Has anyone heard the new North American products preamp and amp?

In any case, I've learned what I need to know.   I am done with this thread.  Roger thanks for your patience answering questions.   It is much appreciated.  Good luck!

Thanks mapman,

I hope you get a chance down the road to give a listen.
I will be at the Newport Beach show in June.

Roger

Roger, just wanted to add that having the upgraded 10X MkIII in the system now for approximataly
three months, have to conclude that the so called sweet spot is not
as critical a sitting position.
In many cases before this acted as a spot light effect. This effect now
is broader like a flood light filling 
the room with music.
I've always addressed room accoustics as being 50% of your 
sounds and consequently now believe that the full potential of my
system has been achieved.

Xaviercg, if what you state is in fact the case, in a way that would belie what Roger has indicated as a reply to my post where I asked if speaker placement even if off in the slightest would adversely effect distortion, etc.

I think you are misinterpreting what both men said. 

gdhal,

Those observations are slightly different.
It is true when I describe the projection that results in a full stage shift caused by the slight offset in distance between the speakers and your ears. If you were sitting in the hall for real and your turned your head slightly to the right (making your left ear closer to the stage) would it not appear that your perception of the stage has moved slightly to the left?

Regarding the sweet spot. Here is where I may get into trouble.
A portion of the "sweet spot" is directly caused by distortion. Surprise!
Both stereo channels have the same circuit. Having the same circuit means they behave identically. Whatever distortion is present in one will be present in the other.

When full spectrum music is played, the distortion product in both channels will be the same and it (the distortion) will manifest itself as an [additional] sound object all by itself. To the observer it sounds like a monophonic "entity". In order to experience the "spot" you can move your head from side to side while looking straight ahead. You will sense a moment when it seems like you hit a focal point of significance. Depending on how much of the music is close to common (centered or vocal mic mixed in as mono) you will have a distortion object added to your presentation. That object is dead center (assuming close matching of circuit components). If your speakers are at slightly different distances it will not be dead center.

This can be confused with an actual sweet spot created by the polar dispersion pattern of your speakers and how the venue was captured.

Because of the nature of H-CAT - after the electronics is burned in – the final remnants of the common distortion product disappear and you will be able to perceive a wide open sound stage that can be “viewed” from many listening positions. If this were not true then only the people in the hall who are seated dead center would have enjoyed the performance.

Roger

Roger, this is a good explanation, but I suspect it is over gdhall's head. 

I have noticed that the sound image of symphonic music is both greatly widened at the sweet spot and that even moving into the corner of the room I still get a sense of the sound stage. I haven't tried this with say electrostats that do not present much of a wide sweet spot. 

Tbg wrote,

"Roger, this is a good explanation, but I suspect it is over gdhall's head."

That argument, "I'm smart and you're stupid" is one way to try and win arguments.  That's the ugly sibling of, "I have more than fifty years in audio so I must be right." Or the other logical fallacy, "I have a PhD in Microbiology so I win, you lose."

geoffkait, Roger gave a better answer, as I said, but thanks for your opinion.

All I'm saying is that one's sitting
position is not as critical when using
H-Cat, versus  conventional electronics.
The detail in the music just blossoms
with a holographic presentation and that presentation has no coloration just a neutral signature.

There are many room anomalies that influence the size and location of the sweet spot. You know, slap echo, standing waves of many frequencies, and reflected waves. There are many sound pressure peaks around the room that have much higher SPL than the average speaker SPL in the room! Unless you’ve actually mapped out the sound pressure levels in the room there is no way to control the sweet spot. Not to mention the speaker locations’ influence on the sweet spot. Trying to deal with room anomalies AND speaker positions at the same time is analogous to trying to solve two simultaneous equations in three unknowns. Many audiophiles are sitting right in the middle of a standing wave and don’t even know it.

geoffkait, just listen to the amp.

Yes, having all frequencies arrive at your ears at the same time affects the sweet spot. I abandoned electrical engineering when I discovered all they cared about was having a circuit that worked. I have never heard two amps by different manufacturers sound alike. Similarly, I have never found all speakers sound alike in my room with everything else held constant. This could go on and on. Mankind does not know everything about nature's laws.

