Sweet!
You wouldn't happen to have a larger image of that, would you?
Edit: Actually, on closer inspection, it's not nearly so fluid. It looks like it's made up of nothing but 90 and 45 degree angles.
se
Last edited:
Well, actually this is from a TV set but i have seen similiar designs like the Japanese from 1960th German audio stuff. Anyway, yes, that is what i learned in the late 70th, to make the copper tracks round at the edges. I think one simple reason was, that this is the natural outcome when you draw with a Rapidograph. If that sounds any better could be a theme for the next 100 pages i am afraid.
The V3 phono preamp has NO SERIES CAPACITORS in the audio path. AND the EQ and power supply bypass caps that we use are virtually perfect, especially compared in differential subtraction to just about any other type of capacitor. I wonder what sort of caps the rest of you use? And Joachim, there are no obvious scientists contributing to this thread, so don't take anything too seriously.
Joachim, in a purely technical sense, capacitors are everywhere. This commentary is residing on what we call 'parsing'. I am sure that you have a word in German that is closely equivalent. This is trying to insult, divert, or annoy someone through extraordinary examination of a minor detail, such as spelling, cap placement, etc. A common 'parsing' around here by the same people is the difference between 'feedback' 'global negative feedback', etc.
If you were sitting in a class with a professor giving a lecture, and he might say: 'a feedback amplifier' You would know and understand what he means. However, let us have some 'wiseguy' in the class say that virtually all amplifiers and followers are 'feedback amplifiers' even if negative feedback loop is not defined by the designer. This would be because any follower has some internal feedback, and even a cascoded input stage would have feedback at SOME FREQUENCY, even if it is in the high RF region. Therefore, the professor would be incorrect in merely stating 'amplifier with feedback' or some such, because of this extended definition. What would your professor do with that student? Give him an A for brilliance? Or would he tell the student to follow the lecture and learn what is being presented in class? I don't know about Germany, but I would never dare to challenge a professor with such criticisms of his definitions, and expect to stay in class.
If you were sitting in a class with a professor giving a lecture, and he might say: 'a feedback amplifier' You would know and understand what he means. However, let us have some 'wiseguy' in the class say that virtually all amplifiers and followers are 'feedback amplifiers' even if negative feedback loop is not defined by the designer. This would be because any follower has some internal feedback, and even a cascoded input stage would have feedback at SOME FREQUENCY, even if it is in the high RF region. Therefore, the professor would be incorrect in merely stating 'amplifier with feedback' or some such, because of this extended definition. What would your professor do with that student? Give him an A for brilliance? Or would he tell the student to follow the lecture and learn what is being presented in class? I don't know about Germany, but I would never dare to challenge a professor with such criticisms of his definitions, and expect to stay in class.
What on earth are you defining as the "audio path"?
The same grossly over simplified and equally misleading notion that most others do which has the "audio path" being this singularly series path that advances from left to right through the circuit, such that nothing which is in shunt is considered to be in the "audio path"?
Other than the power supply reservoir caps, none.
Though it's a line preamp, not and not a phono preamp.
se
Sorry this is late. I haven't been reading this thread for a while. But holy crap, what are you talking about???
"REAL ENGINEERS". WTF does that mean?
"Who are rather more accomplished than you are." More accomplished at what? Designing computer motherboards? Cuz' it sure ain't designing audio equipment. There are perhaps a half dozen guys on the planet that can design stuff that sounds as good as John can. And if you remove the tube designer, that leaves about three others. And none of them come to this board to quarrel with John and his ideas.
Any yeah, John has made some really cool stuff in the last twenty years. Like the topic of this thread, the Blowtorch, for one. This is probably the single most thread on the whole site. Which is why it is tolerated. It creates more "hits" for diyAudio.com than any other thread.
Oh please.
Sounds good to whom exactly?
And better yet, who are these people who have heard everything ever made by everyone else in order for such a ridiculous statement to be made in the first place?
se
I would be more impressed by JC's engineering skills if he could tell me what it is about a particular design makes his sound better and how that is reflected in measurement of one or more parameters that differentiates it from other designs. But because his expertise in the eyes and ears of other people seems to be a result of trial and error, hit or miss, I can't give his success credit as an engineering success. If it really is better it isn't the result of engineering, it's the result of luck. Real engineers don't guess while real scientists track down individual variables and phenomena that lead to a predictable and understandable result. I don't see that in JC's explanations of his work no matter how popular it is among his following. This is hardly unique in the niche high end audiophile market. Toole was famous for it. And that guy Cheever who wrote that wretched paper about distortion was also chasing the same holy grail of what the market liked. That is not engineering where I come from.
Ok. One.
Now, how many millions of people are there involved in the pursuit of high end audio?
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.