I was referring to the TRANSMISSION characteristics, NOT the whole car! I was told that the 944 used an Audi style transmission, and that Porsche had an especially patented one that they used in the 911 and better products. Usually, people don't note such differences unless they have meaning. I PRESUMED that an experienced 911 driver might notice the difference between transmissions, even though I can not, as I lack enough experience. At least, I admit to my limitations in evaluation, unlike many here.
It might also be understood that a very high speed car here in the USA is useful only for very wealthy people who like to take chances. We have no 'Autobaun' here, and our driving speeds are limited to below 80mph, USUALLY less. While my RICH friends drive dual turbo Porsches, etc. I would not bother, even if I had the money. Still, I like the engineering and attention to detail that Porsche gives to its cars. Most of my associates drive BMW's. My boss, and my former girlfriend drive Audi's. We seem to like German automotive engineering for some reason.
One might think of the Parasound JC-2 as a 944, and the BLOWTORCH as a 911. The differences are subtle and the Parasound JC-2 is quite a bargain, given its performance.
The Levinson JC-2 might be thought of as a 924, slightly flawed, but a lot of pleasure to use.
It might also be understood that a very high speed car here in the USA is useful only for very wealthy people who like to take chances. We have no 'Autobaun' here, and our driving speeds are limited to below 80mph, USUALLY less. While my RICH friends drive dual turbo Porsches, etc. I would not bother, even if I had the money. Still, I like the engineering and attention to detail that Porsche gives to its cars. Most of my associates drive BMW's. My boss, and my former girlfriend drive Audi's. We seem to like German automotive engineering for some reason.
One might think of the Parasound JC-2 as a 944, and the BLOWTORCH as a 911. The differences are subtle and the Parasound JC-2 is quite a bargain, given its performance.
The Levinson JC-2 might be thought of as a 924, slightly flawed, but a lot of pleasure to use.
The problems with electromechancal relays do not necessarily stem from DC offset, and we have looked into thermoelectrical compensation. It comes from the basic PHYSICS of the electrical contact when we look down deep into what is REALLY going on, not the approximation that we see on the surface. Read Holm's book and see.
Many here are just coming up to speed on relays, and finding things that we discovered over 25 years ago.
Many here are just coming up to speed on relays, and finding things that we discovered over 25 years ago.
totally off topic
The point is that you can objectively measure the amount of understeer or oversteer.
See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understeer for values.
@PH104
Sorry, I don't have exact data, but they were the very first turbo models. Also, I found this on the web:
http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/sway3.htm (last sentence)
Regards,
Edmond.
john curl said:
The point is that you can objectively measure the amount of understeer or oversteer.
See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understeer for values.
@PH104
Sorry, I don't have exact data, but they were the very first turbo models. Also, I found this on the web:
http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/sway3.htm (last sentence)
Regards,
Edmond.
I trust my EARS, I don't need measurements to tell me what I hear, with experience.
It would be like test driving a sports car. You can tell from driving it, whether it does right by you, and you don't need some 'measurement' to bolster your opinion.
Now what can be wrong with relays? Anyone looked at a contact up close? You know with a precision microscope? Any pictures?
It would be like test driving a sports car. You can tell from driving it, whether it does right by you, and you don't need some 'measurement' to bolster your opinion.
Now what can be wrong with relays? Anyone looked at a contact up close? You know with a precision microscope? Any pictures?
zinsula said:
Tino,
I haven't tried such an arrangement but it wouldn't appear to avoid the several different metal 'interfaces' which exist in all relays which I have looked at in this connection. Even though any signal may be reversed in its route through the relay, the overall 'signal path' appears to be the same.
In relays, usually there will be a base-metal (brass?) tag for input/output soldering, attached (often by riveting) to a springy copper-alloy leg, which has a (frequently bi-metallic) contact (2 more dissimilar metals welded together because the harder contact surface required is not malleable enough to be riveted) once again often riveted (instead of welded) onto the other end of this springy strip. This arrangement, of course is only half of the entire path which any signal needs to traverse, as the other contact will generally be of similar construction.
Compare this with a Shallco switch where one entire contact is a small piece of solid (not plated) silver which is where the input/output traces or wires are directly soldered to at the opposite end, merely a couple of mms away. The other input/output soldering-tag/contact is a similar single piece of silver, and there is short solid silver 'bridge' forming the wiper between these contacts. This could hardly be simpler, and all 3 metals in the entire path are made of the same material.
