merrill99,
Were you once Merrill Audio? If so, what are you doing now? If not, then who are you? You seem to be the one and the same person. Now I really am confused ........ 😕
OK, lets imagine if once upon a time you really were Merrill Audio, even though you say are not, or never ever was Merrill Audio, then how about you sending me one of your £100 per foot cables for me for a listening test? Because if I can hear no discernible difference between your cable and mine, it proves two things: that in a national wasteland of austerity, I am a manufacturing genius, and your audiophile cable supplier has been ripping you off.
It gets even better. We could have gone into business and made a fortune selling a quality product at the same price, but without your present material costs! But you say you are not Merrill Audio - what a shame. Oh well, back to my little world I go. At least for awhile I was thinking like a billionaire - even if it all didn’t work out.
I will try harder next time.
ToS
I only use quality audio cables in my big system. That is part of its great sound. Cheap cables always taint the sound in a bad way.
Questions are seen as annoyance especially if no good answers are around.
Let's have a break; that is just a talking point, as the tests we are discussing in this thread are usually far away from "excellent" .
Does your opponent really claim "that all items are distinguishable" ? Or is he just pointing to the fact that it is usually impossible to show that the tests we are discussing were objective, valid and reliable.
But, only if that can be shown, it is justified to base further conclusions on any test result.
So,the evidence I've posted was not overwhelming enough? Had you noticed that usually the analysis of ABX test results is solely based on the number of correct responses?
I've posted a nice example to show "how easy" a percepted sensory difference "disappears" when using an ABX test result and the usual analysis routine.
But instead of acknowledging the fact and instead of urging everyone who demands "Foobar ABX" or "ABX" to include warnings that extended training should be done, you prefer talking about "smokescreens".
Complaining about "smokescreens" while delivering one is a bit strange......
I'm terribly sorry, but the burden of proof is on the claimant.
Neither the thread title nor the post excerpts that you've quoted provide any evidence for your claim from 9th of Juns.
As you are the claimant the burden of proof is still on you.......
John,
Yes, I agree with you. It is also entirely possible (admittedly with a fair amount of time and labour) to make quality audio cables very cheaply.
ToS
Nope
What does knowing my background have to do with what I post?
Do we ask the same of Syno8, Scott Joplin, Evenharmonics, etc? Who are they? What is their background? Even more to the point - can we pin anything on them which will mean we can ignore their posts or should we just judge the value of their posts as-is?
My posts (& I believe Jakob2 & SAM to some extent) have been about how difficult it is to get a positive result with Foobar ABX tests so when this test is demanded as 'proof' of someone's listening impressions I find it disingenuous at best.
I don't know about your hypothetical - you need to pose that to someone who sells £100/ft cables?
It gets even better. We could have gone into business and made a fortune selling a quality product at the same price, but without your present material costs! But you say you are not Merrill Audio - what a shame. Oh well, back to my little world I go. At least for awhile I was thinking like a billionaire - even if it all didn’t work out.
I will try harder next time.
ToS
The whole concept of commercialism & value for money in audio is an interesting one - I reckon the best scenario is a win-win one (or better expressed as no one feels they have been taken advantage of in the transaction) - where the manufacturer/supplier feels they have achieved a fair reward for their work & the buyer feels they have achieved a fair reward in terms of audio improvement. Not that the buyer has fallen for a good story - this is seen too often in some of the esoteric claims seen in the audio industry. And I can understand the more outrageous claims being reacted against but it really doesn't mean that all reported audible differences are esoteric i.e amplifiers/DACs differences are not in the same league as cable lifters, audiophile fuses or whatever? The issue as I see it is that some people treat all claims of audible differences in the same way as if someone was reporting an audible change when they kept a picture of the CD in the fridge while playing it - they have swung to the extreme & use anything to ensure their extreme viewpoint is the accepted norm. They try to use the science/physics argument yet refuse to think in a scientific way about Foobar ABX , they use commerce as dirty word & everybody in it as engaged in FUD & lies - why do you think people are so interested in Merrill Audio - forget the message, let's pin something on the poster?
Anyway, just me rambling & I don't even know if it is making sense or coming across as what I'm thinking & trying to express?
Sorry if your imaginings of future monetary security/luxury have been dashed 😀
Last edited:
Exactly correct & it is an interesting observation that on audio forums those that invoke science in their defence are actually very selective about the scientific principles they will follow. I didn't know science was like an a la carte religion where you can choose what parts of the system to accept & what parts to reject while at the same time calling yourself a member of that religion & using it's beliefs when it suits your argument?
It must have gone against their scientific religiosity?
And I've posted a real world Foobar ABX test journey which shows how ephemeral it is to first identify audible differences & then retain focus on this during Foobar ABX.