Tbg wrote,

"geoffkait, just listen to the amp.

Yes, having all frequencies arrive at your ears at the same time affects the sweet spot. I abandoned electrical engineering when I discovered all they cared about was having a circuit that worked. I have never heard two amps by different manufacturers sound alike. Similarly, I have never found all speakers sound alike in my room with everything else held constant. This could go on and on. Mankind does not know everything about nature’s laws."

I never said the amp like Roger’s doesn’t affect the sweet spot. All I’m saying is it’s not the final solution that you guys claim it is. Not for sweet spot. Not for "live" sound. Get real.

I also never said all amps sound alike, or that all rooms sound alike, or all cables sound alike or all speakers sound alike. Those are all what are commonly known as Strawman arguments. 

geoffkait

(I have carried this over from the other "neutral" thread since it belongs here)- Roger

It is a logical fallacy that one can automatically achieve audio nirvana using an ideal amplifier, assuming for a moment that is what yours is. Things are just not that simple

Your right things are not that simple. This is why it took 25 years of intense research targeting one problem - distortion in AUDIO amplifiers.

No one else has come close to a full understanding of the amplifying process used specifically for signals in the audio spectrum. Amplifiers used for radio, video, uhf, microwave etc. do not have to deal with delivering analog data from a different medium. Audio amplifiers require the total package that must include velocity. The signal has to return back to sound waves in your home. It cannot be done in an environment where the velocity is unchecked.

Try to remember back in the day when you may have went from a mid-fi Kenwood or Sansui receiver to your first real audiophile gear (most likely tubes) and what a stark day and night difference it made.  For you It was a whole new world of audio. Finally it sounded like real music.

Then there was the horror of new digital (CD’s) on the scene and all it did was give you stress and was not anything like a good analog front end.

(I'm sure most of you will say it is still the case)

Look at how difficult it was for me to explain the [fact] that there are 2 separate distinct speeds happening in the amplifier.

1)     Electricity traveling at (speed of light)

2)     Electrical signals representing sound waves traveling at (750 mph)

This is nothing new – if the wave phenomenon could not “flow” through the hardware at this speed you would not be able to use it for audio.

What I have done is to guarantee the flow will be at exactly one constant speed or velocity.

That was no simple - It takes control at quantum levels to achieve this function.

If the velocity is perfectly nailed down – you have emulated the properties of air.

It has never been done before. That’s why it is a breakthrough. That’s why when you hear it in operation it is not recognizable as electrically delivered sound.

All it takes is for people to be open minded enough to learn something new that directly impacts the world of entertainment.

Judge for yourself [after] you hear what it does

The worst skeptic is converted within seconds of exposure to this process.

They may have no idea how it was done - but now know it obviously works.

Roger

geoffkait, I don't think anyone said it was a final solution for the sweet spot. I never said anything about the sweet spot nor about the final solution. You cannot win an argument by changing the topic.

If you showed a smart phone to someone in the 1600's you would be burned at the stake for witchcraft.

This is a time of incredible advancements in technology.
Still - Dolby Labs with all there millions cannot duplicate what I have done.
They have to install 27 speakers in the theaters and artificially pan sounds through separate channels to "give you the thrill of being there".
That's because they don't know how to project a stable sound object into mid air.

It is nothing more than very expensive "fake".

This amplifying method is self-evident and will easily stand the test of time.
You can't tell someone that "it's impossible" or "you can't do that" - after its already been done.

It is a moot point.

Tbg wrote,

"geoffkait, I don’t think anyone said it was a final solution for the sweet spot. I never said anything about the sweet spot nor about the final solution. You cannot win an argument by changing the topic."

But it is what you two have been saying, by claiming that an amplifier can produce "live" sound in the room, the same "live" sound from the recording venue. I am simply pointing out that that statement cannot be TRUE because there are SO MANY PROBLEMS INHERENT in the home audio system that DISTORT  the sound, not just amplifiers. Follow? 

Roger wrote,

"If you showed a smart phone to someone in the 1600’s you would be burned at the stake for witchcraft.

This is a time of incredible advancements in technology.
Still - Dolby Labs with all there millions cannot duplicate what I have done.
They have to install 27 speakers in the theaters and artificially pan sounds through separate channels to "give you the thrill of being there".
That’s because they don’t know how to project a stable sound object into mid air."

It is nothing more than very expensive "fake".

This amplifying method is self-evident and will easily stand the test of time.
You can’t tell someone that "it’s impossible" or "you can’t do that" - after its already been done.

It is a moot point."

Perhaps you misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m NOT saying your amp doesn’t work. I’m NOT saying your amp is not the only amp that does what you say. I’m NOT even saying your amp isn’t an advancement. By the way I’m not very fond of the expression, "it will stand the test of time" since obviously one would have to wait a long time to actually find out if that’s true or not. We’re not there yet. So, actually, and I hate to judge too harshly, the statements you made in the paragraphs I just quoted are simply more Strawman arguments that mischaracterize my position and sidestep the issues I raised with respect to the great number of problems INHERENT in home audio systems that distort the sound and prevent it from sounding "live." Problems other than the amplifier. 

Take the product to Shark Tank and try and get an investment.

geoffkait,

But it is what you two have been saying, by claiming that an amplifier can produce "live" sound in the room, the same "live" sound from the recording venue. I am simply pointing out that that statement cannot be TRUE because there are SO MANY PROBLEMS INHERENT in the home audio system that DISTORT  the sound, not just amplifiers. Follow?

I think I may have found some common ground here. What you are saying is also true but here is the significant difference in the type of distortion.

Almost all of the "other" problems introduce static distortion as apposed to dynamic distortion.

This all relates to motion. If you take a picture and mount it on to a shake table (a vibrating platform) and turned it on -  what can you make out in the photo? Depending on the intensity of the vibration it will certainly be less than if you turn it off.

That is dynamic distortion which modulates the information.

Now take the same photo and this time just set it up straight with no vibration. However instead of straight on - rotate it a few degrees in one direction and leave it there. Now what can you make out in the photo?
Probably everything just fine - except it is viewed from an odd angle which stays at that angle. It may have a warp or change in perspective but even the warp is stable.

That is static (stable)  distortion that interferes with an unobstructed natural view.

Conventional analog amplifiers modulate the signal (velocity) flowing through a circuit at extremely small amounts and yes VACUUM TUBES do this LESS than SS but when you remove the modulation completely - it is day and night.

You cannot experience "live" sound in the presence of any modulation.
The velocity in the concert hall has zero modulation and your brain recognizes the stability of the air medium as authentic.

To stream this information into your ear canals at the perfect playback speed taps directly into the default process of the ear-brain system.

The reconstructed image of the source of the sound is easily uploaded to the mind when it enters the brain at the right speed.

Roger

Cleeds, you are like the audience on Hyde Park Corner in London. You get your kicks out of shouting nonsense about any topic including one you have never seen much less listened to or have the competence to understand. I might not fully understand but I have listened to it.

Roger, by your own definition at least some of the distortions I am referring to - the ones separate from amplifier distortions - are DYNAMIC. Seismic vibration or any vibration, e.g., transformer vibration, motor vibration, that produces jitter in CD playback or that affects the signal anywhere in the components or cable produces dynamic distortion, no?  Vibration is not static. Same with room anomalies, comb filter effects are dynamic and produce dynamic distortion, no?  Magnetic fields are not static and produce dynamic distortion, no?

geoffkait

I was mostly trying to separate the phase based errors that are found in crossovers and the phase characteristics of IC's with regard to affecting overall tonal balance of a presentation. Like the highs traveling on the outside (skin effect) and how it can warp or tare at an image in a fixed way.

There are other dynamic issues as well with cables when they pick up vibration of course and any effort to control the vibrations (anywhere) is desirable. 

It has been my experience that velocity based  "electrical modulation" in the amplifier chain were absolutely startling when removed. I would consider it a whole magnitude higher in the destructive property compared to mechanical vibrations. I know that with a constant velocity amplifier all the other issues seem to be exposed more easily.
It is quite surprising what happens when the music signal is allowed to flow steadily along the time domain without circuit induced contamination.

In fairness to your comment - I stand corrected.

Roger

Roger wrote,

"What I have done is to guarantee the flow will be at exactly one constant speed or velocity.

That was no simple - It takes control at quantum levels to achieve this function."

At quantum levels? Do you mean nanoscale? Are you doing something quantum mechanically? Or are you just fond of the word quantum? ;-)

cleeds,

No I was referring to the fact that different frequencies travel at different distances from the center of the wire. The skin effect is the RF term but it shows the extent that high frequencies move away from the center which can be present in the audio band.

geoffkait

  Are you doing something quantum mechanically? Or are you just fond of the word quantum? ;-)

Yes - part of the auto-focus circuitry that tracks sound objects (as a very small signal)

I had to create a device that was dead quiet and begins tracking at 0.07 nano volts. The quantum reference thread used to detect velocity has an extremely high Z. (90+ gig). The velocity control system is driven directly from this process which squeezes the signal [gauge] into a virtual plasma. The plasma is also high Z.  The thread is then combined with the signal at the plasma level to ensure impedance matching.The signal is suspended this way so the auto focus circuitry can fully dominate the signal velocity while preventing it from "touching" the surrounding template and support circuitry.  This keeps contamination out of the signal.

The velocity control system is a twin running shift generator (red shift - blue shift) which is held to a servo neutral point under tremendous pressure.
Once detected, extremely tiny amounts of signal velocity are met with a counter measure (injected into the plasma) of greater than 700 db in real time.

All of this is held in a solid substrate made at the factory.

The signal velocity has no chance of deviating away from a dead accurate
Max error would be in nano degrees of phase shift away from the fundamental. 

It is impossible to generate harmonic distortion.
This technique is used through the entire chain.
The output is a virtual clone of the input (only bigger).
Since the output velocity = the input velocity it will pass the electrical version of a sound wave all the way through at exactly Mach One.

The hardware itself which has no sound of its own emulates the properties of air. Both pressure and time are locked in sync with the music signal.

The experience can be described as listening through a large hole in the wall to a performance happening in the next room. Nothing but air.

That's live.

Roger
 

Geoffkait: Are you doing something quantum mechanically? Or are you just fond of the word quantum? ;-)

Roger: Yes - part of the auto-focus circuitry that tracks sound objects (as a very small signal)

I do not see that auto-focus circuitry as being quantum mechanical even for very small signals. But maybe I'm missing something that's too small to see.  ;-)

Geoffkait

The precision of the auto focus circuitry relies on quantum mechanics to function properly. It extends the sensitivity of the velocity detection by massive amounts. The last few years of my work has been trying to accurately detect the flow or motion of the sound [wave] itself. The music information is clearly present in the electrical signal - but embedded deeper down in the signal (at a "DNA" level) is the stored data that reveals the pinpoint location of sound objects in a captured venue. It is tied directly to the flow rate or velocity of a traversing signal as it passes through an amplifier.

The wave phenomenon can be tangible or intangible depending on the medium.

Try this…

You are at a baseball game and the fans at one end of the stadium start what is known as the "wave". Fans stand up and raise their arms and sit down as fans next to them follow the same pattern. To fans across the other side of the stadium it appears that there is a continuous movement or flow of the "gesture".  There is no physical transfer of anything between fans but you can observe the wave phenomenon as something flowing and at any one instant you even know where it has passed and how long it took to get there.

The wave part of a sound waves is the critical key to recovering not only the accurate measurements of instantaneous air pressure – but it also reveals when [time] and where [location] the change in air pressure began. At the venue from your seat, you are listening to an historical event due to the delivery time. It is important to note that the slight delay (delivery offset in time) caused by the distance the waves travel is automatically ignored and removed by the ear-brain system as long as it is close enough to the source and you do not have visual clues (when you observe a drum being struck). That air pressure data rides on the wave which can be considered the carrier (like an AM radio transmission, you must be tuned to the carrier to recover the audio)

When the flow rate cannot be identified or it acts more like FM where the carrier frequency is intentionally modulated (horizontal axis) with audio – the location and pitch of sound objects has become unstable. The amount of instability is proportional to the degree of (velocity) contamination caused by microscopic alterations in the time domain. Under these conditions the “delivery offset” cannot be ignored by the ear-brain system because it is varying therefore the apparent distance between you and the performance is not constant.  This causes a secondary tracking event by the brain to deal with an offset that keeps changing. THIS DISTRACTION ALONE IS THE RED FLAG THAT TELLS YOUR BRAIN IT IS FAKE. In the absence of this variation - your brain is free to use the default (high level conversion) of streaming sound entering the brain at a CONSTANT speed of (750 mph). This is not an option. It is 100% necessary for events to sound "live" to your brain.

A “carrier” implies a frequency or an AC component – The speed of sound is more like DC because of the continuous flow in one direction. (Not having to return back to the stage).

At no time is this technique used to "enhance" or create some dimensional perspective that is not literally contained in the original sound wave.  

The bottom line is the successful "conversion" of information that has gone through 2 types of mediums where the output method (final translation at the speaker) is talking the same language that you brain understands.

Roger

Roger, do you have a means of measuring this phenomena?

I had to create a device that was dead quiet and begins tracking at 0.07 nano volts. The quantum reference thread used to detect velocity has an extremely high Z. (90+ gig). The velocity control system is driven directly from this process which squeezes the signal [gauge] into a virtual plasma. The plasma is also high Z. The thread is then combined with the signal at the plasma level to ensure impedance matching.The signal is suspended this way so the auto focus circuitry can fully dominate the signal velocity while preventing it from "touching" the surrounding template and support circuitry. This keeps contamination out of the signal.

The velocity control system is a twin running shift generator (red shift - blue shift) which is held to a servo neutral point under tremendous pressure.
Once detected, extremely tiny amounts of signal velocity are met with a counter measure (injected into the plasma) of greater than 700 db in real time.

700db? I’m sure you must realize how improbable this statement is, so I’m sure this is a typo. What did you really mean?

atmasphere

700db? I'm sure you must realize how improbable this statement is, so I'm sure this is a typo. What did you really mean.  

It is not a typo.  Seven hundred decibels.

I have been busy developing RAW amplification in that range with the help of quantum physics to remove anything that causes instability. That was not easy.

The signal current is down converted in thickness so it can be combined with the quantum thread. The reaction that takes place at that level results in a massive signal (output) that contains the exact velocity of the streaming audio signal.

When combined with the sensitivity of the shift generators it is closer to 800 db. It all happens in a single point that is housed in a Faraday cage and buried in pure copper.

This is why it has resolution of biblical proportions.

Roger

800db?? Lesse... 700 db is 10 to the 35th power or so... 800 db is 10 to the 40th power. Obviously the statement is ridiculous.

No wonder you don't have a means of measurement.

Now the problem here of course if that you have a circuit that can do the process, but no means of measurement, as nothing exists that can deal with numbers that small. Imagine a voltage that is 0. followed with 39 zeros after the dot before we see any significant digits and we see right away that no instrumentation anywhere in the world is that sensitive.

I hope the contradiction is obvious and not lost on anyone?

Occam's Razor says there is a much simpler explanation.

Roger, it might be that you have build some equipment that sounds good, and that being the case there is no reason to concoct these stories. Just let the qualities of the gear stand on its own. Other people's testimony is always far better than that of the manufacturer! OTOH, when you make comments like this, credibility suffers (to say the least) when read by people that went to school. The more you try to explain it, the deeper the hole you have dug yourself into.

atmasphere, since I started this thread making exactly your main point, namely let this amp prove itself, as it has with all the first adopters, you are the point who is digging a hole for yourself, as you have no credence in discussing how it works. I think Roger is telling critics like you far too much. I personally have no use for EEs as that field has greatly regimented positions that we know everything. The best amp and preamps are not by EEs. Mainly those well versed by the US military training in electronics dominate the innovators. 

I do agree with you that Roger should let you guys die on the vine. When more people hear these units, no erstwhile credentials will give any of you, credence in its merits.

Hey, you can’t have it both ways. If Roger enjoys doing it and wants to discuss it that’s actually what audio forums are for, no? Nothing like new technology to stimulate the old brain cells my granddaddy used to say. Now that the cat is out of the bag I say let’s go for it, and carry on the discussion. So far you guys are giving us the old Mutt and Jeff routine, one says go, the other says stop. I’d be interested in details of the quantum mechanics involved. So far I only see the name quantum mechanics dropped, as it were. Let's talk turkey.

cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
No Goats No Glory

atmasphere, since I started this thread making exactly your main point, namely let this amp prove itself, as it has with all the first adopters, you are the point who is digging a hole for yourself, as you have no credence in discussing how it works. I think Roger is telling critics like you far too much. I personally have no use for EEs as that field has greatly regimented positions that we know everything. The best amp and preamps are not by EEs. Mainly those well versed by the US military training in electronics dominate the innovators.

I was just trying give some advice, which is based on experience. Its clear that Roger is new at this. If what he is saying is true, the problem he is up against is if he talks about it, the only ones that will believe him are those that have no education. That is how the industry is. Its a rapid way to being discredited!

So you might want to think about that, since you obviously misinterpreted my post. I'm one of the first to admit that I don't know everything, and I too am offended by 'audio engineers' that claim that everything is known about audio when it clearly is not. If you care to look into it, you will find that I make this point fairly often in that one of the areas that we know very little about is how the human ear/brain system works. And because we don't know much about how it works, we don't really design equipment that takes advantage of those rules. This is a reason why you can't look at a spec sheet and sort out how the equipment sounds- the only way to do that is by audition.

I've had nothing to do with the military in my career. I really feel like you made up some stories about me and then posted as if those stories were true.

atmasphere, perhaps I was painting with too broad a brush. I apologize.
   Physics and EE were two of my undergraduate majors but then I got involved with computers and using the scientific method to illuminate how people vote and why most state policies don't have any impact. This for 45 years was my career. 
  Early on I was quite impressed with Roger Paul's first preamp. That original thread has had several million readings many saying that he was selling snake oil. That was ridiculous in my opinion. 
All that I can really recommend is that you might want to give this amp a listen. 
  I was very impressed at CES with the Zanden suite because it had a very wide sense of the location of musicians. It cost $753,000! Rogers amp give symphony orchestras a full display from extreme left to extreme right. This is far wider than the Zanden system did and at a very small fraction of the price.

atmashpere

Now the problem here of course if that you have a circuit that can do the process, but no means of measurement, as nothing exists that can deal with numbers that small.

With all due respect - it is not my problem.

Tubes have higher MEASURED distortion - yes?

Since there is plenty of distortion to play with in tube amps and it has no problem showing up on man-made test equipment, did your measurements from tube amps help you make a better amp?

atmashpere -

 I make this point fairly often in that one of the areas that we know very little about is how the human ear/brain system works. And because we don't know much about how it works, we don't really design equipment that takes advantage of those rules

I have been blessed with an understanding of the ear-brain system. (EBS)
At least to the point where I can design to it. That is what I have done.

If you have read my white paper you can see that I have no problem thinking outside the box. I have spent many years concentrating on one concept. I was determined to understand what happens to music signals when passed through an amplifier. Obviously they "act" differently in tube circuits vs SS circuits. I literally did behavior analysis on the fragile signal to see how it reacts to being manipulated by different circuits.

I wanted to somehow feed the musical information from the venue directly into the EBS. To do that you have to learn what the EBS "likes" to hear.
I'm not referring to your favorite music - I'm talking about what your EBS feels “comfortable” with receiving as a perfect data connection.

We know what happens when the EBS feels “uncomfortable” – that is when stress enters the picture.  Listening fatigue, etc. To prevent this from happening we must not feed the EBS with a mismatched or poor connection. It will reject the data as invalid. We can keep listening to it but it will not be accepted as a valid live sound.

Live sound has a path to the EBS unlike that of electronically delivered sound. It is apples and oranges. Live sound flows perfectly through air into the EBS which easily uploads the data to a higher level of analysis by the brain. It passes the test of validity because the brain recognizes the delivery method – the medium of air. It freely passes the data to an area of the brain that reconstructs a mental image of what it hears. It reaches the mind. At this level your conscious is free to “browse” the sonic landscape perhaps being attracted to a specific area in the [mental display] that it would like to concentrate on.

The ability to discern several instruments simultaneously is amazing enough but to further apply a desired filter to be able to listen to just one while the others are still playing is also a testament to massive sophistication of the whole process.

It is this extra ability to place a filter over one area of interest that can make or break the process. The conscious effort to filter something will only work if the target (of the filter) is stable.

Variations in delivery speed cause the mental location of objects to drift. The effort now to place a filter fails due to the moving target. The brain instantly knows the data transfer is contaminated with something that is not found in nature. It is fully aware that this is not a live event.

My goal was to specifically create a valid delivery system that allows the natural connection to the EBS to happen – it can now pass the validity test and continue to upload to the higher conscious level where object recognition takes place and the reconstruction in the mind of the sound stage happens.

More importantly – it is free to use the [mental] filtering tools to allow the concentration of interest to dictate what instruments are desirable or which can be ignored. Both filters require a stable target.

Yes it required quantum physics to penetrate the music signal enough to find its velocity and stabilize the process prior to passing it on to the ear-brain system.

Roger

Roger, I think its in your best interests to avoid much in the way of explanation of what you are up to- seriously. I've already said why.

Now the problem here of course if that you have a circuit that can do the process, but no means of measurement, as nothing exists that can deal with numbers that small.

With all due respect - it is not my problem.

When you say things like this in response to my comment (wherein it can be seem that if you have the circuit, you must therefore also have the means of measurement, duh), it appears disingenuous. If you are going to make the claims that you have, this **is** clearly your problem- as Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". In this case you are denying its even your problem and further, your comment about tube distortion is really a red herring (IOW its not an explanation and has nothing to do with it; its pretty well known that tubes are some of the most linear devices known to man, just as a FWIW...). So take a friendly bit of advice, and this is not saying anything about whether your technology works (which is irrelevant, what really matters is the result, which you seem to be getting):
Do yourself a favor, and don't talk about stuff like this! As soon as the word 'quantum' come up in audio, most rational individuals will know immediately to turn around and run as fast as they can.

atmasphere

as Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". 

Your right - I guess since it cannot be measured then the only "evidence" is how it performs which by Carl's definition has to be "extraordinary".

I'll settle for that.

BTW I was in no way trying to dig at you. I have tremendous respect for you and your reputation. I was just trying to point out that even things you can measure don't in and of themselves provide answers so easily. It is even more difficult "working in the dark". 

Regards,

Roger

roger_paul157 posts02-22-2016 3:34pmI hope you get a chance down the road to give a listen.
I will be at the Newport Beach show in June.

Who are you partnering in Newport Beach show?

I haven't bought plane ticket yet but plan to attend Newport Beach show this year.

Roger wrote,

"atmasphere: "as Carl Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
Your right - I guess since it cannot be measured then the only "evidence" is how it performs which by Carl’s definition has to be "extraordinary"."

Roger responded: "I’ll settle for that. BTW I was in no way trying to dig at you. I have tremendous respect for you and your reputation. I was just trying to point out that even things you can measure don’t in and of themselves provide answers so easily. It is even more difficult "working in the dark"."

This part is mine -- If Roger’s amp works quantum mechanically (which I’m not convinced it is) then any measurements taken with respect to the quantum nature of the amplifier, if it actually has a quantum nature, would collapse the wave function, no? Furthermore, repeated subsequent attempts to measure some property or another, assuming the quantum state is allowed to build back up again in between measurements, would probably yield different results. Which would be rather unsatisfactory. Of course this all assumes that what Roger is saying about the quantum nature of his amplifier is true and not a cover story. ;-)

GK

GK

Let's put it this way...
I'm convinced if I show you the exact process including all schematic diagrams, it still would make no sense to you how it works.

I have done this with top EE's in the government. It went right over their heads. What does that tell you? That I'm a genius? No. Just that I did the hard homework and found something everyone else missed because they are stuck thinking inside the box.

