Fidelity Research FR-64 vs. FR-54

Raul, My source for the notion that you use the MAT02 in your preamplifier is.... you.  You told me this in a personal email a few years ago.  In the same email, you in effect congratulated me for choosing it. Or perhaps I misunderstood you; perhaps you just meant that you liked the MAT02 in general and did not mean to imply that you used it in the preamp. It doesn't really matter to me. I did not choose it at random; I chose it based on direct personal advice from Allen Wright, who told me he would use it in his RTP3C, if cost and availability were no problem.  (Read his book "The Preamplifier Cookbook"; the MAT02 is now out of production, so far as I know.) If I am wrong in my thinking that you use the MAT02, thanks for the correction.  It seems you are reluctant to divulge just what transistor you do use in your unit, but isn't the term "discrete bipolar" an oxymoron?  The MAT02 and 03 are "bipolar" in that each contains two matched devices in one shell.  If you use discretes, one for each phase, then you don't use a bipolar.  Since the matching of the two halves in the MAT02 and like bipolar devices is fantastically tight, far tighter than one can get with matching tubes, I don't know what you gain by using discretes, except aggravation trying to match them.  But that's your business and your preference.

In mentioning the CTC Blowtorch, Vendetta, and MFA Luminescence (which I think is over-rated by modern standards), I was only trying to side with you, by suggesting that your Phonolinepreamp may eventually assume similar long term "status", and therefore enhanced value, among audio aficionados, who are nothing if not snobbish when it comes to expensive yet unobtainable gear.  I was not at all implying that your preamp is worse, or better, than any of the above.

And finally, neither you nor I nor anyone else can prove by winning some sort of verbal debate that one piece of equipment is better or worse than another.  Words don't suffice.  And, whether you like it or not, emotion plays a huge role in how one chooses one's components.

Nandric,
I'm not convinced "we all think in the same way". My professional life includes overhauling businesses and business processes. Believe me, one of the most powerful ways of removing "blockages" in businesses is by showing people how to think differently and empowering them.

Notwithstanding, I have no dispute with Raul other than I object to his claim that he has superior listening capability "AHEE" to everyone else on this forum. Raul cannot possibly know this for certain unless he has personally met everyone and experienced many listening sessions with every single person on this forum. Clearly that is not the case.

Similarly, Rauls claims that  his audio system has lower distortion than every other system on this forum cannot be proven. Now here I am able to critique this premise on the basis of shared experiences. I own or have listened to extensively many of the cartridges, arms and turntables that Raul has reviewed on this forum and from those reviews I have been able to discern quite clearly that his system is low resolution as far as analogue goes. Even if we assume he has the best phono stage in the world, there are failings to extract the best from his cartridges. In my view the issue probably lies in his choice of turntables and arms. In some instances it may be that his cartridges have been purchased second hand or are 30 years old and are not performing to the standard that they left the factory. Poor set up on his part is another possibility - I have already posted links to photos that show Raul set his Dynavector Nova 13 ( which by the way had been butchered with a replacement cantilever nothing like the original ) had been mounted with the headshell upside down. 
Link to Rauls butchered Dynavector Nova 13D compared to my own factory rebuilt specimen - look that the cantilevers in the photo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vveRGz-s4g
Link to Rauls Dyanvector Nova 13D mounted the wrong way up in its custom headhsell -  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-imxZHS8     
For someone who claims to be a more knowledgeable than everyone else on this forum this lack of understanding on how to set a cartridge up properly as evidenced in the photos above is enlightening.

Cheers. 
 

Dear @lewm : You only see my posts but don't really " read " it:


"""  urious that you named the MAT02 and totally " weird " that you think I’m used in the Essential.

That matched bipolar pairs along the MAT03 were used in the late 80’s by ML and even that are good devices are not what we were looking in our near " perfect " Essential design and that’s why we took a very hard very hard task to choose individual discrete bipolars and not only that but we choosed/tested diferent manufacturers where even that almost all were made it the same did not sounds exactly the same. After the choice the hardest task was to have matched pairs that we can’t do it by our self, this task was responsability of a México University. No, not all similar bipolars sounds the same. Yes, it's more easy to handkle and to design a circuit with MAT kind of devices than single discrete bipolars, remember that single discrete bipolars has not the very high gain in the MATs and that was an additional issue to solve in the Essential design. """

"""  we don’t use it any single chips in the circuit not even the discrete ones but the B&B buffer """


R.

Dear @dover :   """  you might want to look at eliminating the circuit boards...."""


it's obvious that you have no single idea of the very high level of our design where it's not posible to even think on that.

Did you know that almost any single electronic designs has high or/and low frequency oscilations? that the designers was not aware off. Did you took note of the Essential extremely wide frequency range?, I think only the Spéctral is down there. These and other critical design issues in our targets preclude simplistic kind of design with a few parts. Our design prevents almost everything a skilled designer can imagine, it's a bullet proof design. Not like your LOMC stage. Yes, even that our design is a non-State of the Art one it surpass yours by a wide margin, no doubt about. problem is that you can't understand this and that as always you are only trying to hit me but you know what: you just can't do it because my shield against it is your self ignorance levels that is different from my self ignorance one.

Btw, please read carefully this thread's information about the first Essential version:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/experience-with-raul-s-essential-3150?highlight=essential%2B3...

of those gentlemans only A.Porter and F.Crowder listened the 3160 ( third version. No one but me the fourth that only I owns. ). I was at their places twice.

This one is part of the gentlemans that heard the 2nd version:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/experience-with-raul-s-essential-3150/post?postid=326270#3262...

The best of all those was and is the whole experiences I had meeting extraordinary people/human beens, whom gave me their precious time and their family time too !!!  !!!!

Por that THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU, again.


No one try to hit me as you.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC not DISTORTIONS,
R.

Why know I that you once and again try to hit me with out success?, because you can't resist the temptation to post again  those you tube links that you made it expressely to do that years ago.

And you posted here in this thread even that many time ago, when you did it the first time, I explain ( trhough an Agon post. ) in precise way that that picture that shows the cartridge mounted in its dedicated headshell was only to use it in my ad for sale Agon listing. As a fact you took it from that ad.

I never mounted the 13D in my system with that headshell: never.  

You already knew this but your very high frustration levels with me provoque that non-mature attitude from your part. Pity.