John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

[scott wurcer]

Just short-cutting the in between stuff (EQ, Compresssion etal) -- direct download from master tapes takes care of that and is growing in popularity by 'early adopters'. That helps a lot even with 2 - 3 channels. But there's more work to be done. Thx, RNM

If you want to talk abut this, then I will just observe. I have no interest in this stuff I still have not even listened to an SACD comparison. More channels, no thanks.

 

[31697B]

You may. Most people don't. That's the problem. When I make recordings, they sound quite realistic compared to stuff from the studios, but they are utterly incapable of competing commercially with the highly compressed stuff that most people listen to. Once you get used to Tang, orange juice tastes funny.

I dont think you know 'most people.' but otherwise, i agree. maybe we need to be more vocal about the miserable state of recording processing. If that is the main problem with getting more realistic sounds from our systems. We have slipped backwards in quality sound. but at your level of knowledge we need to go further.... just getting back to HiFi of a few years ago wont cut it. It still isnt as good as real or even close. What ever happened to the sound-field microphone and why isnt it more popular? Two channels not enough to make it work at its best potential?

 

[Wavebourn]

Sigh..... this way -> what you do to design a product nor the tests involved. Unless you can successfully relate them to their perceptions, you wont be convincing. Just a fact of life. Fortunately for those in science for a living it isnt an issue. But if you want to sell an idea or product, you have to be convincing and that means considering thier perceptions. So how do you be true and honest and still convincing to the lay public listener?

It is simple: I let them experience the sound. If it is more natural than what they heard before, they will go for it. Of course, if they value more natural sounds. I do. And I know which measurements how do correlate. However, I can't tell that I know the whole truth, but I know enough to design the gear of top quality of natural sound reproduction.

Also I know that if somebody heard new level of realism of sound reproduction he / she will shift expectations forever and start hearing more of "differences".

 

[31697B]

Like in medicine, the same symptom can lead to different diagnoses. What damages mostly my amps is obviously different from what damages mostly your amps. "It does not sound real" equals to "I don't feel well". Then the doctor ask questions, do measurements, and orders specific tests. The same here.

I was specific. All you have to do is listen to live in your own home (known acoustic environment) and listen to it as compared to hifi. Thats the problem, doctor. What's the cure?

 

[31697B]

I direct your attention to the Beast With a Thousand Jfets

(actually somewhat more than a thousand pairs of 2SK170 / 2SJ74)

And..... ?
Therefore.....?
Thus.... ?
??
What...?

 

[Wavebourn]

I was specific. All you have to do is listen to live in your own home (known acoustic environment) and listen to it as compared to hifi. Thats the problem, doctor. What's the cure?

The cure is to show you how your subconscious, reflective reactions happen way before you realize that sounds are reproduced by my system.

It is a good cure against endless discussions about tubes/semiconductors, sounds of resistors/capacitors, speed of diodes, and other lengths of wires. Once one of famous designers of graphics adapters for computers criticized me for too thin ground trace on PCB, despite the trace leaded to some few kiloohm resistor. The same person said that he likes how frogs sing on the creek on backyard, when actually frogs were accompanying piano recorded on CD. In that particular case beliefs and perception were independent from each other. So probably such people as potential customers need some jewelery added, but if people need realistic sound reproduction they don't care about all that measurement mumbo-jumbo.

Speaking about listen to live in my home and compare to reproduced, you probably don't know that I had some home concert in my home, and once a person started arguing with a singer who was sitting near the table, when he spoke from the speakers, recorded half an hour ago. She was professional musician, who played piano accompanying him.

 

[Wavebourn]

And..... ?
Therefore.....?
Thus.... ?
??
What...?

Nelson's is bigger.

 

[Nelson Pass]

Originally Posted by john curl:
You should see one of my latest designs! Paralleled fets, 50/channel, rows of resistors...

This being John's thread, I merely speak to his point.

 

[john curl]

Wow! Nelson, you be crazier than me! We are NOW going to run out of jfets in future, so your 1000 jfets are going to be worth something in future.

 

[sofaspud]

Artificial flavors and IMAX in HD leave something to be desired also, so I don't see the problem as being limited to audio reproduction.
But I'd bet everyone here has heard a phone ring or door knock on TV and looked around the room.

 

[PMA]

How many paralleled JFETs would count for one good tube?

 

[jacco vermeulen]

In a flatscreen TV, i'd even settle for a bad tube.

(how many ferrite beads in a Boulder for one JFET ?)

 

[Parasonic]

Beast With a Thousand Jfets

What is the sound of a couple thousand jfets clapping?

 

[Joshua_G]

Hi Richard,
Of what you wrote in those 2 posts:

Yes. The interpretation may not be the truth as measured. But it doesnt matter to the listener. That is my point. It doesnt matter to them. You arent being affective that way. people have to live with and trust their perceptions and they Must trust them to survive.... Its thier perceptions... learned and innate you are dealing with. We need to find a better way of relating to perceptions. or explaining them to thier satisfaction.

Just to make an analogy that isnt intended to be true or accurate but trying to get a concept across here to bridge the gap ---- If the truth is a rotating figure is 2D. It doesnt matter to the viewer who sees it as 3D. it will only be seen as 3D to most normal people. Interesting science perhaps but doesnt relate nor change the perception of the viewer.

-RNM

Then That is what to teach... what parts do the most damage would be helpful. And, then what would be better and do it. The public has been waiting. me too. I want more realistic sound for my $$. can we start doing that?

Just short-cutting the in between stuff (EQ, Compresssion etal) -- direct download from master tapes takes care of that and is growing in popularity by 'early adopters'. That helps a lot even with 2 - 3 channels. But there's more work to be done. Thx, RNM

I'm not sure if what you are looking for is either:
1. A way to find measurements that will convince the 'uneducated' enthusiastic public; measurements that will correlate better with their experiences, regardless of the degree their experiences are 'correct', or 'true', or possibly imagined.
Or:
2. To find those measurements that will aid designers to design audio gear which reproduce music in a more realistic way.
Or:
3. Both the previous ones.

 

[Nelson Pass]

Wow! Nelson, you be crazier than me! We are NOW going to run out of jfets in future, so your 1000 jfets are going to be worth something in future.

I left the leads nice and long.

 

[Johnloudb]

We are NOW going to run out of jfets in future,

We are? Did Linear Systems give up?

 

[Chris Hornbeck]

but we really don't want the sound of an orchestra playing in our living room - we want to hear what they sound like at a good seat in a great hall – while sitting in our living room

And *this* is the true definition of the problem. Although both are impossible for acoustic reasons.

Thanks,
Chris

 

[bcarso]

I left the leads nice and long.

So THAT's where all the SJ74s went!

BTW, someone is offering SJ103s on eBay and implying that they are equivalent to SJ74s (I did a search for '74s recently, before finding my [well actually friend Don's] bag of them). Needless to say Das ist falsch.

Brad

 

[bcarso]

And *this* is the true definition of the problem. Although both are impossible for acoustic reasons.

Thanks,
Chris

Well "impossible" is strong here. "Extraordinarily challenging" perhaps. Beyond our capabilities at the moment, yes certainly.

 

[Chris Hornbeck]

A good concert space is big. No early reflections, then dense reflections. Can't put a big space in a small one, so the acoustic part is impossible. But, like you say, that's now. Who knows what could be done with the equivalent of headphones and lots of processing. I've heard there's some work being done with head position sensors and appropriate video. Who says blind testing's the answer?

Thanks,
Chris