Ah, ha, I knew it, the reason high end audio is so expensive is that Lola tax. 😉 😉Nelson Pass said:
How about Tatra 77? We developed this in 1934. You can see 1938 model here. Volkswagen copied it from Tatra designer Hans Ledwinka. The successor was Tatra 87, produced till some 1955.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ledwinka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Ledwinka
Attachments
Sure, it is only you who can speak about cars and who knows them. I just wanted to give you a hint how original was Ferdinand Porsche. There may be some analogies in audio, and I thought you might have been interested.
Also the VW engine is copied from Tatra air-cooled.
Also the VW engine is copied from Tatra air-cooled.
You misunderstand, PMA. I think that the car inputs are VERY interesting. However, you are comparing a 70 year old car with another 70 year old car, and Dr. Porsche obviously ripped someone else off. Ortofon ripped me off in 1978, with a cheaper version of the Levinson JC-1 (patented) design. Same thing, they just laughed at me, when I protested in writing.
I was talking about a 30 year old 'first Porsche' to today's 'first Porsche'. Same company, just better performance between the two cars. In use, I found the 924 one of the most fun cars I have ever driven, except for my 65 AH Sprite, which was even more fun.
Phono stages can be fun to listen to, and once you 'forgive' their design limitations, they can be perfectly acceptable.
However cap coupling, etc, is pretty old stuff.
I was talking about a 30 year old 'first Porsche' to today's 'first Porsche'. Same company, just better performance between the two cars. In use, I found the 924 one of the most fun cars I have ever driven, except for my 65 AH Sprite, which was even more fun.
Phono stages can be fun to listen to, and once you 'forgive' their design limitations, they can be perfectly acceptable.
However cap coupling, etc, is pretty old stuff.
If you can't beat em, join em!
.............you got to love the headlight in the middle.😎
Jam
.............you got to love the headlight in the middle.😎
Jam
scott wurcer said:
It's called playing to the market. There are so many aspects to understand that make real differences... This stuff is marketing fluff for high-end credibility. Relative to what the currently available S-102's cost, these things have gotta be off the scale.
But worth it of course when only the best will do 😉
john curl said:
Actually I do. It's just that my years of experience had a slightly different focus so what I say isn't in your world view. It doesn't make it wrong though.
john curl said:
I just received my absolute sound. You can be very proud of the review of your JC-2. Johnathan Valin is a tough critic to impress. I have not read the article yet, just scanned it, but you've done well. Congratulations.
Edmond Stuart said:
Look here....you know we don't have any marijuana available anywhere in Canada, so that would be impossible.
Those resistors look interesting. One big problem is that resistance can change micro dynamically due to electron flow patterning under motion, or high delta, ie complex transient loading. This looks to cancel that a bit. I'd bet that they stand good chance to be one of the best damn resistors that you've never heard. In transistor terms, shot noise, transistor noise, whatever you want to call it. An inescapable aspect of semiconductors as a functional device. Finding the most complimentary version of that, with respects to what it produces (as a point of analysis) as a high frequency distortion characteristic is likely key to understanding the 'sonic' effects of the given junction type. In the case of this resistor, it's likely to be pretty table across the loading board, which is key. Linearity is a good thing . Take it where you can get it. For example, you can get the noise out of the transistor, but it is either a perfect insulator or a perfect conductor at that point. No more semi-conductive junction. Linearizing the junction alone, is a damn fine art. I mean, IIRC, perfection in materials tends to only show up as repeatable manufacturing, and does not affect junction quality, with respects to curing any non linearities. Only the right semiconductive materials will do that. But they are inherently 'lumpy' regarding response, by design, or no semiconductor. What can you do.
john curl said:
John, I figured talking about some real circuits woudn't hurt these proceedings it beats the 'pithy' comments.
Today I got a telemarketer to drop their script and we started talking about a common interest, after a minute or two we both stopped, thinking 'this is wierd'.
scott wurcer said:
You're better off sticking to the script, no chance of having to re-evaluate what makes so much sense.
Unfortunately, many here have not tried different resistors, so they don't know what they are criticizing. Some Vishay resistors actually sound relatively lousy, yet have great specs. These resistors look like 'naked' Vishay resistors and they are supposed to sound very good, but they are very expensive and delicate. They sound even better after being cryoed.
Many here have little or no idea what we do to get good sound.
Many here have little or no idea what we do to get good sound.
Scott, this is a big board. Why don't you start talking about your quickly designed circuits on your own thread? I agree with Nelson, that people would like to see your hobby circuits, but they do not represent the 'best' of anything.
Mr. Curl, are there any materials that lose sound quality with cryo treating, and should be avoided?
john curl said:
I figured I should have done that in the first place, but thank you for the generous advice.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.