john curl said:
How about a parallel set..and 'soft switching' them out with an overlap..at the charge rate (Hz)? I know, I know it's weird, but it might be worth pursuing. But it does place the main caps in a situation where they are never connected to the mains/diodes/fuses/transformers/etc when being modulated by the circuit. If not two, then three sets? A bit complex..but yah never know. Might sound alot like battery power.
My little odd thought in the audio world - for today.
OK. Yep. Three sets with a soft switch will work.
Charge two sets, use one. I'd think it would work best for preamp circuits. But it would create a real and perfect removal of the mains from the issue.
janneman said:
No, i don´t think so, but you can´t choose randomly a listener panel because the majority of people don´t care that much about audio quality in general and of course is not trained to hear under blind test conditions.
I can only encourage to do some own test with listeners under test conditions; watch the learning curve and try different test setups. You´ll most likely see that the results depend very much on a lot of these things.
I´ve posted it sometimes earlier, a double blind test is as much a test for the listener as it is for the audibility of a difference. And the experimentator does never know if a listener is as sensitive under test conditions as he would be during ´normal listening`, but the test results are normally used to give some advice for the audibility in general. That is an inherent problem, which must be addressed.
myhrrhleine said:
We were not talking about the BT. We were talking about the selection of listenens for a listening panel. Whether we should select 'average, bell-curve' listeners, or highly trained, sensitive, 'edge of the bell curve' listeners.
Different subject.
Jan Didden
Jakob2 said:
But isn't that some sort of conflict? I mean, if you have an amp that can be picked out of a comparison by only the best trained, highly educated few, is it worth while? That would mean that it would only make sense for those happy few to buy that amp as they are the only ones being able to appreciate its superior sound. (This is separate from the appeal such an amp might have on other grounds, of course).
Jan Didden
My friend and I both have nice systems, the most common comment I hear when we get a visit from a non-audiophile who is nevertheless interested (not all are) is: I had no idea that I was missing so much of the audio experience.janneman said:
I had one friend of 30 years, he always questioned my sanity when I mentioned the prices of some of my gear. After an A-B switchable test, he said "I get it, the dirt is gone." He later purchased an Outlaw receiver and built his own speakers (with design help) and then told me. "I want to thank you, you have returned to me the gift of joy of listening to music. I had not realized why I was doing less and less listening."
Golden ears or no golden ears. my experience is that most hear the improvement over mass market. They might lack the "lingo" to express the difference they hear, but most know an improvement when they hear it.
hermanv said:
...which is back to the Religion model. GEB are the Priests which, through Revelation, are showing the Way to the masses.
Which assumes the Priests are always right, which is not necessary true. And raises the legitimate question about who selects and appoints the Priests.
For the high end, yes. That assumes you can find ANYONE who can pick the amp out in a controlled comparison.
hermanv said:
When you look at the costs vs parts vs what it is you are trying to rid yourself of..vs the linearity and repeatability (meaning-always known specific quantities) of the residual LCR issues with the caps alone.... you come up with something that achieves high levels of isolation/separation.. with little downside. Everything else is at least the same expense with no real isolation- in comparison. Basically, nothing works like total, complete, and real isolation.
Due to being applied to a preamp, or line level type device, expense can be lowered, via that devices more controllable, or limited requirements, as compared to that of an amplifier.
As a microphone or phono type device? Where isolation and noise is always an issue?
You've got a winner.
Hermanv, thanks for the great input about your friend. A parallel might be finding a guitar that really sounds great and going back to playing for personal pleasure.
This happened to me back in 1962 when a classical guitar that I had for a few years was stolen from my car. I got substitutes, but I never played as often and with such pleasure again.
I went to Mexico and got the best guitar that I could find there. It was beautiful and sounded OK, but I traded it after a time, for test equipment. Years later I traded some hi fi equipment for a Martin, and I was pretty happy with it, but it got destroyed in the firestorm. Back to square 1.
Listening to hi fi in my car can be boring, when it isn't up to my personal standard as well.
This happened to me back in 1962 when a classical guitar that I had for a few years was stolen from my car. I got substitutes, but I never played as often and with such pleasure again.
I went to Mexico and got the best guitar that I could find there. It was beautiful and sounded OK, but I traded it after a time, for test equipment. Years later I traded some hi fi equipment for a Martin, and I was pretty happy with it, but it got destroyed in the firestorm. Back to square 1.
Listening to hi fi in my car can be boring, when it isn't up to my personal standard as well.
janneman said:
Wouldn't that depend on what you want to test?
average listeners for mass-fi, or closer to what the better listeners might hear.
They really are very different groups.
janneman said:
That's choosing your market.
Either for the average masses, or the select few.
Hey, I have an idea.
Maybe a specialty device for the select few.
Maybe it could have special design consideration for those who can actually hear a difference.
Maybe John should go 'all out' on his design, but only expect a few discriminating customers because this would obviously cost more.
myhrrhleine said:
It looks like you never heard really good sound reproduction: your posts sounds like very theoretical. I meet thousands of people when test my equipment on live concerts, and all of them who I met personally hear the difference.
syn08 said:
In this 'religion' you can be your own priest.
You will not go to hell for your choices.
SY said:
For the designer, one might need to include extra considerations.
-one customer might discern distortion more readily.
-one customer might discern resistor sound more readily.
-one customer might discern power supply sound more readily.
-one customer might discern capacitor sound more readily.
-one customer might discern potentiometers more readily.
-one customer might...
So, to be among the best, design for any possibility
Wavebourn said:
I agree to an extent.
There is a difference.
sometimes immediate and obvious.
sometimes not obvious until pointed out.
sometimes inaudible to the average, no matter how much training.
Did anyone ever notice that Horowitz and Hill shows the compementary source follower with FET's as a "bad idea". It is in a slightly different context but I thought it was funny.
scott wurcer said:
It depends on what you compare them with. They are however much better than complementary emitter followers, but much worse than a source follower bootstrapped by another follower and loaded on a counter-modulated current source.
> but much worse than a source follower bootstrapped by another follower and loaded on a counter-modulated current source.
Would you be so kind to put a link or a schematics ?
Thanks,
Patrick
Would you be so kind to put a link or a schematics ?
Thanks,
Patrick
- Status
- Not open for further replies.