Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Transistor Tweak

I have a McIntosh MC-2100 power amplifier I have been tweaking now since I purchased it new back in 1972. It has undergone some serious modifications including the replacement of all internal wiring and converting it to a true single-point ground scheme (that took a while) back in 1984. After performing that amount of major surgery, this amplifier sounded REALLY sweet and its purity has been locked firmly in my sonic memory ever since. As time passed, this sweet sound gradually faded and while it still sounded "good," it just lost that magic it had right after the wiring upgrade.

McIntosh MC-2100 Amplifier, Power Transistors on Heat Sinks

This generation of solid-state audio amplifiers used the TO-3 style power transistor sandwiched to the heat sinks in the usual manner: insulator between the transistor and heat sinks and screws holding the transistor to the socket.

Typical TO-3 Mounting Hardware Style 1 (screws not shown)

Typical TO-3 Mounting Hardware Style 2

Any well-respected high-end enthusiast will routinely clean off his/her interconnect cable and speaker cable connections with anti-oxidation cleaners; the contact resistance rises as these connections oxidize. That quality sound you once valued begins to fade in proportion to this corrosive effect. A quick cleaning treatment usually restores the music to its previous glory (tube pins and sockets suffer a similar fate).

Taking this contact cleaning thought another step further, I tried something not so drastic as to clean the contacts of these transistors (mine are soldered into the sockets), I merely loosened and re-tightened the mounting screws. You see, the screws are the electrical path for the outer case to the socket and the same oxidation can occur on these as they do on the interconnect cables and such other mechanical switch contacts. A simple twist of the screwdriver to loosen and another to re-tighten knocks off the oxidation enough to make a difference. Of course removing the screws one at a time and cleaning them as you would the interconnect cables is another (better) option but I was in a hurry just to see if my theory was correct.

I am elated to report that the glorious sound of the amp has again returned. The focus within the sound stage is as refined as it ever has been and the depth, width, and height are considerably improved beyond what I recalled it to be at its best. There is also an improvement in the subtle inner detailing of all instruments regardless of frequency and harmonic distribution.

Much like other simple mods I have suggested, this one is pretty simple to do and can change the way your system sounds with little effort. Make sure that the power cord to the amp is unplugged before beginning and wait an hour or so to allow the power supply to totally bleed down before popping off the cover. A screw driver, a wrench, a twist loose, and a twist tight is all that it takes.

The next time I schedule my amp for downtime (the main supply capacitors are starting to show signs of hum), I will indeed remove the screws and clean them properly. But for now, I cannot believe how just this simple fix has rejuvenated the sound of this amplifier. I would highly recommend having this don to your amp too.

Yours for higher fidelity,
Philip Rastocny

Skeptics are essential to keep us sane; skeptics do little to keep us inspired. Philip Rastocny, 7-16-2014

I do not use ads in this blog to help support my efforts. If you like what you are reading, please remember to reciprocate, My newest title is called Where, oh Where did the Star of Bethlehem Go? It’s an astronomer’s look at what this celestial object may have been, who the "Wise Men" were, and where they came from. Written in an investigative journalism style, it targets one star that has never been considered before and builds a solid case for its candidacy.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QFIAC3G

My other titles include:

Copyright © 2015 by Philip Rastocny. All rights reserved.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Pioneer Selling off their A/V Division

One of the first receivers I ever heard was a Pioneer way back in 1968 (a mere 44 years ago). A friend brought one back from Japan and set it up in his room; big, bold, and making a statement. Pioneer took audio (then stereo) and elevated it to the level of high fidelity cashing in on a quickly growing industry of stereo receivers. Previous business decisions were made in an attempt to turn around the profitability of this division (most notable the elimination of the Elite plasma TVs) and this one is the nail int he coffin.

But today, audio in all forms seems to be losing traction yielding to other technologies and Pioneer made an uncomfortable business decision, one that I am sure was not as easy to make as just a stroke of an accountant's pen. For example, record sales in general are down as is just about everything in the audio realm and many companies are feeling this same urge.

Business decisions are fine and necessary for a company to survive. Abandoning a sinking ship makes sense and with Pioneer's decision we see signs that soon there will be less and less quality mid-fi to lure people into the high-end. It's not that Pioneer's A/V sales were bad (over $1 billion last year), they just were declining (although their car audio business is booming, pun intended). Onkyo and Baring Private Equity now control the ship and I hope together they steer it to new heights.

What does this say about the mid-fi and high-end community in general? Are we a dying breed that will one day be relegated to antique stores, museums, and exotic collectors? Will your entire DSD collection be one day wiped by a simple press of the DELETE key? It makes me shudder to think.

RIP, Pioneer Audio and their high-end Elite line. Hopefully, the new owners will have the dedication to persist as other struggling audiophile companies today are. They all feel the pinch of change. It would be sad to see all of the great work Pioneer engineers created over their history lost forever falling prey to the dreaded but essential balance sheet. I believe Onkyo will be a good infusion to this new team of owners but time will tell.

This makes me recall a similar tales of companies gone by. R.T. Bozak, Crown International, Phase Linear, Fisher, Apogee and many, many others succumbed to a similar fate and I am sure more will fall in the future. But history demonstrates that others will rise up out of the ashes and carry on the torch - the Phoenix. Hey, maybe that would be a great name for the new products if they decide to drop the old Pioneer name!

I feel sad that my Pioneer PL-L1000A turntable has now made one more step to being officially called an antique -- but maybe that is a good thing! Just feeling a bit melancholy - even though the Denver Broncos at the moment are winning even though Wes Welker just took a cheap shot to his head.

Yours for higher fidelity,
Philip Rastocny

Skeptics are essential to keep us sane; skeptics do little to keep us inspired. Philip Rastocny, 7-16-2014

I do not use ads in this blog to help support my efforts. If you like what you are reading, please remember to reciprocate, My newest title is called Where, oh Where did the Star of Bethlehem Go? It’s an astronomer’s look at what this celestial object may have been, who the "Wise Men" were, and where they came from. Written in an investigative journalism style, it targets one star that has never been considered before and builds a solid case for its candidacy.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QFIAC3G

My other titles include:

Copyright © 2015 by Philip Rastocny. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Capacitors: All Things are NOT Created Equal - Part 1

When buying speakers or electronics, designers always begin a project with a budget and an idea of what can be done with that budget. In the lab behind the curtains, designs take on a very different look than what finally gets out the door. Bread-boarded amplifiers, cobbled-together cabinets, and recycled power supplies are common items jockeyed about in an engineer's inventory never seeing the light of day, at least from the consumer's eyes.

Part 1 - The Budget

An evolution occurs in an audio design where once a fundamental parts count is achieved, juggling the costs of these individual parts makes a difference in how the total comes in line with the budget. For example, the budget for a small 2-way speaker could look something like this (actual values vary but this is just an example to make a point):

  • 8" Woofer: 20%
  • 1" Tweeter: 10%
  • 2,500Hz BW-2 Crossover: 15%
  • Cabinet: 20%
  • Shipping box:: 5%
  • Misc. Materials: 5%
  • Labor: 25%
  • Raw Cost: 100%
  • Selling Price: 5 X Raw Cost

A similar budget is created for any piece of electronics gear with a far greater granularity but you get the general idea. What typically happens is that one of these items runs over budget so the designer must start juggling numbers to stay within the budget OR increase the budget (something the bean counters hate). So if the design must stay within budget, something has to give if the design is to make money. What typically is compromised first is the quality of the parts used in the design (what is on the bench rarely makes it into production).

If the designer can make a crossover network for less and stay within budget, this is one option OR use cheaper drivers OR a cheaper cabinet. Sourcing alternative drivers while possible is harder to do if a certain sound is to be maintained and the price difference for a typical 8" woofer can range from $20 to $80 (4x difference). Sourcing alternative cabinets is an option, especially if cabinet resonances can be disregarded and price differences are similar (2x-4x). 

But the cost of a quality capacitor or inductor can be hundreds of times higher than the least expensive form available. For example, a 2.2uF/100V Deuland Cast PIO is $443, a 2.2uF/600V Mundorf Supreme is $22.50 (about 20 times lower in cost), and a 2.2uF/100V non-polar electrolytic is $0.50 (886 times lower in cost). So the parts count can be identical but the cost for these parts can be adjusted so that the design stays within budget.

But what do you give up for the lower cost?  A good analogy to answer this question is to look at the MSRP of new automobiles. All of them will go 70mph but why does the TATA Nano have a MSRP of $3,056 (the cheapest car built) and the LAMBORGHINI Veneno have a MSRP of $4.5 million (BTW, the last one of the nine built sold for $7.6M)? Is the Veneno worth 1,472 times more than the Nano? Well that is what the high-end is all about, right? And if you believe that the Veneo is worth it, then you are truly a hopelessly hooked audiophile like me.



The Lamborghini Veneno

So to build a Nano, one uses the lowest cost parts possible (here the non-polar electrolytic capacitors) and does not include much in the way of an audio system and for the Veneo cost is truly not an issue (here the Deuland Cast PIO capacitors). BTW, the Veneno comes with a hand-tuned custom-built Monster(TM) audio system and the Nano doesn't. So it is with audio design and the allocation of its budget that determines what is and is not possible. (Does your automobile go from 0-60 in 2.9 seconds? The Veneo does and the Nano doesn't!)


 


The Tata Nano

Matching the links in the audio chain becomes as important as the budget to which this speaker is assigned. Again as an analogy, would you suspect to find the Monster audio system of the Veneo in the Nano? No. And why not? I am sure that this question need not be answered.

The question becomes one of applying the right money to the right design to fit into the right system. One would not appreciate the $400 Deuland capacitor in a $100 boom box but even in this modest system one would appreciate a minor capacitor upgrade from a $0.50 non-polar electrolytic to something a little more esoteric at just twice the price.

So now that you understand a little about budgets and how things fit into the overall audio chain, in Part 2 we will look at why it costs what it does to make a good sounding capacitor and what some of the major design considerations are.

Related articles:
The Vishay 1837 Review and Modification
Bypass Capacitors
Mundorf Supreme Capacitor Review - Part 1
Mundorf Supreme Capacitor Review - Part 2
Capacitors: All Things are NOT Created Equal - Part 0
Capacitors: All Things are NOT Created Equal - Part 1
Capacitors: All Things are NOT Created Equal - Part 2
Capacitors: All Things are NOT Created Equal - Part 3

Yours for higher fidelity,
Philip Rastocny

Skeptics are essential to keep us sane; skeptics do little to keep us inspired. Philip Rastocny, 7-16-2014

I do not use ads in this blog to help support my efforts. If you like what you are reading, please remember to reciprocate, My newest title is called Where, oh Where did the Star of Bethlehem Go? It’s an astronomer’s look at what this celestial object may have been, who the "Wise Men" were, and where they came from. Written in an investigative journalism style, it targets one star that has never been considered before and builds a solid case for its candidacy.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QFIAC3G

My other titles include:

Copyright © 2015 by Philip Rastocny. All rights reserved.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Capacitors: All Things are NOT Created Equal - Part 0

I have been struggling with how to go about this series since so much has already been written on the subject. I don't want to repeat what so many have contributed but I still find myself looking for someone to say it the way I would explain it with no results. So here it goes: a brief high-level explanation of the most commonly-used component in audio gear next to the transistor: the CAPACITOR.

Part 0 – Introduction


This series helps to demystify the claims manufacturer’s make about their extreme and justify the cost of their pricey capacitors. This series is a bit technical, focusing on more than just aesthetics, but the summary to this series will provide an insight to everyone explaining what works well and why.


It is true that capacitors sound “different” and there have been many subjective studies regarding this topic. Audiophiles and engineers argue back and forth about specifications and observed results with both sides quoting their own sets of tests confirming or disproving their particular position. (This is sort of like saying: I love standards because there are so many from which to choose.

But this series takes a slightly different approach where I believe that the assertions from subjective observations are true AND that the skepticism from engineers is also deserved.  Is this an oxymoron? Nope! Read on and see why.

When someone claims they observe something, in order for an engineer to accept that claim it must be reproducible and repeatable. The standard way in which such assertions is confirmed is through double-blind testing. But there is something that happens in the behavior of the results of a double-blind test when the results are repeated many, many times: the engineer assumes that the results will ALWAYS be the same as that of these undisputed samples. Is this true OR is the sample size just too small OR is the design of the double-blind test itself in some way flawed OR are the participants? Good questions and this reminds me of the Kodak-Nikon test.

Let me summarize this test briefly for those of you unfamiliar with it. A while back Kodak sponsored a test to see if someone could tell the difference between various 35mm cameras taking pictures using their film. The test was to see if someone could pick out the ones taken with a Nikon camera and lens. What sounded like a slam dunk readily revealing that the subjective evaluations of photographs is in itself flawed because of the biases of the observers turned up one interesting twist. While almost all of the major photo critics of the time failed the test as anticipated, one picked out the Nikon photograph 100% of the time. That's right, zero errors.

