KBK said:
That was hilarious man!
But I do agree that in the chrono-synclastic infundibulum of which we are all a part, the end result must be such that the flubber matrix is non-singular.
G.Kleinschmidt said:
I don't know! Back then was when I first discovered Audio, which was an American mag oriented toward techs and engineers. The mainstream American audio mags were High Fidelity and Stereo Review back then, with the typical review consisting of very rudimentary measurements and no subjective evaluation. I don't remember the 6.3 kHz test at all, but my memory is hazy. Audio had Bascom H. King for electronics reviews and Richard Heyser for loudspeaker reviews. Both of these guys would really run the equipment through the ringer. I wish I had kept those old Audio mags.
OT, violating rule #6 (sorry)
/*
Jacco, please don't misunderstood me.
I'm liberal (in the USA sense) as can be.
*/
jacco vermeulen said:Family heritage itch acting up again, Mr V-Stuart ?
/*
Jacco, please don't misunderstood me.
I'm liberal (in the USA sense) as can be.
*/
andy_c said:
Yes. Flubber is important.
As for your photo, I do know what Ted is doing with that stuff, but I've no urge to share that info. That kind of stuff is pretty hard won, and there's no telling what else might be found in there; as extrapolation can sometimes go...
Joshua_G said:
These are not the wet slug tantalum caps I have used for many years. Probably solid tantalums. The real ones are great with a reservation or two but, bypass them with a paper and film cap (Rifa) and the combination is the best relative to any plastic film cap when a coupling cap and FETs are paired.
Cheers... from the cheap seats.
So long as the wet slug tantalums are DC biased, they are very good. No DC bias and they can go bad.
MikeBettinger said:
john curl said:
Many thanks to both of you.
Bottom line – are these caps useful in PSUs?
Joshua_G said:
Hi Joshua,
The tests I published were done with resistive loads, pretty much as prescribed by Otala.
I have privately done TIM and PIM tests into loads that were reactive at high frequencies, where these distortions tend to be problematic. In some cases I saw some increases in these distortions into reactive loads, but not really big increases. In these cases I also observed increases in THD-20.
It is usually difficult to do high-power tests into real loudspeakers because they will be damaged. I have, in the past, however, built some large networks that attempted to simulate a loudspeaker load with passive components. This work was mainly to evaluate the behavior of protection circuits when feeding a reactive load.
I've also built I/O compare circuits to evaluate amplifier behavior when driving real loudspeaker loads with real music. This device, as expected, subtracts a scaled version of the amplifier output from the input to achieve a null that is indicative of the faithfulness of the amplifier's behavior. The challenge with this is the need for careful adjustment of amplitude and phase compensation to facilitate the proper subtraction. This is not unlike what I do in my Distortion Magnifier (DM) used for sensitive THD and CCIF IM testing. The I/O compare has not revealed notable I/O differences in high-performance amplifiers except when they clipped. A key thing to bear in mind is that well-recorded music can have a very high crest factor and cause amplifiers to clip more than we would think.
Cheers,
Bob
Records tg Die for
As some of you may know, the latest issue of Stereophile has a list of 58 "recordings to die for".
Here is something about this that I find amusing and interesting. One of the recordings on the list is an LP of Tusk by Fleetwood Mac. It is notable that Tusk was one of the very first commercial recordings made with digital tape, using the Soundstream recorder at the dawn of the digital recording age. The anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters were all analog, with their horrendous phase characteristics, and the A/D converters were crude by today's standards. And yet the recoding made the sonic grade. Hmmm...
Cheers,
Bob
As some of you may know, the latest issue of Stereophile has a list of 58 "recordings to die for".
Here is something about this that I find amusing and interesting. One of the recordings on the list is an LP of Tusk by Fleetwood Mac. It is notable that Tusk was one of the very first commercial recordings made with digital tape, using the Soundstream recorder at the dawn of the digital recording age. The anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters were all analog, with their horrendous phase characteristics, and the A/D converters were crude by today's standards. And yet the recoding made the sonic grade. Hmmm...
Cheers,
Bob
I like the music on 'Tusk' but the digital version SUCKED. I was there and heard the difference.
yeah, me too.
not to mention the discussions on simpliified schematics, also provided sometimes.
mlloyd1
not to mention the discussions on simpliified schematics, also provided sometimes.
mlloyd1
andy_c said:
john curl said:
Hi John,
They were ALL digital versions; the master tapes were digital. That's the point. Even the LP was a "digital" version.
I'm sure the live performance was far superior to any of the recordings, whether the digital masters were transferred to LPs or CDs. Maybe all of the final versions sucked. I just found it interesting that Stereophile had it on their list; someone there must have thought it sounded good. Of course, it is within the realm of possibility that the LP mastering process, and the LP medium, made it sound less bad by filing off some of the rough edges.
It is also interesting that Michael Fremer frequently rips cuts from his LPs (carefully) onto CD so that he can demonstrate the sound of the LPs.
Cheers,
Bob
Cheers,
Bob
I heard the analog version, I was at the recording studio when it was mixed down. This digital was NOT 44.1, but 50K+, but it still was a step down.
Re: Records tg Die for
Bob,
The Soundstream recorded material has a reputation of sounding
very good, especially the stuff ported to DSD.
By comparison some of the worst sounding digital ever released
was done on the current de facto standard, 'tool$'.
T
Bob Cordell said:
Bob,
The Soundstream recorded material has a reputation of sounding
very good, especially the stuff ported to DSD.
By comparison some of the worst sounding digital ever released
was done on the current de facto standard, 'tool$'.
T
john curl said:
John,
Are you saying it was tracked to analog (2"/16T?) and mixed to
Soundstream?
T
- Status
- Not open for further replies.