JC was kind enough to post circuits for Blowtorch and JC2 Mk1 (which was panned by the reviewers).
I've had extensive hands on experience with a JC design which was only marginally stable on real speaker loads but JC immediately disowned it.
I'm fully appreciative of JC's obsession with build quality but I note he now disclaims responsibility for build quality and only takes responsibility for 'design'.
However, enclosures hand carved from solid BS/Unobtainium by virgins does not preclude the need for competent circuit design, decoupling, PCB layout, and following simple but important recommendations from manufacturers datasheets.
It is the lack of these basic but vital factors that are responsible for JC2 Mk1's poor performance and the likely failure of Blowtorch in Double Blind Listening Tests against a properly implemented 4558 design.
I accept the possibility that some of JC's designs might be OK and be indistinguishable from evil 4558 designs in DBLT bla bla. But not the above 2.
_____________
There has been much talk lately about Bybee's 'smoke screens' but please acknowledge the greatest BS / smoke screen merchant of all.
From a technical critique of Blowtorch, the discussion has shifted to esoteric discussions of a Quantum nature.
I note a determined attempt to provoke criticism of Hawkesford too.
While I have played a small part in 'peer review' of some of Malcolm's papers, I hardly see the relevance of this to Blowtorch.
_____________
Previously, I had thought JC's reluctance to test stuff ... and even greater reluctance to release results, was due to marketing reasons. You don't really want 'stinkin' measurements of your designs to sully your august reputation.
But I now get the impression the real reason for this is that JC doesn't really know how to use new fangled (and even Jurassic) gear. This would explain why he's always on the lookout for new measurements and his vast collection of esoteric measuring gear eg Hirata box, is hardly used.
Perhaps he's hoping for some new gear, based on principles no one else (except he) pretends to understand, will give his most expensive designs the thumbs up ... and damn evil 4558, AD797 etc.
Unfortunately, so far, these promising avenues, eg Quan, have done the opposite.
It made no difference whatever. I didn't bother repeating the exercise blind since no difference was heard sighted. This isn't a surprise since 30 milliohms is not much resistance.
But I'm deaf and have crappy equipment and lousy source material- or so John tells me, so don't take any of this seriously. Storytelling is far more entertaining than reality- and more profitable. Scams work because people like stories.
JC was kind enough to post circuits for Blowtorch and JC2 Mk1 (which was panned by the reviewers).
I've had extensive hands on experience with a JC design which was only marginally stable on real speaker loads but JC immediately disowned it.
I'm fully appreciative of JC's obsession with build quality but I note he now disclaims responsibility for build quality and only takes responsibility for 'design'.
However, enclosures hand carved from solid BS/Unobtainium by virgins does not preclude the need for competent circuit design, decoupling, PCB layout, and following simple but important recommendations from manufacturers datasheets.
It is the lack of these basic but vital factors that are responsible for JC2 Mk1's poor performance and the likely failure of Blowtorch in Double Blind Listening Tests against a properly implemented 4558 design.
I accept the possibility that some of JC's designs might be OK and be indistinguishable from evil 4558 designs in DBLT bla bla. But not the above 2.
_____________
There has been much talk lately about Bybee's 'smoke screens' but please acknowledge the greatest BS / smoke screen merchant of all.
From a technical critique of Blowtorch, the discussion has shifted to esoteric discussions of a Quantum nature.
I note a determined attempt to provoke criticism of Hawkesford too.
While I have played a small part in 'peer review' of some of Malcolm's papers, I hardly see the relevance of this to Blowtorch.
_____________
Previously, I had thought JC's reluctance to test stuff ... and even greater reluctance to release results, was due to marketing reasons. You don't really want 'stinkin' measurements of your designs to sully your august reputation.
But I now get the impression the real reason for this is that JC doesn't really know how to use new fangled (and even Jurassic) gear. This would explain why he's always on the lookout for new measurements and his vast collection of esoteric measuring gear eg Hirata box, is hardly used.
Perhaps he's hoping for some new gear, based on principles no one else (except he) pretends to understand, will give his most expensive designs the thumbs up ... and damn evil 4558, AD797 etc.
Unfortunately, so far, these promising avenues, eg Quan, have done the opposite.
Here yah go ...
Parasound Halo JC 1 monoblock power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com
JC, you posted it as phono.pdf and told us it was caned by the reviewers.
You used it as an example to diss AD797 but its obvious you neglected to do any noise 'calculations', check if it was appropriate for the 2 operating conditions .. or even read the datasheet.
At least 10dB of unnecessary noise introduced by your poor circuit and poor understanding of low noise requirements.
Just go back and read the posts. Or even the AD797 datasheet. You might learn something.
Something to pick up and beat naysayers with:
Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle
For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound's frequency (related to a note's pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle.
Not surprisingly, some of the subjects with the best listening precision were musicians, but even non-musicians could exceed the uncertainty limit. The results rule out the majority of auditory processing brain algorithms that have been proposed, since only a few models can match this impressive human performance.
The researchers, Jacob Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco at Rockefeller University in New York, have published their study on the first direct test of the Fourier uncertainty principle in human hearing in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. The Fourier uncertainty principle states that a time-frequency tradeoff exists for sound signals, so that the shorter the duration of a sound, the larger the spread of different types of frequencies is required to represent the sound.
Conversely, sounds with tight clusters of frequencies must have longer durations. The uncertainty principle limits the precision of the simultaneous measurement of the duration and frequency of a sound. To investigate human hearing in this context, the researchers turned to psychophysics, an area of study that uses various techniques to reveal how physical stimuli affect human sensation. Using physics, these techniques can establish tight bounds on the performance of the senses.
Read more at: Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle
Understand that these where discrimination tests performed on people, and their hearing.
That a few musicians turned out to be 'good', ie, 10x better than theory.
Now, imagine the golden eared audiophile. Some that are at the peak of the trade and group?
12x better than theory?
15x better than theory?
Where's the naysayers when the chips are down? they're off hiding. readying to attack again, no doubt.
Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle
For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound's frequency (related to a note's pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle.
Not surprisingly, some of the subjects with the best listening precision were musicians, but even non-musicians could exceed the uncertainty limit. The results rule out the majority of auditory processing brain algorithms that have been proposed, since only a few models can match this impressive human performance.
The researchers, Jacob Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco at Rockefeller University in New York, have published their study on the first direct test of the Fourier uncertainty principle in human hearing in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. The Fourier uncertainty principle states that a time-frequency tradeoff exists for sound signals, so that the shorter the duration of a sound, the larger the spread of different types of frequencies is required to represent the sound.
Conversely, sounds with tight clusters of frequencies must have longer durations. The uncertainty principle limits the precision of the simultaneous measurement of the duration and frequency of a sound. To investigate human hearing in this context, the researchers turned to psychophysics, an area of study that uses various techniques to reveal how physical stimuli affect human sensation. Using physics, these techniques can establish tight bounds on the performance of the senses.
Read more at: Human hearing beats the Fourier uncertainty principle
Understand that these where discrimination tests performed on people, and their hearing.
That a few musicians turned out to be 'good', ie, 10x better than theory.
Now, imagine the golden eared audiophile. Some that are at the peak of the trade and group?
12x better than theory?
15x better than theory?
Where's the naysayers when the chips are down? they're off hiding. readying to attack again, no doubt.
Last edited:
Are-you sure to have understood the Gabor-Heisenberg uncertainty principle ? (Pretty boring mathematics)
We already knew that we do not need an infinite time to say no music is played.
The title of this article is a pure non sens, typical of sensational from pseudo scientists journalists.
Gabor-Heisenberg uncertainty principle talk about measurements, this article is about human recognition.
yes, if you read the excerpt I quoted, bolded they quickly back pedal from the headline sensationalism in the body of press release
its really amazing how much reading comprehension drops when the acutal text piles on qualifiers, clarifications that starts eroding the bullet point or headline you thought supported your position
its really amazing how much reading comprehension drops when the acutal text piles on qualifiers, clarifications that starts eroding the bullet point or headline you thought supported your position
Last edited:
KBR you may be interested in post #34204. Deja Vous.
I belive the resistor shown is a beryllium resistor, this got disussed to death like all aspects of the BQP
Now looking at the speed electrons travel when producing a current flow, it would take approx 4 minutes for an electron to travel the length of a small 25mm BQP, not even as fast as a Bently...
I belive the resistor shown is a beryllium resistor, this got disussed to death like all aspects of the BQP
This point of operation of the BQP's confuses me, audio being ac in nature, I would presume the electrons in the BQP's just jiggle back and forth within the device?
Now looking at the speed electrons travel when producing a current flow, it would take approx 4 minutes for an electron to travel the length of a small 25mm BQP, not even as fast as a Bently...
Reading the text you quoted, it seems BQP works like a washing machine. At the origin are pure musical electrons. After traveling across all your audio stuff (specially non audiophile cables) they arrive covered with durst (quantum noise). BQT clean them, burn the durst and iron them and you get at the other side pure electrons again, perfectly aligned.
Last edited:
Thanks for correcting us. I lack a Classical education so distinguishing the latin for pixie and flooby is beyond me.Speedskater said:
Could someone remind me of the mean free path for electrons in, say, normal electrical copper? How far from the BQP would they have to travel before all beneficial effects are lost? Mean free time too? Could someone also confirm that, apart from a bit of very short range tunnelling, superconducting properties do not propagate into adjacent normal conductors in the same circuit?
Just to make things clear: to people who know some physics this sort of description of how the BQP works is clear evidence that it doesn't, because it is describing a Maxwell demon. It would actually be better to say nothing and leave it completely mysterious. Fortunately most snake oil merchants can't resist the temptation to write some pseudo-scientific woffle, thus confirming that the device does not work as claimed. Having realised this, some then try to back-pedal and say that the woffle was just for marketing purposes and the true mode of operation has to remain secret or they would have to shoot their customers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.