john curl said:
Did you take any pictures of the last blowtorch? What else is in his system?
😀
Mike, my computer is not capable of posting pictures or schematics, and I have never done so, directly.
It was very pretty, but we have pictures of past units. It will never be made again, in its full form. Every Blowtorch will be a used unit from now on, which is just about as good.
It was very pretty, but we have pictures of past units. It will never be made again, in its full form. Every Blowtorch will be a used unit from now on, which is just about as good.
Steve Eddy said:
No, I haven't Steve. All the metglas families have too low a curie point for what we do in aerospace. Thanks for the info, though. I will look up it's properties.
JC reminded me that metglas has found a happy home in pole-top power transformers for the utilities. True!
Best, Chuck
Re: May we make a new thread?
I don't really have any experience with the new processes that Hitachi introduced as a result of their continuing metglas R&D, John. Excitation of cobalt based alloys - grain-oriented rolled, annealed or as-cast, will be higher than any other magnetic alloy.
And cobalt is real expensive. Some 10W permendur tube amp output transformers were offered a few years back, at $200 vs. $25 for GOSS, offering some unspecified sonic benefit. The advantage of cobalt is the higher saturation flux density but the losses are 1.33 timer higher. The size and weight reduction (25% of magnetic weight) is worth it in aircraft/spacecraft, but not if it stays on the ground.
Best, Chuck
jlsem said:
I don't really have any experience with the new processes that Hitachi introduced as a result of their continuing metglas R&D, John. Excitation of cobalt based alloys - grain-oriented rolled, annealed or as-cast, will be higher than any other magnetic alloy.
And cobalt is real expensive. Some 10W permendur tube amp output transformers were offered a few years back, at $200 vs. $25 for GOSS, offering some unspecified sonic benefit. The advantage of cobalt is the higher saturation flux density but the losses are 1.33 timer higher. The size and weight reduction (25% of magnetic weight) is worth it in aircraft/spacecraft, but not if it stays on the ground.
Best, Chuck
chascode said:
Ah. Didn't know your application was aerospace.
Hehehe. Well, they're just going where the money's at. If their home was the microscopically small market called high end audio, it would be a cardboard appliance box in an alley somewhere. 😀
se
john curl said:
How is that possible?
You can upload images to diyAudio.com as attachments provided they don't exceed the size limitation (and if they do, they can always be scaled down). I can't think of a computer that can not do that and still be able to access the Internet.
se
John, I still have a JC-80 schematic. I bet a tuned up used one of those would sound as good or better than just about anything out there. So I am still waiting to hear if you have "profoundly" departed from those circuit topologies? I don't see why you would have to.
My last transformer experiment was a dissmal failure (Edcor). It made everything sound like a stock Dyna MkIII. It was clear I would need to spend real money.
My last transformer experiment was a dissmal failure (Edcor). It made everything sound like a stock Dyna MkIII. It was clear I would need to spend real money.
Steve Eddy said:
Here is a review of it
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/3/39394.html
and I found one picture of it
Steve Eddy said:
I was fooling around with an interstage transformer directly driving a diff pair of 6L6's as a low power class A amp, using a fairly decent output tranny. I'm not much of a tube guy and come to think of it the lack of damping was probably as much of the problem as the transformer. I was going for simple; two tubes, two transformers, and a couple of resistors. I'm all the way the other way now, using a 15W class "D". 😱
scott wurcer said:
Which model did you use?
I have edcor XSM and PCW 1:4 transformers. While XSM measures relatively poor, PCW is quite good (wide BW, high resonance point, low distorsion).
Scott, while I appreciate your regard for the JC-80 schematics, they are obsolete, because the parts that made them work, are not available. Besides, the Blowtorch is better, I have A-B it with the Blowtorch.
Thanks Snoopy, that was my own personal preamp that was reviewed. However, SY doesn't think much of it, because I have not added a transformer to the output. You can please only some people.
Input, John, not output. If you're going to say things like that, let's keep 'em accurate. I see much less advantage from output transformers.
I am one of maybe two people in this thread who have heard a Blowtorch (albeit in your system, not mine). That's amazing.😀
I am one of maybe two people in this thread who have heard a Blowtorch (albeit in your system, not mine). That's amazing.😀
BTW, my offer is still open. I'll bring you a couple of high quality input transformers and we can listen. If you don't like 'em, OK, we wasted a couple of pleasant hours socializing. If you do, then they're yours.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.