Good to hear some balance in the argument. Now be sure to watch out for your unconscious expectations (if any) in picking and choosing what sounds good. Personally, I would like to just use the ORIGINAL Levinson JC-2 preamp with one of my earlier power amps. They fit better in the living room and do everything that I need them to do. However, the JC-80 and CTC Blowtorch sound better to my old ears. My JC-80 languishes in the closet along with the Levinson JC-2, unused but still appreciated for what they are.
Interestingly, they didn't check the unmodified amps first in a blind test.
I have two cynical thoughts:
1. Carver didn't do anything.
or
2. Carver just stuck a 1 ohm (or thereabouts) resistor in series with the transistor amp output. If that's all it takes to match a CJ Premier with a reliable and inexpensive transistor amp in a test like this, then brilliant!
I have two cynical thoughts:
1. Carver didn't do anything.
or
2. Carver just stuck a 1 ohm (or thereabouts) resistor in series with the transistor amp output. If that's all it takes to match a CJ Premier with a reliable and inexpensive transistor amp in a test like this, then brilliant!
SY, may you be stuck with a Carver amp for all time!
No tubes, Carver SS amp must drive your tweeter. "I have you now!"
No tubes, Carver SS amp must drive your tweeter. "I have you now!"
SY said:
I got a nice upgrade for you, just stuck a 1 ohm (or thereabouts) resistor in series with the amp output 😀
john curl said:
To my logic it is a sure way to downgrade an amplifier, since you call it a trick, is there anything to be gained from it?
It's a good trick.
Used it at RMAF. We had a pair of the beautiful Cain&Cain "Ben" BLH in the room. Single Fostex 8".
These had been voiced on tube amps, but I was running T-Amps (Tripath). Ooooooo. much too bright. Ended up with about 1 ohm in series, which really helped restore tonal balance.
The Fostex is a pretty low Qts driver, I don't think the trick would have worked much on a higher Q driver.
BTW, the "trick" was visible and explained to all, so it wasn't a sneaky trick. 😛
Used it at RMAF. We had a pair of the beautiful Cain&Cain "Ben" BLH in the room. Single Fostex 8".
These had been voiced on tube amps, but I was running T-Amps (Tripath). Ooooooo. much too bright. Ended up with about 1 ohm in series, which really helped restore tonal balance.
The Fostex is a pretty low Qts driver, I don't think the trick would have worked much on a higher Q driver.
BTW, the "trick" was visible and explained to all, so it wasn't a sneaky trick. 😛
Andre Visser said:
Read about Peter Walker's challenge again - it didn't involve people off the street. It didn't involve inferior sources. It didn't involve inferior speakers. It involved best of everything - most golden ears of the day for sure.
And they failed.
I'll talk about wristwatches. You know, those thingies that tell you time.
We have truly astonishing range of them today. Ranging from $1 fleamarket Chinese Quratz to six digit fashion statements from Paris.
Yes, I will openly admit that build quality of Rolex or Patek is astonishing. But does it perform its main duty, keep time really any better than a cheap plastic quartz ?
Or does really have to ? You see I bought my wife an expensive Rado, and it doesn't even have markings on the face ! You can't guess time any better than a minute, in most case even worse.
And you know what ? You don't need to.
When was the last time you told yourself "I better jump in the shower, the next bus leaves in 33 minutes and 13.56757345465 seconds !". Or your loved one reminds you in the restaurant "We better go home darling it is 23:13:45.25675237672".
So why do we still keep making truly gargatuan range of wristwatches when we have for all practical purposes reached the perfection several decades ago ?
Answer yourself that question honestly and you will have answered a lot of questions about audio amplifiers as well.
Bratislav
PS you know, that CCD/CMOS sensor in your digital camera can be vastly improved by replacing it with a back thinned marvel from Hamamatsu or Thompson, cooled at 200 degrees below zero.
Wil you really be able to tell the difference by watching snaps of your family on the beach ?
We have truly astonishing range of them today. Ranging from $1 fleamarket Chinese Quratz to six digit fashion statements from Paris.
Yes, I will openly admit that build quality of Rolex or Patek is astonishing. But does it perform its main duty, keep time really any better than a cheap plastic quartz ?
Or does really have to ? You see I bought my wife an expensive Rado, and it doesn't even have markings on the face ! You can't guess time any better than a minute, in most case even worse.
And you know what ? You don't need to.
When was the last time you told yourself "I better jump in the shower, the next bus leaves in 33 minutes and 13.56757345465 seconds !". Or your loved one reminds you in the restaurant "We better go home darling it is 23:13:45.25675237672".
So why do we still keep making truly gargatuan range of wristwatches when we have for all practical purposes reached the perfection several decades ago ?
Answer yourself that question honestly and you will have answered a lot of questions about audio amplifiers as well.
Bratislav
PS you know, that CCD/CMOS sensor in your digital camera can be vastly improved by replacing it with a back thinned marvel from Hamamatsu or Thompson, cooled at 200 degrees below zero.
Wil you really be able to tell the difference by watching snaps of your family on the beach ?
Amps do MORE than keep time, or even make sound.
That is why I have a $35 Timex and a $22,000 preamp.
That is why I have a $35 Timex and a $22,000 preamp.
Almost all audio problems are system problems, not issues with a single component. So who says an infinite damping factor is the correct answer for all speaker systems? If the system needs 1 ohm in series with the output to sound its best, it's not a trick, it's just good engineering. Hmmm... maybe the all powerful audio standards committee should specify that all speakers are to be designed for 1.317 ohms of series resistance, so we'd always know how much to put in, based on the amplifier and the cable run.
Time- Almost every clock in this house syncs to WWVB at night, and it drives me nuts for a clock to be off by any perceptible amount. Everybody should see at least one of the movies on the development of the marine chronometer, and/or read the book.
Time- Almost every clock in this house syncs to WWVB at night, and it drives me nuts for a clock to be off by any perceptible amount. Everybody should see at least one of the movies on the development of the marine chronometer, and/or read the book.
!!john curl said:
But one has no conscious control over it! You cannot will psychological bias away!
I think many people are loathe to admit bias can be a factor because they seem to think it a failure of willpower to let it affect them--it's a sort of "I'm stronger than it" macho mentality.
abzug said:
Well, nothing wrong with being biased, personally I love when I get more than I have, due to my perception of the respective item 😀
It just won't cut it when trying to make out the difference between amps 🙄
Magura 🙂
There's a lot of noise on this channel.
There are a lot of anecdotes here. This is a problem ibecause we are intuitively inclined to give weight to them because of the volume. Unfortunately, as in the case of flying saucers, 100 anecdotes are just as worthless as one. Obviously the people who submit them are unaware of their worthlesness. To all of them - go away and think again. Every time you post one of these things, you do the community a disservice.
Many people find confrontation uncomfortable. Fearing that they may appear unreasonable, they make themselves vulnerable to those less scrupulous or simply less rational than themselves. To them I say just this: - all this subjective stuff about amplifiers ends up with people selling $1000 dollar silver mains cables. It's just the THIN END OF THE WEDGE.
The intent of this wedge is to pry people loose from using evidence to base their decisions on.
Give some people an inch and they will take a mile. Surely you have encountered some of this folk wisdom which is embedded in the language?
Trust me. I'm a doctor.
My old man used to say, 'Talk's cheap, but it takes money to buy liquor'. He was an engineer.
Science is not democratic. You are not entitled to have your views heard on the basis that they are as valid as the next man's. The laws of physics were not passed in some parliament.
Until I get some offers of pledges, I'm going to consider this issue settled in my favour. Considering that I'm prepared to put up money to demonstrate something that doesn't need demonstrating, I think I'm been pretty generous.
I'm extremely disappointed that no-one in the 'no-difference' camp risked a penny, but one-nil is still a victory.
w
Seriously, we can put a stop to this. It's still not too late to post a pledge of $100 (or any figure you like) to support independent blind testing. Nearly 600 posts when I last looked - but only one pledge. I guess my money's safe. Pussies.
Of course it could be true that you all really PREFER just arguing endlessly about this. In which case, a pox on both your houses.
There are a lot of anecdotes here. This is a problem ibecause we are intuitively inclined to give weight to them because of the volume. Unfortunately, as in the case of flying saucers, 100 anecdotes are just as worthless as one. Obviously the people who submit them are unaware of their worthlesness. To all of them - go away and think again. Every time you post one of these things, you do the community a disservice.
Many people find confrontation uncomfortable. Fearing that they may appear unreasonable, they make themselves vulnerable to those less scrupulous or simply less rational than themselves. To them I say just this: - all this subjective stuff about amplifiers ends up with people selling $1000 dollar silver mains cables. It's just the THIN END OF THE WEDGE.
The intent of this wedge is to pry people loose from using evidence to base their decisions on.
Give some people an inch and they will take a mile. Surely you have encountered some of this folk wisdom which is embedded in the language?
Trust me. I'm a doctor.
My old man used to say, 'Talk's cheap, but it takes money to buy liquor'. He was an engineer.
Science is not democratic. You are not entitled to have your views heard on the basis that they are as valid as the next man's. The laws of physics were not passed in some parliament.
Until I get some offers of pledges, I'm going to consider this issue settled in my favour. Considering that I'm prepared to put up money to demonstrate something that doesn't need demonstrating, I think I'm been pretty generous.
I'm extremely disappointed that no-one in the 'no-difference' camp risked a penny, but one-nil is still a victory.
w
Seriously, we can put a stop to this. It's still not too late to post a pledge of $100 (or any figure you like) to support independent blind testing. Nearly 600 posts when I last looked - but only one pledge. I guess my money's safe. Pussies.
Of course it could be true that you all really PREFER just arguing endlessly about this. In which case, a pox on both your houses.
You know, for a group claiming the objective high ground I've seen an incredible amount of unproven, unreasoned, evidence-free conjecture. When hurling supposition about the motives, emotional or intellectual make-up of those with whom you disagree at least make the minimum effort to meet your proclaimed standards. Provide evidence of your qualifications to 'sight read' people from a forum submission. Anything less is a cartoon of science and directly undercuts your arguments.
I always say: "Trust YOUR ears!" That is all there is to it. IF you can get along with the less costly, but equally powerful amps, IC preamps, etc. Then go for it!
Interestingly enough, when I was approached to make the CTC preamp ($22,000 for my version), I told Bob Crump that I had already settled on a single 10 turn dual wirewound pot as a volume control and hand plugging the source that I wanted to listen to into it. It sounded even better than the heavily modified JC-80, (about $7500 in mod form) that I used for a long while.
To my surprise, I liked the CTC better than the dual wirewound pot. I was as surprised as anyone. Your results may vary.
Interestingly enough, when I was approached to make the CTC preamp ($22,000 for my version), I told Bob Crump that I had already settled on a single 10 turn dual wirewound pot as a volume control and hand plugging the source that I wanted to listen to into it. It sounded even better than the heavily modified JC-80, (about $7500 in mod form) that I used for a long while.
To my surprise, I liked the CTC better than the dual wirewound pot. I was as surprised as anyone. Your results may vary.
rdf said:
I have to agree.
OTOH In my heart of hearts I know for a fact anyone who likes tubes is a nutcase. 😉
Bratislav said:
Who is Peter Walker? Where can I read about this challenge?
Bratislav said:
I don't understand what wristwatches have to do with the price of bananas.
Are you trying to say that amplifiers are perfect? I did not find one yet.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.