Some relays are simpler in internal construction but I have not had good experiences sonically with reed-relays and mercury-wetted types, and some others have even more complex internal constructions than the minimum shown above for conventional small-signal relays.
Another difference is that every operation of a Shallco switch effectively cleans the contacts and this is by a positive action where one part wipes under quite substantial pressure from one side of the fixed contact across to the other.
I have yet to see any suitable relay where there is much wiping action at all during use, and although the moving contact does tend to move through a large arc to make or break the connection, this has virtually no wiping action, unfortunately, as the 2 contacts meet each other in an almost linear path during their short travel, head-to-head.
Regards,
john curl said:
Once again you missed the point. The difference between any 911 and any 924/944 is no where near subtle. Perhaps in your terms it is the difference between a VW Golf and a Rolls Royce, but given your car analogies so far I doubt that means anything to you either.
Just stick to telling us how great and wonderful your ears are and how your eons of experience make them work so well.
By the way, the 911 is a proper engineered car so doen't rely on matched deivces, it is engineered to tolerances that allow it to be built without any magic pixie dust.
Posted by alansawyer: By the way, the 911 is a proper engineered car so doen't rely on matched deivces, it is engineered to tolerances that allow it to be built without any magic pixie dust.
This is pretty much a straw dog. A 911 doesn't rely on matched devices? Try a Pirelli P-Zero on one rear wheel and a Michelin Pilot Sport on the other. Is matching the weight of pistons any different than matching transistors - both are examples engineering to tolerances. Using pixie dust in a Porsche is like using a trim pot to correct for input offset caused by unmatched devices that could have been minimized using a matched pair.
This is pretty much a straw dog. A 911 doesn't rely on matched devices? Try a Pirelli P-Zero on one rear wheel and a Michelin Pilot Sport on the other. Is matching the weight of pistons any different than matching transistors - both are examples engineering to tolerances. Using pixie dust in a Porsche is like using a trim pot to correct for input offset caused by unmatched devices that could have been minimized using a matched pair.
PH104 said:
Absolutely right, and this is merely one of the refinements that a manufacturer does for OEM vehicles.
Having been involved in racing/rallying engine preparation many years ago (and I am certain things are much more sophisticated nowadays!) everything moving was statically & dynamically balanced, con-rods were even balanced end-for-end as well, flywheels lightened, components nitride-toughened, offset dowels (or vernier cam gears) being used to set timings precisely, and so on.
This was simply called "blueprinting" and basically it was all done by hand to ensure that the manufacturing tolerances, which always existed, were optimised.
This is also precisely what I have been doing when related to audio-engineering for around 40 yrs now, and the results are all the better from these painstaking efforts.
Also interestingly, the 'scorned by many audio-experts' cryogenic treatments are regularly used in racing engine parts because this improves the strength and reliability of the metal components, and maybe this is why the same treatments affect sonics in audio.
Regards,
I've driven a 911, and I don't find it that much different from a good running 944. It is just too big for me. I started with an Austin Healey Sprite for 5 years, and loved it. Then, I had a SAAB Sonett (fibreglass) for 23 years, rebuilt and modified the engine myself. Then, I drove my first Porsche, and noted the difference.
I am happy enough, but I don't rate my 25 year old 944 as SOTA, just the product of good mechanical engineering. I suspect that I would not personally think much of much of the audio equipment used by my critics on this thread, but it would be in bad taste for me to belittle them in some way for their selection and choice.
I am happy enough, but I don't rate my 25 year old 944 as SOTA, just the product of good mechanical engineering. I suspect that I would not personally think much of much of the audio equipment used by my critics on this thread, but it would be in bad taste for me to belittle them in some way for their selection and choice.
scott wurcer said:
Scott, your post quoted analog_sa who was asking what switching elements are used in the BAT volume control. They are CMOS FET switches, I believe from Siliconix (although they could even be from Analog Devices!).
We also use CMOS FET switches in our AX-7e integrated amplifier and our K-5xe preamplifier, although in a different arrangement than BAT uses.
But what the heck is a 'JFET "six pack" mixer'???
- Status
- Not open for further replies.