|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
166.250.98.214
In Reply to: RE: no posted by Cleantimestream on May 06, 2012 at 17:56:47
.
I too am a big fan of the AVC especially the work Dave Slagle is doing at Intact Audio
The link below has a great one with a remote? Take a look at the TAP-X.
P.S. I see you have nothing so far to back up your assertion that a remote introduces "gross noise."
If you come up with something there is no need to keep it simple. I can keep up.
.
Follow Ups:
Cannot work {passive}, I change out too many amps I build and others have built and the impedance changes too much.
I thought you were serious.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
That is not the point. You could use the same remote controlled AVC in an active pre if you wanted. Typical internet loser. Get proven wrong and create a diversion by ignoring the facts and coming up with yet another excuse.
Passives are indeed a very good path if you follow a few simple guidelines. .I would tell you what they are but you would ignore it. Even if a passive is not a good match for your amp you could easily add a buffer to it, but I'm sure you would come up with some lame excuse again to avoid saying you were wrong. You do know that an active pre is simply a passive attenuator with a buffer don't you?
I'm done with you. . I see your kind over and over. You simply can't admit you are wrong so you ignore being proven wrong and create a diversion by moving on to some other topic.
You say a remote introduces noise but when asked why you ignore it.
You say you can't have a remote with an AVC and I show you that you can and you ignore it.
I show you that Lamm is full of marketing BS and you ignore it.
I show you his circuits are not "pure" as he claims and you ignore it.
I ask you below to explain why SETs and remotes are opposites and you ignore it.
See the pattern?
In any case since you can't address any of my points I am done with you.
good day sport
.
Interesting, so successful designers such as Arthur Loesch, Allen Wright, Vlad Lamm are losers because your mindset {conceptual continuity} is such that YOUR experience is superlative.
I can agree to disagree and YOU,
Can
Refuse
to grow up.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Arthur and Allen are no longer with us so I would be careful quoting them.
dave
You can find your answer for Allen in these forums.
Arthur is on record.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
.
NOT!
Thank you for continuing to prove my point. I said you are a loser because you continue to offer absolutely no reason why a remote adds "gross noise" and you continue to ignore every point I make and you continue to create diversions.
Now you've done it again.
I never said those guys were losers; you made that up... diversion.
I never said that my experience was superlative; you made that up.... diversion.
I thought perhaps after my last post you would speak to at least one of my points. I laid them out very clearly but all you can come up with is repeating that a few successful designers don't use a remote while ignoring the fact than many do. Of course that can't be refuted so you continue to ignore it.
grow up indeed, now that's funny
...
Feel free to consider me 'a loser' if that assauges your ego.
Hubris is not a trait I aspire to.
If you refuse to accept another point of view there is another word for that too.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
.
great.... another diversion... at least you are consistent
It is not a "different point of view." Either a remote introduces "gross noise" or it does not. I was just trying to get you to explain why you think it does other than because somebody else does.
I do enjoy these little discussions and it is fun for a while to see guys like you avoid any type of meaningful exchange, but you have us stuck in an infinite loop. You have offered nothing of substance, ignored every point I made, ignored every question I asked, ignored every time I showed you you were wrong, and attributed things you made up to me while I clearly explained my position. If that is hubris I guess I am guilty. I’ll break the loop
.
"He claims purity of circuit but uses electrolytic caps. Those two things are mutually exclusive"
As Does your solution to my No remote stand,
This is known as a non-sequitor,
Illogical and or hypocritical, choose your adjective.
As an audio signal is passing through the volume control the signal IS @ its weakest. At this stage, the audio signal is VERY vulnerable to noise pollution and interference. A major source of such distortion is the commonly used remote volume controls that you {or those audiophiles such as yourself} proffer. Why you fail to understand such a basic premise yields the point being
ON
YOUR
HEAD.
Actually, am surprised you had not mentioned a method newly introduced BY dartzheel which WILL enable a remote to work unobtrusively.
{all though it has not been implemented in THAT way as of yet, it IS now feasible}
Gas filled relays CAN work, albeit VERY expensive.
Evidently, ignorance is not bliss as had you known You might have achieved your elation of trying to maneuver {believing your intellect superior} in the proper fashion by telling me you WERE aware.
P.S.
Your Hubris {skirt?} is still showing.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
After being asked like what, nine times??? You finally offer something. Thanks. However, I disagree. Here’s why.
Your premise presumes that it is impossible to make a remote controlled switch that won’t inject noise into a signal. That is just not true. Examples…
1. A stepper motor controlled by a circuit that goes to sleep when not being used. It can control whatever rotary control you do approve of. You could even put the receiver and control circuit in another box and the motor on a long shaft away from the switch if you were so worried about noise. It would be absolutely no different than walking up to the pre and turning it by hand.
2. Same thing with relays, if you are concerned with the signal going through a relay you could have it on the ground leg of the voltage divider.
3. I can come up with more if needed.
Despite that, let’s presume for a second that it can’t be done. It would still make no difference since any well designed system is set up so you are using it with the volume control set to the top part of its range. If you are turning it down so low that the signal is significantly weaker than that then your system is poorly designed i.e. it has too much gain. Think about this… a phono stage can be designed to handle signals that never go above a few millivolts which means the low level info is down in microvolts yet they can be dead quiet and sound quite glorious. Don’t you think the same people can design a way to switch volume without doing any damage?
That being said, this will never be settled, but thanks for finally participating. You evidently believe in what a few designers tell you. I’ve heard way too many systems using remote preamps that sound fantastic to believe it is limiting factor.
Take care
.
Implement remote completely separate from the audio circuit....Bent Audio (used by Slagle in his autoformer units), Placette, EVA, etc....not all that expensive either.I believe the guy from Dartzeel is using LDRs in his preamp...certainly not a pioneer there either.
Thought the post made by your enemy on the Lamm bullshit was a great one.
Edits: 05/07/12
I can confirm this. The key to the EVA is that the remote volume control only varies the light intensity on the LDR. There are no moving parts or multiple contacts. It's as transparent and noise free as can be. I believe I read somewhere that it's been determined that typical switch contacts are more detrimental to sound quality then adding another set of interconnects.I've written this before, but it's worth repeating: at a little over $400 including shipping, the EVA 2 has to be one of the best values in all of Audio. To further insure there's no added noise, I replaced the wall-wart PS with a linear/regulated supply for about $40. Let's see, EVA 2 LDR attenuator $400 or Dartzeel LDR attenuator $20,000. Or is it $30,000?
Gerry
Edits: 05/08/12 05/08/12
I put my name in for an EVA 2 some time ago but it doesn't seem like we will see them again. Haven't heard anything about another production run.
In the meantime, I acquired an AVC from Dave Slagle. This thing is a revelation. It is far superior to all of the higher priced preamps I have owned (some much higher). I hope to find an EVA or perhaps try the LDR from Australia but I think I reached the pinnacle already.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: