John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
By the way, people don't believe much in you as well Markw4, when it comes to differences in D-A converters. Does this mean that you are 'imagining' things as well? '-)

I don't use the term "my reality" to explain my perceptions. I believe there is one physical reality, at least in this region of space (out of the whole universe or multiverse, whatever). And, I do understand where the skeptics are coming from, because I am one too. And at one time I was more skeptical about DACs, and I confidently made purchase decisions based on specs, despite contrary advice from expert users of DACs who were using DACs for the same purposes as I had in mind. As it turned out, I reluctantly was forced to conclude that they were right, and I was wrong, and swallow the bitter pill of lost time and money, and pay a lot more than I wanted to for something that would do what I wanted it to. What I did not do was decide to suddenly change careers and spend a few years trying to figure out why DACs sound different. Not how I wanted to spend my time. Since I didn't do that, I can certainly understand the skepticism that others still have. That's the way it at the moment and it may stay that way. At least, I am happy that that I have data converters I can use to make very high quality recordings that sound good to me, and to other recording professionals. Is is possible that I am liking some subtle distortion? Sure, because I don't know what exactly is different between the DACs I like and those I don't. So, I will not claim the one I like best is more high fidelity than another. Only that I like it better.
 
Another very interesting finding of mine lately is that I can dictate the sound of my Android player by briefly charging from a Powerbank via a USB cable fitted with choice of filters.
You want dead clean and virtually no excess sibilance, no problem.
You want ferrite sound, no problem.
You want 'party' sound, no problem ;).

Dan.

Does it work through SKIPE? Sounds a little like Peter Belt, maybe calling while you're hooked up could transfer the dictation to a remote Android device?
 
HTML:

Randy, there a wealth of informain available on perception, psycho-acoustics, behavioral models and such that perfectly answer all your questions.

But I'll be dammed if I AGAIN spend many hours to explain and refer it.

Too often I have done this, for, as we say in Holland, 'the cat's vagina'.

Jan

Oh? What have you against the cat?

Well, I'd say that if something like this upsets you that much, and you feel that you need to spend "many hours to explain and refer to it" and you have done so in the past, AND this sort of question comes up often enough, that it might make good sense to assemble the information & citations in a concise pdf or blog/webpage and merely point to it as required?

That would be a calmer approach?

_-_-

PS. If it takes many hours to explain, then by definition it's not "simple", right?
 
That would be a calmer approach?

John was kind enough to repeat his experience. I gather you do not share it?

I learned long ago, that double blind tests usually give a 'null result' when more open testing always brings back the differences. I can't use a 'null result' for anything. I can use listener feedback to optimize my designs.
 
diyAudio Member RIP
Joined 2005
I'm inclined to side with Curl on the plurality of realities, ultimately. However, for doing science, there is a consensus reality that has worked pretty well for engineering, and which a very large number of results has been obtained. So if your audio equipment cannot be validated at some level in consensus reality, I think there is a problem.

One must ask Why Audio? Why don't we have these radical departures in other fields that suggest multiple realities, nay demand them, to make sense of these intensely-held but disparate beliefs? And perhaps there will be a satisfactory answer emerging in time.

It reminds me of my middle brother's late (I suspect now) dog, who always disliked me and at one point after we had, I thought, reconciled, bit me without provocation in the face, missing my eye by a bit. Now many people would say PUT THE DOG DOWN---you have failed to train it and it is a DANGEROUS animal (I was not the only recipient of its violent acts btw). But the reaction was instead What is it about Bradley??

What is it about Audio? Is it the intimate link with music? An art form that necessarily unfolds in time?

I am not so cynical as to suppose the claims for seemingly-magical effects are always, strictly speaking, hucksterism. I fear that the Belts and the Bybees and the Shakti stone vendors are sincere (unlike L. Ron Hubbard, who in an unguarded moment declared that he was going to start a religion). I hope it doesn't require Everett's multiversical stuff, or worse, to make sense of it.

And I enjoy listening to music and playing music, even sometimes writing it, and am pleased when something I come up with serves the music to my satisfaction. I am glad that I am unlikely to agonize over something wrong with the sound for five hours, only to find that it is a missing block not supporting a power cord. If I were to find that sort of thing, I'd go nuts trying to explain the effect.
 
diyAudio Member RIP
Joined 2005
Uh, the dog's name was Bradley?
Serious?

I must be missing something, maybe a whole lot...?
NO, MY name is Bradley. The dog's name was Bandit, a border collie (which are known to be a mite "nippy").

My brother, additionally, has had a history of being bitten by dogs as a postal letter carrier. I told him he could lose his house depending on whom the dog attacked. He actually said Oh no, the most I've ever collected after a dog bite was ten thousand dollars.
 
I just returned from a new-used hi fi store here in Berkeley, where virtually every listening set-up sounds different. However, some stuff, especially the older tube stuff sounds pretty darn good, and it doesn't cost that much anymore, being that it is used, and sold at low price when it was first produced in the past, 40 years ago or so. Some things like Mac tube amps-preamps are still very expensive due to their collectable status, but Fisher, Dyna, Scott, etc still can sound pretty darn good, I would say, better than most newer equipment at the same price point. SO, if you want to get a good sounding audio system at a relatively low price (not the very best of course) buy used tube equipment or even some new Chinese tube equipment. It is one heck of a deal, and you then won't have to rationalize that whatever you got at the electronics discount store is as good as everything else. '-)
 
but Fisher, Dyna, Scott, etc still can sound pretty darn good, I would say, better than most newer equipment at the same price point.

I've owned this stuff over the years, I still think I might be able to identify the Dyna MkIII sound. As electronic signal processing systems vintage tube gear has easily measurable inadequacies or "colorations". I think the Carver challenge could still be successful today. Remember difference and preference are two different things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.