My experience is similar to yours. Audio was never my main source of income, but 7 – 15 years ago it was a partial source of income to me. About 15 years ago I collaborated with a guy who had a high-end studio in Prague. He had nice pieces like Wilson Audio Maxx speakers, Classé amplifiers and CD players and was able to try almost any kind of audio you may imagine, like Mark Levinson, Pass Labs, Parasound etc. etc. So I know most of these products from my personal experience. That time I was very enthusiastic about audio amplifiers design, built a lot of prototypes and we made a lot of comparative listening tests with the equipment mentioned here above. Exactly as you are saying, it was possible to compare successfully the prototypes with anything mentioned here, sonically. Usually, the prototypes were sonically preferred. Just as an example, he was using my preamplifier at his home as a main preamplifier and he also used it in Prague High End show 2004 for WA Sophia presentation, instead of a high-end brand preamplifier. However, the main and invincible issue was the look – the case built quality, and the look and the name sells – so there was no chance and it would make no sense, in combination with a very small market here, to try to start serial production. Yes, marketing and sales success is extremely important, but it does not have much in common with parameters or “sound quality”.
Regarding expensive test equipment – yes it is very good to have it or at least to have an access to it. However, it is not a satisfactory condition, skills and knowledge is.
Those with the $$$ were going for the Beveridges speakers while your ML pre and power amp were new, no?
I recently heard your ML designs powering a pair recently refurbished, he bought it all new around 73 if I remember correctly and he’s still quite satisfied.
Each speaker is larger than an NFL linebacker.
I was certainly impressed by the sound coming out of the combination.
I’m an Ohm Model F kind of a guy, personally.
JC knows names sell, as does NP.
Their presence here indicates they understand the power of branding.
Their name recognition would not be remotely the same, especially to anyone born after 1980, if not for their activities here.
I’m not insinuating it’s some kind of trick, but it’s part of the overall calculation.
Forum notoriety is linked to sales.
Schiit has really leaned in on this.
Parasound sales likely saw an uptick with the blowtorch thread.
It’s not unlikely that time spent posting = billable hours to quite a few.
If I were Parasound I’d pay JC for his efforts here.
Last edited:
Technically speaking, you are correct.
There was no debate though.
And there ‘s always something to be gained when the exchange of posts is done in good faith.
“216.0 (NP)+-0.3 DB 6.5 TONS OF T.N.T. EXACT. EXTREMELY ACCURATE HIGH TECH MEASUREMENTS -REF. 8”
No surprises there.
You mean that we can see it shows that the ITU-R 468 curve deviates from the A Weighting curve below about 80Hz ect… Not that we are more sensitive to noise at these frequency sections.
Yes, if A curve is to be replaced by ITU-R 468 curve in noise measurement mandatory standards.
No
George
No, it means we are more sensitive to noise in these frequency ranges than is shown on the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves which is what the A-weighting is based on. The Fletcher-Munson curves (& revised versions) are meant to signify our sensitivity to signals at various frequencies & volume (derived from listening tests). The ITU-R 468 is the equivalent but using noise as the test signal & again using listening tests
Sorry, but yes this does have significance for playback systems - it was originally developed by the BBC for broadcast equipment
Last edited:
You have to admire his focus
Do you ever post anything of value rather than sniping from the long grass?
Yes (a rare exception - when did you last post anything which added to the conversation?)
I posted a reply & link to possibly explain Rod's conclusions but you seem incapable of having your own thoughts or dialogue - you simply snipe when you see others answer posts in a negative way & take up the baton (incorrectly most times)
Have you given up your "he misinterprets what's said" mantra about me?
Last edited:
I may as well, it's obvious you aren't going to moderate your behaviour, granted you do try occasionally but you don't seem to be able to keep it up.
Haha, it was a constant retort of yours - vague accusations of "he misinterprets what's said" & which you have stopped doing when I asked you to cite a post of mine as evidence (which you declined to do).
If you want me to change my behavior towards you then stop constantly sniping at me otherwise expect my replies
BTW, how many posts have you made here (you must be the most prolific poster here?) & what percentage of them actually have any value to the conversation?
Edit: Yea, I thought so >10,500 posts since 2015 ~10 posts per day
Last edited:
So what? Are you trying to say I'm a bad person? Have you been studying the 5 step protocol?
Yes, actually you can troll any thread. But it is better for all others that you troll your own thread.
Just go here https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/ and press the button 'New Thread' after setting a title for your new thread you can start trolling.
Does it have to be in the lounge? I started a thread in "Parts" about my requirements for a speaker cable, it got moved to The Lounge and quickly degenerated, so, in the end I thought, if you can't beat them, join them, and started trolling my own thread. Still, some useful, interesting info was still enjoyed by many I believe.
So the claim is that this transformer geometry violates the flux equivalent of Kirchoff's law.
As for the other device, my impression is that the rotating copper gap drags flux in one direction, so it passes from coil 1 to coil 2 but not from coil 2 to coil 1. It's heavy with jargon though. I'm sure there is a straightforward way to explain what is happening.
I wonder if it could be used as a high resolution tachometer?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.