What does this mean regarding such tests? Even tests to prove people are biased can themselves be biased if the sample is too small. Just imagine what conclusions would have been reached if this one person had not succeeded? Moral: Tests must be constructed very carefully, moreso than most are.

This series takes a different slant: it is an objective study that uses these subjective preferences as a starting point, and focuses on how the design of a capacitor preferred by these subjective ratings may gain a sonic edge over another. This approach will hopefully point you to a manufacturing process (aka a manufacturer’s series or material composition or whatever) that will give you the sound you want, or at least close to it, without having to go through the evaluation process yourself. It will also demystify how a capacitor is made and the planning involved in making a really good one (as opposed to a quick-and-dirty one).


Before I begin, I wish to provide some links to the works of others in this field acknowledging their superb efforts in analyzing the sound various capacitors possesses and the consistent way in which they have subjectively described the sound between them. It is a massive undertaking to describe the sonic attributes of anything, much less take the time to understand the audible effects of swapping a single capacitor in an electronic circuit. However, some folks have done a superb job in such an effort. Unfortunately by the definition of the word “subjective” this does not mean you can correlate one person’s views or impressions with another. Although they both may arrive at the same conclusion that Brand X sounds better than Brand Y, the reasons for saying so will probably differ.


In my opinion, the best audio-grade signal-path capacitor review is by the Netherlands’ based Humble Homemade HiFi analyzing an amazing diversity of products and providing a uniform – although subjective – rating system.  The second purely subjective multi-part article was written by Jon L. of Enjoy the Music while less thorough brings up very valid points. The great Joseph Levey also ventured into the fray with his Great Capacitor Shootout recommending specific brands over others.


Another work of important note is that of Martin Collums who way back in 1985 did what it is that I am attempting to do now. He risked his reputation back then from the professional audio community (few people desire being labeled a heretic by their peers) daring to claim that capacitors sounded different. History tells us now that Martin was indeed not a heretic but a man of science way ahead of his time attempting to correlate subjective impressions with objective measurements. He believed similarly to my own philosophy: what someone hears, we should be able to measure. The trick is to find what or how to consistently measure the observation, something that can prove to be far more complicated, elusive, and uncommon.


In his 1985 conclusions, Collums identified the following measurements and values associated with a quality capacitor, the last two of which are unfortunately non-standard specifications:

  • Dielectric Absorption of less than 0.1% (the property of retaining an electrical charge)
  •  Higher voltage than the designed circuit minimum (e.g., use 200V rating or higher in a 50V circuit)
  •  Low Equivalent Series Resistance (the losses incurred by adding the capacitor to the signal path)
  •  Low inductance (the electrical property that restricts transient response and high-frequency extension)
  •  Low internal leakage (self-discharge rate NOT the same as the ESR)
  •  Low piezo (mechanical-resonance and microphonic) effects
  •  Low delay error (ability to instantaneously track an abrupt change or impulse)

As you can see, there is a lot that must be examined to grasp the characteristic behavior of the lowly capacitor. For you to understand what I will explain, you must learn a few fundamental things about electronics (don’t worry, I’ll keep this to a minimum and make it as painless as possible). For those of you allergic to math, no worries here either. And for all of you, if you read this faithfully, your knowledge of how capacitors work will be greatly enhanced far beyond Wikipedia or other similar online helpful aids. 


So in Part 1, I will go over the generic fundamentals of a capacitor – any capacitor. In other parts of this series I will describe how engineers have tweaked these basic concepts to give the high-end community a superior product. So hang on…you are in for the ride of your life. Above all, remember to listen with your ears, not your eyes.

Related articles:
The Vishay 1837 Review and Modification
Bypass Capacitors
Mundorf Supreme Capacitor Review - Part 1
Mundorf Supreme Capacitor Review - Part 2
Capacitors: All Things are NOT Created Equal - Part 0
Capacitors: All Things are NOT Created Equal - Part 1
Capacitors: All Things are NOT Created Equal - Part 2
Capacitors: All Things are NOT Created Equal - Part 3

Yours for higher fidelity,
Philip Rastocny

Skeptics are essential to keep us sane; skeptics do little to keep us inspired. Philip Rastocny, 7-16-2014

I do not use ads in this blog to help support my efforts. If you like what you are reading, please remember to reciprocate, My newest title is called Where, oh Where did the Star of Bethlehem Go? It’s an astronomer’s look at what this celestial object may have been, who the "Wise Men" were, and where they came from. Written in an investigative journalism style, it targets one star that has never been considered before and builds a solid case for its candidacy.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QFIAC3G

My other titles include:

Copyright © 2015 by Philip Rastocny. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Frugal and Effective Sound Damping in Cars

I have a new ride, a 2014 Sportwagon. I love the car but absolutely hate the road noise.

I measured my old Dodge Journey interior noise at 78dB at 70mph, a reasonable level. I measured the SW at 89dB on this same road (yikes!). So I decided to start adding sound proofing/damping to my ride and wanted to share the results.

First, from behind the front seats to the tailgate is basically not damped so start by taking out the rear seat and seat belts (not hard, just requires a triple-square bit tool I purchased at Advance Auto Parts for about $13US). Next, yank out the carpet and side panels (save the clips) to expose the rear wheel wells.

I ordered two 4'x8' sheets of 1/4" high-quality closed-cell neoprene foam, similar to the stuff VW uses in the engine compartment and front fender wells. I covered as much of the interior as possible including the spare tire well by taping it in place with aluminum foil HVAC tape. This wasn't as hard as it sounds since the foam cuts easily with a standard carpet knife. I did not glue this down (contact adhesive is usually employed for this application) but the results were excellent with just the foil tape.

I made certain that the fender wells were covered as close to 100% as possible and the rest about 90-95%. The spare tire area was easy to cover 100% and the 1/4" foam added no issues to recovering the carpet or interior panels in exactly the same location.

Road noise now measures the same 78dB and I am a happy camper. The remaining noise appears to be coming from the door panels and the hood and once I upgrade the speakers I will address these issues.

I chose this particular foam since it is used to make wet suits for scuba divers and was very water repellant. I anticipated that one day water would find its way to the interior (windows left rolled down, etc.) and wanted to use something reasonably safe but yet highly effective. This material seemed to do both while still being a frugal choice.

I can now easily converse with the passenger at highway speeds without having to raise my voice to reach above the annoying road noise. It makes for a far more pleasant driving experience and the audio system will sound better since you can hear more dynamics in the music.

I am looking at a universal hood pad too but have yet to take the plunge.

One last suggestion is a spray-on/paint-on/roll-on product called Noxudol. You must be really careful with this one since any overspray could cause serious damage to your shiny exterior paint. Here is an impressive demo of its sound-damping effectiveness.


Anyway, I thought that this would help those of you who prefer a quieter ride without having to take out a second mortgage on your home. Enjoy!

Yours for higher fidelity,
Philip Rastocny

I do not use ads in this blog to help support my efforts. If you like what you are reading, please remember to reciprocate, My newest title is called Where, oh Where did the Star of Bethlehem Go? It’s an astronomer’s look at what this celestial object may have been, who the "Wise Men" were, and where they came from. Written in an investigative journalism style, it targets one star that has never been considered before and builds a solid case for its candidacy.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QFIAC3G

My other titles include:

Copyright © 2015 by Philip Rastocny. All rights reserved.

Sunday, July 6, 2014

The Lost Era

I have been around the audiophile block a few times following its meager beginnings in the era of the monophony to its stellar accomplishments in stereophony. During this time (roughly from 1955 to 1985) I have observed many changes - creative comings and fads fading - and even proven technologies fade like dying echoes in a concert hall. Many of these proven technologies die because of the NIH ego of electrical engineers (Not Invented Here). It is sad since much about the current high end is a rediscovery of old ideas.

For example, who of you can recall the home 1/2" video tape recorder wars of the early 1980s? For those of you who cannot, it was a time when video recording standards had two camps: one with superior video quality (Sony's BETA) and one with longer recording time (JVC's VHS). Guess which won? The one with longer recording time. Sales of the lower-quality 2/4-hour tapes somewhere were on the order of 20:1 and BETA lost the battle; consumers decided who would win with their dollars.

A huge lesson was learned in the industry that people wanted convenience and not quality so - badda boom, badda bing - along came the digital compact disk. Insisting on a size (a diameter of 120mm) the CD physical size was born (whatever CDs would be, they must also be playable in a single-DIN slot in an automobile). And assuring at least an hour of playing time, the math was pretty simple to determine sampling rate and word size given these requirements. Leveraging off of this VHS-BETA lesson seemed to be an assured success - give the public what it wants and compromise higher audio quality - and so it was.

There was no reason to use a 16-bit word or a 44.1kHz sampling rate other than that was the result of how much digital data space was available (640Mb). (See http://makbit.com/articles/cd-overview.pdf to understand the complete specification). A larger word size and a higher sampling rate could have been used, but then the CDs playing time would be shorter AND with the lesson of the video tape wars was still bouncing around in the heads at Sony, no one wanted to make this mistake again.

So the digital age settled on this 44.1kHz/16-bit standard and in 1982 the Red Book era was born. Mastering studios all around the world eagerly jumped on this new standard and soon analog productions fell by the wayside. Skyrocketing sales despite high prices (albums were about $5 and CDs about $15) resulted and the recording industry underwent a transition that locked us into the Red Book format for decades to come.

But an interesting thing happened along the way: people started listening to the music and hearing the faults in the playback approach to the Red Book standard. A few artists insisted on simultaneously recording analog and digital versions to assure that - in the future when a new standard arose - their efforts would not be "lost." At the time, no one could foretell if any improvement could be made to playback this format simply because it was brand new. But I digress since playback improvement is not the point of this entry.

Those who did not do this were literally locked into a format that had zero hopes of ever  appreciating the full sonic benefits and nuances of a performance. Those who did this were shunned and considered radicals being put down by the vast majority of the engineers and artists as silly or weirdos. These radicals were indeed the saviors of the high-end.

But those who did not indeed were proved to be wrong. Today, there is a resurgence in analog recording and playback and many artists demand much higher recording rates than the Red Book standard. Someone once asked me a related question: What is an infinite sampling rate and word size called? ANALOG!

On the surface, this question is very telling of the issue since any digital sample is by definition an approximation limited by its word size and sampling frequency. While this approximation is closer to the original with higher-resolution recordings and better Analog-to-Digital Converters (ADCs), they are still approximations and still prone to errors. Even digital clock jitter and similar artifacts are reportedly measurable and audible in both the recording and playback equipment.

As the last of the analog recordings were abandoned, a day came that no one was recording with analog gear. Digital mixing consoles, digital signal processors, digital recorders, and the like took over the industry and before long, the only way you could get an analog recording is to do one yourself. I know that people will argue  measurable errors do not translate into audible errors and from the objective position they are correct. But those who listen subjectively disagree even though these same people cannot consistently tell which is which in a double-blind test. While it is easy to dismiss such subjective claims as unfounded, the numbers of those forming these subjective complaints are growing.

Regardless of who is right, one fact remains: ever since the last analog recordings were abandoned, all of the performances recorded in the Red Book format can never sound better than they currently do. While playback improvements can make the Red Book recordings sound better, they cannot by definition be less error prone than a digital recording of higher resolution. One day in the near future, audio will undergo the same transition that HD video is now experiencing with UHD (1k to 4k). This means that an entire era of recordings will always be locked (lost) in this limited format and one day the audio industry will look back at this era as one of tedious but necessary growing pains. Are those who pooh-pooh subjective listeners wrong? Yes, because one day in the future the standard will change.

So what can be done? If the current digital era will one day be viewed as archaic and lost, what can be done to plan for this inevitable obsolescence? Simple: record in as high of a resolution possible knowing that even it will one day be viewed as inadequate.

The high-end is constantly evolving, undergoing improvement, and experiencing change. But that does not mean we should rest on our laurels in any given standard or achievement. We should insist on Constant and Never-ending Improvement to push the state-of-the-art forward, to make it better, to make it more realistic. After all, isn't that what the high-end is all about? I would rather have someone look back and say "They did their absolute best" rather than have them say "They did what made sense at the time."

Yours for higher fidelity,
Philip Rastocny

I do not use ads in this blog to help support my efforts. If you like what you are reading, please remember to reciprocate, My newest title is called Where, oh Where did the Star of Bethlehem Go? It’s an astronomer’s look at what this celestial object may have been, who the "Wise Men" were, and where they came from. Written in an investigative journalism style, it targets one star that has never been considered before and builds a solid case for its candidacy.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00QFIAC3G

My other titles include:

Copyright © 2015 by Philip Rastocny. All rights reserved.