You have to treat your system not as a "stereo" but rather as a translator of  information suitable for consumption by the brain.

Your brain is the end user.

I found the contamination that breaks down the [outside] link to the ear-brain system. Without using quantum physics - that link cannot be accurate enough.

It successfully removes velocity based "analog jitter" in the time domain.
It locks down the correct playback speed and guarantees it is [constant].

This allows the smooth transfer of the sound [WAVE] phenomenon to flow toward you as if if was happening in the same room.

How difficult a concept is it to grasp?
 
To your collective delight I think I'm done trying to explain it.

Listen and enjoy.

Roger

Roger wrote,

"I have done this with top EE’s in the government. It went right over their heads."

With top EEs in the Government? And it went over their heads? Surprise, surprise.

"What does that tell you? That I’m a genius? No. Just that I did the hard homework and found something everyone else missed because they are stuck thinking inside the box."

If you’re trying to say that there is a status quo, well, duh!

geoff kait
machina dynamica
no goats no glory

All the good engineers i know think out of the box all the time.  

All the the tech talk nobody can understand has no meaning obviously.  The product will live or die on its value proposition and sonic merits like all do. 

I agree with atmosphere that talking about things nobody understands  does not do any justice.   Just my two cents.  

Mapman wrote,

"All the good engineers i know think out of the box all the time.

All the the tech talk nobody can understand has no meaning obviously. The product will live or die on its value proposition and sonic merits like all do.

I agree with atmosphere that talking about things nobody understands does not do any justice. Just my two cents."

Pardon me for saying so but that seems to be an argument for limiting discussions to topics or subjects that are either common knowledge or understood by everyone, including the man under the bridge. If we limit what people can say to what someone believes should be easily understood by everyone then who will be the judge and who will be the jury?  If there is going to be a break out from the dull repetitive rehashing of the same old thing we must not constrain discussion to fit anyone’s preconceived notion of what’s allowable, what is and what isn’t scientifically possible or correct. What’s there to be afraid of? Stop trying to put everything in a box.  

No goats no glory

I agree.

I think after the back and forth so far in this thread we may have found a common understanding of the issue and hopefully some solution.

After all look at the attention being paid to the physical stabilization of cables and racks and of the chassis. Airborne  vibrations are a valid contamination in the system. We know that "tiptoes" and other spikes put under the gear help to remove or dampen the effects of bass and more from penetrating and returning to the path of the source. The rings placed on tubes to cut down on microphonics is another example of the pesky problem of physical instability. 

Low jitter clocks and the like in our digital sources again are all meant to  eliminate or suppress the damage done to the otherwise smooth flow if information.

We know that the unchecked tiny micro vibrations will limit the purity of the musical presentation. 

The key to understanding how it hurts the presentation is that it affects the [velocity] of the delivery system. IOW it is not just an interfering note or sound added to the mix - it is the fact that it is a mechanism of alteration or modulation of the base delivery method. Your image is [shaking] as a result of the vibration issues caused by the physical world entering the chain.

Unless you had very sophisticated lab gear to examine the actual micro vibration at work - it is safe to assume that we know it exist by the fact that calming things down physically is quite noticeable acoustically. You don't have to measure the tiny vibrations to know that they are there.

In light of the awareness of this "invisible bug" it is readily accepted as fact that its presence is destructive and that it will react to attempts (mostly by trial and error) to suppress it.

If you consider what I have found and were able to address as simply more dynamic interference caused by the improper handling of an analog signal traveling through an amplifier, then I think we are on the same page.

The most startling aspect of the analog "jitter" is how bad it is compared to other destructive forces caused by the physical world. The unstable velocity in the amplifier happens at nano-scopic levels (far below measurable levels). But again - knowing it is there and making attempts to catch it happening based on [theory] is no different than you placing lead weights on boxes and draping your cables over insulators knowing that you are blindly affecting the issue.

Once you can suppress the analog jitter, other physical work done to keep things "stable" are much more obvious because that is all you are left with.

Roger

No curiosity no discovery

Anyone is free to talk about whatever they want.  

There  is validity to the theory that any publicity is good publicity compared to none at all.