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

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