John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#27,062
johnego said:
The sound has HD impression at first but few things were not right, reminded me of Dan's Goop. It can't be a CD because I never heard CD to have this kind of 'mistake'. It probably originated as low quality stuff that underwent some improvement? Poor tape cassette can sound like that. May be deliberately filtered, there's no typical high frequency of TT and cassette either. But sound is like my childhood tape cassette.
Click to expand...

Interesting, isn't it? Are you listening through headphones?
Attached is a spectral view, which could be a hint if it might be a cassette or not 😉. Original recording was from 1971, this is a re-master.
You are close with your guess, but not right yet.

Once again a link.

http://pmacura.cz/jt1.zip
 

Attachments

  • sample_spectrogram.png
    sample_spectrogram.png
    791.2 KB · Views: 213
#27,064
Max Headroom said:
Is this something that is not explained by conventional physics or is it disregarded terms in the equations, is it a 'relativity' effect driven by 'spooky' distance coupling ?, at this time I am not certain of the mechanisms but I am certain of the effects, just as BQP effects are real even though there are essentially no measurements to confirm review and user findings.
Click to expand...
Hint, there will be no new physics here.
If I were to start a separate thread to investigate this subject, what are the guarantees that the usual parties that cause dilution and pollution will keep their nose out of it, and if this is broken how could order be restored and irrelevant posts removed ?. There has been attempts to investigate BQP but as is usual those threads got derailed into ego wars.

I would be pleased to continue in a separate thread as has been suggested and has some controls, what to do ?
Click to expand...
As I said, start your own forum. There is no rule here about shooting down things that are plainly wrong so you will not get your own personal fiefdom to rule over.
 
#27,067
billshurv said:
I think there are a number of things at play here. The first is that, despite all attempts people seem to immediately 'flame on' with the mention of 'double blind' As they assume this means ABX so we get a couple of days of re-arguing the same old points from the trenches.
Click to expand...

Might be a point, but I think it would better fit to the past while today very often "Foobar ABX" is demanded.

The second is that I understand a lot of people, after waging the same losing battle for decades will resort to shorthand to avoid having to type quite so much. In this case and given seach functions this is adequate. There are a lot of people of a certain generation who expect to be spoon fed online. I have great admiration for those who can remain calm through decades of the same old.
Click to expand...

Mhm, seems to be the same for new and old terms; wrt the "same old", it's kind of the same that teachers are facing in schools, there are always new people attending and so repeating the same old is an inevitable part .....

Surprising though that the repetition rate has to be that high even when the same group of members are discussing the same topics over the usual cycles.

third is that here, in the lounge, in the putrid swamp of this thread that just keeps chasing its tail there is an argument for relaxing the rules a bit and not trying to review it like an AES peer review. Nothing here really matters much in the big picture.
Click to expand...

As said before the urge to establish the new misleading term is obviously high even in another (quite young) forum.

But I understand and appreciate your view point.
Click to expand...

Thanks. 🙂
 
#27,068
Jakob2 said:
Mhm, seems to be the same for new and old terms; wrt the "same old", it's kind of the same that teachers are facing in schools, there are always new people attending and so repeating the same old is an inevitable part .....
Click to expand...
The term was in use long before I joined this forum so to me its an 'old' term 🙂
As said before the urge to establish the new misleading term is obviously high even in another (quite young) forum.
Click to expand...
I do not expect Stuart to have changed much just because he has nice new toys in his lab!
 
#27,069
billshurv said:
The term was in use long before I joined this forum so to me its an 'old' term 🙂
Click to expand...

I thought "same old" was related to repeat that "blind test" is not a synonym for "ABX test" , something like that, did you mean the term "ears only", or am I completely mistaken ?
Because I'm quite confident that it came up several years later, after I tried to establish 🙂 "controlled listening test" to emphasize that "blind" is only one of the needed properties (and usually one of the easiest to accomplish) while the plethora of other important variables are a lot more difficult.

do not expect Stuart to have changed much just because he has nice new toys in his lab!
Click to expand...

Sure, but seems to indicate that it wasn't just something invented for the special case of this old thread....

Evenharmonics said:
<snip>

Of course you don't want to follow because doing so will publicly expose your FUD spreading for years and undercut your audio business. Skin effect is irrelevant in audio and you know that.
Click to expand...

Nah, "undercut your audio business" is typical for conspiracy theories, no evidence, no facts but therefore the belief is even strengthened .
Obviously the audio field is a complex matter and I understand that people lacking knowledge find "FUD" everywhere, but there is only one remedy, educate yourself and no, Peter Aczel's opinion papers aren't sufficient.

Fooling yourself is the easiest part but if you want to be a real objectivist, you have to stop it some day. 😉
 
#27,071
Jakob2 said:
I thought "same old" was related to repeat that "blind test" is not a synonym for "ABX test" , something like that, did you mean the term "ears only", or am I completely mistaken ?
Because I'm quite confident that it came up several years later, after I tried to establish 🙂 "controlled listening test" to emphasize that "blind" is only one of the needed properties (and usually one of the easiest to accomplish) while the plethora of other important variables are a lot more difficult.
Click to expand...
OK I bothered to search and as far as I can tell 'ears only' as two words started in 2012. Before then ( back to the beginning of this forum) the story was the same but was phrased 'trust your ears not your brain'. I understand this as do many others and I 'personally' don't have an issue with the way for a decade this was fairly patiently explained to wave after wave of wannabe golden ears who joined.

I miss SY. I am aware others don't, but I think the forum is poorer for his absence.
 
#27,072
RNMarsh said:
UNILAD Sound - Guy Make Guitar Out Of Shovel | Facebook.
Click to expand...
Cool.
This came up next 😱

Dan, is your GOOP black in color and does it have any RFI attenuation?
Click to expand...
It's basically grey/black but I can add other stuff in, one such add mix is light mustard coloured.
No it seems not to attenuate when used with transmit and/or receive antennas, it seems to affect system behaviours but not the signal itself directly.

I have experimented with Goop sort of similar to the Gooping treatment of your DAC-3.
You could try to remove the aluminium sealing tape shieldings over IC's and oscillators, in my experience aluminium can add a 'wrong' sound.....you could replace it with any metal/alloy you can find for a pallette of tonal colours, a piece of vinyl record instead can impart an enjoyable vinyl/analog flavour to digital sound. 😎.

Dan.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom