The Jack Bybee NAQ (Never-Asked Questions)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#201
John, sorry I have not understood well enough. Here we go.
 

Attachments

  • bybee.JPG
    bybee.JPG
    137.7 KB · Views: 734
#212
Worries here

john curl said:
Well everyone, it is now time to tell you a true story of how I once let friendship get in the way of optimum audio design. Some of you are not going to like it, but it is a real problem sometimes, when friends make things and you use their efforts in your products. It happened around 1990, when I first was engaged by Parasound to improve an existing power amplifier prototype.
This prototype used an IC as a balanced-to-unbalanced converter, and operated essentially at unity gain. They initially used a National LF353 for the prototype. One of my tasks was to find the optimum IC to use. It had to be fet input, dual, minidip, reasonably fast, and unity gain stable.
As I recall, it came down to an OP-42 or an AD712. Both were extra good IC's at the time, but I knew Scott Wurcer personally, so I elected to use his AD712 design.
Well, things proceeded smoothly, until it was time for the reviewers to evaluate the unit.
My Boss and I flew and drove to Santa Fe, NM where Stereophile was located. I happened to get a ride from Bob Harley, who then worked for Stereophile, so we talked together for about an hour, during the ride. Thank goodness we got along. I then made sure that the amp was working as well as it could be, and I returned with Bob back to the airport.
Later, I was told that the amp had failed a subjective reviewing test. It just did not sound that good. It measured OK, but it sounded 'average'
So, I was forced 'to take the Bull by the horns' and REMOVE the IC chip, as it appeared to be the only real restriction in the otherwise discrete design. This infuriated my boss, and I had to explain to him that with our new relationship, I did not want to step on too many toes, and the IC I chose, if any IC would work out, would have been OK.
In any case, we removed the IC, and re-introduced the product for review as the MK 2 version of the HCA 2200. Then, of course, I was severely criticized for NOT using an IC in the front end, by 'The Audio Critic', but 'Stereophile' gave us a B review, not bad for the bang for buck quality of the amp.
Analog Devices took a dim view of this and sent a letter of protest to Parasound. And so it goes.
It just goes to show you, just because a friend, like Scott Wurcer, makes something, you better double check it out sonically, yourself, before using it.
Click to expand...

This story worries me very much. I feel uneasy about it....
😱😱
 
#215
To each other. Compare B and D. This was not made by me, but I will find out. There is some text, but it should not be necessary IF you will 'just look through the telescope' (approximately what Galileo might have said to the church officials when looking at the moons of Jupiter through his telescope).
 
Last edited:
#218
scott wurcer said:
Dick's Met 7's
Click to expand...

Metronome? Sorry I dont remember that well, but are those the "vintage" whole shabang with 12" woofers, Decca ribbons and all
I remember them being plastered with clay all over the drivers chassis
And that was, maybe 30years ago? or more?
And he still makes speakers with strange cheap looking cone tweeters not many wants, take it or leave it
Brave man, respect
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom