There have been a couple of comments about the Blowtorch being better because it achieves the highest level of transparency. To me, transparency means that the presence of the device is utterly undetectable, as in it's equivalent to the proverbial piece of wire with gain. Or, in a realistic scenario to test such, take any working system, remove the connection between the preamp and poweramp, whatever they be, replace with an undetectable attenuation circuit and the Blowtorch, and no-one listening will be any the wiser. Would it match up to that scrutiny ...?
Frank
Frank
20 years of BMWs an still only care about daily drivers
Thanks for the advice John. Check out the two best amps Dick Olsher recommended for use with the Martin Logan Summit X review in TAS a year back.
Unfortunately I'm no marketing or business genius. My technical focus has always been completely different so I don't communicate in the same universe as the seasoned technocrats inhabiting this site so my presence here has always been a bit confused. This does not diminish my accomplishments as I have rebuilt over a thousand amp/preamps over the years and have learned a bit from each. These days my work is more of an art form restoring classic equipment, no pretenses or aspirations, just real hands on experience, a good set of ears and a passion for music.
I follow this thread to pickup usable tidbits while hoping it will evolve into something satisfying to be a part of, possibly connect with others on a similar path as my own, but this is just the 60's child in me.
I'll let it go. Mike
Thanks for the advice John. Check out the two best amps Dick Olsher recommended for use with the Martin Logan Summit X review in TAS a year back.
Unfortunately I'm no marketing or business genius. My technical focus has always been completely different so I don't communicate in the same universe as the seasoned technocrats inhabiting this site so my presence here has always been a bit confused. This does not diminish my accomplishments as I have rebuilt over a thousand amp/preamps over the years and have learned a bit from each. These days my work is more of an art form restoring classic equipment, no pretenses or aspirations, just real hands on experience, a good set of ears and a passion for music.
I follow this thread to pickup usable tidbits while hoping it will evolve into something satisfying to be a part of, possibly connect with others on a similar path as my own, but this is just the 60's child in me.
I'll let it go. Mike
Mike,
I may be dead wrong but I believe you picked up on a post that was directed at me from Mr. Curl.
Sounds like you've had an interesting time, Mike ...
My special "bent", which I found tends to throw others quite a bit, is that very unassuming equipment, gear that others would throw in the bin, can be rejigged, sorted out, the "nasty" characteristics be toned down or ameliorated to the point that immensely satisfying audio playback is possible, on all recordings. Unlike the majority of highly ambitious setups I've come across, which are either downright awful, or incredibly twitchy, like overbred thoroughbreds, that can only sound right with the "right" recordings ...
Frank
Your probably right, my bad, but I have a personal history of trying to start conversations and they go no where. My way of describing my thoughts or point of view are not a good fit. I was on the defensive after Sy's responses. I guess I made an incorrect assumption.
No matter I really shouldn't be here anyway, I'm looking for something that ain't here.
Regards,
Mike
Interesting because I love dialing this stuff in.
I'm a bit unsure about your approach. I have been under the assumption that your efforts are primarily out of the box, meaning you work with the power, interconnects, possibly parts upgrades. This post changes that as you can't tweek older garbage gear without going back to the fundametal building blocks. PM me as I'd prefer to take this conversation offline.
Mike
Nothing that complicated. I will probably start a new thread for the actual build.
Thanks for the support but we all have little inflection points in life and my last jumping the gun was one. Enjoy the build.
Regards,
Mike
You are still in the right place, Mike, and your questions are relevant.
For the record, for fas42, before my personal Blowtorch arrived I used a Vendetta Research phono stage or a tuner, manually plugged into a 10 turn dual wirewound pot at to the amps from there. I had put the JC-80 in the closet, by then. I never went back to just the pot.
For the record, for fas42, before my personal Blowtorch arrived I used a Vendetta Research phono stage or a tuner, manually plugged into a 10 turn dual wirewound pot at to the amps from there. I had put the JC-80 in the closet, by then. I never went back to just the pot.
Following the same line of argument, you´d have to admit that an experimenter who does not use positive/negative controls simply does not trust in his test.
To cite JJ once again:
(quote from: http://www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/hashighlevel.ppt )
Or is testing something where it's not appropriate. Procrustes is not the example I'd use for experimental design.
I've read this a few times, that a passive preamp will be finally undone by a good enough active. Where do you feel that such an ultimate simplification falls down in terms of sound quality, is it purely because the source components have insufficient drive?
This is from someone who can't abide any type of tracking volume control, the signature distortion of these is just too obvious ...
FRank
I agree that it is difficult to compete with pure passive, but the convenience of quality internal switching, the conversion from single ended to balanced (active) and sufficient drive to use a 14' balanced cable to the amp, tip the scale. At the same time, the CTC Blowtorch is next to completely transparent that we know how to make. This has been verified by reviewers and aggressive audiophiles independently.
Last edited:
Why not point to point with gold Vector pins swaged into a sheet of teflon?
What is in a name?
For me, at some point High-End production would be about issues which encompass more than what is audible or data/numbers. It gets into subtle, even details and fastidiousness that is everywhere - perfection in every aspect.
Like McLaren cars... is doesnt stop with the engine design nor dyno numbers nor skid pad numbers. Why would another High-End car company build an engine that is so well engineered that is doesnt use/need gaskets between block and head etal? or a mechanical watch that will last 200 years in use?
Its not good enough to have a great audio circuit design Only. Lets build it as right as it can be as well. That covers a lot of different disapplines. And, that includes solder and thermals, too. But what fun and what a challenge.
If it is a lot less than this, then lets not call it High-End nor S.O.T.A. It's something else.
-RNM
For me, at some point High-End production would be about issues which encompass more than what is audible or data/numbers. It gets into subtle, even details and fastidiousness that is everywhere - perfection in every aspect.
Like McLaren cars... is doesnt stop with the engine design nor dyno numbers nor skid pad numbers. Why would another High-End car company build an engine that is so well engineered that is doesnt use/need gaskets between block and head etal? or a mechanical watch that will last 200 years in use?
Its not good enough to have a great audio circuit design Only. Lets build it as right as it can be as well. That covers a lot of different disapplines. And, that includes solder and thermals, too. But what fun and what a challenge.
If it is a lot less than this, then lets not call it High-End nor S.O.T.A. It's something else.
-RNM
Last edited:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.