|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.233.6.199
In Reply to: Updating & Refining the " DCR " Topic posted by drlowmu on March 7, 2007 at 12:10:47:
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Follow Ups:
- as oppoosed to researcher / investigator - passes personal judgement once again. What a surprise.Most others will jump in and beat up; maybe Tre' will get some too. Now that's hangin' wit' da in crowd. Word.
Most lame.
Why would one listen to a guru who can't keep his own story straight?A guru is a teacher or a guide. A real teacher does not teach the truth as one thing on one day and something else the next.
And you talk about lame....
Tre'
> > > A guru is a teacher or a guide. A real teacher does not teach the truth as one thing on one day and something else the next. < < <You make it real easy for me to make my point dude - thanks. Are you saying it is better for a teacher to stick to some arbitrary line even though experience, research, knowledge, etc. come to indicate something different? Y'know, progress an' all that stuff. Man, some of us are not cr#pping ourselves at the thought of change.
Yes, Dennis / Jeff should not present their hypothesis as an absolute truth, or Truth; but did they? It may have been *their* truth at the time. I am thinking they want people to give it go and come to their own conclusions. That said, I have not been following these threads in max-o-detail; this is just audio - time spent here is time away from da ladeeez.
Yes, their hypothesis may appear flawed, now as in the past. It appears that their approach and experiences have some merit though, as has also been shown (then better explained) as in the past. Y’know, something works but you lack the ability to explain it.
Check ya
buzzPS. Nice guru line - I can not recall Dennis / Jeff calling themselves ‘gurus’. I could be wrong though - I am more interested in his point than trivial crap like whether he is the guru. Sh!t. If he did not claim he is da guru, then kudos to your (mildly) inflammatory language. Yes, the commonly-used terms teacher, mentor, etc are less inflammatory than guru – but you know that.
Buzz, I understand your point -- that if someone changes their view and says so, that is entitled to a little respect. Drlowmu cannot be faulted for lack of interest in finding sonic nirvana, and he has certainly stimulated discussion.But -- and I don't want to speak for Tre' or others -- I think the harsh reaction comes from the fierceness with which Drlowmu presented his views in the past -- views which he just recanted because his own guru said something different.
Here is a post that shows what I am talking about:
Quoting Drlowmu:"Hello,
Only the HV secondary DCR matters. Bad news : 252 ohms DCR I must inform you, positively stinks, such high DCR is not accceptable for audio, guarantees NOT GOOD sound in a no NFB triode amp !! Buy a T amp!!
Even a crummy ST-70, which runs super warm to the touch, or likewise, a Dyna MK III power trannie has about 80 ohms DCR.
On Power transformers, FROM ALL MY LISTENIING EXPERIMENTS OVER 30 YEARS:Eighty ohms is LOW FI.
Forty ohms is just MID FI.
Twenty ohms is good HI FI.
Under Ten ohms is ULTRA HI FI.There you have it. About the same DCR parameters apply to inductors BTW.
No need to build your house on a weak foundation.
You can't get quality from left over TV parts. Don't mean to be hard on you.Jeff Medwin"
Now, in fairness, low DCR to some extent goes with higher current capability. But, this does not hold up when making subtle distinctions below 100 ohms of secondary DCR. I have some honkin' power transformers with 50 ohm DCR secondaries rated at 310-0-310 and 500mA -- before this recent channelling from Dennis, I was under the impression that the transformers were not even mid-fi.
Most folks are like me -- they would never ever post something saying some other person's system or parts do not or cannot sound good, without hearing it. If one does not live by that rule, he or she must expect a little grief when abandoning the underlying rationale for making such bold assertions. And, when claiming to know something based on "LISTENING EXPERIMENTS", only to say "Never mind . . ." based on an email from a guru, seems a bit contradictory as well.
Let me be clear -- while other topics are worthy of the kind of focus low DCR has gotten, I think the forum and hobbyists have benefitted from the discussion, driven by Drlowmu's embrace and advocacy of particular ideas. A lively forum keeps us coming back.
My beef is with pronouncing things "mid-fi" or "low-fi."
Steve Root
Steve,You say:
" views which he just recanted because his own guru said something different. "
I don't think so at all !!
I recanted MAINLY because I just built and heard the Low C, Low HY, Low DCR supply on Greg's 245 amp - only several weeks ago, I trusted what I heard enough to bring it all up publically here on the 'ole Forum, so others may consider employing it in their amps, and gain the benefit.
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
is starting to unravel the emotional from the intended message. So much of these 'discussions' is a reaction to the way J & D presentation of their findings, their arbitrary categorisations, and it seems (now) to me their insistence on absolutes. Perhaps they should remember this is only an hypothesis, not yet theory nor reproduced with consistency in practice. Maybe their excitement over their discoveries and desire to share gets in the way of their moderation and use of more appropriate language?That said, they encouoraged people to try it out for themselves - somewhat at adds with their claims of absolutes. Can be expensive for DIYers tho - all those TX, Lundahl chokes, 'n' stuff. At least the latest hypothesis is not so costly.
Oh dang, where did my stolen Buzzman persona go? Word. Ah, there it is.
Hey Buzz,'Not really just a hypothesis, Dennis' Serious Stereo SE 2A3 amp has been designed and replicated by him since 1992. Circuit hasn't changed any. It was and still is Low C, Low HY and Low DCR !!
as to what is tried and tested over time and what is been tired just once. And whether the specific formula has changed or not.Oh yeah, if you have just a general description / understanding of why something works, you want people to experiment, and seek to refine the formula etc. it is an hypothesis.
"Yes, Dennis / Jeff should not present their hypothesis as an absolute truth, or Truth; but did they"Yes they did. Jeff has said "If you don't have low DCR your system can be no better than lo-fi"
"Yes, their hypothesis may appear flawed"
Their original position is now flawed by their own admission.
"the commonly-used terms teacher, mentor, etc are less inflammatory than guru"
Both teacher and mentor are modern definitions of guru. Definition 2b.
"A trusted counselor and adviser; a mentor."Now get back to "da ladeeez".
Tre'
P.S. "Are you saying it is better for a teacher to stick to some arbitrary line even though experience, research, knowledge, etc. come to indicate something different?"
Your point is well taken but Jeff has been shoving this ever changing sh*t down everyone's throat for eight months or more now. If he really has something to say, he should have waited until he sorted it all out before telling everyone else that they were wrong.
.
pick out parts of what I write and leave out the stuff that puts it into some context. Oh, and the way you add my main point, which you could not fully refute, into a PS. Sweet. Then there is the use of technically 'correct' definitions whilst ignoring the connotations associated with the term. Some would think you are heavily left-brain dominated dude more interested in 'winning' some trivial debate than, well, being a more open and balanced kind of chappie.That said, if Dennis and Jeff have claimed absolutes then they should be soundly spanked.
As for their *original* hypothesis being different to their current - hell, any researcher (tho perhaps not those that *apply* the results of research) understands that hypotheses change; that is the nature of improved understanding.
Got to move
buzzCan't hang wit' da ladeeez at the moment - got to get me to the clinic... Damn
You have not followed this from the beginning. In the beginning I agreed with Jeff that low DCR in a power supply is a good thing. (I still think that) The voltage drop when the current demand goes up will be less so the voltage regulation of the supply will be improved.Jeff said no "it's not about voltage regulation" He has also claimed that the improvement does not depend on the amount of current draw change. He stated that the full improvement would still be heard even under conditions of constant current draw.
Jeff also claimed to hear the full improvement even when the basic power supply is followed by two series regulators.
"Some would think you are heavily left-brain dominated dude more interested in 'winning' some trivial debate than, well, being a more open and balanced kind of chappie."
I don't see this as trivial. Some people come to the AA looking for instruction as to how audio electronics work. But instead they read that low DCR in a power supply will make their amp sound better even if the circuit is drawing constant current. They read that a proper sized input choke is a bad thing and are lead to build supplies with high current spikes that do cause audible problems. One reason choke input power supplies are better is the lack of high current spikes that cause noise. If the henry value of the choke is to small (as in Jeff's designs) the supply will act just like a cap input supply, high current spikes and all.
There may be something to what Jeff and Dennis are saying but they should get it straight before preaching it as gospel.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: