john curl said:
John, you are absolutely correct. He made a great phono preamp design for the AD745 that I used in my modified Adcom preamp. Walt is also generous with his knowledge, and has been helping me out for close to 30 years now I guess, in my "daytime" job. Thanks for pointing that out.
Best, Chuck
janneman said:
Exactly, which is why in post 4499 I wrote:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1499597#post1499597
"I was asking how the null pins were connected, as they are not shown in the simplified schematic on the data sheet."
Presumptions that high end clientele are all deluded and/or showing off shows more about the mindset of the one making the assumptions than anything else. Statements of that nature most certainly do not show the "you can't fool me" attitude that the poster thinks they do. Au contraire. They show vast and uncomprehending ignorance, both about audio and about human behavior.
I took a position at a mid and high-end audio shop where the high end portion of the business had been allowed to wither for several years. I set about rebuilding the the high end segment (yes, even here in the hinterlands, it can be done). By the time I left a few years later (after a rather amusing argument with the owner regarding B&O) we had a decent and growing group of customers who had genuine interest in music and in high end. Out of that group, there were two men who I knew to be millionaires (a term that meant more then than now) and perhaps two dozen others who would scrape and save in order to buy something that would ordinarily be beyond their means.
Now we come to the meat of the thing. Out of that fledgling group of audiophiles, how many do you think were deluded or showing off? The answer: One. Only one. He was one of the two millionaires and had a clear need to prove something to others. The rest were the genuine article--people who could and would actually listen to stuff and decide whether they could hear a difference...or not. (Oh, the horror! You mean they weren't just immediately swayed by the latest pronouncements of the gurus? They weren't lemmings? They thought for themselves? What's this world coming to?)
To be fair, at the time I left a former customer who lived down in the flatlands had gotten word that we were once more supporting the high end of the market and started coming around again. Whether he actually started buying gear I do not know. If he did, then in my book he would have counted as a 'deluded' customer. Even so, that would have made two--and only two--customers who were in categories that are so dear to those who claim that high end is an exercise in mass delusion.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Listen to it. If you can hear a difference, ask what it costs. If the price is more than you're willing to pay, walk away. If it's within reach, buy it. But only if you can hear a difference. It's that simple. Don't confuse the can-you-hear-it part with the what-does-it-cost part. They're two separate questions. Keep them separate.
And don't assume that just because you can't hear something that others can't. Their hearing just might be better than yours; or at least better educated.
Grey
I took a position at a mid and high-end audio shop where the high end portion of the business had been allowed to wither for several years. I set about rebuilding the the high end segment (yes, even here in the hinterlands, it can be done). By the time I left a few years later (after a rather amusing argument with the owner regarding B&O) we had a decent and growing group of customers who had genuine interest in music and in high end. Out of that group, there were two men who I knew to be millionaires (a term that meant more then than now) and perhaps two dozen others who would scrape and save in order to buy something that would ordinarily be beyond their means.
Now we come to the meat of the thing. Out of that fledgling group of audiophiles, how many do you think were deluded or showing off? The answer: One. Only one. He was one of the two millionaires and had a clear need to prove something to others. The rest were the genuine article--people who could and would actually listen to stuff and decide whether they could hear a difference...or not. (Oh, the horror! You mean they weren't just immediately swayed by the latest pronouncements of the gurus? They weren't lemmings? They thought for themselves? What's this world coming to?)
To be fair, at the time I left a former customer who lived down in the flatlands had gotten word that we were once more supporting the high end of the market and started coming around again. Whether he actually started buying gear I do not know. If he did, then in my book he would have counted as a 'deluded' customer. Even so, that would have made two--and only two--customers who were in categories that are so dear to those who claim that high end is an exercise in mass delusion.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Listen to it. If you can hear a difference, ask what it costs. If the price is more than you're willing to pay, walk away. If it's within reach, buy it. But only if you can hear a difference. It's that simple. Don't confuse the can-you-hear-it part with the what-does-it-cost part. They're two separate questions. Keep them separate.
And don't assume that just because you can't hear something that others can't. Their hearing just might be better than yours; or at least better educated.
Grey
Grey;
Well said, we agree. Certainly mass delusions can exist (we did elect G.W. Bush - twice!), but mostly they are debunked in a few years. High end audio has been around far longer than that and shows little sign of anyone uncovering a vast conspiracy.
Oops, I promised to shut up, a promise I've always had difficulty in meeting.
Well said, we agree. Certainly mass delusions can exist (we did elect G.W. Bush - twice!), but mostly they are debunked in a few years. High end audio has been around far longer than that and shows little sign of anyone uncovering a vast conspiracy.
Oops, I promised to shut up, a promise I've always had difficulty in meeting.
Well said, Grey.
I, too, worked in a mid-hi end audio store in the middle 1960's. There, I gravitated toward the MC cartridge (Ortofon) and the K-horn. Before working in this store, I was 'sold' on the AR-Dyna (tube) combination, which wasn't necessarily bad, but was over-hyped in the marketplace through advertising.
We were not interested in pressuring customers, just letting them hear the difference between components, especially loudspeakers.
I will never forget the reaction of a newly arrived European couple hearing a K-horn for the first time. "It sounds like music!" they said, but unfortunately, it was out of their economic range. We made a serious effort to offer cheaper alternatives, using our experience to pick from a number of possible solutions, and offer our best effort at a given price range.
As I was a student at the time, cost of components was very important to me. Only when I became a practicing engineer, could I afford a K-horn, myself. This was the era of Marantz, Mac, Klipsch, AR and Dyna. (all tubes) Then solid state came in and ruined everything. Yes, there was a decline in audio quality with the first solid state efforts from just about everyone, even Marantz. I know, because I lived with one, for a time. I was forced to build my own power amp for my K-horn, 40 years ago.
There actually was a 5 year period where it is difficult to put together really good electronics for a quality sound system. Even Dyna bailed out of tube electronics. Quality dealers were forced to use older equipment to demo speakers, or get an Audio Research franchise (not easy to get in those days). One dealer used a Marantz vacuum tube preamp, not in production for years, another dealer used a Mac C22 tube preamp to demo with. When Mark Levinson came on the scene, it looked like an answer to our needs. However, he got caught up with the Japanese vision of audio (where the vast percentage of his stuff was sold) and prices rose to the sky! This is partially why hi end costs so much to make. The Japanese are as visually conscious of components as they are the sound. Sometimes, more so, therefore hi end had to be 'well made' to the extreme, as they were our best customers for more than a decade. Now, everyone expects it. Why do you think that manufacturers like Charles and me pay machinists big money to make our best cases? It is expected of us, and it does offer some subtle technical advantages that we like. Personally, I would make things in coffee cans or cigar boxes, if it worked just as well and the public would accept it. It would save ME money, and I could then concentrate on the INSIDES of the box, not its external appearance. Alas, it is just not practical, any more than a Mercedes can have a cheap paint job in this country and be sold as new.
I, too, worked in a mid-hi end audio store in the middle 1960's. There, I gravitated toward the MC cartridge (Ortofon) and the K-horn. Before working in this store, I was 'sold' on the AR-Dyna (tube) combination, which wasn't necessarily bad, but was over-hyped in the marketplace through advertising.
We were not interested in pressuring customers, just letting them hear the difference between components, especially loudspeakers.
I will never forget the reaction of a newly arrived European couple hearing a K-horn for the first time. "It sounds like music!" they said, but unfortunately, it was out of their economic range. We made a serious effort to offer cheaper alternatives, using our experience to pick from a number of possible solutions, and offer our best effort at a given price range.
As I was a student at the time, cost of components was very important to me. Only when I became a practicing engineer, could I afford a K-horn, myself. This was the era of Marantz, Mac, Klipsch, AR and Dyna. (all tubes) Then solid state came in and ruined everything. Yes, there was a decline in audio quality with the first solid state efforts from just about everyone, even Marantz. I know, because I lived with one, for a time. I was forced to build my own power amp for my K-horn, 40 years ago.
There actually was a 5 year period where it is difficult to put together really good electronics for a quality sound system. Even Dyna bailed out of tube electronics. Quality dealers were forced to use older equipment to demo speakers, or get an Audio Research franchise (not easy to get in those days). One dealer used a Marantz vacuum tube preamp, not in production for years, another dealer used a Mac C22 tube preamp to demo with. When Mark Levinson came on the scene, it looked like an answer to our needs. However, he got caught up with the Japanese vision of audio (where the vast percentage of his stuff was sold) and prices rose to the sky! This is partially why hi end costs so much to make. The Japanese are as visually conscious of components as they are the sound. Sometimes, more so, therefore hi end had to be 'well made' to the extreme, as they were our best customers for more than a decade. Now, everyone expects it. Why do you think that manufacturers like Charles and me pay machinists big money to make our best cases? It is expected of us, and it does offer some subtle technical advantages that we like. Personally, I would make things in coffee cans or cigar boxes, if it worked just as well and the public would accept it. It would save ME money, and I could then concentrate on the INSIDES of the box, not its external appearance. Alas, it is just not practical, any more than a Mercedes can have a cheap paint job in this country and be sold as new.
h_a said:
Actually, Newton is adequate to send probes to Pluto, and of course
until Relativity came along, was not contradicted.
And perhaps you could equally phrase it "Relativity still has problems
integrating to Quantum Mechanics".
😎
Sorry for going on-topic again. Returning to my prior remark and question if someone would like to respond....
The servo return-point has not been explored as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that when using 2 separate servo's (in differential and common mode) the return-point in the already proposed topology to me only makes sense in the second or output stage (Mosfets), out of the signal path.
What's anybody's take on this?
Franklin
The servo return-point has not been explored as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that when using 2 separate servo's (in differential and common mode) the return-point in the already proposed topology to me only makes sense in the second or output stage (Mosfets), out of the signal path.
What's anybody's take on this?
Franklin
Charles Hansen said:
... which closes the circle. Wish all questions in this place were resolved so quickly 😉
Jan Didden
GRollins said:
Sorry Grey, but you are now making authoritatively-sounding statements on an area you have zero expertise. Notwitstanding your singlehandedly saving of the hinterland hi-end scene.
Jan Didden
Pavel,
Thanks for the proposed solution. It, however, seems to me that both servo's perform the same function. As John stated earlier and way back in this thread, one servo compares both outputs and keeps them equal and the other servo keeps the outputs near GND.
John if I'm correct the proposed return-point by Pavel is what you applied in the Vendetta and also the just released JC2, but you might have gone another route in the BT I guess.
Franklin
Thanks for the proposed solution. It, however, seems to me that both servo's perform the same function. As John stated earlier and way back in this thread, one servo compares both outputs and keeps them equal and the other servo keeps the outputs near GND.
John if I'm correct the proposed return-point by Pavel is what you applied in the Vendetta and also the just released JC2, but you might have gone another route in the BT I guess.
Franklin
Hi,
is there a reason for crossing over the servos from out2 to in1 and out1 to in2, needing inverting servos.
Would out1-in1 & out2-in2 work just as well with non-inverting servos?
is there a reason for crossing over the servos from out2 to in1 and out1 to in2, needing inverting servos.
Would out1-in1 & out2-in2 work just as well with non-inverting servos?
John, I'm not asking you to give away your secrets and I experience this thread as a learning and exploring one.
Pavel, my simulation results point out that the 10K resistors at the output of the OA should be 1K to give proper results. I may add that my topology uses different resistor values and output Mosfets. Also that there there are more ways to apply servo's in the second stage and out of the signal path; probably the route John took or a combination of both first and second stage servo return points.
Franklin
Pavel, my simulation results point out that the 10K resistors at the output of the OA should be 1K to give proper results. I may add that my topology uses different resistor values and output Mosfets. Also that there there are more ways to apply servo's in the second stage and out of the signal path; probably the route John took or a combination of both first and second stage servo return points.
Franklin
janneman said:
Perfectly timed. Thank you.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have 'zero expertise' in, but one of my degrees is in psychology and I'm well versed in various aspects of human expectations vs. human perceptions. Quite a bit moreso than most people who post here to the effect that high end is all an illusion. The difference between me and you--one of them, anyway--is that I learned from history. When things that were previously claimed to be impossible or lies were found to be true and verifiable, it showed that the prevailing wisdom was incomplete. You appear to assume that all that needs to be known about audio is already known. I don't make that assumption. That's the way science is done. The only field that is "done" is classical physics (i.e. ballistics; the usual Newtonian stuff [which means that a breakthrough discovery is just around the corner]). All else is up for grabs. Even botany, long assumed to be a merely descriptive backwater for science, is taking on new life due to DNA sequencing. Audio is a comparatively small part of science and not exactly well-funded as far as research goes, but to assume that it's all over and done with is a rather blind approach to any branch of science. Not that people haven't done it in every other field over the years, so you're hardly alone.
Grey
- Status
- Not open for further replies.