John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, your post clearly indicates that you are attacking anecdotal reports with actual science and measurements..

This shows that you are an outlier to the generic "scientist" thorsten rails about..

Probably why we don't seem to disagree much??

Cheers, j

Anecdotal? No EGOTISTIC (My ears are poifect!)


What box? I don't see no darn box.

T and I get along, often we agree on subtle things other times he is wrong!


Oh and for Scott, My only hat is tan!

ES
 
Hi,

No, it is not a fair request. Since it would never come to pass that everybody exhibited restraint in this regard, your request (as you well know) is doomed to failure, and you would wish to claim a moral victory as a result...(see, I told ya so)...that kinda thing.

Well, you mean to ask certain others to refrain from negative characterisations is not going to work but I'm supposed to do so any way?

Dude, we have a saying where I'm from, "What's good for the goose is good for the ganter..."

I'll take the position of the Hedgehog to Fox, when the latter proposed future peace "Get all your teeth pulled first, then we talk about me getting rind of my spines..." and will continue spirited defence following the von Clausewitz Doktrin...

Telling them their wrong is insufficient. Telling then they are wrong a thousand times is still insufficient.

They have been told so in scientific papers, fully backed by references, indication of corrective actions et al etc. blah. blah... That is what I mean with "Told"...

Again, with this "OH YAH, well same to you" schtick. It doesn't work..

Well, as I am getting older and more cynical I have less and less time for fruitless arguments with fools or worse.

As Kandi used to sing: "I know two wrongs ain't make one right, but it's suiting me just fine...".

Kandi Don't Think I'm Not Top Of The Pops - YouTube

Go on??? All I see is you beating your head against a wall. When will you realize it isn't working?

It only looks like I'm beating my head against a wall. The first step to wisdom is to understand that there is no wall...

Ciao T
 
Jan,

I would propose you to stop name calling period. It detracts from your posts, it detracts from your character. Saying 'them first' reminds me of kindergarten rather too much.

Sorry, but being German, I subscribe to Von Clausewitz on defence, not to Mohandas K. Ghandi or Yeshuah the Nazarone.

Those who routinely behave like chimp's and fling poo at others should not be surprised if a truckload comes heading back their way.

Note, I am not justifying what I am doing (no need to), I am merely telling you.

Ciao T
 
No.

A qualifier MUST be used when describing evidence. Simply because it is scientifically and logically unacceptable to embrace BAD evidence. All evidence must be good.

But 'bad' and 'good' are by definition unfalsifiable, subjective assessments. One man's 'bad' is another's 'good', to do science we must have impartiality. Hence I reject your argument from authority.

I'm confident we share a better understanding in that: Good and bad qualifiers can be mis-used in order to promote one's agenda, and I am sure that we are in violent agreement that that is appropriate to use good date and reject bad data.

If data is to be rejected then its imperative that there's some impartial way to decide that its 'bad'. Otherwise its rejection just arises from one's ego-driven agenda. If there is such an impartial reason to reject data - for example, its not relevant, then of course the word 'irrelevant' will be applied and the data can be demonstrated to be irrelevant. In such a case its no longer 'bad' data, just irrelevant data.

The real devil in the details is just how to categorize it such that it is independent of desires.

Indeed and the words 'bad' and 'good' are not in any way independent of personal agenda. Hence my argument that there's no 'bad' (and hence no 'good') data.
 
It only looks like I'm beating my head against a wall. The first step to wisdom is to understand that there is no wall...

Ciao T

There is no spoon.....Neo

Indeed and the words 'bad' and 'good' are not in any way independent of personal agenda. Hence my argument that there's no 'bad' (and hence no 'good') data.

See. We are gettin to know each other... James T Kirk.

j
 
Well, you mean to ask certain others to refrain from negative characterisations is not going to work but I'm supposed to do so any way?

No, I said your request that all refrain and then you will do so as well was doomed from the start...and you knew that.

They have been told so in scientific papers, fully backed by references, indication of corrective actions et al etc. blah. blah... That is what I mean with "Told"...
Really? Scientific as in a model which provides testable predictions?

Please provide a link on testing imaging vs IC or PC swapping which proves audibility.

Rubber to the road..

j
 
Dude, we have a saying where I'm from, "What's good for the goose is good for the ganter..."

Funny one of the big issues in prisons is keeping that from happening!

It only looks like I'm beating my head against a wall. The first step to wisdom is to understand that there is no wall...

Ciao T

No the reason the loony bin inmate gives for beating is head against the wall is: "It feels so good when you stop!"

BTY your reference to Carl von Clausewitz is entirely out of context! Although his uncompleted manuscript is often quoted, the basic emphasis is on defense!! He considered constant attacks an ineffective strategy. Remember he left the Prussian army after the Napoleonic defeat and fought for Russia against Napoleon.

So take a chill pill and mellow a bit. Or a six year old would put it, "I know that is what you are, but what am I?"
 
Hi,

Really? Scientific as in a model which provides testable predictions?

Scientific as in pointing out the fundamental failings of the methods and statistics employed. Remember, the subject under debate is the poor and heavily biased experimental practice engaged in by the ABX - Crowd of organised committers of scientific crimes.

It is not necessary to provide alternate experiments and outcome to expose bias and poor practice in extant ones and it then behoves the experimenter to correct his method, or be called fraud or worse with full justification...

Ciao T
 
Hi,

BTY your reference to Carl von Clausewitz is entirely out of context! Although his uncompleted manuscript is often quoted, the basic emphasis is on defense!!

Precisely. I do not engage in constant attack. I merely defend my position.

So take a chill pill and mellow a bit. Or a six year old would put it, "I know that is what you are, but what am I?"

Why should i? ;)

I am actually quite mellow in person. I play it the way others in the game want to play, me personally? I prefer to the actual subject, but if you bring out the ducking stool...

Ciao T
 
Well everyone, I hope I can still say, what works, works. It doesn't matter if I can easily measure WHY it works better or not, or whether I can cite every explanation about WHY it works to page in a college textbook. Sometimes I just have to do what works, rather than accept critiques as to how what I find works could not possibly make a difference. That is what keeps me ahead in audio design.
When I make the best products possible, which includes the CTC Blowtorch preamplifier, and the Vendetta Research SCP-2 phono stage, I do a lot of things that many here would 'sneer at' citing unnecessary effort for a minimum gain in perceived performance. Maybe it has developed into a 'bad habit' to do all the prepping and cleaning that I do, when I am in charge. However, it seems to lead to design awards when in competition with everything in the world of audio, even when I have not made that particular design for the last 20 years, for example. I think that I will stick with what works.
 
J.C.

Sticking with what works is an interesting concept. The first computer I ever used was a Bendix G15-D. It had a drum memory and vacuum tubes. There just may be exceptions to that rule!

Let us talk about balance? I can certainly make a better power supply than most. If I put it on the old standard 2 transistor phono preamp, the effort is wasted. If I used your style of design for the gain stage and a "9 volt battery eliminator" sold by Olson's in the early 60's it probably wouldn't be much better.

Now if I use a good power supply and amplifier (Topology & Components count) then there may be a limit when I use Radio Shack connectors.

Now that is all old stuff. You have pretty much mentioned which components and which topologies you use. You lament and covet some parts that are no longer made. many complain there is nothing new here.

So how long does it take you to do a new design?

How many design improvement steps do you think you have accomplished in your career ... so far.

Can you start a real list of do's and don'ts?

Do others wish to list what they have picked out from the 30K ++ posts?
 
When I went into independent design, far away from big company 'standards' and procedures, more than 40 years ago, I did NOT think that much was important, EXCEPT good circuit topology and low IM distortion. However, when I proceeded to make designs with ceramic caps, second rate resistors, IC's (the best at the time), tantalum coupling caps, marginal power supplies, etc, etc. I found that interested, but independent 3'rd parties REJECTED my efforts, even though they measured OK with an SMPTE IM tester.
If you lose your job, because your client is disappointed in the results of your effort, it is possible that one might try to find out how and why one went wrong. Others would just 'sniff' and say it was office politics or some such and just find another client less critical. This is what makes the difference.
We have worked for decades to understand what it really takes to make a successful audio design. Many of us have pretty good test equipment, education, and have even done independent research on audio distortions. To call us names, or make any other attempt to impugn our reputation is simply what T refers to as 'primate behavior'. '-)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.