John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
I quoted your own posts made on Hydrogenaudio forum.

You made specific claims about ".....were exposed....."
and wasn't able to bring up evidence for your claims.
My posts that you've quoted showed simply the same content that I am/was posting at diyaudio; not surprising as my posts are/were just based on the scientific evidence. )

You are still in denial, of course for the interest of your audio business.<snip>

And these are the next unsubstantiated claims........
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2012
Like any other serious and competent DIYer :rofl:. Anyways, if they can't design and prototype a high power CMA for you, you should consider firing them, they are no good.

...and what were you saying you are doing on this forum?

Sorry to pop your balloon but thats already been done here years ago.

Its in the mix of products now.

If you want a high perf CFA instead Power amp, get a discontinued Monster MPA-5xxx One to five channels offered. CFA, MOSFET OPS, super perf andf super reliable.


-RNMarsh
 
Last edited:
What is the reason to have/use MQA? Why would I want reduced bits to listen to?

What is the streaming problem which MQA attempts to "solve"?

What is the issue for not streaming full 24 bits?

Seems like another BW limitation issue/work-around preventing 24 bits Maybe?

THx-RNMarsh


I am sure .. which questions?

he is working on a more advanced model a.t.t.


-Richard

The ones above from post #31423

Wasn’t sure if those questions were rhetorical sarcasm or real questions?

If it was sarcasm I just found it interesting that your new dac decodes MQA.

If they were actual questions i’d like to hear some real answers to them.

Curious about your listening impressions of your new streaming dac comparing MQA to regular flac.
 
put up something substantial your selves.
Like scientific amps / DACs listening comparison? :scratch2:

You made specific claims about ".....were exposed....."
and wasn't able to bring up evidence for your claims.
My posts that you've quoted showed simply the same content that I am/was posting at diyaudio; not surprising as my posts are/were just based on the scientific evidence. )



And these are the next unsubstantiated claims........

Sorry, but your attempt to shift the burden of proof does not work. ;)

I still give you the benefit of doubt that you are are honestly convinced that your claim is true. So it should be easy for you to bring up evidence for your claim, and your claim was quite special as you responded to a post by mmerrill99 about scientific research, that he and I already had presented, with:



Later you claimed that you've had presented evidence by posting the thread-title and two excerpts from my posts over at hydrogenaud, but your post about this topic was just:



Obviously, neither the thread-title nor the two sentences that you've posted brought any evidence for your claim.

You still did not fullfill your obligation to bring evidence for your specific claim - quoted above - about snake oil sales pitch, and the "got exposed" part.
You have to link to posts in that thread that contain evidence about what you've claimed. Can't be that difficult, can it? ;)
The above is your denial before I quoted your posts on Hydrogenaudio forum. It's funny that the following quote was your initial reaction a few minutes after I quoted your posts and the reactions of others on Hydrogenaudio forum.
We know that a lot of members claim being interested in (following a) a scientific approach wrt audio hobby (be it just using technology to listen or any diy stuff), and based on that claim a lot of demand for controlled listening tests (favoring often a certain kind like "Foobar ABX")

Despite that, there is little to no appreciation to see (from a lot of members of this group) for any evidence presented (unknown before to this community ) showing some of the difficulties using test protocols.

Maybe I missed it, but did someone, just for example, like DF96 ever posted along the line "thanks, didn't know that, will try for the future to encourage other people to consider the evidence and avoid these traps" ?

Of course, we know that we all are humans, but instead we see a lot of attempts to "shoot the messenger"´and that doesn't comply to the honesty approach that should be the basis of our discussions.
Then a few months later, you are right back to denial mode again.
Try to lead by example; you owe me an apology for claims about my posts on different forums.
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2008
Tryphon Tournesol
aka esperado

Do you really think it is right of RNM to ask someone who he thinks is a loser to design a new amplifier for him that he intends to put into production.

RNM will certainly say that it is his own design.

In my opinion, RNM does not understand a single thing of what he is talking about, he points to documents and copies sentences that make no sense.
I think he should end this CMA nonsense.

Most of all, I think it's a shame that some people actually believe in the meaningless nonsense he writes and actually defended it.

All the best
stinius
aka Reodor Felgen
 
Only that you cannot produce any example of a high power CMA. Wait, I forgot you are using CMA and CFA interchangeable, depending on your mood, color of the sky and what's more convenient in the context.

RNM will certainly say that it is his own design.

It seems he doesn't care, about some things, though I'm not sure what, he cares about his ego for sure, mixed mode fb, calling it something else, and didn't he come up with the idea, even a resistor in the speaker wire becomes motional feedback. His aim is mostly to confuse, very strange.
 
Hi everybody! Like so many others, I now usually lurk in the background, hoping to learn something new.
Richard, it seems to me that you have found audio designer's nirvana! My lab looks similar but I don't have any engineers or really up-to-date techs working for me these days, and it cramps my style. I am working on a couple of amps, one is virtually finished, the other many never be finished. Depends on the funding.
I like to see schematics from others here. Don't worry, I won't steal them, I have my own 'old fashioned approach' using complementary differential jfets on the input that still works pretty good.
One thing that I will not do, however, is to overcomplicate a design, just to make the measured specs slightly better. Some schematics here seem more complex than necessary. I think it counts up sonically. However, I could be wrong. The proof is still in the listening.
Right now I am 'pushing' my latest power amp for Parasound (JC-1+) to probe its limits with the SR-1 audio analyzer. Of course, listening by others will be the real test. We shall see in future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.