I will simply note that 24 - bit has a theoretical Dynamic Range of 144 dB... That is beyond what ANY electronics are capable of , using any technology on this planet ..
Lucky for you, you had other R2R decks around while Tim was tinkering with your Technics I think there's only two of them in the US? Dan Meinwald has one and yours?
i understand there are 5 or 6 dPv modified Technics in existance. the one my friend (who's currently in Siberia working) has, Dan's, Tim has 1, Philip O'Hanlon has 1, and one or two others which may be in Europe. i have a stock Technics RS-1500, my refurbed Studer A-820 and refurbed Ampex ATR-102. the dPv RS-1700 did many things better than either the A-820 or the ATR-102; both of which are at the top of the food chain. and it made the RS-1500 sound broken. the dPV RS-1700 also has switchable EQ from IEC to NAB as well as a special EQ of Tim's which Tim feels betters any other. finally; Tim's mod works both for playback and record.
i do think that the Cello/King does take the Studer past the dPv Technics; which was why i sold it. i had too much $$$'s invested in expensive RTR decks. it was easiest to sell the dPv.
i've spoken to Tim a couple of times at CES for an hour or so. quite the fun experience.
prior to buying the dPv Technics i was close to Tim modding my ATR instead. i may still do it. Tim was going to visit me and do it in my room. that would likely have been worth it just for the entertainment value.
yes; theoretical dynamic range cutoffs are just that, theory<snip>
Mike
Theory is exactly what Tim de Paravicini uses to come with these wonderful products. I have great respect for him and his designs, however 24 bit of resolution is beyond electronics as simple as that, in the here and now it is not possible for any electronics in your house to resolve 144 dB, for Any electronics .. I can understand he was using hyperbole to make a point , I said that..
The terms , you use to describe your subjective impressions are rooted in science. There is a theory that can explain what you and I and others hear. These theories are very much well understood and used by the best designers. You name any good designer and you will likely find a person who has an excellent command of Theory , of Science.. Vladimir Lamm, Andy Payor, The Dar Tzeel Designer, The one from MBL , Keith Johnson, Hebert Papier , yes Tim de PAravicini, etc `. .. They use Science, They measure and try to fit their products to the theory ..nothing else... to come with their results .. Your Rockport is a marvel of Engineering ..err.. Science, and so are your Speakers ..It is because of Science, of many well ( and some not so well ) understood THEORIES that weu are enjoying our systems today..
Frantz
Mike's amps are actually hybrid units Frantz. Tubes on the input, SS for the output. I do agree with most of the points you are trying to make and really, I think we are all saying the same thing in different ways here. Designing great gear is a mixture of art and science-you need both to succeed.
Mark
Mike makes a good point here about dynamic range with regards to analog. With analog, you can still hear information that is far below the noise floor and with digital, there is no information below the noise floor. Doug Sax said a long time ago that the true dynamic range of analog is far beyond what the measured specs for analog say it is.
Mark
I don't understand what you are saying. What is a, "Noise floor?" The CD format has much more dynamic range, if you have the system to fully realize it.
With analog, you can still hear information that is far below the noise floor
The magnetic-particle flow past a playback head is equivalent to a 24-hit word, which is amazing resolution
I don't have to use tubes in my designs; I only do it for marketing reasons.
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |