010, 12:08 AM   #8023
brianco is offline brianco  Ireland
diyAudio Member
 
brianco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scottish Borders - Kelso; on the famous Tweed River!
Does anyone recognize this man?

Does he now design pre-amp circuits?

It is in fact Max Wall who for most of my last 50 years or more was a mainstay UK one man comic performer. He also had a very good baritone singing voice. More often than not he performed whilst wearing tights. He is sadly missed.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 0.jpg (7.5 KB, 171 views)

Last edited by brianco; 27th December 2010 at 12:12 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2010, 12:10 AM   #8024
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua_G View Post
So, are you saying that all existing amplifiers are equally inadequate?
Or are some of them less inadequate than others?
What should a music lover do (aside attending live concerts) until really good amplifiers will come up?
No, I didn't say that. You put those words in my mouth. I said that the problem had been solved, not once but many times. When I shop for amplifiers, I shop specs and price. I don't buy tube amplifiers and I don't buy oddball audiophile type equipment. I buy mainstream cost effective equipment of proven reliability. I've come to the conclusion that buying more power than you need for a particular system is a waste of money and bad engineering. If I needed a high powered amplifier, I'd look to Crown and QSC. It must have been an interesting discussion when the engineers at Crown met the engineers at Mark Levinson for the first time under the Harman Kardon brand and Sydney Harman brought up the subject of why Levinson amplifiers should cost five to ten times as much as Crown amplifiers for the same amount of power. I would have been interested to hear their answer. Sydney doesn't care. If people want to spend the extra money, he'll be only too glad to take it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2010, 12:22 AM   #8025
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianco View Post
The point being made by Soundminded (as I understand it) is that the present total approach to reproduction of acoustic music will never be realistically accurate enough to hoodwink anyone with decent experience of live music.

One outcome of this is the point being argued: That no amount of refinement of the concept and design of a pre-amp (or any other single link in the replay chain) will in any way alter the above fact.

Taken to conclusion the argument would indicate that every single stage of the audio chain from live performance to that which enters the ears is irredeemably flawed because the underlying total concept is of itself irredeemably flawed.
That is my point within the context of the present paradigm. The problem of reproducing the sound of live acoustic musical instruments is actually at least two separate problems. One problem is to reproduce them as they would be heard in your own room. For obvious reaons this is confined to soloists and small ensembles. The second problem is to reproduce them as they would sound at a large public peformance venue. The second problem is orders of magnutide more difficult but even the first problem defies solution so far, at least for the commercial market.

The strategy has always been the same regardless of the technology. Capture, store (or broadcast), retrieve (or receive), reproduce. It is the strategy that reaches a dead end. The first problem with it is that the capture is inadequate. A second is that the requirements for the sound fields themselves are not understood. A third is that there are many variables in the way recordings are made and the acoustics of rooms the reproducing equipment is installed in with no standardization whatsoever. Even if a sound system could be made to perform perfectly with one recording, it would fail with most others because of these variables. And so whatever era you look at from the most primitive Edison wax cylinders to the latest blue ray 9.1 channel high end system a hundred years later, it's the same basic idea. If you look at very old ad copy, you will read exactly the same claims for whatever technology existed at that time that you read today. Despite all of the research and technology, so far the problem has beaten those who've tried. So which will be solved first, curing the common cold or reproducing music accurately with electonic equipment?
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2010, 12:43 AM   #8026
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
> Don't see how one can realistically re-create the soundfield
> from a live event with two speakers in a typical listening room.

But yet one can produce a positive musical experience.
I always admired bands that sounded like the record more
than records that sounded like the band..........
(No insults implied) ................
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2010, 12:46 AM   #8027
diyAudio Member
 
Steve Eddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitsware View Post
> Don't see how one can realistically re-create the soundfield
> from a live event with two speakers in a typical listening room.

But yet one can produce a positive musical experience.
Oh absolutely!

Especially when you're stoned.

Quote:
I always admired bands that sounded like the record more
than records that sounded like the band..........
(No insults implied) ................
Same here.

se
__________________
The Audio Guild
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2010, 01:04 AM   #8028
brianco is offline brianco  Ireland
diyAudio Member
 
brianco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scottish Borders - Kelso; on the famous Tweed River!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundminded View Post
That is my point within the context of the present paradigm. The problem of reproducing the sound of live acoustic musical instruments is actually at least two separate problems. One problem is to reproduce them as they would be heard in your own room. For obvious reaons this is confined to soloists and small ensembles. The second problem is to reproduce them as they would sound at a large public peformance venue. The second problem is orders of magnutide more difficult but even the first problem defies solution so far, at least for the commercial market.

The strategy has always been the same regardless of the technology. Capture, store (or broadcast), retrieve (or receive), reproduce. It is the strategy that reaches a dead end. The first problem with it is that the capture is inadequate. A second is that the requirements for the sound fields themselves are not understood. A third is that there are many variables in the way recordings are made and the acoustics of rooms the reproducing equipment is installed in with no standardization whatsoever. Even if a sound system could be made to perform perfectly with one recording, it would fail with most others because of these variables. And so whatever era you look at from the most primitive Edison wax cylinders to the latest blue ray 9.1 channel high end system a hundred years later, it's the same basic idea. If you look at very old ad copy, you will read exactly the same claims for whatever technology existed at that time that you read today. Despite all of the research and technology, so far the problem has beaten those who've tried. So which will be solved first, curing the common cold or reproducing music accurately with electonic equipment?
Agree with all of that which you state - in principle.
I have a collection of mastertapes of original recordings which have been subjected to very little post production messing around. The sound of which these are capable of giving through an optimised system is exceptional. Yet they were produced from old well serviced but not tweeked tube equipment by some of the then best recording engineers.

Listen to the same recordings on good vinyl and they are not so good, but listen to them as "re-mastered" for CD and the degradation is enormous.

Regarding rooms which we use, we took a system to Abbey Road Studios (VT4 SE based amp and very fast articulate speakers.) editing suite and what had been the most wonderfully involving, satisfying system in a good domestic room became all but useless in the over dead editing suite when replaying digital masters. Our speakers - in that situation - lacked extension, and the sound was muddled. The resident system, based on B&W large monitors driven by what were crude PA amps worked better, but I am confident that it was such monitoring which led to so many very poor CD remakes of analogue recorded material.

But here in the real world of the DIY guy it would be - in any circumstances - impossible to reproduce any acoustic music in such a manner as would be accepted by all of any three people to represent a real improvement. Likewise the same people could sit in the same area of an auditorium and hear the same music played live for them and they would come away with a divergence of experience.

It has therefore to be left to individual trial and error as to what works best within available budget within one's own (usually domestic) environment. Although a new preamp may well not be the complete answer to ultimate problems it may very well (for a variety of possible reasons) take the individual to being more satisfied than before. Whether this satisfaction lasts is of course another matter!

My signature quotation is from the thoughts of a truly gifted designer friend, and uttered over twenty years ago!
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2010, 01:09 AM   #8029
brianco is offline brianco  Ireland
diyAudio Member
 
brianco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scottish Borders - Kelso; on the famous Tweed River!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy View Post


By the way, if you're interested, check out jj's patent, 7,149,315.

se
Thanks Steve, will do in the morning.
Its 001 here in the UK, and B++++Y well SNOWING - AGAIN! I'm off to bed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th December 2010, 01:51 AM   #8030
diyAudio Member
 
john curl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: berkeley ca
What impresses me is that so many people who do not believe in serious differences in audio reproduction have very strong views against others who do.
  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 06:56 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