luvdunhill

without talking about topology, I can say yes. Many people feel the 6SN7 is the perfect audio tube from a design standpoint.

All I really want to see are pics of Blutarsky. I mean, does that guy really exist?

Re edged an Infinity Perfect 12. Turned out pretty well.. Will post pics later!

wow, fetch is still around? I remember using that back in the day. Does it still have the terrier dog icon?

nice base plate. I'm not sure where to find something like that though.

will the Starving Student stuff just pop up at beezar.com?

air conducts. You just need hotter outputs, that's all.

Looks like I'm traveling this weekend after all... unfortunately, the wrong way... to Myrtle Beach

obviously you're not in the know... check this thread out: diyAudio Forums - Y B Blue - how blue LED improves the CD playback - Page 1 I dare Reks to double blind that shit... edit:

not as funny as it would be the second time

hum .... diyAudio Forums - Twisted Pear Audio - ESS Sabre Buffalo DAC - Page 76

usually the outlets are limited to 25W or so.

Smeggy, what does your source output?

There are two main approaches here. Maintain a constant linear velocity, in which case the disc spins slower as you move outside on the disc, thus keeping the overall transfer rate constant. The second is a constant angular velocity in which the disc spins the same speed, but the transfer rate changes depending where on the disc you are located. In fact, I'd argue that the later are better for audio, as since the speed doesn't change, the mechanisms can be made to be significantly quieter. Furthermore, since data transfer speed isn't all that important in audio it's a viable solution. The later is indeed what the CEC belt driver players use and the former is what most modern CD/DVD drives use.

My point isn't to use multiple cables, I agree that your finding are probable. I'm suggesting using multiple systems, as this is from a scientific standpoint where you'll probably see tractable differences. I'm citing technical reasons for why you have an endemic bias in your setup. Since other systems may be more prone to RLC differences that cables present to the system (a statement you agreed with) then you cannot claim that there is no difference until you've tried your experiment on their particular system. finally we've gotten to the good ole fashion way to handle these debates. Just disproving of what's taught in grade school. Like I said, there are methods, like the ones outlined above, that are used to deal with real world covariance and variable dependency. I'm not disproving the scientific theory, just saying that there are ways to handle more complex tests that are equally valid. You said that single variable tests are the only valid tests, of course this is false.

that's fair. I just want to point out that some systems are more prone to difference in cables at a technical level. Just because you tried this test in a single system, doesn't mean *you* can reproduce it in other systems. This is what you're implying.

excellent. I thought you were arguing that there cannot be differences, so I was giving examples where there is a demonstrable difference. As for your statement about "scientifically valid test relies on testing one variable", for six grade science projects yes you're right, real world tests aren't this easy. Why do things like chi squared tests exists? Why have multivariate techniques like support vector machines (SVM) and their kernal based derivatives. Will the debate between the Gaussians and the Frequentitsts ever be solved? no. For example, your single variable is silver versus copper. In fact, that's not a single variable. There are a number of different variables being changed there. So, you say only one thing can be changed, but scientifically this is impossible. This is why I find your line of logic specious.

ok, so your saying that cables can sound different.

So, is it possible that there can be differences in cables, due to how the cable can interact with a properly functioning system. This isn't a matter or properly constructed cables, but extends to commercial cables that may have difference resistance, inductance, and capacitance values. Can this RLC circuit interact with the system and can produce different sounding cables?

I mean, you'll always win the argument on your terms. Because in your test scenario, "significantly changes function of the test system" is not allowed. If this is the case, how can there possibly be an audible difference? If there is a change, you'll just redefine "significant" until there is no latitude in choosing test subjects.

ok, well perhaps I did misunderstand you. Sorry, this was anything but clear in the previous posts. I have in fact done it with commercial cables (Audience low impedance and high impedance phono cables to be exact and another third party, MIT perhaps? In fact, capacitance wasn't even the varied quantity in this case) with a group of people and a frequency response analyzer. Obviously the DBT was performed before the frequency response was plotted. I think your line of reasoning is fairly specious. You cannot invalidate the test if the DUT causes a change in the system. That's in fact what we're trying to prove.

It's not a matter of shame, it's a matter of having a blank four deck 42-step attenuator arriving soon Seems like an excellent use of the added steps to get more attenuation. Yeah, I remember listening to his beta22 at full bore with his Pearl into the Fostex*. I guess I could do the math and get the exact output, but I know my CD player is 1.99vrms balanced and I wanted a bit more gain for sure. (*) Yeah, that was the "fated" meet where the hubris of the TRS jack hit in a big way.

I remember wanting more gain with steve's beta22, though I'm not sure what gain it was set at. Perhaps it was 5 per board? This was using a 1.99 Vrms source and my Fostex T50. I'm likely going to be using a custom attenuator one way or another, so my plan is to just add more attenuation here. I know he was using the JT, so I figured more gain (7- with another -10dB to -15dB attenuation should do the trick nicely.

what, matching hfe for every transistor to the same value on all four boards isn't unreasonable, is it? By the way, this amp needs some more compensation at gain of 4... at gain of 7 I didn't need any compensation. What gain do other typical four channel amps use, like the dynamight and beta22?

yeah, I wonder why ....