So both of these examples/facts elicit a claim of smokescreen - quelle surprise - experimental science be damned - 'just don't let the b'stards get a foothold' seems to be the dictum?
Last edited:
mmerrill99,
OK, I read through all of that. I’m still really confused. 😕
Are you, or are you not, the owner of Merrill Audio? Because your style of writing is (and I can only assume by sheer coincidence) remarkably similar to that of what must be your doppelgänger - amazing!
I’m just an ordinary diy audio hobbyist, and assumed you were too. Silly me.
Maybe you are another Merrill after all. If you are, then good luck. 🙂
ToS
I picked up some Belden 1313a to try with the Hint (when I get it back from the shop) it has way less capacitance (23.2 pf/ft) than the cardas I had been using (278 pf/ft) I’m going to try it with the original cardas first just to see if there was an internal issue with the reciever....if it still sounds sluggish I’ll try the new Belden.
I’m thinking matching the wire specs to the system has more to do with it (as long as it’s decent wire like Belden,cardas,canare, etc....)
I told them to check for dc getting to/past the volume control as you suggested.
Bob
Really? I haven't read his writings - got a link?
Just an observation - it's interesting when someone has lived with a belief (this particular one being that I'm Merrill Audio) how difficult it is to give up this belief & re-evaluate all interactions that have gone before & rethink it in a different light
Now, I'm confused - I thought from your previous post you thought I was Merrill Audio? 😕
OK, I wish you all the best, too
Last edited:
Yesterday, you harped on not providing a direct link to the thread, as if providing link is what I claimed, now it's no longer an issue to you but instead just flat out deny that I provided evidence. Perhaps revisiting that thread on Hydrogenaudio and then re-reading what I replied to mmerrill99 on June 9th will clear your confusion.
Quoted for future reference.
tapestryofsound, notice the lack of direct answer, especially "no".
I doubt that most here have ever heard really good hi fidelity sound. You are just too cheap and 'objective'. '-)
I do, and my sense of confusion tells me to start running ......................ah, that’s better.
ToS
I well understand about CC resistors having higher surge rating than other resistor types and due to 3 dimensional qualities of the resistive element. Your LNschematics designs evolved and there is no mention of the addition of these resistors in the text. Such CC series resistors are noted for being noisy and there are quieter alternatives, why use such a noise source in such a low noise design ?. Theory will suggest/insist that this CC noise will be 'cleaned' by subsequent decoupling and regulator stages, however in practice I find that this is not entirely true and such resistor can unintentionally (or intentionally) 'voice' the design. I am interested to know if you considered this noise influence and if you tested with different resistor types in this circuit location ?.
Dan.
Right now I am listening to the best sound ever, both analog and digital - it has never been this good. Yet I am sure that some here will say that I am just imagining it.
Phooey!
Could you please describe the amplifier in detail? I think I know what the source can offer, I know what the speaker can offer, but amplifier is unique in their ability to show or hide sound information. Are you using tube amp?
The amplifier is a hybrid, tube output stage and solid state front end which I developed (indeed the whole amplifier) over 2 and half years. The frontend had to be solid state because I needed near 800V peak-to-peak into the output stage that runs at a gain of about two - simply could not get a tube circuit to do that. The input is transconductance and the current then drives Vishay power MosFETS that are rated at 900V and have characteristics of Pentodes. I was able to get the circuit computer modelled by the head/manager of Power Electronics (part of SpaceX and Elon Musk's group of companies) and he said it was incredibly linear and ultra-low distortion (achieved without feedback). The operating gain is about 300, it is fully differential (long-tailed).
If I could have done it with tubes I would have, but it is simply not possible. What is more, it sounds better than any tube gain stage I have heard and trust me I have heard my fair share in more than fourty years.
I suppose I have to mention a name re above, or else some here will be so distrustful as to any 'claim' I make, so Walter Gurr. He is a New Zealander, but lives in the US (obviously).
The output stage uses massive local feedback (hence has low gain and needs to be driven very hard), it is estimated the Anode impedance is near 40% that of a Triode circuit, that low impedance means that the leakages and capacitance of the output transformer can be driven and the result is that a decent transformer flat at 20KHz will also be flat at 100KHz. We have coined the "Beyond Triode" moniker to describe the circuit - and yes, wonderful soft clipping. The power supply has to match, double-Pi filtering (totalling >50H) and mV level of ripple and noise to Tx centre-tap and triple-Pie filter for the front-end down to uV. The amplifier on the speaker terminal is essentially silent.
Anybody in Sydney (or coming here) are welcome to here to sample it. Definitely a state-of-the-art design. I will be remiss not to name the late Allen Wright and the impossible schematic he left behind, that could not be built, but it showed the way forward even though a different set of solutions had to be developed, I miss him a lot.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.