John, please reread the earlier comments from the last few times you threw the article out there. Frankly, if you didn't bother to read and understand the comments those times, why should anyone bother to write them all out again? Remember the definition of insanity?
..............................
While all wines do not taste the same, it is the price of the wine that usually determines its quality.
Seems back to front to me......it is the quality which usually determines the price, before, that is, factoring in the supply and demand price uplift or marketing costs................much the same as your better work Mr Curl!😉🙂
Seems back to front to me......it is the quality which usually determines the price, before, that is, factoring in the supply and demand price uplift or marketing costs.....
What you've done is throw away the chief contributors to a wine's price. The cost (aside from debt service on the property) of making a Romanee-Conti is not significantly higher than making a Central Coast Pinot Noir. Dom Perignon is cheaper to make than Bouchard Inflorescence, yet costs 2-3 times as much. "Quality" is a very nebulous term- there are wines that get critical raves that many experienced tasters think are astonishingly awful. Who's right? A 1970 Vega Sicilia has high volatile acidity, usually considered a defect. Some critics praise it to the skies. Who's right? A 1986 Talbot reeks of brettanomyces, yet the price is high because of the demand. Who's right?
A box of gain intended to be "hifi" is much simpler- either the output replicates the input to levels better than audible detection limits or it doesn't.
Sy,
It seems we can make the exact same arguments for audio equipment as for wine. If we listen to the so called experts or audio reviewers we have the same problems. Some will say how great a sound from a certain piece of equipment or a specific interconnect is and it will measure terrible. We have the same quandary going on in our own house, the house of audio. Double blind is a useful test but by now we must know it can not be an only test, there is much more going on than a simple set of numbers or this conversation would have ended years ago.
It seems we can make the exact same arguments for audio equipment as for wine. If we listen to the so called experts or audio reviewers we have the same problems. Some will say how great a sound from a certain piece of equipment or a specific interconnect is and it will measure terrible. We have the same quandary going on in our own house, the house of audio. Double blind is a useful test but by now we must know it can not be an only test, there is much more going on than a simple set of numbers or this conversation would have ended years ago.
John,
Now that you have sold your last remaining CTC Blowtorch what will you do if another person with the money comes along and wants one? I assume that since all the partners are no longer alive you could do as you please. Would you reproduce the electronics even without the original case work, your aircraft aluminum case, or would you produce the item with your stash of parts? If someone offered you 20K$ for a unit what would you do?
Now that you have sold your last remaining CTC Blowtorch what will you do if another person with the money comes along and wants one? I assume that since all the partners are no longer alive you could do as you please. Would you reproduce the electronics even without the original case work, your aircraft aluminum case, or would you produce the item with your stash of parts? If someone offered you 20K$ for a unit what would you do?
It seems we can make the exact same arguments for audio equipment as for wine.
For speakers, sure- but that still requires DB for accurate evaluation (see Toole, for example). For boxes of gain, no, we understand electrical signal transmission well enough to trivially design and construct audibly transparent amplifiers. We can verify with DB that they are transparent, but this has been so well established over decades that we can accurately predict from measurement alone whether or not this will be the case. The "measures good, sounds bad" canard is just that.
Effects boxes posing as amplifiers are a different question, and there, individual preference or taste comes into play (but still needs to be evaluated ears-only). But that's not what I design, that's not what John designs.
If someone
The used one that was offered in Turkeye earlier this year, no 40, had a €16k asking price. Aka > $20k.
(question is how many folks have expensive wine, but really can't judge whether it's any good)
Fat Soluble Vitamins Can Be Toxic....
Vitamin poisoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Further links in the article.
Dan.
Vitamin poisoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Further links in the article.
Dan.
Testing The Not Obvious....
I am most interested to learn your objective and subjective findings.
I believe you may need to look at very low frequency 1/f noise measurements.
Some interesting discussion here - What is Terra Firma?
Dan.
Hello Simon, I see here on the forum that you do much sensible work and investigation. 😎I just got the Michael Percy shipping notice on my Bybee!
I am most interested to learn your objective and subjective findings.
I believe you may need to look at very low frequency 1/f noise measurements.
Some interesting discussion here - What is Terra Firma?
Dan.
Hello Simon, I see here on the forum that you do much sensible work and investigation. 😎
I am most interested to learn your objective and subjective findings.
I believe you may need to look at very low frequency 1/f noise measurements.
Some interesting discussion here - What is Terra Firma?
Amazing stuff.
They have no limits and no shame.
Double blind is a useful test but by now we must know it can not be an only test, there is much more going on than a simple set of numbers or this conversation would have ended years ago.
There are two differents things involved here. We all have our preferences for equipment, very personally. If someone likes amp A but not amp B, that's his preference and he doesn't have to 'proof' anything to anybody for that.
OTOH if someone declares that amp A sounds different from amp B, or cable X sounds better than cable Y, that's a falsifiable statement. If the statement is used to convince people to buy A instead of B we should want to know whether the statement is true, and I don't know of any better method than some form of controlled test.
These two aspects are constantly confused and mixed together and that is the reason that this discussion hasn't been resolved decades ago.
jan
Yes, an interesting mixture of confusion and half-truths.Waly said:Amazing stuff.
I like the part where they say their clocks are so good they don't have to measure them.
As usual, they seem to confuse long-term stability (atomic clocks) and short-term jitter. They also may be confused about voltage-controlled crystal oscillators: this is about the worst type of oscillator as the master for an audio system, because it adds jitter by virtue of having a voltage control input. However, as a slave in a PLL some form of voltage control is a requirement.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- Member Areas
- The Lounge
- John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II