Charles Hansen said:
I guess this is a good side of not being in the business. I just read the magazines and take it all at face value. Besides I'm just looking for bits and pieces of technology to fill in the blank spaces.
I did get about half way through the JC-2 review last night and what's been said so far does not appear to have an agenda but actually makes me want to get a chance to hear it.
Mike.
Charles is doing me great damage by implying that the review is 'fixed' in some way.
When I actually spoke to John Valin for the interview that follows, I ASKED HIM DIRECTLY what happened with the cables. I am inclined to believe HIM rather than Charles' impugning of him.
For the record, I don't think that Parasound advertises in either 'The Absolute Sound' or "Stereophile' yet we got good reviews in both magazines. I know for a fact that Richard, my boss/ does not have the funds available to seriously 'bribe' anyone, although he might buy them dinner in some nice restaurant. What do you expect?
When I actually spoke to John Valin for the interview that follows, I ASKED HIM DIRECTLY what happened with the cables. I am inclined to believe HIM rather than Charles' impugning of him.
For the record, I don't think that Parasound advertises in either 'The Absolute Sound' or "Stereophile' yet we got good reviews in both magazines. I know for a fact that Richard, my boss/ does not have the funds available to seriously 'bribe' anyone, although he might buy them dinner in some nice restaurant. What do you expect?
MikeBettinger said:
I have no doubt that the JC-2 is a fine sounding product. John is a brilliant designer and has a proven track record of building state-of-the-art preamps. And it's not even really all that price constrained, so there aren't all that many limitations there either. Being built in Taiwan, the list price of $4000 would probably translate into at least $6000 for a US-made product. Frankly, I would be shocked if a multi-kilobuck preamp from a brilliant designer such as Curl *didn't* sound superb.
It would be wrong to think the every single one of Valin's reviews are incorrect. Nobody lies *all* the time -- it's simply not possible. The problem is that just like the boy who cried "wolf!", when you talk to a liar, you never know for sure when he is lying and when he is not.
john curl said:
I'd suggest giving the folks at Nordost a call to hear their version of the story.
As I noted in the post above, I have no doubt your preamp is excellent. I have no doubt that Parasound has resorted to no sort of bribery, in this case or any other. I have met Richard Schram on multiple occasions and have nothing but the highest respect for him. The JC-2 also got a rave review in Stereophile, and I have no reason to suspect any hanky-panky at that magazine.
And all of that doesn't change the fact that Valin is a thief with low moral standards who would have been immediately fired from any other magazine.
Just don't conflate two separate issues. In other words, JC-2 = good, Valin = bad.
Charles, I didn't chose the reviewer. He did seem to like the product more than I would have thought. I would have actually preferred Bob Harley, or maybe someone else, EXCEPT HP, because I am pretty sure that he (HP) would not have liked it. It is too solid state and forward sounding. It is not my best effort. The Blowtorch is. Long live the CTC Blowtorch, the last unit is being packed for overseas.
Jacco,
No hard feelings and the past is the past. I had a good laugh at one of your last remarks in this thread 😉
Take care,
Franklin
No hard feelings and the past is the past. I had a good laugh at one of your last remarks in this thread 😉
Take care,
Franklin
scott wurcer said:
Scott,
Given the context you're asking the question in, I'm assuming it's probable you meant it in a facetious manner. Nonetheless, I'll attempt to give a serious answer.
Let's take something that has a demonstrable burn-in period, like an electrolytic cap. Assume that it has been sitting on the manufacturer's shelf for two weeks, spends a week in shipment, sits on a shelf in the distributor's warehouse for six weeks, spends another week in shipment, then sits on the audio company's shelf for another two weeks before assembly into a finished product. (At this point many manufacturers test and burn-in the equipment for variable periods of time. The question becomes whether their burn-in brings the cap fully up to spec and how long that lasts.)
But now we get to a real problem. The dealer orders the product, it spends a week in shipment, then sits in the dealer's stock room for months. I know we had amps that sat for two years or more sometimes before selling.
We've established that an electrolytic cap has a reasonable chance of being in less than ready-to-go condition by the time it reaches the consumer's listening room, yes?
To the extent that the designer, in the process of building the prototype, is likely to have put hundreds of hours of on-time on the caps in his version of the circuit, by the time he puts the final touches on the circuit and begins manufacturing it, he's definitely voicing an amp with well broken-in caps. If he's trying to get the thing to sound a particular way, it will have happened in the context of broken-in caps and it will take broken-in caps before the owner begins to hear what the designer heard when he was voicing the circuit.
In the larger view, is it likely that there's a circuit that might sound better not broken-in? I suppose it's possible, but I've never run across a case. Given that caps (to continue with the part I was using) don't store energy as efficiently if they've been sitting on the shelf for an extended period of time, I'd say it'd be pretty easy to make a case that the bass might run dry in dynamic passages until the caps are up to snuff. Etc.
The same might not hold as true for the caps in chips. I was just reading an older book (ca. mid-70's) on thick film chip making and they were talking about SiO2 dielectric amongst other things for chip caps. I'm sure that there are any number of more exotic materials in use these days (they did mention tantalum caps), but just taking silicon dioxide as a starting point, it'd be easy to make a case that it's pretty stable stuff and might not require much, if any break-in. Discrete circuits don't use that sort of thing, though.
Grey
janneman said:
For all the fact that Jan and I don't see eye to eye on many topics, I am with him entirely on this one.
The only alternative I can see is to pot the active circuitry (like early Mark Levinson) so as to protect the resistors from all sorts of nasties.
Grey
Re: Wien bridge
Light bulbs went out with the vacuum tube. I use an RA54.
Cheers,
Glen
Edmond Stuart said:
Light bulbs went out with the vacuum tube. I use an RA54.
Cheers,
Glen
GRollins said:
Which brings back part of the nasties attributed to encapsulating them and one of the reasons not to. Seems like there's always a trade off when searching for the grail. 😉
Think it through. It isn't too hard. What IS the outside coating that they normally put on over the naked Vishay resistor? Is it teflon, polypropylene or polystyrene, or even something close? Personally, I think that it is somewhat 'over the top' but many do not think so. I respect their decision, because they are doing their best to make the best products that they can possibly make. Most here don't know what REAL hi fi is, just like I don't know what a Porsche 959 feels like on the road. I can't afford it, but I don't say my 944 is just as good, because it has the same engine displacement. Learn to keep 'open' about these things. It saves the embarrassment of finding out later that you were wrong about something, like I have.
scott wurcer said:
Scott,
WRT ad797 distortion neutralisation cap, CN, (ref fig 28 data sheet).
Did you ever experiment with series RC or series RC in parallel with
R and maybe even C (3 parallel networks) to more correctly replicate
the impedance as seen by node 'B' on fig 28?
Same goes for C1 to ground in fig 41.
It belatedly occurred to me during supper that John's Blowtorch enclosure would work well, although at a wee bit greater cost than potting. That way you could have your cake and eat it too.
Let me be clear. I have not heard these naked resistors and accordingly have no opinion as to their sound quality. My comments are only to be construed in the context of maintaining the sound quality that you had when the unit was new, whatever that might be.
Back when I was taking a lot of chemistry in school, they taught us that "hamburger breath" is your most insidious enemy. People work all morning with clean glassware, eat lunch at a fast food emporium, then come back to the lab, exhaling microscopic droplets of grease from hamburgers and French fries. Some of that grease settles on the inside of your titrating burette, which in turn plays havoc with the meniscus, which in turn affects your measurements. It's one of those attention to detail things.
For those who think this is BS, have you ever noticed how the inside of your windshield gets greasy over the course of a couple of months and needs cleaning? It comes from the air. Some of it from outside your car. Some of it comes from you. Either way, there's nasty stuff floating about.
Don't get me started on cigarette smoke.
My concern is that a slow buildup of this sort of thing could alter the properties of the resistor over time, hence change the sound. I don't know how physically robust these things are, but even assuming that the circuit can withstand cleaning in a worthwhile solvent (be careful with those polystyrene caps), how many people are going to want to clean the insides of their circuit every six months? And how many of them do you want cleaning delicate electronics with god knows what kind of cleaning fluid? This is rife with opportunities for disaster.
I'm not necessarily against the idea of a naked part, but this begins to sound like the sort of thing I left tubes to avoid--slow sonic degradation over time requiring maintenance to restore the circuit to where it was, sonically.
So far, I've only come up with the two ideas--potting and a sealed chassis. Potting arguably ruins the naked aspect and a sealed chassis costs a fortune.
Grey
Let me be clear. I have not heard these naked resistors and accordingly have no opinion as to their sound quality. My comments are only to be construed in the context of maintaining the sound quality that you had when the unit was new, whatever that might be.
Back when I was taking a lot of chemistry in school, they taught us that "hamburger breath" is your most insidious enemy. People work all morning with clean glassware, eat lunch at a fast food emporium, then come back to the lab, exhaling microscopic droplets of grease from hamburgers and French fries. Some of that grease settles on the inside of your titrating burette, which in turn plays havoc with the meniscus, which in turn affects your measurements. It's one of those attention to detail things.
For those who think this is BS, have you ever noticed how the inside of your windshield gets greasy over the course of a couple of months and needs cleaning? It comes from the air. Some of it from outside your car. Some of it comes from you. Either way, there's nasty stuff floating about.
Don't get me started on cigarette smoke.
My concern is that a slow buildup of this sort of thing could alter the properties of the resistor over time, hence change the sound. I don't know how physically robust these things are, but even assuming that the circuit can withstand cleaning in a worthwhile solvent (be careful with those polystyrene caps), how many people are going to want to clean the insides of their circuit every six months? And how many of them do you want cleaning delicate electronics with god knows what kind of cleaning fluid? This is rife with opportunities for disaster.
I'm not necessarily against the idea of a naked part, but this begins to sound like the sort of thing I left tubes to avoid--slow sonic degradation over time requiring maintenance to restore the circuit to where it was, sonically.
So far, I've only come up with the two ideas--potting and a sealed chassis. Potting arguably ruins the naked aspect and a sealed chassis costs a fortune.
Grey
Grey, you worry too much, and have not EVEN tried these resistors. Please, don't criticize or worry about what you don't know about.
Of course, these resistors in an automobile, under the hood, or something similar, MIGHT cause problems over time. They use some sort of film coating, just not as much 'meat' that is usually there for ruggedness and insolubility when attacked by acids, etc.
Of course, these resistors in an automobile, under the hood, or something similar, MIGHT cause problems over time. They use some sort of film coating, just not as much 'meat' that is usually there for ruggedness and insolubility when attacked by acids, etc.
john curl said:
This is a bit presumptuous. Put yourself back 20 years and feel the passion and the focus. It's just possible that there is a different conclusion to be drawn from a well tread set of clues.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.