John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#44,061
SY said:
... why get bogged down in 1968, except for reasons of nostalgia and historical recollection?
Click to expand...

I´m interested in John´s elegant engineered circuits, and I hope he
continues to post and explain them, despite personal attacks and snide
remarks. And BTW if all this is "sorted since 30 years", then it makes
sense to look at circuits from 30 years (and more) ago, no ? (At least this
is something where I could agree, in so far as I prefer a competent 30 years
old amp to the crap sold today).
 
#44,065
There you go...you learned something from my thread.

Blues said:
Here's to share to others here...Pale blue dot: Voyager 1 signal from interstellar space photographed - NBC News.com

22 watts across 12 billion miles will do...
Click to expand...

I never said I didn't 😀

The real time updated distance of the Voyagers is quite something to watch,
Where are the Voyagers - NASA Voyager

And all that technology at a time when John was designing audio stages. Wonder what the technology of the Voyager transmitters was, devices used and such.

Enough, enough 😀 back on topic... for now.
 
#44,066
gk7 said:
I´m interested in John´s elegant engineered circuits, and I hope he
continues to post and explain them, despite personal attacks and snide
remarks. And BTW if all this is "sorted since 30 years", then it makes
sense to look at circuits from 30 years (and more) ago, no ? (At least this
is something where I could agree, in so far as I prefer a competent 30 years
old amp to the crap sold today).
Click to expand...

I hope too.

So, the " actual " electrons are more beautiful than 30 years ago ?! :rofl:

I do not make my life with audio but I spent much of my free time panning for what I can learn from him.

I like the way of John and I appreciate very much your dedication and altruism with us.


God bless him and long life to John !
 
Last edited:
#44,068
Well for grins here is my latest speaker test box under construction.

ES
 

Attachments

  • 2013_1010Misc0001.jpg
    2013_1010Misc0001.jpg
    834.4 KB · Views: 282
  • Preliminary-Anechoic-Box.pdf
    Preliminary-Anechoic-Box.pdf
    241.6 KB · Views: 114
#44,074
SY said:
Don't forget that $10k challenge guy who's run a few thousand trials. And the peer-reviewed work published in JAES by people like Lipshitz, Vanderkooy, and several others decades ago. Or the work cited by Clark. And, and, and. Like I said, this has been referenced here numerous times, and if someone with a track record of making wild claims is too lazy to look it up, I'm not going to do it for him.
Click to expand...

Could you cite a documentation about the results of the "$10k challenge guy" that meets any serious scientific standard?
I am pretty sure that you would call something like that handwaiving (or dishonest or recasting of the statistics) if it were presented as proof of audible differences in amplifiers which measure ok. (ok means that no single parameter is measured above the known thresholds of hearing).

It is simply impossible to show that these tests were objective, valid and reliable in most cases.
 
#44,079
Obviously i already knew the information which was, according to you, linked a couple of thousands times, but i failed to find some documentation that meets the usual scientific standards.

But if something like this is good enough than we have to conclude that Fremer and others already delivered evidence for some assertions of the GEB. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom