B&W 685 s2 vs Monitor Audio 100
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 29 Registered: Apr-10 | Hi Guys, does anyone have experience with either B&W 685 s2 or MA 100. I would like to buy a pair of one of them but unfortunately i dont have the chance to hear them. My current gear is Marantz pm7003 as main amp and Marantz NA8005 as source. The B&Ws will cost me around 700 euro while MAs around 900. Im somehow fan of the MAs (8 inch driver) but, as they are rear ported i'm affraid that the room will only allow 20cm distance from the wall. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18545 Registered: May-04 | . The MA's are an easier load on your amplifier. If you want to play loud, the MA's are far less likely to shut down the amp. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 30 Registered: Apr-10 | Hi Jan, I really appreciate your help/advice. I'm curious why do you think the MA's would be an easier load for my amp. Also, if i go with the MA's don't you think the distance from the wall is so tight and as long as they are rear ported the sound will be distorted. I've attached a picture of the room so you can get more sense.   |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18546 Registered: May-04 | . B&W has a tendency to design speakers with a difficult low impedance point and a high phase angle; https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-683-s2-loudspeaker-measuremen ts On average, B&W speakers are among the most difficult loads in a price range which would likely pair them with amplifiers not designed to handle such loads. While I cannot find measurements on the MA system, traditionally, they have been designing systems which are far more in line with the amplifiers they are asked to pair with. Your room is not that difficult if you are willing to make the system work. Ports can be plugged with fiberfill (or another acoustically similar semi-transparent material - an old sock is a way to begin) if need be to create an "aperiodic" loading to the woofer. https://www.stereophile.com/content/dynaco-25-loudspeaker You could place some absorbent material behind the speakers. Or, you could simply find the location for the best performance from the speakers or place the speaker stands on some glides and move the speakers in and out of position when you want to do serious listening. As is, the distance from the rear wall to the speaker's port isn't so short that you can predict problems just because the speaker cabinet is rear ported. As they say, suck it and see what comes out. If this were the room I had to work with, I'd be more concerned with front and side wall reflections than rear wall reflections. But solving that issue to any degree in this room, with nothing but hard surfaces for pressure waves to bounce around in, would require either more work or a totally different thinking in your speaker choice. As is, if these are your choices, go with the MA's. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 31 Registered: Apr-10 | Thank you very much. It has always been a pleasure to take an advice from you . I will definitely go with the MA's. Will let you know once they will arrive in my home. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 32 Registered: Apr-10 | Also, i would like to know what other choices of speakers will you consider if you were in the same position. The reason i'm looking for an upgrade is the following: -Lack of depth in the bass -The bass is too long and often boomy -No clear difference between Mids and highs -Sometimes i feel the sound is flat and is lacking richness -The mids are in shadow of the boomy bass -Burned the tweeters several times till i lerned the lesson What do i expect from the new speakers is: -Clear and balanced throughout the frequency range -Fast and responsive bass I mostly listen to blues and fusion jazz. Regarding the room, as the bass is not enough from the speakers itself i often add active woofer which is placed between the two sofas right under the air conditioer in the angle. What i experience strange is, if i sit on the right sofa under the picture i feel pain in the chest and the bass is too overwhelming while if i sit on the sofa which is straight from the TV and speakers i feel the vibrations of the bass but its not riching my ears its going somewhere in the wrong direction. Do you think can i improve that in any way? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18547 Registered: May-04 | . Good luck. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 33 Registered: Apr-10 | Thanks! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18548 Registered: May-04 | . Sorry, posts crossed. I don't remember your current system. Tell me what you use. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 34 Registered: Apr-10 | Source: Marantz NA8005 Amp: Marantz PM7003 (Integrated) Speakers: Infinity primus 250 Active subwoofer: Pioneer S W80-S (only using part time, i would like to get rid of him in future) Whole music is stored digital in lossless format (FLAC, ALAC, WAV, DSD ..) |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18549 Registered: May-04 | . First, I have to say, your list of what's wrong and what you want are all about sound. Not sound in general but sound in terms of frequency response. You have no musical priorities. Music is not frequency response. I have made the joke many times on this forum about the most common question I asked clients and the most common response I received. Of course, other than budget, the most important question is, "What do you want?" To that question the most common response was, "I want tight bass, clear mids and clean highs." To which, the answer was, "You're in a shop where not a speaker we sell is mediocre. Close your eyes and point to a speaker and it will give you what you just described." Of course, there was more to it than just that answer because everyone has different ideas of what tight bass, clear mids and clean highs amount to. And every room is going to impose its thumbprint on the perception of sound at the listening position. The room is so important to perception that it's safe to say 90% of what you think of the sound quality is due to the room. Change the room and you change the sound, often dramatically so. Simply change the location of the speaker to another wall and you will have a different system. However, that advice is most true for frequency response and frequency balance. If music is only frequency balance to you, I have to say, you are missing most of what music is about. Just changing speakers will change the frequency balance but it may not do a thing to improve the perception of live music occupying the space. Your room is a bit of a mess. Modern apartment construction (I assume) that is essentially a box and not a single surface that isn't hard and reflective. Are there any soft surfaces in this room? My first advice, if you wish to proceed, is that you think more about music and how live music is perceived. IMO, if you aim for the music, the rest will follow. You don't have to be a musician to understand how you listen to music but knowing a bit about how music is performed can help. Reading equipment reviews won't do a thing for you when it comes to finding the music. Do you attend live performances of music? Unfortunately, it is all but impossible today to hear live music that is not played through amplification and speakers. I can't actually think of any fusion jazz I've heard that wasn't played through electronics. "Blues" covers far too much ground to say what you might hear but, when I go out to hear music, even the solo guitar players covering Son House songs are playing through amplifiers even if they are only playing acoustic guitars. That means, 99% of the time, when you hear live music, most often you are hearing the sound of someone else's idea of decent amplification/speakers AND the venue's room sound added on top of that. Most clubs and restaurants are simply squeezing the performers into a corner and providing the basics of a sound system. Quality of sound is seldom a real concern for the venue owners. Because the most common response to, "What do you want?", is, "Tight bass, clear mids and clean highs.", electronics and speakers chosen for a venue do not always do justice to the musical qualities of the performance. That makes any recommendation I make more difficult and also makes your search for "what is music?" possibly much more difficult that just going out this weekend to a local club. However, since whatever speaker you put in your room will sound like your room, the choices come down to what you are willing to do to get to a point where your system conveys a sense of music being performed in front of you. I would tell you - just as I have told countless clients - the best advice I can give you is to not buy anything now. Just changing speakers is not the real answer to what you can get from a high quality music system. Your room is fighting you and until you do more about the room, new speakers are just throwing money at a problem without having a real world plan for a better system. If you want me to advise you, you will have to do two things. First, you need to understand what music is to you. Then we can work on how to achieve that same perception in your room. Next, you will have to recognize your room as your most significant problem. That means spending money on the room before the gear and doing some set up that will give you better results from the system you have in your room. Do you want to proceed? . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 35 Registered: Apr-10 | Well, i must say i cannot agree with everything you say although i will agree with most of it. Firstly, I do know what music is and why am i listening. I do not listen to Stevie ray Vaughan just to hear the "tight bass from his drummer pedal" or his clear mids from his guitar. I really have love and passion for music and "good sound in terms of frequency response" really helps me to increase my pleasure during listening sessions and enhance my dopamine. I can agree, the system should conveys a sense of music being performed in front of you but i cannot agree that you can achieve that with mobile phone speakers. Live performance (at least for me) is the most enjoying feeling presented by the most valuable and in the same time cheapest music system that you can listen to. But, you can't always pay 10 bucks to listen to Eric Clapton especially if you don't live in USA. That is why we invest in home audio. On the other note, i totally agree with you that i should give up the idea of investing into new speakers and instead of that i should invest in my room. To be honest, i don't know if that would be possible as i live with my wife. If huge changes are expected in terms of relocating things, digging etc than i don't like to waste your time and i would say i'm not ready for that. But as you've always been my guide since stereophile, i would be the happiest person to hear your opinions on how to improve the room. Many Thanks! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18550 Registered: May-04 | . Do this for me; tell me what you hear - what do you "perceive" - when you listen to live music. Then tell me what your present system does that recalls that perception. Tell me what your system does not do well in the same respect. Do you ever listen to un-amplified music? How is the system situated within the room? What does the equipment sit on? What do the speakers sit on? Stands? What kind? Can they be "spiked" to the floor? Is the location of the speakers within this room fixed? Can you re-arrange furniture? Or, does the TV placement dictate where the speakers go and where you sit to listen? Have you ever performed a proper speaker "set up" in this room? Or, just placed the speakers where they fit and your wife didn't object? Have you done a crawl test for the location of the "subwoofer"? (The Pioneer isn't really a subwoofer. It's the type of product that we used to call a "superwoofer" [still a totally ridiculous description of what the box can accomplish], meaning all it's meant to do is fill in some of the missing bass from the small speakers that would have come with, say, a mini system. Your Infinity's probably have deeper bass extension and better bass quality.) Where do you locate the Pioneer within the room? Why did you buy the Infinity's? . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 36 Registered: Apr-10 | While listening to live music i feel the music in my bones, it's really hard to describe. The whole atmosphere and energy is somehow different. I like the the loudness, i like the sound of the snare drum and cymbals, the warmth of the Gibson .. etc. At home, the sound is not that rich, the guitar is in the background, vocals also, the bass is not clear and deep etc. Also what i miss at home is when listening at lower volumes the music is not the same as listening at higher levels. For example i need to turn the volume up in order to better hear the bass or the vocal. Do you ever listen to un-amplified music? -If unplugged is the same as un-amplified than yes The speakers and the woofer sits on parquet and they don't use any kind of spikes. The location of the speakers is not fixed but as you see i don't have many choices. The TV placement doesn't dictate where the speakers should be placed but i would prefer to stay there if possible as its the optimal place from aesthetic purposes. Re-arranging the furniture ... hm i really don't see any other options, go on if you had one. In terms of proper speaker setup i've been only experimenting with the distance from the wall and the angle from the hearing position. Nothing more. Regarding the pioneer "subwoofer", its placed between the right sofa and balcony wall. As i stated previously i want to get rid of it asap. Why did i buy the infinitys? Interesting question, at the local dealer it was the best option you can get under 250$. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18551 Registered: May-04 | . "Do you ever listen to un-amplified music? -If unplugged is the same as un-amplified than yes" Nope, or at least probably not, I mean do you go out to any venue or any location where you can hear acoustic music? Where un-amplified instruments and voices are being used without the sound being projected through mics, pick ups, electronics and loudspeakers. Do you ever go to the symphony or to a "classical" music performance? In other words, do you have a sense of what an acoustic guitar or a violin would sound like - its "timbre" - if it is not running through an electronics system? The "warmth of a Gibson" is useful if you also know the bite of a Stratocaster and can differentiate between the two. That's somewhat difficult because, unless you know a lot about the electric guitar being used, you probably don't really know the sound of the pick ups in the guitar or the individual pick ups being used. A Les Paul gives the player a selection between either of two pu's or a combination of both; .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNfdIjVbzD4 Where the pick strikes the strings changes the sound - but not the overall timbre - of the LP. A Stratocaster gives the player a five way switch; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWu6sWr0HA Both guitars have on board tone controls which affect the output of the pu's. Then the guitar must be amplified which gets into all the variables of which electronics are being used; pedals, pre amps/amps, loudspeakers, etc and their placement within the venue. For instance, do you think you know the sound characteristics of each of these speaker systems you might find in a large music venue? https://www.google.com/search?q=horn+loaded+loudspeaker+stack+used+in+live+perfo rmances&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=6GAV_luRqSgOJM%25 3A%252Cm6FGfP8Ubs9NBM%252C_&usg=AFrqEzeRgad_Qk-jmym_IskpwQqaFqSloQ&sa=X&ved=2ahU KEwjIveqE5MTdAhUOca0KHTsZD20Q9QEwDXoECAEQBA#imgrc=6GAV_luRqSgOJM: Even if you do, most recordings today are not made by placing a microphone in front of an amplifier/loudspeaker. That's how Clapton and The Beatles would have recorded their performances in the '60's. But not how Elvis would have been recorded in Sun Studios in the '50's. And that isn't how it's done today. The electric guitar/piano/bass, etc is now plugged directly into the mixing board via a "DI box". So, even if you think you know the sound of the electric guitar in a live situation, you will not be hearing that sound on a recording. If you tried to compare what you think of as a Les Paul live to a LP recorded, you would not have an accurate basis for comparison. We can throw in the fact the sound of the LP played through the touring system will change every night with the sound of the house system added to the touring system and the acoustics of the venue. Then consider there is hardly a live album produced today that has all the musicians playing together. Even if they did, the venue is a sound stage, not a live music venue. Are you getting the idea that judging certain values of a sound system can be very challenging when the instruments are amplified? When was the last time you heard an un-amplified vocalist at a live concert? There's not a lot of need to go into how modern recordings are made but know that the recording is mixed and mastered by several different people all with their own ideas of how things sound. Each step from the actual recording to the final product is the creation of one person's idea of how a LP sounds when heard over the specific electronics and speakers used by that person during that phase of the post production chain. Each person who touches the mix is likely to use a different system for monitoring. For that reason J. Gordon Holt stated at the founding of Stereophile that only classical or purely acoustic music played in a real world music venue was useful for judging the qualities of a high end audio system. That view held for many years even as the magazine grew in the number of reviewers and the tastes of the reviewers. However, when I would ask my clients if they ever attended a symphony performance, the most typical answer was they did not. They listened mostly to rock and when I asked them what their reference for good sound was, their likely answer was the car system they were driving around listening to. OK, I can't make your home system sound like your car system and I wouldn't want to because car systems - even today's car systems - suck when it comes to creating music being performed in front of you. So I had to come up with a few different ways to explain what my clients might consider when buying a better system. Likewise, Stereophile eventually had to admit most of the readers didn't have a clue what a bassoon sounded like in a real world music venue. Do some reading and then tell me what you got from these articles. https://wmich.edu/mus-gened/mus170/170notes/Ch1-elements.pdf https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+loudness+compensation+in+audio+equipment &rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&oq=what+is+loudness+compensation+in+audio+equipment&aq s=chrome..69i57.19130j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18552 Registered: May-04 | . "I can agree, the system should conveys a sense of music being performed in front of you but i cannot agree that you can achieve that with mobile phone speakers." I would agree with that because mobile phones are not designed with music values in mind. However, I will say one very enjoyable system I recently listened through was using $39 @ pair speakers. You can buy a pretty musical amplifier for under $50 and the gold standard of recordings remains the 1950's Mercury Living Presence recordings; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&ei=DiGhW4SiJoqotQW2hq64DQ &q=best+mercury+living+presence+recordings&oq=mercury+living+presence&gs_l=psy-a b.1.3.0i71l8.0.0..45301...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.3d94xzH4D9A ... and the similar RCA Living Stereo recordings; https://www.google.com/search?q=RCA+Living+Stereo+recordings&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754 US756&oq=RCA+Living+Stereo+recordings&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Both series of recordings were produced in the 1950's and early '60's. Many of the Mercury recordings were originally released in mono. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 37 Registered: Apr-10 | I think we got a bit off topic here. We can infinitely arguing of what music is and how do we perceive it. For me the music is art, and no art have any limits or strongly defined rules. I'm infinitely grateful for your help and all your effort. Hope so one day I'll make significant improvements to my room acoustics and my home audio setup and write you back . Good luck and thanks again. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3491 Registered: Oct-07 | Hristijan, IF you wish to experiment with room setup and I'd suggest potetially a LOT of leverage doing so, but without actually moving anything around, you can get a drawing program called 'Google Sketchup'. I think you can still get a free version without all the bells and whistles. Start with a simple floor plan of your room. Than begin to add furnishings, windows and doors. Here is a crude example, from when I rearranged (gutted and started OVER) my den. The short diagonal is the door and measures about 50" with a maybe 32" aperture. I noodled around with this for quite a while and with the help of the IKEA catalogue, was able to maximize my new bookshelves and even include a dedicated CD/DVD/BR shelf and clear some mess out of another room! Bonus! I was able to add shelves and make the whole thing '3-D' which makes visualization easier. PM me and I'll send the image. The postage stamp limits imposed by this site are nerve-wracking. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3492 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan is IN GENERAL right about B&W speakers. However, the 600 series is designed and intended for a slightly different cliental than the 800 series which is fairly $$$. The 600 speakers are generally a little easier on amps than the upline, 800 series which CAN be awful, depending on model. While amplifiers are generally (few exceptions) measured 'in the lab' using a pure resistive load, speakers are anything BUT. As it turns out, 2 amps which measure nearly identically into a resistor may measure very differently into a 'real speaker'. Looking @ Google, many proposed dummy loads include real speaker type elements but NO agreement or standards exist. One company manufactured a piece of test equipment called the 'Power Cube' which interfaced with conventional test equipment to paint a very comprehensive picture of an amps Electrical Performance. Not to be confused with hearing satisfaction. Almost NO industry acceptance. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18553 Registered: May-04 | . "The 600 speakers are generally a little easier on amps than the upline, 800 series which CAN be awful, depending on model." "A little easier" is not easy. Particularly if your reference point is a notoriously difficult to drive loudspeaker. These aren't subjective numbers, they are objective test measurements. 3 is lower than 8. 44 degrees is higher than 22 degrees. I am simply unaware of any MA speaker system which has been reviewed and measured and has been found to be as (historically) difficult to drive as the overall B&W line. Making a correction when your reputation is bad is not really a solution. B&W believes in designing their speakers a certain way. Unless MA has made a dramatic shift in thinking over the last few years, they have always believed in designing a loudspeaker that would not tax the amplifier - and thus limit SPL and risk damage to the system - in the same way to B&W is likely to do. The op has dropped out for his own reasons but he has said he's burned out tweeters. That says to me he doesn't prefer to listen at moderate SPL's nor is he always aware of what the system is actually doing. Possibly, he has changed his listening habits but, now that he is no longer in the discussion, we're addressing someone who may find this thread a year from now. Unless there is a compelling reason to choose the B&W, they are IMO best left to only those systems which include an amplifier well known to handle low impedance/high phase angle loads. Beyond that, why buy a speaker that does that much to the signal when you have a choice to buy a speaker which is very kind to both the signal and the amplifier? . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 38 Registered: Apr-10 | Guys thanks for your replays. @Jan I didn't leave the conversations i just said that we got a bit off-topic there. However, i'm still working on how to improve the listening experience in my room. I was told by a friend to start with the wall which is behind the listening position as it reflects all the sound waves and probably annulates the bass in the middle of the room (the place where i sit). I think i'll start experimenting with some absorbents on the rear wall and some bass traps on the corners. Also window drapers are obviously mandatory. On the other hand, i really appreciate the advice given on the B&W and MA speakers. Saying that B&W speakers are not kind to any amplifier why would anyone buy them? Out of curiosity i would like to know which amplifiers are known to handle well B&W speakers? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18554 Registered: May-04 | . IMO we were exactly on topic. As I see your approach to listening, it is all about the feel and the sound of the instruments, which you say is difficult to explain. If it's difficult to explain, it's also difficult to bring to a situation where your intentions have been shifted to making A/B comparisons or even just judging the worth of any single component. Leave the feel approach to when you go to a concert and the musicians are producing music. Know a bit about what a very good system does to the music when it is reproducing music signals. It's about how you want to approach buying a "synergistic" system. If you don't have certain goals that you can apply to determine the success or failure of a component at meeting these simple goals, then you don't really have a plan IMO. Your approach is scattershot and completely determined by variables out of your control. I've certainly sold systems to people with no better plan than you seem to have. But then, I've typically sold several systems to those people because what they buy today is bettered by what they hear next month or next year. They get on a merry go 'round of buying. Everything is great the day they bring it home and then everything is not so great when they hear something different or read about something different. This forum is full of members who had the itch and scratched it until they got burned out on buying and then buying still more. Most no longer even listen to music through their final system because it was never about the music as much as it was about the search. What I've tried to do for my clients, and for the forum members who wish to follow along, is to give them some ideas about how to get off the merry go 'round of constant buying without set goals and, therefore, get them to a point where the music is what is giving them pleasure. In that way, we try to bring the live performance experience and the home audio experience closer together. Your friend doesn't quite get the idea of how pressure waves exist in an enclosed room. While the wall immediately behind the listening position provides the shortest reflection time between direct and reflected waves, it is not the primary cause of poor sound in most situations. While you would never want to locate you low frequency driver in the exact center of the room, pressure waves do not congregate in the center of room just because it's the center of the room. In fact, since you seldom tend to sit in the center of the room, the center of the room hardly matters. Pressure waves congregate where they congregate in any room due to the enclosure measurements almost always being shorter than the longest frequencies being reproduced. Side walls (and floors and ceilings) provide both destructive and construct reflections of the pressure waves dispersed into the room. Unless the room has very serious problems with symmetry, you need to think of treating both walls as equally as possible. One of the problems with your present speaker position is, one speaker is located in a corner that does not physically match the space the opposite speaker sees. I had suggested you read about, and perform, a speaker "set up". The idea is to deal with the whole room and not just the distance from the front or back wall. That's still my first recommendation. I can't give you specific product names. Even if I could, I wouldn't. Specific product recommendations have never been part of what I do here. My preference is to give you information which gets you thinking along the right lines. Hopefully, that will ultimately lead you to better decisions. The topic of driving B&W speakers has been covered in this forum for more than a decade. To some degree, you should know what makes a speaker easy or difficult to drive before you ask what amplifiers will work with difficult loads. You need to think on your own and not just get spoon fed information. The numbers and specs the manufacturer gives you for a speaker seldom tell you what you need to know. Not to mention, many manufacturers simply fudge the numbers to make it more difficult for the consumer to make fair comparisons. Start looking at your loudspeakers by beginning to look at how they operate. Speakers are nothing, and they do nothing, until you apply wattage to their inputs. Just as a hose is just a hose until you connect it to a source which will supply what will run through the hose. Wattage is a sum figure. It is composed and calculated according to Ohm's Law. Voltage represents potential for work. Current (Amperage) is work being performed. Impedance is resistance to work. Electrical sensitivity is how loud the speaker will play averaged over all frequencies combined when "X" amount of Voltage is applied to its inputs. But, remember, Voltage is only the potential for work, it is not work itself. Multi-way loudspeakers place a "crossover" in between the amplifier and the drivers, which then makes the system's resistance to doing work a far more difficult task for the amplifier. Some speaker manufacturers design crossovers which make the amplifier's job far more difficult in order for the speaker designer to achieve certain goals they feel are important. Other manufacturers design crossovers which are far more benign in their affect on the electrical signal which represents reproduced music. Whatever occurs in the electrical phase of the signal also occurs in the acoustic phase of the music. Amplifiers that can deal with the demands of a difficult to drive loudspeaker start with relatively massive power supplies which will allow for high storage capacity. Ideally, the stored current component can be delivered over relatively long periods of time (a few seconds typically). Once the storage capacity has been expended, it is up to the power supply to "restock" itself. Here, large, massive power supplies can be detrimental to good sound quality. So you may begin to get the idea this is always a yin/yang situation where what's good here is not so good there. If you are discussing a "conventional" amplifier running in either class A or A/B, the heavier the amp for the stated wattage output, the more likely it is to successfully drive a difficult load. Except, of course, in those cases where the larger power supply actually becomes less favorable to the performance of the system. (Class D amplifiers operate on entirely different principles of power supply operation and weight is no longer a primary factor in their ability to drive a load.) In other words, it doesn't matter whether the amplifier is rated at 5 watts or 500 watts because audio amplifiers are not tested into real world impedance loads. Nor are they tested with real world music signals. So "specs" are simply what the amplifier can do under conditions it will never face in the real world. That makes most specs all but useless in comparing amplifiers. However, if you are comparing two class A/B amplifiers both running in push-pull configuration, those are qualifiers which begin to determine how fair the comparison can be. In such a case, the two amplifiers should be relatively close in stated wattage output for a fair comparison. Then, if you have, say, two 50 watt amplifiers pitted against one another, the heavier amplifier would presumably be the more capable amplifier when it came to driving a difficult loudspeaker. The weight will be in the power supply. Audio amplifiers are modulated power supplies. The better the power supply, the better the chances one of the two amps will perform better into difficult loads. There are, however, many caveats to that last statement. The electrical sensitivity of the system suggests the maximum SPL you can achieve with any amplifier attached to any speaker. A "104dB" speaker system plays considerably louder than an "82dB" system. If you were achieving equal loudness with both speakers, the amplifier would be pushed closer to its limits while driving the 82dB system. With the 104dB system, the amplifier would be loping along at nowhere near its limits. Therefore, you could get away with a much less "powerful" amplifier with the 104dB system, though that doesn't take into account whether the speaker represents a "difficult load" on the amplifier. Let's say you were considering a single driver, full range loudspeaker (a speaker system w/o a crossover) with a 93dB sensitivity spec vs a three way system with a 99dB spec. While the 99dB system will play louder for each watt applied to it, making life easier on the amp as far as how hard it has to work to achieve loudness, the 93dB speaker would be easier for the amplifier to drive if you knew nothing else about the specifications. Can you take a guess at why that would be? There are no magic amplifiers or magic speakers, they must work as a system. Only when you begin to look at them as a system can you make more informed decisions. I've been doing this since I was in my 20's and I just turned 66. What most people want is that I give them all the information I've acquired in over forty years of educating myself on these topics. I can't do that and, even if I could, I wouldn't because each system needs to be addressed as a unique situation with unique goals and specific limitations. I will say, over the many years that I have been on this forum, most of the questions have been asked, and answered, that need to be asked to put together a competent system. If you just went through the archives of the forum, you would have most of your answers to most of your questions. One thing I can tell that IS a constant in audio would be, a well set up system will always out perform a poorly set up system. That's what can make a $39 @ pair speakers more listenable and more enjoyable than a $2,000 @ pair speakers. What you need to concentrate on right now is how you can make your system better set up. That begins with speaker location. Don't concern yourself with buying anything until you've addressed speaker location. The better your speaker set up, the less room treatments you will need. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 39 Registered: Apr-10 | Hi Jan, thanks for your explanations. I'm intrigued by the fact that heavier (in terms of bigger power supply) amps tend to be more capable when it came to driving a difficult loudspeaker. I made a small research on nowadays most common budget friendly amps regarding their power and weight. I took the following list as an example: Rotel A14 80W/Ch 8.2kg Cambridge Audio CXA80 80W/Ch 8.7kg Nad C316BEE V2 90 W/Ch 6.4 kg Marantz pm7003 70W/Ch 10.5 kg Does this mean that any of this amps will struggle driving difficult loud speaker? Or does this mean that although Marantz have the lowest power rating will better drive the speakers as a result of the bigger power supply? This starts to be really interesting topic |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 40 Registered: Apr-10 | Also i would like to know if a difficult low impedance point and/or high phase angle have any advantages over other speakers. With other words, will B&Ws sound better on a better amp (i.e McIntosh MA5300) compared to MAs? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18555 Registered: May-04 | . "Does this mean that any of this amps will struggle driving difficult loud speaker? Or does this mean that although Marantz have the lowest power rating will better drive the speakers as a result of the bigger power supply?" You're searching for absolutes and absolutes basically do not exist in audio. If you gain one thing, in almost all cases you will have given up one thing. Therefore, you need priorities which assign some value to each thing you seek and each thing you find less useful. In the case of the amplifiers you have listed, they are all what would be termed "midfi" components. They offer value but not excellence. That's not to say they are poorly designed or poorly constructed. They just can be "bettered" by a good many other components. Such a list of middle of the road gear misses the point of what is required to adequately drive a difficult load in a loudspeaker. Your list is just numbers without a rationale for the numbers. My advice for weight as a deciding factor is simple, if you can't decide between two highly similar amplifiers and there is no discernible difference other than weight, buy the heavier amplifier jus'cause. That's about all the good you can get from weight as a deciding factor. However, the chances you will find two amplifiers so similar that weight is the only difference is about the same as finding two cars that are identical in all ways other than weight. This is what I have posted, "Audio amplifiers are modulated power supplies. The better the power supply, the better the chances one of the two amps will perform better into difficult loads. There are, however, many caveats to that last statement. So while you have the list of weights, you've ignored the last sentence in that quote. Think of Voltage as horsepower(HP), the potential for work, and Amperage as torque, work being done. If your car can develop 500HP but can only create 100 ft lbs of torque, you have a mismatch. Torque is what gets you moving and HP is what keeps you moving. That's more or less the same as Voltage and Amperage in an audio amplifier with the exception being in the availability of Amperage. In an internal combustion engine, torque develops along a curve that corresponds to RPM. It reaches its maximum and then begins to fall off. In an electric motor, all the torque is available at 1 RPM. As soon as the motor begins to work, all of its available torque is present and it stays present at all RPMs. That is more analogous to how the audio amplifier deals with Voltage and Amperage. In the above example though, the car would struggle to get off the line due to low torque and would be slow to get up to speed given the typical shape of a "torque curve". However, once the car had attained a speed, HP would keep it at that speed and torque's role would be minimal. If the vehicle was intended to tow "difficult loads", the torque numbers would really struggle to move the load off the line. However, the same rule would apply and once up to speed, the HP would maintain that speed with ease. If you then needed to go up a hill, torque would again be required and it would again struggle but the speed is being maintained by the HP value. In an audio amplifier "high speeds" equal high volume levels Though you need to keep in mind, SPL for any wattage output is determined by the electrical sensitivity of the loudspeaker. More on that later. "Wattage is a sum figure. It is composed and calculated according to Ohm's Law. Voltage represents potential for work. Current (Amperage) is work being performed. Impedance is resistance to work." An audio amplifier in use reproducing music is constantly balancing the Voltage component against the Amperage component to reflect the varying resistance it sees from the load. As tested to arrive at a wattage specification, the amplifier is connected to a load resistor. A single frequency sine wave is run through the amplifier. The load doesn't vary and the signal complexity doesn't vary. A measurement of Voltage output (only) is taken by referring to a level shown on an oscilloscope. That gives the tech the number of watts the amplifier can produce according to the rules for determining wattage on a test bench. In other words, there is no music and there is no loudspeaker load. The current draw is constant and minimal. On paper specs only tell you what the amplifier can do under not normal conditions. While I stand by my earlier statement that a heavier amplifier probably has a "better" power supply (because that's the most likely place for weight to accumulate in an amplifier), you have to ask, what is "better"? Without a condition of real world use applied to the specification, all you have is weight to go by. The caveats include the music's complexity and the load's demands. As I said, current delivery should be made available from the power supply over a period of time. Music is "temporal". How fast can the larger power supply respond to the time elements of the music? Can the amplifier quickly discharge it's current without bringing too much to the table and causing overshoot and ringing in the signal? Is the amplifier current limited by another circuit placed between the speakers and the amplifier outputs? Once the amplifier has drained its power reserves, how quickly can it "restock" the storage capacitors in case another large drain on the power supply occurs? The questions are quite numerous and do not have an absolute single answer that says the heavier amplifier will be the better amplifier for the music you listen to through the speakers you connect to it. Solid state amplifiers are typically "direct coupled" to the load. Vacuum tube amplifiers are typically coupled to the load by an intervening output transformer. There are a few manufacturers who build solid state amplifiers which are then transformer/autoformer coupled to the load. A transformer will have "taps" which match the output impedance of the amplifier to the load's nominal impedance. The primary winding of the transformer is what the output tubes work into and that value is a constant which only varies slightly with frequency. Connecting a tube amplifier to a 4 Ohm load by way of the transformer's 4 Ohm tap would mean the amplifier can always produce its rated wattage into the load. In other words, a 45 watt tube amp is always a 45 watt amplifier as long as the transformer tap matches the load. A solid state, direct coupled amplifier is "best", let's say "most efficient", when it is working into an 8 ohm load. When connected to a 4 Ohm load, the wattage theoretically doubles. But that doubling is primarily made up from the Voltage component of Ohm's Law. Voltage is not stored in the power supply of an audio amplifier. The amp can literally draw Voltage from the wall socket to meet the demands of the load. It's only limitation in Voltage delivery is the rating of the components in front of and inside the amplifier. (All of which can be a little misleading since the AC Voltage coming into the amp is rectified and most of the amp actually operates on DC Voltage. But the example is best not getting too far into the weeds at this point.) Therefore, you can have an amplifier very much like the car in the above example. It can draw large amounts of Voltage but very little Amperage. But, according to Ohm's Law and the way audio amplifiers are tested for wattage, it can be rated as a high wattage amplifier. How useful is an amplifier that outputs only high Voltage and minimal Amperage? That's a question that should be answered at a later time. The resistance to work that represents "impedance" is safe at 8 Ohms but less safe at 4 Ohms with a solid state, direct coupled amplifier. Essentially, the amp requires impedance/resistance to work to remain stable. When that resistance is minimized, the solid state, direct coupled amp is the more likely amp (vs a tube amplifier) to fall on its face. (Once again, not to get too deep but all solid state amplifiers employ a negative feedback loop which helps keep the amplifier stable and reduces THD. NFB has become a symbol of bad amplifier design due to its negative effects on the signal - a trade of good values for bad results - and too much NFB can make the amplifier less stable under all loads in many cases. This wouldn't be indicated on a test bench.) A "better" power supply can help the solid state, direct coupled amplifier deal with low impedance but only to a degree because of the temporal demands of the music signal and the constantly changing loudspeaker load. A loudspeaker is not however a constant impedance load. Even with a single driver system w/o a crossover, the amount of resistance varies with frequency (and to some extent temperature). Bass frequencies tend to consume large amounts of power while high frequencies draw relatively little. That means the impedance/resistance of the load is lessened at certain frequencies since the amplifier is not working as hard to deal with the load and will have more power available to deal with the low impedance of the load. However, keeping in mind the temporal nature of music, we can see how that situation could rapidly change and throw the amplifier for a loop. Once again, a "better" power supply is valuable in this case but, once again, we have to ask, what is "better"? But, for the sake of argument, let's say that a low impedance in the high frequencies is less difficult for the amp than a correspondingly low impedance in the low frequencies. Keep in mind, if the amplifier is transformer coupled, the output devices only see the constant load of the transformer at all frequencies. Current is held in reserve in an amplifier. Storage capacitors do that job. Capacitors vary in quality and weight is not an indicator of quality in a cap. Besides, the flow of current into and out of the storage caps must be regulated. Some designers prefer the benefits of light regulation while other designers prefer more, and heavier, regulation. Both types of regulation have an influence, basically equal and opposite, on the music reproduction qualities of the amplifier. Think though of the amplifier always having "X" amount of potential current available to its outputs. Knowing that "watts" are made up of Voltage and Amperage, the higher the wattage output, it's reasonably safe to say that more current is being drawn from the storage caps given the nature of a loudspeaker load. Therefore, if the amp is running at an average of 75% total power output, it is consuming a reasonable amount of current no matter the load value. Remember though, it is HP and it is Voltage that maintains the speed and the SPL. Torque is only needed when passing at high speeds and Amperage is only needed when the signal demands it. On the other hand, when the load requirements are identical, if the amp is running at 15% total power output, it is not drawing as much current from the storage supply according to Ohm's Law. Going back to the electrical sensitivity of the loudspeaker, a more efficient/higher sensitivity speaker will need less wattage to reach "X" SPL. That tells us the speaker which causes the amplifier to expend less power/wattage, will also allow the amp to retain more current in its storage caps. Now, the weight of the power supply is not that important as the more current made available by the use of the higher sensitivity speaker will allow for more current to remain in the amp's storage caps. So, you should begin seeing that there are no hard and fast rules for most of this. If you gain one thing, you will almost surely lose another, and possibly another after that. You prioritize your thinking to maximize the benefits you desire in the final system of components. The only absolute I can give you in audio is, a system with a better set up will out perform a system with a crappy set up. That rule actually cuts across price range and suggests a well set up system of mid-priced, midfi components will out perform a more expensive system of high end components which have just been dropped in a room. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18556 Registered: May-04 | . Your second question will have to wait for a response. Time does not allow for a complete answer right now. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18557 Registered: May-04 | . "Also i would like to know if a difficult low impedance point and/or high phase angle have any advantages over other speakers. With other words, will B&Ws sound better on a better amp (i.e McIntosh MA5300) compared to MAs?" The initial question is, what advantages are there in creating a "difficult load" loudspeaker? The answer, or answers, will depend upon you point of view. I've mentioned the idea of gaining "priorities" in your values - your wants, your needs, your dismissables - for a music reproduction system. Priorities vary from person to person, sometimes day to day let alone year to year as a listener develops their priorities by experimentation and experience. All of which gives us hundreds to thousands of choices in components and speakers which, when put together in tens to hundreds of thousands of potential combinations to form a signal chain, create the system that is being tasked with reproducing music from a recorded source. Throw in the fact that as much as 90% of your perception of any system's performance is based upon the room, and the set up within the room, and the possibilities are almost infinite. Some listeners value honesty and truthfulness of timbre for individual instruments while others would have a difficult time distinguishing between a bassoon and an oboe or various grand pianos from different manufacturers. We've already discussed to some extent the problems with "timbre" and it's relationship to amplified instruments. Some listeners value the "palpable presence" of the musicians' performance as it exists on the recording and can thus be translated through the system/component under review. This is a term popularized by Sam Tellig when he was writing for Stereophile. Sam never quite said what the term meant or what it was intended to imply. I don't think any sales person who was asked to provide a system with "palpable presence" ever thought Sam exactly knew what he meant, let alone what the reader took it to mean. Tellig tended to use it as shorthand for all the priorities he held regarding perception without ever really spelling out in full what those priorities were. A long standing priority difference is each listener's expectations for how the system deals with the perception of time travel. Once again we need to think of music as "temporal". No matter which recording you select, it is a historic record of a time that existed only once in time. That times is now gone and how the listener perceives that event as it was captured on the recording is somewhat important to how they perceive the functions of an audio system. If you listen to Eric Clapton's latest recording, do you expect to hear the same Clapton you will hear on "Layla"? Why? Or, why not? Most importantly in many respects are the basic differences of how the system presents time. Do you prefer the system to present (sometimes long dead) musicians performing as if they were in your room, performing in the here and now? Or would you wish for the system to transport you, the listener, to the original performance venue with a sense of historical accuracy? This can become a very difficult question to answer as archived recordings are being remastered for a new audience and each person who touches the recording injects a bit of their own priorities into the mix as they are heard and influenced by the modern day or historic components used in the mastering system. That in itself raises the question of, what is "accuracy"? McIntosh for example sells its MC275 amplifier which was originally designed in 1961. They sell every MC275 they build, typically long before they are built. In his review of the amplifier John Atkinson wrote a conclusion which stated "timeless engineering never goes out of style." The issue is then, whether the timelessness of excellent audio engineering today is any different today than it was in 1961? If the MC275 is timeless, what is this generation's latest amplifier of the month since it very likely does not present music as a MC275 would present music? It is certainly true that reading a review of a component without knowing the reviewer's priorities is close to worthless, unless you are simply scanning for buzzwords. Even then, if you are not familiar with how a writer might use a buzzword to describe their values, then you are left with nothing but meaningless words and phrases. The internet has, if anything, simply made this situation worse rather than better. Here I'm going to pause for some input from you. I've had many conversations regarding descriptive words and phrases as they apply to audio and music. When Holt first began publishing Stereophile in the early 1960's, he discovered there were no commonly agreed upon words to accurately describe the perceptible values he was applying to the components under review. When letters from readers began to come in, Holt was certain he was not being clearly understood by his readers. In response, he spent several years developing a glossary of terms which he hoped would bring what he wrote and what readers understood closer together. Almost no one knows of that glossary today. I have referred to this glossary many times over the years and yet some people actually resist the idea of common terms. I've had one forum member tell me that it doesn't matter what anyone else means when they use certain terms, it only mattered what he thought the words he used meant. Which is exactly the opposite of what Holt had intended. While there are specific technical definitions for some terms used in reviewing components; jitter, balanced inputs, signal to noise ratio, etc, other words can have various meanings or even highly personalized meanings. Therefore, I am wanting you to tell me in your own words what a few descriptive terms mean to you. They are words pulled from Stereophile's reviews so they are likely words you've read most recently. Please tell me how you feel these words describe what the writers meant when they were used within a review. There are no right or wrong responses, I'm simply looking for how you might read a component review. Warmth palpable soundstage holographic musical accuracy fast bright proximity forward cold musicality Give the best description you can think of for each word please. Thanks. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 41 Registered: Apr-10 | First of all, thanks for all your effort explaining certain things to me. I ll try my best to answer your questions. Warmth - Musical and comfort to listen. Very pleasant and gentle sound that makes you feel calm and peace. Balanced highs and prominent lows and mids palpable - Sorry, never heard before soundstage - Feeling like an orchestra is performing in front of you. holographic - Never herd musical accuracy - Precise and realistic sound fast - I'm not sure about this but first thing on my mind is - fast response drivers bright - Opposite of warmth. Highs are in front while mids and lows are in background proximity - Never heard forward - Bass, middle, treble or some instrument(s) is forward i.e increased in volume. cold - I'm not sure but i think mids are here dominant musicality - Sounding like the real thing, here comes the unamplified music |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18558 Registered: May-04 | . /i{"Also i would like to know if a difficult low impedance point and/or high phase angle have any advantages over other speakers. With other words, will B&Ws sound better on a better amp (i.e McIntosh MA5300) compared to MAs?"} In short, I know of no advantage to a low impedance/high phase angle load. However, I can probably explain why such a speaker is built. "Difficult loudspeakers" came into their own with the industry's near obsession with time and phase coherence. That's not to say difficult speakers did not exist prior to that point, but they were more likely to be panels rather than box type speakers. The original Quad electrostatic panels were notoriously difficult to deal with as an owner. There was a time when actual electrical engineers were the designers of high end loudspeakers. While that remains mostly true today, there have been many one off's which have been designed in someone's garage and have made it to the top of the audiophile pile for at least a moment in the sun. In 1957, having already created a "high end" line of amplifiers and pre amplifiers, engineer Peter Walker brought to the market his original electrostatic panels. "The Quads" were the type of system which, for many "serious listeners", opened the listener's ears and their mind to what music reproduction could achieve. Though the engineering concepts of "time and phase aligned" wouldn't become audio buzzwords for another 30 years, the Quad speakers were both at a time when no other speakers were. The greatest difficulty with the Quads, beyond the fact they were rather power limited, was their single (not actually, but it would be difficult to describe the slight variances in a short while) electrostatic principle. As far as the amp was concerned the electrostatic panel represented a very large capacitor with a minimal resistance component and virtually no inductance. Though Walker had also designed an amplifier meant to drive his speaker, the panel required a step up transformer at its inputs. the transformer showed the amp the inductance component of the system. Therefore, the Quad system was difficult for most amplifiers due to its very high capacitance and high inductance but relatively little resistance. It was a speaker load like no other at the time. What most often tends to create a difficult loudspeaker is the presence of caps and coils in the crossover network. Resistors exist too which affect the "impedance" of the system but they do not react to an electrical signal in the same fashion as caps and coils. Also, resistors can be connected in ways that either raise or lower the overall impedance of the network being created. Each part is used as, or in, a filter to cut off frequency response at the high or low end of a driver's bandwidth. Though there are numerous filter types (Butterworth, LinkWitz Riley, etc.) the basic element of filter action will be caps and coils (inductors). Electrical theory says that passing a signal through a cap or a coil will cause a 90 degree phase shift in the Voltage/Amperage component of the signal. Caps and coils send the signal in opposite directions, one sending the Voltage component forward and the other sending the Amperage component ahead of the Voltage. For "perfect" operation of an electrical component both Voltage and Amperage should be in synch with each other and both should arrive at the inputs of the driven device together. The further the Voltage component is pushed away from the Amperage component, or vice versa, the less work is accomplished. "Less work accomplished" means the amplifier must work harder to accomplish the same amount of work should the Voltage and the Amperage components been in synch at their arrival. Less work accomplished translates into a "difficult load". The first issue with crossovers then is they split the Voltage and Amperage components and create less than a ideal signal arriving at the drivers. If the crossover were simply a first order type (-6dB per octave) in a two way system, the tweeter and the woofer would have overlapping frequencies where one driver was not in perfect time alignment with the other. Secondarily though, whatever occurs in the electrical phase will be replicated in the auditory signal. This means the overlapping frequencies created by the X-over would start their journey from the driver's surface toward the listener's ears at slightly different times in the real world. So electrical phase shift equals audible times shift. Rules of human perception/cognition regulate just how much our brains can reintegrate a signal. Each "order" of filter provides another 90 degree shift in the electrical signal. So a second order filter will provide 180 degrees of shift. This can be compensated for by simply reversing the polarity to one driver which creates an electrical phase alignment of sorts though the signal is only phase aligned and not time aligned at that point. From there the engineers worked to develop higher order filter types and cascading filter types which culminated with fourth order filters which threw the signal 360 degrees out of phase alignment which the rules of physics declared to be "in perfect alignment" though in reality the time element of the signal is still out of "perfect" time alignment but within the limits of human cognition. Better that nothing in the mind of most engineers. Some engineers/designers however disagree. Ideally, a loudspeaker would be one single driver, completely spherical and capable of radiating its energy in all directions equally. In other words, a ball. No one has successfully created that ideal driver to the extent it can be marketed and certainly not for a low frequency driver. There exists though a type of loudspeaker system referred to as a "single driver, full range" system. Essentially, one practical half of the ideal driver, it is inverted and placed in an enclosure or on a panel which represents by its size an infinite baffle. The basic definition of an infinite baffle is a mounting surface for the driver which is so large the longest/lowest pressure wave created by the driver cannot exceed the dimensions of the baffle itself. This was also the jumping off point for the acoustic suspension loudspeaker enclosure which was created in the 1950's. By completely sealing the enclosure for air leaks, the cabinet became a pseudo infinite baffle which did not allow the rear wave to wrap around the enclosure/baffle. Thus the resultant cancellation of the positive and the negative going pressure waves was eliminated. Vented systems allow this cancellation to occur within a specified bandwidth which accounts for their steeper rollout characteristics in the deepest bass frequencies. Recently, SDFR systems have gained in popularity as listeners try to create a loudspeaker that requires no crossover network and thereby takes its signal as directly from the amplifier's outputs as is possible. By removing those elements of a X-over which create time and phase misalignment, the SDFR system receives its signal directly from the outputs of the amplifier in perfect alignment of both Voltage and Amperage (assuming the amplifier has no other components or circuits which mess with the phase of the signal). The idea behind the SDFR sound quality is the directness and immediacy of the signal which allows the driver to respond in the same way a musical instrument produces its sound. Or, within limits of comparison, the same way the original Quad panels would have been perceived by the listener. Without the X-over components of caps, inductors and resistors, the only thing the signal passes through is the voice coil of the driver. Keep in mind, inductors and transformers both represent a "coil" to the amplifier and thus do throw the signal slightly out of electrical phase but the voice coil on the SDFR maintains a theoretically perfect alignment of the signal driving the diaphragm of the system. Therefore, the most significant component in a SDFR is the resistance created by the impedance component of the driver, which since the system has no X-over components, remains stable at one single impedance seen by the amplifier at all frequencies. You can reasonably say an eight Ohm SDFR is always eight Ohms at any and all frequencies. There are slight caveats to that statement but, for the most part, that's a safe statement to make. Of course, as I've said, for each thing I can give you (a SDFR), I have to take away at least one thing and possibly two or three. While driver and enclosure design has progressed significantly in the last few decades, there are no perfect drivers. They all exhibit some variations in the frequency response/bandwidth and once mounted to a baffle, the issues increase with matters of refraction, resonance and reflection causing deeper troughs and peaks in the overall response and adding to many spurious anomalies existing within the system. This is true whether the driver, or drivers, are single driver full frequency or purpose built woofer, mids and tweeters. Crossovers are not brick wall type filters and in multi-way systems there is an overlap of signal which means the two drivers sharing either side of the filter reproduce the same signal within the passband of the filter's action. Obviously, a large woofer and a small tweeter in a two way system will not have the same tonal character which means the listener is hearing what could be said to be the sound of someone banging a large drum and a small drum simultaneously and then requiring the brain to filter out the discrepancies between the individual drivers to make one whole, single sound in perception. Even the best drivers will not be completely flat response and the largest irregularities will exist where the driver is coming out of the X-over or going into the X-over range. You can do the research if you care but, you will find that each driver has its own "sound" which consists of flat response plus peaks and troughs in the overall response. Place any driver in an enclosure where resonances, refractions and reflections are inevitable and the response of the system can become fairly ragged with even the best drivers and the best on paper design. Additionally, certain peaks and troughs both help sell the system in the demo room and may work to the designer's advantage in a real world room where the acoustics are completely unknown to the designer. In some cases, actually knowing the acoustic space the system will work into has made for a system with a specifically tailored response which is achieved largely though filters. To shape the frequency response of a driver or a system, additional "notch filters" can be added to the X-over network to either cut or boost certain frequencies within a small range of response. This, of course, adds to the complexity of the X-over which means more filters (caps and coils) and resistors are now placed between the amplifier outputs and the inputs to the individual drivers. This is, for the most part, what creates a "difficult load" in a loudspeaker. Therefore, the answer to your question regarding advantages is in your perspective and that of the designer. If the goal is to create a system with the flattest frequency response in an anechoic chamber, the most "sellable" response in the demo room or the most realistic response in a real world listening environment, you would pick and choose which system you create and just how difficult that system will be for an amplifier to cope with. Certain drivers are by their nature more difficult for an amplifier to drive. "Conventional" direct radiating drivers are typically seen as resistance while electrostats are seen by the amplifier as pure capacitance. Planar types can be any mix of the two and most planars will be a mix of driver types. So you begin to see just how many ways there can be to design a system and how many ways there are for a system to either challenge an amplifier or to make life fairly easy for an amplifier. Personally, I'd created my priorities long ago and they included not needing a brute strength amplifier. With the idea that the results I would achieve came from a chain of like minded components, my systems have always stayed on the simple, straight forward sound of easy to drive speakers. Though, given the number of available components and speakers I've had to choose between, that alone could have taken many different paths to where my system sits at today. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18559 Registered: May-04 | . The second part of your question is not so easy to answer as it depends quite a bit on the type of listener you are or have become. Would you say you are an objective listener? Or, a subjective listener? . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3493 Registered: Oct-07 | Jan sums up fairly well the problems of speaker crossovers. But really there is so much More. But you'd need a lot of time and someone with a degree to get much deeper. One exception? Jan mentions Panels. And everything said was pretty true. 'Stats can destroy amps which are not stable into the kind of load they can present, especially at higher frequencies. I saw some DIY inclined friends Zorch an amp testing on such panels. But the OTHER main kind of panel is Not electrostatic. The main manufacturer today is Magnepan. They are very low sensitivity which means they need a fair bit of power, but they are also a reasonable load for any partnering amp. No wild reactance swings or huge impedance dips. Magnepan's Ribbon Tweeter in earlier versions DID dip down in impedance but the current version is considered one of the fine tweeters available. No high voltages. Just a mylar diaphragm with wire spaced from some 'refrigerator' magnets. Not extremely high-tech but it works so well that the top model in the line is just shy of 30,000$. But the entry MMG is 600$ and some people stop right there. And invented in somebody's basement. The original model, the Tympani is considered a speaker classic and is collectible. And since the panel is a single sheet of mylar, many of the time / phase problems associated with multi-driver systems either simply don't exist or are not deal breakers. One OTHER minor point. What's been spoken about up to now has all been at the speaker. And is at 'speaker level'. One very interesting solution which can solve many of the problems so far identified is making an Active Speaker with the amplifier of Each Driver connected to its own amplifier. The crossover is done at the line-level PRIOR and between the preamp and the power amp. You can do nearly anything you can imagine with this type of configuration. All filter slopes are available, including stuff which would either be very difficult or impossible to do with regular capacitors and inductors at the speaker level. Some of the DSP (digital signal processing) products even feature multiple Parametric filters on each input and output. But the real treat is something called an FIR filter. This has NO Phase Shift thru the passband. I have NO IDEA how it works, but it does require some computing power on the part of the DSP unit itself. And Frankly, I wouldn't know where to start. Many self-help and tutorial sources assume a level of knowledge beyond what I currently possess. But the idea is intriguing. And gets 'rid' of many problems which start with a conventional crossover. https://www.minidsp.com/applications/dsp-basics/fir-vs-iir-filtering Do a cut / paste of this non-link and you'll go to the 'help' page which provides a reasonable explanation. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 42 Registered: Apr-10 | Hi Jan, Knowing that "single driver full range" system would be better than separate drives and crossover, what are your opinions on speakers like KEF Q350. Are they using crossover or they are "single driver full range". Would they be even more difficult load compared to B&Ws? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3494 Registered: Oct-07 | Amplifiers vary widely and perhaps wildly in the ability to drive lower impedances and higher phase angles. Even 2 amps which measure nearly identically into a resistor will vary in their ability to drive reactive loads. Back to B&W speakers, for a moment? You can find the 600 series being driven by HT equipment. HT amplifiers, rather those in the 'receiver' with all the functions, connections, knobs, bells and whistles, are generally incapable of driving more difficult loads. But some will drive the 600 series. I doubt Any will work well with the 800 series from B&W. Worst case scenario from an amplifiers point of view would be a very low dip in impedance coupled with a large phase angle. Stereophile makes note of this condition when testing speakers and may even issue a caution in the selection of the partnering amplifier. I've swapped notes with some manufacturers of amplifiers about testing with a dummy load more reflecting a REAL speaker without getting any traction. A quick 'Google' will show many such proposals none of which are a 'standard' in any real sense. A European company called AudioGraph makes a dummy load which interfaces to an Audio Precision device. It puts an amp thru its paces with inductive than capacitive loadings out to +-60 degrees and draws the 'power cube' response of the amp in question. Very revealing but only a few amps are so tested. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18560 Registered: May-04 | . "Knowing that 'single driver full range' system would be better than separate drives and crossover, what are your opinions on speakers like KEF Q350. Are they using crossover or they are 'single driver full range'. Would they be even more difficult load compared to B&Ws?" I still get the sense you are looking for absolutes when very few absolutes exist in audio. I also get the feeling you're still looking for a product recommendation. I NEVER said SDFR's are "better" than any other speaker. I said they can approximately represent one half of the shape of the ideal speaker. They have their advantages and they are very good selections for certain listeners or in certain systems. They do not behave entirely like a theoretically perfect speaker and, once they are mounted on a baffle or in an enclosure, any similarities to that ideal driver further diminish. SDFR's represent a theoretically ideal resistive load to an amplifier because they lack a crossover - though you may find a few that include a relatively benign notch filter to remove some resonances and so forth. That makes them a good choice for amplifiers not meant to drive "difficult" loads and, to some extent, for those listeners who do not feel the need to own sledgehammer type amplification. While they do represent a somewhat inductive load along with their resistance, the inductance is minimal and consistent in its value. They are, as I said, within reason, one continuous impedance value from lowest to highest frequency. It is not outside the boundaries of logic to call an 8 OHM SDFR an 8 Ohm driver at all frequencies. Very few other designs can boast as much. SDFR's as they currently exist in high end audio also tend to be rather efficient with electrical sensitivity specs starting in the upper 90's with one watt input. For a listener who prefers a single ended triode amplifier producing less than five watts, they are generally the best solution. The same listener might, however, decide to use a very high sensitivity three way system with horn loaded drivers which offers another set of gives and gets. SDFR's are a throw back to an earlier time in audio, as are triode vacuum tubes as output devices. It wasn't until the late 1930's when any concept other than SDFR's became popular in consumer audio. SDFR's major drawbacks, then and now, include mass, stiffness, shape and frequency bandwidth. It's very difficult to build a SDFR with a voice coil that doesn't drive the system from roughly only the center area of the driver, which means the system's stiffness will always represent a trade off of rigidity vs. mass. The larger the driver, the lower in frequency response it is likely to produce cleanly. That, however, makes the rigidity even more of a factor and even less of a certainty. The other route would be to make a smaller driver move further in its excursion, which also runs afoul of rigidity limits and the amount of control the voice coil can exert on the outer edges of the physical driver itself. Rigidity plus mass equal resonances. Mass is slow to excite into resonance but equally slow to dampen resonances. The larger the driver, the higher the mass and the lower its overall rigidity is a safe assumption, all things equal. Thus bandwidth for a SDFR is typically limited in comparison to a multi-way system. Lows are truncated in most SDFR's and highs are rolled out early. Clever enclosure design can maximize low frequency response while highs are generally always going to be more rolled off than a comparably priced multi-way system. Not a big deal for many people as fundamental frequencies in music do not really extend much beyond 8kHz. Due to the laws of physics though, as the high frequency pressure wave decreases in size peak to peak, the dispersion of the driver narrows to the point the high frequencies can become rather beamy and the drivers must be angled (toed in) toward the listener for the broadest frequency range perception at the listening position. SDFR users do not see each of those trade offs to be bad and, in some ways, the systems actually can benefit certain installations. For example, in a room like your own where the side walls are close to the speaker position and the walls, floor and ceiling are highly reflective surfaces, the dispersion issue can be made to work to your benefit. High frequencies which would otherwise be reflected will, with an SDFR, become less so which means less room treatments to tame bounced pressure waves which can cause less than ideal imaging and soundstaging. So give one thing to get another. The KEF's are not SDFR's. They act as "coincident" drivers which try to split the differences between SDFR's and multi-way systems. SDFR's similarity to the ideal driver also include the ability to act as a "point source"; https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+a+point+source+in+audio&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS 754US756&oq=what+is+a+point+source+in+audio&aqs=chrome..69i57.8888j0j1&sourceid= chrome&ie=UTF-8 Similar to the original Quads, a SDFR creates air pressure waves for all frequencies which all originate from one location, the voice coil of the single driver in the case of the SDFR or the panel of the Quad electrostatic system. While low frequencies require the entire surface of the driver to launch into the room, high frequencies require only the central portion of the driver. This makes the reproduced music occur in perfect time and electrical/acoustic phase, just it had originated from the musical instrument. Return to my comments regarding the immediacy of the SDFR's sound quality. While time and phase alignment can never be 100% perfect with any multi-way system which utilizes a crossover and displaced drivers, human cognition is able to reconstruct the values in sufficient amounts to allow very good to excellent results from a carefully and skillfully designed and constructed multi-way system. The benefit to the KEF drivers is in the coincident positioning of the two discrete drivers and their many audible/cognitive similarities to a SDFR as a point source driver. Much of this is explained in KEF's online literature and I would encourage you to read that information. The high frequency driver is located in the center of the larger mid to low frequency driver. In theory this give any shared or overlapping frequencies produced by the two discrete drivers the same cognitive location for its origination. Thus the coincident driver can rather easily simulate the point source operation and audible performance of the SDFR or the electrostatic panel. There are other drivers which have been developed over the years which also operate as a point source type (the Walsh drivers are probably the most successful and least well known today). Very careful mounting locations for multiple drivers can also come close to replicating the audible performance of a point source. And, of course, coincident drivers have their own peculiarities which set them apart from SDFR's and other true or quasi-point source drivers. One significant difference between a SDFR and a coincidence type driver is in the dispersion characteristics of the system. As I've noted with the SDFR system, as frequencies rise (the wave front becomes increasingly smaller), the dispersion of the wave becomes increasingly more narrow. This can be seen as an advantage in difficult rooms but as a disadvantage in rooms such as home theater set ups where off axis listening is common. If you read the KEF literature, you'll find that wide dispersion was one of the designer's goals with the system. Therefore, while on axis listening creates an impression very much like that of a SDFR, off axis pressure waves are still bouncing off side walls just as they are in the B&W's or the MA's. This would, IMO, make the KEF's a more likely candidate for a home theater system and less so if the listening room was imposing its own limitations on speaker selection. Still, keeping in mind that all things in audio are trade offs, you must prioritize your values and make a selection that gets you the most "wants" and "needs" without trading off the most important values or including numerous unwanted values. Of course, room treatments can always reduce the amount of reflected waves within a room but room treatments are not always possible for aesthetic reasons. Also room treatments are fairly broadband in their operation and it is very difficult to mitigate this frequency without also losing others in and around that frequency range. Additionally, as I've noted, if you deal with speaker selection and set up properly, you will require fewer and less expensive room treatments. Since room diy treatments can easily tip over into an overly damped sound quality, room treatments aren't always the first best solution and can at times appear to be not much more than a BandAid on a poorly chosen and sloppily set up system. Since the KEF's are somewhat less demanding than the B&W's, they would be a cautionary recommendation in lieu of the B&W's in my opinion. The KEF's still dip beneath 4 Ohms so they will require an amplifier that is not current limited. The electrical phase angle of the KEF system is located just far enough away from the frequency of the impedance dip that they are not as troublesome as that of the B&W's. Therefore, the KEF wins if it comes down to this or that. Of the three speakers you've mentioned, though I can't find any lab tests on the MA's, they are likely to be the kindest to any amplifier. The spec'd sensitivity of all three are stated to be within one dB of each other (as stated by the manufacturer) so there is no difference (on paper) in any decent amp's ability to drive all three equally as far as SPL's are concerned. All three are only average in sensitivity though fairly par for this size of enclosure. If you decide to buy speakers before addressing the room, the $500-$1k range gives you more than a few very good options in rather conventional systems. Most will not reproduce the lowest octave of music with ease but a decent small sub can make up for that. By using a sub and rolling the system in/out at, say 60 to 80Hz with a -24dB per octave filter, you will reduce the demands on the amplifier with any of these three speakers - and most in this price range. Careful set up of the system and the speakers within the enclosure of the room should give results that could hold up against more expensive systems less well tuned. That though is your one consistent absolute; a well set up system will out perform a poorly set up system no matter the cost of the components and speakers. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 43 Registered: Apr-10 | I must say i'm thrilled by your knowledge and professionalism. Thanks for sharing with us! I also get the feeling you're still looking for a product recommendation. - You got me here I've made some research regarding the speaker loads and found measurements for MA Silver 300 (https://www.stereophile.com/content/monitor-audio-silver-300-loudspeaker-measur ements) Truly as you said, they are far easier load for my amp as their minimum magnitude is 3.6 ohms between 150 and 170Hz compared to B&Ws which goes down to 2.9 ohms (https://www.stereophile.com/content/bowers-wilkins-683-s2-loudspeaker-measureme nts). But, what i've found most interesting is the lab results from Sonus Faber venere 1.5 (https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-venere-15-loudspeaker-measureme nts). Although their impedance is specified as 6 ohms, the measurements reveals that the impedance remains above 8 ohms for almost the entire audioband. Do we get another considerable choice? Their price is almost the same as MAs. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3495 Registered: Oct-07 | In general, unless stereophile says something about the phase / impedance relationship, most 4 or 8 ohm rated amps will be OK. Impedance is of course just part of what's going on. The other big part is the phase, or how much like a capacitor or inductor the speaker appears as to the amp. Some amps are better at that than others. That is pretty much the source of the difficulty with some B&W speakers. Looking at your link for the stereophile measured data for the '683, it does have an impedance dip. But the phase minima is at a lower frequency, by which point the impedance is a more benign 8 ohms. The MA speaker you also link is quite a bit easier. 'Trouble' is indicated when and where impedance and phase lines CROSS at very low impedance, which will also be high phase angle. OOOPS! I remember some of the B&W speakers from the 'premium' 800 series to be Really Crazy when you start looking at the measured data. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18561 Registered: May-04 | . Why do you keep going up in price? Stands are purpose built for the SF's which makes them $1600 in standard finish. High quality stands are an essential part of any decent speaker set up. Do you have high quality stands now? . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3496 Registered: Oct-07 | Without regard to price, which since I'm not buying, I don't care about, is another speaker from SF, this one ALSO measured by Stereophile. Note the differences, including the 'warning' about partnering amp needing to be capable into a fairly low impedance and higher than normal phase angle. https://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-stradivari-homage-loudspeaker-me asurements This is also a fairly 'sensitive' speaker meaning you'd typically not need a huge amp to make it work. In this case, a CAPABLE amp which can work into lower impedance / reactive loads is indicated. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 44 Registered: Apr-10 | Thanks leo for your responses and effort to help me as well. Sorry if i'm boring but i found lab results for the exact model of b&w 685 s2 (http://i.nextmedia.com.au/Assets/bw_685_s2_loudspeakers_review_test_lores.pdf). I'm not some kind of professional like you guys but it seems to me like they are not that much difficult to be driven by the amp. The only thing that concerns me is that they drop under 4 ohms after 10khz but the phase angle is not that high at that point. What do you think guys? I really need yours opinions on this as b&w are most acceptable regarding the price. With the original stands they will cost me around 800 euros which is half the price of the SFs and 2/3 from MAs. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18562 Registered: May-04 | . The 685 is a somewhat "kinder" load than your previous B&W selection though not in same ball park as the SF's in compatibility. Low impedance by itself is not a knock if it occurs in the upper frequencies due to the generally lower power requirements of the driver. That statement could be amended if your music selections run towards the electronic type. I would predict the B&W's will require some careful placement, and some degree of room treatments, in your present environment. As a drop in replacement for the Infinty's, without any room changes, they will be a tonal change and likely an obvious upgrade in quality. The ports can be plugged to allow for further variations in placement and sound quality preferences. The speakers high frequency dispersion could prove problematic in your present room. "b&w are most acceptable regarding the price. With the original stands they will cost me around 800 euros which is half the price of the SFs and 2/3 from MAs." I'll stick with my recommendation that you first get your system well set up and the room acoustics in order before you save all that money just to have new speakers. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3497 Registered: Oct-07 | Most reasonable and 'competent' amps should be OK with the 685 B&W. And yes, the ROOM must be either altered or adjusted to accomodate these speakers, as is true for Any room / speaker combination. You are not listening to the speakers, but rather the room / speaker combination. Jan's recommendation to get the system set up and room accoustics 'in order' is good. But because of the dynamic nature of this combining, they must be done TOGETHER and to each others benefit. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 45 Registered: Apr-10 | I've made slight improvements on the room. First i shrink the shelf between the speakers so the speakers are closer between, and the right speaker is out of corner. It looks something like this.  I must say, the sound improved a bit. I've also ordered some windows drapers. Next i experimented with moving the speakers in all directions to find the best place. However during this setup i didn't experience huge changes to the sound itself. What i found the most strange is the following: I choose a part of song nearly 12 seconds (Dream Theater - ANOTHER DAY) and i played it on repeat. I choose this song because it have very good production fulfilled with deep and rich bass from the bass drum and great cymbal. I started to listen to each speaker separately (one channel at a time). The right speaker closer to the windows had always better representation of the bass and overall sound. While the speaker on the left was missing the bass and sounded plastic. First thing on my mind was that the speaker is broken or the amplifier output is malfunctioning. So, i tried every combination between the outputs of the amp and speakers. Guess what, the result was always the same. Whoever speakers is on the right side connected on either left or right channel sounded fantastic compared to the left speaker. I continued investigating and moving myself in the room. If i stand in front of left speaker (1m distance) the sound is pretty good. If i move 1m behind, the sound starts distorting. The bass intensity is decreased etc. If i sit on the couch bass reductions are even higher. I've done the same experiment with the right speaker (the one closer to the windows with the better sound). The sound is constant no matter where am i positioned in the room. So... Does anyone have any idea why is this happening. How can i improve or eliminate this. @Jan, sorry if i'm boring just only one question regarding speaker choice. As a seller would you recommend me B&Ws or KEFs if i ask for warmer and a bit of 'forward' sound. The price is almost the same} |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18563 Registered: May-04 | . If you are sitting on the sofa looking at the speakers in their present location, what's on the wall to your left? Can the speakers be placed on that wall? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18564 Registered: May-04 | . Read about proper loudspeaker set up. My preference is for the WASP set up. However, the more you know about how to set up speakers, and how they react to the resonant enclosure of the room, the better able you will be to understand what you are hearing when you make a change. (Towards a barrier wall increases bass amount, away from a barrier wall increases balance and clarity. Those are your first goals for a set up and then you proceed from that point. Most speakers perform best when they are a minimum of two to three feet away from any wall and further into the room will add clarity and dimension. In large rooms I've positioned the speakers 8' away from the walls.) Knowing the very most basic rules of acoustics will enable you to bend a few rules when faced with difficult rooms and speaker positions. Toe your speakers in, toward your listening position to the point they are aimed (on axis) toward your listening position. Sitting in your preferred spot, the speakers should be toed in towards the center to the point you do not see either side of either speaker cabinet. Tweeters should be on rigid stands that position the high frequency driver at ear level which is approx. 34-36" from the floor to the driver's center. That's your starting position and you adjust from there. Your room is highly reflective with hard surfaces everywhere. "Warmth" is very difficult to achieve when you are working with a very "cool" to "cold" room. You want to minimize room reflections and proximity reflections which smear the individual sounds of the instruments. In your room, you will do that by getting the speakers away from room boundaries. Use more than 12 seconds worth of music. Music is temporal. It occurs in 12 bars but not in twelve seconds. (Don't worry if you don't get the humor there.) I would suggest you select a few pieces that you feel are well recorded and musical. "Well recorded" does not mean they emphasize boom and sizzle. Select recordings that are well balanced in the overall sound quality. Don't focus on any one or two instruments but rather listen just to the music as music. Try to forget the system and pay attention to the music. Musical enjoyment is what you're after here, not thrills and chills. With smaller groups, try to get a sound that places the musicians in your room and playing as if they were in your room. Remember, music is temporal and the set up should emphasize the musicality and the flow of the performance. Most of the music you will listen to will be in an A-A-B format. Listen to the repetition of the phrases and verses and how the musicians alter and play with the same melody line over and over. The beat is the temporal component of music, it is set and maintained by the rhythm instruments; the drums, the rhythm guitar and the piano are the most typical instruments in a rock recording that function as the rhythm section. They are allowed to add musical fills to phrases and verses. Everyone in the group pays attention to the beat and those instruments should create a beat that makes your toes tap and your fingers bounce. That should be your primary goal in setting up a system. Follow the beat. If need be, listen only to the beat to the exclusion of all other instruments at first. Your Marantz gear should be capable of finding the beat. Communication between instruments is your next goal. Set up should allow you to perceive the performers listening to and communicating with one another. If they are a "tight" group, you can hear how the performers take a lead in driving the momentum of the song and handing that task over to one another. Separation/clarity of instruments is the sound you want followed by a sense of the group performing as one unit and, most importantly, playing to the beat of the rhythm section. Vocalists play with the beat. They phrase a word or a verse with inflections, pauses and emphasis that establish their own space. "Playing around with the beat" is a common thing with excellent musicians but beyond where you want to go at present. We can get to that point later. Pay attention to the beat and how the vocalist uses it to express an idea in their words. Most commonly, the beat will have slight emphasis placed on either the 1 and 3 or the 2 and 4 of a 4/4 time signature. Blues and rock tend to use the 2-4 combination. Don't worry if you can't detect that emphasis, just know it exists and is one of the elements that adds forward momentum to the music. The truest adage in audio is, "get the midrange right and everything else will fall in place". That means giving up thumps and crashes to gain clarity and articulation in the mids. Get the mids right!!! Get the mids right!!! Find recordings which are "natural" in their acoustic sound. Most recordings of the last forty years will tend towards highly processed sound where the musicians were not playing together as a group during the recording session. Most modern recordings tend to place musicians in isolation booths - particularly the drummer - or even on different continents and in different studios and then splicing together a mix that does not sound natural and comes off as highly processed in post production. I would suggest you go back to the earlier days of recording for the most natural sounds. Though you can find many contemporary performers who have discovered the flaws of modern recording techniques and they are insisting on very simple recording styles (minimal mics for one thing) which are largely a throw back to the 1950's and '60's. Go to musicdirect.com for a list of most the likely candidates for good recording quality plus excellent performances. The following recordings may not be what you typically listen to but they are very good as references IMO. The mix of songs provided here should give a range of styles, both in performance and recording techniques, that will cover a broad swath of what you are searching for in reference material. Elvis: Such a Night; https://www.google.com/search?q=elvis+such+a+night&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&oq=e lvis+such+a+night&aqs=chrome..69i57.5103j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Frank Sinatra: Fly Me to the Moon; https://www.google.com/search?q=sinatra+fly+me+to+the+moon&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US 756&oq=sinatra+fly+me+to+the+moon&aqs=chrome..69i57.10793j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie =UTF-8 Miles Davis: Kind of Blue; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&ei=9APCW7jSKayIggf2zK-ADQ &q=miles+davis+kind+of+blue&oq=miles+davis+kind+of+blue&gs_l=psy-ab.12..0j0i67j0 l8.2125.2125..3584...0.0..0.264.264.2-1......0....1..gws-wiz.emJChkXFfeg Bernard Hermann: Taxi Driver; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&ei=uwTCW8H4NOPD_Qbzp5WQDQ &q=bernard+hermann+taxi+driver&oq=bernard+hermann+taxi+driver&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i1 0j0i22i10i30j0i22i30l8.56465.59755..62014...0.0..0.96.1071.12......0....1..gws-w iz.wEKCxu843U4 Cowboy Junkies: Trinity Sessions; https://www.google.com/search?q=cowboy+junkies+trinity+sessions&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS 754US756&oq=cowboy+junkies+trinity+sessions&aqs=chrome..69i57.16833j0j9&sourceid =chrome&ie=UTF-8 The Beatles: Golden Slumbers/Carry that Weight (@ 3'00" in forward); https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qrDlRsARwk Ronstadt/Harris/Parton: Trio; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&ei=gQfCW8nGJeSE_Qaf5LfYCQ &q=linda+ronstadt+emmylou+harris+trio&oq=linda+ronstadt+emmylou+harris+trio&gs_l =psy-ab.3..0i22i30l10.16811.17811..22699...0.0..0.109.448.4j1......0....1..gws-w iz.......0.jJW2xv3C8P4 Copeland: Fanfare for the Common Man; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&ei=JQjCW4vYJOKW_QaexqD4Aw &q=copland+fanfare+for+the+common+man&oq=copeland+fanfare+for+the+common+man&gs_ l=psy-ab.12...0.0..15143...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.-nIkvvMBTdo Blossom Dearie: My Gentleman Friend; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&ei=qwjCW7LbGceMggfV1YuACA &q=blossom+dearie+my+gentleman+friend&oq=blossom+dearie+my+gentleman+friend&gs_l =psy-ab.12...0.0..60592...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.OTpFhoL7jZA Gordon Lightfoot: Sundown; https://www.google.com/search?q=gordon+lightfoot+sundown&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US75 6&oq=gordon+lightfoot+sundown&aqs=chrome..69i57.10285j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF -8 Count Basie: Kansas City 7; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&ei=rRHCW9KWJMOp_Qay2o6QAg &q=count+basie+kansas+city+7&oq=count+basie+kansas+city+7&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i 30l4.6159.6626..9172...0.0..0.196.377.0j2......0....1..gws-wiz.eU02nn0akRg Any of those recordings, or any individual song off the albums containing those songs, represents a recording quality and performance quality that should make them a reference recording IMO. If you want to experiment with speaker placement but are limited by your speaker cable length, go to Home Depot and by a length of their bulk extension cable in approx. a 14 gauge wire (usually sold in an yellow/orange dielectric jacket) and strip the ends bare with a knife or wire strippers. This will be a three conductor cable but you only need two of the conductors, use the black and white conductors. Be careful not to allow any loose strands of wire to touch anything (each other or the metal casing of the amplifier) as you make connections. Twist the stripped cables down tight and double check your work. Make sure you are connecting the speakers "in phase". In other words, red connectors go to red connectors and black to black for the connections at the amp and at the speakers. If centralized vocals do not have a fairly tight focus, you've probably connected the system out of phase. Make sure you've turned your amplifier off each time before you make any connection changes and double check your work before you power up the system. Here's your information on the WASP set up and speaker set up in general; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&q=wasp+speaker+setup&spel l=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiu47aT2oPeAhVuc98KHXhTCMwQBQgoKAA&biw=1024&bih=508 Do the best set up you can manage without regard to where the speakers end up in the room. You can mark the location (small pieces of masking tape) and move the speakers back to a more accessible position after you've done the best set up. The point is to find the best sound in your room right now and establish those locations so we can come back to that set up later. Let me know what you find. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18565 Registered: May-04 | . https://www.justinguitar.com/guitar-lessons/backbeat-groove-2-4-hit-strums-uk-00 5 |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 46 Registered: Apr-10 | If you are sitting on the sofa looking at the speakers in their present location, what's on the wall to your left? Can the speakers be placed on that wall? The apartment is almost the same as the 3D sketch. Here is a picture showing the left wall (sorry for the mess )  } As you can see the kitchen is placed there so i'm forced to use the current wall. Regarding your second post, i've listened to your examples and i must say i'm pretty satisfied of how these recordings sounded on my system especially the midrange clarity and instrument details. The WASP setup. To be honest i feel a bit tired here and i think i'll take a break. I gathered to much information these days so i ll need more time to process them. At the end, i think im happy with the current setup and overall sound. Maybe i'll buy B&Ws in near future just to make obvious upgrade to quality. As for now i'll leave the things as they are. Once again i'm infinitely grateful for all your effort, advice's etc. I'm also grateful to others who helped me get better understandings of speakers measurements etc Thank you ! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18566 Registered: May-04 | . Let us know. The B&W's would not have been my choice between the KEF and the B&W's. .Good luck. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 47 Registered: Apr-10 | Any particular reasons why would you choose KEFs over B&Ws? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18567 Registered: May-04 | . Internet is down, response must wait. Consider Elac Debut B6. Saved cash goes to excellent stands. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3498 Registered: Oct-07 | KEF is a wonderful speaker. The LS50 is really really good. And on stands? Perfect for modest spaces. I've heard 'em a couple times, mostly shown with Parasound amps, and not the 'Mega-Buck' type, either. I think one year they were auditioned with the A23, which is 125x2 and retails for about 1000$ new. Many reviews available, mostly favorable, with a variety of amps and sources. You CAN spend a lot more on KEF, too, if you are an overachiever. The Blade is maybe 30,000$ the pair...... |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18568 Registered: May-04 | . You had asked for a "warm" speaker and a more "forward" sound. Those two values seldom accompany one another in the same speaker system. They are not mutually exclusive but neither are they near relatives or even good friends with one another. The speaker designer decides whether the speaker's character determines the position of performers or the recording determines the position of performers. Therefore, a speaker with a persistently forward sound is a speaker with a forward character which seldom is found in a "warm" speaker system. A choice in "this" direction will produce a speaker which is always the thing you hear and that thing will seldom change. The other, designing in "that" direction, gives you a speaker that (probably) has more of the character of a chameleon, allowing the recording's mix to determine how the speaker presents the music. Obviously, extremes in either quality would tend to produce a speaker that is no longer considered even close to being a neutral player in the system in whole. I've sold many, many speakers that did not qualify as neutral. The choice wasn't mine to make and the client had ample opportunity to select a speaker that did not present the same character with every recording. The buying decision was their's to make. "Warm" is a matter of frequency or, more accurately, of frequency balance. While "warm" is typically associated with a slight roll off of upper frequencies, the balance which creates warm can easily remain flat throughout the high frequencies yet become slightly more emphatic in the lows. Or a speaker that is maximally flat throughout the lows and mids can be slightly truncated in the upper frequencies. The balance of the entire speaker is the thing. Often you will see a warm speaker in the lower to midrange price categories. If we assume most mid-priced components, source devices and amplifiers (including most specifically the typical mass market receiver), will not be particularly kind in the high frequencies, pairing that component with a speaker that does not make too much of the high frequencies will likely give the most listenable system. Therefore, "balance" is what makes a successful design more than simple frequency response. IMO the most successful systems are those which prioritize the overall personality of each component, pairing like with like and avoiding excess in any one area. Between the KEF 350 and the B&W 685 I view the KEF as the more balanced system on paper. This is tempered by the fact I have not listened to any music reproduced through the KEF 350. I don't even think we have a KEF dealer in the area at the moment. I have though sold KEF products since the 1970's and they have a very strong line through their development of drivers and systems which has never strayed far from what I would consider the traditional KEF presentation. I have an older pair of KEF bookshelf speakers and, of course, my Rogers LS 3/5a's were built with KEF drivers. It's also been a while since I've heard music through any B&W, though I can look at the measurements for the B&W speakers and see they are pretty much what I expect from B&W. Make no mistake, loudspeaker designers know how to produce a speaker system that sells in the demo room. For the most part, that's the successful designer's job, sell speakers. A slight boost or cut in just the right location in the frequency response will go a long way toward giving the speaker the "jump factor" which makes it stand out in an A/B comparison in the demo room. The choice of low frequency "alignment" (or, in a sealed system its "Qts") will provide the speaker with a bass quality that favors one speaker over another in demo room comparisons. In other words, "tight bass" vs "full bass". And while speaker auditions are somewhat tedious (and somewhat useless) if you have not developed your priorities, I wouldn't suggest buying any speaker without an audition, even if that audition is simply placing the speaker in your system, in your room, with your music for a limited amount of time. When you are making A/B comparisons, you're listening in an entirely different manner than when you are listening for pleasure. While it may sound counterintuitive, the advice from many music lovers (rather than audiophiles) is to buy the speaker which impresses you the least in the showroom. Not to buy the speaker you like the least, but rather to not buy the speaker that jumps off the shelf screaming at you to take it home. The speaker which impresses you in the demo room will always be the speaker that constantly tries to impress you at home. Once again, the issue of character and whether you want the system to impress you or you want to music to impress you. Certain materials used in the construction of a loudspeaker - particularly a mid-priced system - will create characteristic identities which seldom fail to excite or repel certain listeners. Metal drivers are one of the most noticeable of the controversial materials. While some listeners may object to, say, a poly woofer, its characteristic resonances are mostly out of the pass band for the driver's application. Metal on the other hand has a very distinct high frequency resonance which must be dealt with as it can override much of the character of the music, creating a persistent character issue that does not appeal to all listeners. IMO a metal woofer is very difficult to listen through unless the driver is steeply rolled out via a high order crossover filter which then can introduce other issues into the subjective sound quality. A room which is primarily reflective can (will) tend to exacerbate this issue of metal's signature character. When both the speaker and the room are adding their own quantity of "zing", "zing" can become overbearing and tiresome. Looking at the B&W's measurements, there is the typical spike in the highest frequencies which is the result of the driver's resonances. Some (B&W dealers) will argue the resonances are above the audibility range of human hearing while others will argue whether the resonances are not within the range of human perception. This goes somewhat back to the question of what type of listener are you, subjective or objective? One knock on "CD sound" is the near brick wall truncation of frequency response above 20kHz. One aspect of "good audio engineering" is an amplifier design with a very high frequency cut off (150kHz or higher) to its "power response". While square wave performance can subjectively provide very good sound quality from an amplifier or source component, there are no square waves in nature and no one listens to the output of an oscilloscope. As I've mentioned, many of the golden era recordings were made on equipment far less capable of extended response than many pieces of equipment today can manage - though not always. While everyone must make their own decisions regarding "adequate" performance, it's difficult, IMO, to reconcile the two extremes of measured performance and human perception. Once again, my personal preference in dome type tweeters is for a dome tweeter which lacks the obvious resonance spikes of the B&W's tweeter. It's purely personal preference here and, despite my personal preferences, the B&W's are a popular speaker with many mid-priced buyers. What can be interpreted from the B&W's measurements is, IMO, a matter of character. "Forward" is a matter of character and not of frequency response alone. The more forward the character of the speaker, the less of a neutral player it becomes. IMO the B&W's walk a very fine line in this respect. When we discuss the character of a speaker system, we are saying the speaker is what you will hear with all music sent through the system. Due to the character of the speaker, all music sounds like the speaker's character is what is meant to be most important. The recording is sublimated to the speaker. Now, that doesn't matter much if your music's predominant character is suited to a speaker's character which is always front and center in the mix. Like with like and avoid excesses of any one value. Listeners who have never consistently heard music that was not produced through an amplification/loudspeaker system will probably not be as bothered by this "character" issue as will the listener who favors acoustic instruments played in a real world venue without amplification. If your only reference for the sound of music is when it is sent through amplification and house speakers, then the sound of "real instruments" and "real venues" probably doesn't really enter into your priorities. Despite all of this, I will again say, get the mids right. The creation of home theater speaker systems has created a need for speakers which work with any source. While for music reproduction dispersion is a desirable, though not always necessary, value, for HT use disperion is a function of how wide the listening window will be for (more or less) even distribution of all frequencies when the listener is not directly on axis with the speaker. If you remember, I said virtually all things in audio are a trade off of this for that, good for bad, positive for negative. The trade off for wide dispersion is the highly likely uneven distribution of frequencies which exist off axis to the speaker. The greater the stated and measured dispersion from the drivers (particularly the high frequency driver), the more reflected sound is coming off the side walls and being added to the mix of direct/reflected signals which reach the listener's ears. This, in large part, is the reasoning behind as much as 90% of what you hear in your room being the room more than the speaker. "The room" is a pachinko game of bounced sounds which tend to create peaks and nulls in perceived frequency response along with time smears which reduce the quality of the music reproduction. When given a very wide dispersion speaker system, IMO, the speakers must be placed a good distance from the side walls to mitigate some of the damage early reflections will do to the presentation of the music. The more reflective the surfaces of the room, the more problematic this matter of dispersion can become. If that "free field" location away from side walls cannot be given the speakers, then heavy handed room treatments will be the next solution if "good sound" is the goal. Unfortunately, most room treatments tend to be non-discriminatory in their effects and wide bandwidth in their absorption. If you are trying to tame an early reflection in the upper frequencies, you will also be affecting midrange frequencies with virtually all common treatments. Reliance on room treatments to solve a problem created by less than perfect speaker, and speaker location, choices has several drawbacks; expense is obvious, size and obvious effect on the look of the room and the sheer presence of bass traps and absorption panels which take up precious landscape in most rooms. Then there is the issue of the effect being broadband to the point where solving one problem introduces the issue of robbing the room, and thus the music, of its natural reverberation characteristics. Another "this" for "that" trade off. With many "successful" room treatments, the music loses all of its life for the sake of fewer reflected signals in the room. Great skill and a fair amount of knowledge of acoustic principles can result in excellent music performance with room treatments in place, but that's not the average end product for the average listener. While both the B&W and the KEF tout "wide dispersion", the KEF's design makes its frequency distribution into the average room less problematic than does the B&W's tweeter. While I don't tend to recommend any speaker for any specific room unless the client indicates they are going to be in that room for many years, the room and your apparent lack of interest in proper speaker set up would lead me to recommend a speaker with either a strong dipole dispersion or a speaker with very minimal dispersion characteristics. A panel type speaker such as the Magnepans would suit the dipole configuration but I doubt they would be very successful in the rest of your room situation. A single driver full range speaker would provide limited mid to high frequency dispersion. Therefore, I make the KEF recommendation thinking you are interested in the best sound quality you can achieve in your present room. As I have said, the one constant in audio is, a well set up system will always out perform a poorly set up system. Another truism in audio is, speakers which are basically plopped down where they fit will almost always find their way to the very worst possible location in any room if "good sound" is the goal. Therefore, my preference between the KEF and the B&W is for the KEF. Though, due to other factors in the design of the KEF and the B&W, neither would be my first recommendation to you for your system. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 48 Registered: Apr-10 | Once again, many thanks. After reading your post, I'm definitely not considering B&Ws anymore. The fact that i don't have the chance to hear particular model drives me crazy. Jan, if you have my room to work with and you don't have the opportunity to treat the room properly what would be your speaker choice? I've uploaded several new photos from the room from different angles so you can get a better sense https://i m a g e s h a c k.us/a/3vro/1 (don't forget to remove the white spaces) |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18569 Registered: May-04 | . Give me a few examples of the music you listen to. How loud do you want the system to play? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 49 Registered: Apr-10 | I mostly listen to jazz, blues and rock, here are few examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td6Z4DjGrow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4K1VxNg9Bc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGPx-ekqZEo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fk2prKnYnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PhRgXNbXwk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRE3Bv1goyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf2-L2fkSu0 How loud do you want the system to play? I enjoy loud music but as i live in an apartment i cannot afford to listen very loud. I would choose quality over loudness. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18570 Registered: May-04 | . OK, as I've said, I seldom make model or brand specific recommendations but this is going to be an exception to that rule. Dipole dispersion is a figure of eight pattern where there is (ideally/theoretically) no side wall reflection caused. The cancellation/null points of the driver's front and rear pressure waves when mounted on an open baffle, and the size of the baffle or, in some cases, the lack of a baffle, are used to create very focused front and rear only excitement of the room; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_speaker The real world performance of a dipole never truly approaches this true figure of eight due to the nature of reflected pressure waves within a confined space. Additionally, due to the narrowing of dispersion as frequencies rise, in most dipoles the actual radiation pattern into the room is more similar to two cardiod microphones placed back to back on the baffle; http://www.akglife.com/polar-patterns--part-2-cardioid--technology However, the strongest output from a dipole system is directly to the front and to the rear. Reflections which reach the side walls are most commonly reflected back from the rear of the room and thus they are only secondary waves which have been reduced in level due to the inverse square law; https://www.google.com/search?q=audio+inverse+square+law&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US75 6&oq=audio+inverse+square+law&aqs=chrome..69i57.12850j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF -8 Dipoles by their nature offer a very open and some would say "airy" sound which tends to be slightly less specific in the positioning performers on the perceived soundstage (imaging) but trades that off for a rather large, wide and deep soundstage which many listeners feel comes closest to what they experience on a live performance venue. General rules of loudspeaker set up, if you haven't bothered to read the material, seeks to establish a more or less equal distance for both speakers and the listener away from room boundaries. The "ideal speaker set up" can be seen as a isosceles triangle with the listening position at its peak and equal distances away from the side walls given to the base; http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IsoscelesTriangle.html This is apparently impossible in your present room. Dipole speakers will create, in the lower mids through the high frequencies, a dispersion pattern which excludes early first reflections from the side wall on the right side of your room and will largely ignore the lack of a close boundary wall on the left side. Bass, of course, follows the inverse rule of dispersion through the upper frequencies and becomes increasingly omni-directional as frequency descends. This still creates a room problem for you in the unequal boundary wall reinforcement you will give to one speaker but not the other. However, bass is seldom extended so deeply in a dipole - due to cancellation effects of the rear wave interfering with the front wave - that this would be the worst problem you face with a dipole. The issue of bass response and extension could be addressed with a small subwoofer suited to the size of your room and rolling out the dipoles beneath, say, 80Hz. Dipoles, and particularly dipoles mated with a subwoofer, do require rather careful placement in the room to avoid cancellation effects and severe comb filtering effects at the listening position. If you've decided set up is not your thing, then dipoles are not your speaker. The most common types of "audiophile oriented" dipoles found in the market today tend to be panel type systems. Either a planar type such as a small Magnepan or a more conventional dynamic driver mounted on an open baffle which exposes both the front and rear waves of the driver. Massive enclosures and massive stands are seldom used with either type of system. This means the relatively light weight of the panel can facilitate movement of the speaker to a preferred location in the room for "serious" listening and then slid back to a more convenient location for everyday listening at background levels. This option is quite likely the best for your room due to the enormous amount of reflected sound waves that are sure to exist. Dipoles also need the least amount in the way of room treatments as the whole approach is to provide a rather lively sound in the room. A dipole is, however, also likely to be the least successful unless you commit to doing a complete room set up - which would include your listening position. Add in the slight inconvenience of moving the speakers and (eventually) adding the subwoofer to the set up and this is the least likely to work for someone who seems to want a plug and go system. None the less, a dipole speaker would, IMO, be a good option should you locate a speaker you prefer with this configuration. Unfortunately, most dipole speakers sold today are intended for use as surrounds in a HT system and, therefore, they are not really appropriate for use as main speakers in a home audio system. Dipoles are, of course, an easy diy system to create once you've located the driver you wish to use. An open baffle design is not much more than a sheet of plywood with a hole cut in it and the driver mounted to the baffle. There is, naturally, a bit more to it than just that and the size of the baffle can become intrusive but they can be a very simple and relatively inexpensive project that would be worth experimentation at some point. In today's market such open baffle systems are quite frequently paired with a single full range driver to complete the ideal infinite baffle system. Done well, these offer (I would say) simply astounding performance within the frequency response range of the driver at a very minimal cost. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 50 Registered: Apr-10 | Thanks! To be honest I've never heard this kind of speakers and i don't think i have the courage to order a pair before hearing them. Can you recommend me 'normal' speaker that you think would suit the best? Or maybe some minimal placement of absorbents/traps in order to mitigate the reflections. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18571 Registered: May-04 | . While we are on the subject of single driver systems, they too would be a worthwhile option, IMO, for your present room set up. Using a single driver rather than a multi-way system offers numerous advantages in system building and in room placement. First and foremost, for many listeners is the typical electrical sensitivity spec of many of the available drivers used in a SDFR. Remember that every +3dB of sensitivity provides additional amplifier headroom which is equivalent to gaining twice a much wattage in your amplification. If you go from an average value in sensitivity for the "mass market" of 87dB to a SDFR with a spec of 93dB, the apparent increase in headroom for the amp would be the equivalent to having four times as much wattage in your amplifier. The amplifier works far less and gains far more dynamic potential at a loping amount of wattage. Don't mistake this to say your system will suddenly be more dynamic (though that is one benefit to SDFR's) but rather to say the amplifier has the potential to reach dynamic peaks with greater ease and refinement. Further upgrades to the electronics need not include large, high powered amplifiers as a 93dB speaker system tends to play rather loud in most rooms with flea powered amps. This greatly expands your options in amplification and turns you toward a chain of electronics which adheres to the "less is more" concept of system building; http://www.decware.com/paper43.htm As I've stated, high frequency dispersion follows a law which says; as the peak to peak size of a pressure wave decreases, the directionality of the wave increases. In other words, low frequencies move toward omni-directionality and high frequencies move toward severe uni-directionality. In other other words, without a high frequency driver designed for wide dispersion, the nature of high frequencies is to become more and more directional and thus less capable of exciting side wall reflections. There are a few qualifiers to that statement but that again is the reason for the SDFR recommendation for your room. And always remember the idea that all things in audio are a trade off for another. The rule includes SDFR's and dome tweeters. Using a SDFR once again provides a speaker system with strong focus of its pressure waves into the room and very little to the sides. Bass response is dependent on the driver and the mounting system but, assuming the driver has been mounted to the baffle of an enclosure, the rear wave cancellation of the dipole system is not an issue. Small to medium sized SDFR's are typically stand mounted systems which have been configured as a rather basic vented enclosure. My recommendation here is for the Omega systems; http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/omega2/super3.html The linked review covers a lot of territory regarding the advantages of a SDFR and is certainly worth the time it takes to read. Do take note of the importance placed on high quality stands for any "bookshelf"/stand mount type speaker. In your room I would not be looking at tower type speakers. Satellite/sub systems will give you the most bang for the buck and facilitate placement of each system in the single most appropriate location for the component. With larger speakers the set up is always a matter of balancing the placement of the speaker for low frequency performance vs placement for best soundstaging/imaging through the mids and highs. Sat/sub combinations offer the most flexibility and the greatest opportunities for satisfactory performance, especially in difficult rooms. I'll allow the review to speak for itself and tell you to contact Omega for further advice. They offer a generous in home audition period and quite good customer service. The company exists to give the buyer the best sound possible and they will work with clients to an extent most "mass market" manufacturers have long forgotten. Invest in high quality stands and cables. The stands should be rigid and ideally capable of being filled with a damping material. Stands are another entire conversation and not what I will get into here but stands make or break a small sat/sub combination. Cables do not need to be expensive and I'm not a fan of using cables as described in the review. Cables need to transfer a signal and using cables as a tone control goes against my philosophy of audio. Don't look at the Omegas, don't think about the Omegas, just listen to music through the Omegas. They work on principles which are classic in their philosophy and are unlike most speaker sold in stores. Forget the speakers and just listen to the Omegas reproducing music in your room. The SDFR driver will require some "break in" time. If you expect a final sound right out of the box and you never have to do anything else, don't bother with the Omegas. There are other SDFR manufacturers out there and available on line. I have made the recommendation of the Omegas due to their longevity as a company and their overall reputation. Feel free to research SDFR's and make your own selection. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18572 Registered: May-04 | . The final recommendation is for the ELAC line; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&biw=1024&bih=508&ei=p1XHW 53GEMH0zgKBl4rICQ&q=elac+vs+b%26w&oq=elac+vs+b%26w&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..2637... 0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.GHcSvq0sTd4 Andrew Jones is the chief designer for ELAC and his ideas and background are covered rather extensively in reviews of his products. Like the budget oriented Pioneers he had designed earlier, his ELAC line is meant to provide serious music power at less than budget breaking prices. My first choice would likely be the B6 system but it has been updated and now two B6 versions are available. For the most part though, Jones designs to a concept - as did many of the "Golden Era" audio designers who didn't have to dance to the tune of reviewers dictating what was important and what was not. His line of systems hangs together with a family resemblance that is not so easy to find in today's speaker market where one company alone can sell 43 different loudspeakers. You will be safe with any of the ELAC speakers and their small sub. A sat/sub combination is best for your room in many ways. The cost of the ELACs allows money to be invested in excellent stands and decent cables. They are a far more conventional speaker than any other I've mentioned so they won't interfere with whatever conceptions of audio gear you have after reading too many main stream reviews. You really need to not pay attention to what anyone else says about audio - that includes me. Jones does not design speakers which put any weird load on the amplifier and does not mess with electrical/acoustic time and phase of the signal. I simply cannot get excited about speakers which require arc welders to drive; https://www.ecoustics.com/reviews/autocostruireaudiodigit-amp-sonic-impact-t/ The more complex the crossover, the more it f's with the signal IMO. My opinion is to build excellent drivers which do not require all kinds of BS to make them work. The same goes for amplification. Jones has apparently found the key to doing just that in a fairly conventional system. The tweeters are domes and they will have a fairly wide dispersion pattern which will still require adjustments in your room. I would start with the speakers toed-in as I described earlier so you cannot see either side of the cabinet. This placement will send the first reflection further into the room which will allow that same inverse square rule to diminish the reflection by the time it reaches your listening position. On axis response will be the "brightest" response the speaker can provide with the flattest frequency response the speaker/room combination can manage. Once you've located the system for bass response, dial in the toe-in to suit your tastes and your room. Stands are needed and again they must be high quality and ideally damped with sand or kitty litter or a combination of the two. The platform for the speaker should allow the speaker enclosure to be affixed to the stand in some way. Often the best choice for this is to use either Blu/tak or Plasti/tak. Stands should be "spiked" to the floor, though spikes are not always necessary. But the stand and the speaker should feel as though they are welded to the floor when you are done and there should be no wobble what so ever in a well set up stand. They should be of a height which places the tweeter at ear level for a seated listening position. The wave guide of the ELAC driver acts much like a horn that is capable of a more directional dispersion into the room than that of the B&W's. Though not directional to the extent the Omegas would provide, the wave guide of the ELAC should minimize side wall reflections to the extent any multi-way system can achieve. They are multi-way systems and they do use crossovers. That can be seen as a pro or a con for the system. They do not stress the amplifier in any way similar to either the B&W's or the KEF's. If for no other reason that being amplifier friendly, the ELAC's would get a strong recommendation in most applications. Read and ask questions. My understanding is ELAC is an accessible company for its buyers or potential buyers. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18573 Registered: May-04 | . I will go on record as saying you should not buy any new speaker just to have different speakers. There are issues with your room that my recommendations have attempted to address but the room will always be what you hear and perceive the most. Move your speakers to a different wall and you will have different speakers. I would address some basic problems with your room and your set up first before I spent money on speakers. We can discuss what might be possible at a later date. For now, I would tell you to go out and listen to some live music. The most preferable would be unamplified acoustic instruments though that's difficult to find in most cities. Check with your local library and any music organizations in your area to find something interesting. Listen and think. Pay attention to the how of what musicians think and work. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18574 Registered: May-04 | . "I've sold many, many speakers that did not qualify as neutral. The choice wasn't mine to make and the client had ample opportunity to select a speaker that did not present the same character with every recording. The buying decision was their's to make." https://www.klipsch.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIi7GDxPiN3gIVEl8NCh23ZwcYEAAYASAAEgK8L fD_BwE . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18575 Registered: May-04 | . https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/672623.html . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 51 Registered: Apr-10 | Thanks Jan for your suggestions. At the end, I guess i will go for the ELACs although i will need to drive 500 miles and pay additional customs and taxes. In my country the choices are limited. I don't get the point about the Klipsch link. Are you saying that they are good or bad speakers. I think i can get the Klipsch RP-600M for around 550 euros without driving and paying additional customs. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18576 Registered: May-04 | . Klipsch speakers are the type of system which always dominates what you hear from any type of music. They are, IMO, not the same type of system, nor do they present music in the same manner, as the ELACs or the Omegas. They are, however, a popular line of speakers with a (somewhat) history that goes back decades. Paul Klipsch sold the company in the 1980's and it is now a far more conventional loudspeaker and loudspeaker manufacturer. The Klipsch line is quite popular with many buyers due to the horn loading of the tweeter. They boast a relatively high sensitivty spec for a rather small enclosure volume. A common trade off is to think of bass extension, enclosure volume and speaker sensitivity as three legs of a stool. Change one and you must alter the other two in order to maintain balance. If you make the enclosure smaller, you must either sacrifice sensitivity or bass extension or a balance between the two. The large port of the Klipsch standmount is not going to support deep bass extension. However, another common trade off is, when the speaker cannot produce truly deep bass extension, making what bass it can produce sound louder is likely to fool the ear into believing the speaker plays deeper than it can. Your ear picks up on the harmonic of the fundamental note and fills in what it wants to have be there. It's not real but is can display well in a demo room. A small sub can fill in what the Klispch can't really do. I would not call any Klipsch speaker a "neutral player". And I've sold a great many Klispch speakers. Remember the adage to buy the speaker that does not jump off the shelf in the demo room. Make up your own mind how true that is for you. Additionally, switching between a more sensitive system (it plays louder for the same amount of wattage input) and a less sensitive system, most people will pick the louder speaker as the "better" speaker even if the two are identical speakers and one is simply turned up 0.5dB louder than the other. Don't let a demo room fool you with simple tricks. A/B comparisons of Klipsch and any other speaker should not be a switch to this and switch to that comparison. Listen only to one speaker for awhile, take a short break and then listen to another speaker with your own music selections. Horn loading of the high frequency driver makes the system more directional than a speaker with just a dome tweeter, though the size and configuration of the Klispch horn is intended for rather wide dispersion. Horns and waveguides serve much the same purpose when used with a tweeter. I can't make decisions for you. Go listen to the Klipsch and make a determination on your own. If you like the Klipsch and you think you can live with the Klipsch's pro's and con's, try the Klispch in your room. It's your system and your music. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 52 Registered: Apr-10 | A common trade off is to think of bass extension, enclosure volume and speaker sensitivity as three legs of a stool. Change one and you must alter the other two in order to maintain balance. If you make the enclosure smaller, you must either sacrifice sensitivity or bass extension or a balance between the two. Enough. I will never trade bass extension for sensitivity (playing louder). I'm definitely into ELACs. Which model should i look for? Debut B6 or Debut B6.2 ? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18577 Registered: May-04 | . I can't make decisions for you. That's the basic logic behind not making product specific recommendations. I'm not in disagreement (or agreement) regarding the trade for bass/sensitivity but remember, a small sub can make up for what any small standmount speaker can't reach. Given any standmount satellite system, you will more than likely end up with a small sub to supplement the bass extension. That's particularly true if you use the same speaker for audio and video purposes. A more sensitive speaker system also means an easier speaker load on the amp. The Klipsch are relatively simple loads on an amplifier. You have enough power in your current amp for most standmounts but the rule still applies. This is all about trade offs and priorities. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 53 Registered: Apr-10 | Sure, a small sub can make up for what any small standmount speaker can't reach, but that means another 400-500$ . Also that means the price will align with MAs silver 100 which have 8' driver and 40 Hz � 35 kHz bass extension, which means plenty of punchy bass . However, i totally agree with you at the end its all about trade offs and priorities and its my decision to take. It would be much easier for me if i could hear at least one model of the mentioned speakers. Non of them they have in stock. Thank you Jan again, i promise i will not make hasty decision |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 54 Registered: Apr-10 | Hey Jan Old Buddy, Old Pal I think I've made my mind. Since Elac's are not available in my country i've decided to go for the Klipsch. I know, you think they are not a neutral player but i've read thousands of good reviews about new reference premiere series. Previous harshness and brightness are not a case anymore. New series are balanced, have titanium vented tweeter improved horns .. etc. My first choice was the RP-600M Bookshelf. However, i don't know why Klipsch offers their floor-standers for the same price and some of them are even cheaper. For example the standmount RP-600M costs 550$ while RP-6000f (2x6.5' drivers) costs only 400$. Even more RP-8000F (2x8') costs 500-600$ depends on seller. All of them share the same technology. Do you have any idea why is that? Should i go for floorstanders or standmounts? I'm planing to place the order tomorrow as we have some "Black Friday" weekend here. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 55 Registered: Apr-10 | Jan please ignore my second part of the post. Stupid me i didnt realize that the price for the floorstanders was for each unit while the price for the bookshelfs was for pair. Sorry |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18608 Registered: May-04 | . As I have said, I'm not here to tell people what to buy. IMO I can only give you the information which will enable you to select a system with some thought to how the many variations on a "good" system go together. Try the Klipsch standmounts. Given the typical restrictions placed on a budget and a room, standmmounts and a subwoofer are, IMO, the best alternative for good music reproduction. Start with the standmounts and high quality stands. You may feel you have no urgent need for a subwoofer. Do a good set up once. Even if the set up suggests the best location for the speakers in your room is not where they can sit at all times, mark the floor with some tape or other form of locator and move them to that location when you prefer to do more "critical listening". Give the Klipsch a try, that's all I can say beyond what I've stated above. I have sold hundreds of pairs of Klipsch speakers and, if the customer chose Klipsch to begin with, they never came back. https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/731286.html#POST2047511 . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 56 Registered: Apr-10 | That comment 2 years ago ... it's me in panic . As i said many times i'm infinitely grateful for your support. I've learnt much chatting with you. THANK YOU! I've ordered today the RP-600M although i didn't had a chance to demo them. Once they arrive I will let you know how do they perform in the current system. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 57 Registered: Apr-10 | Hi Jan Yesterday the speakers finally arrived. First impressions of the speakers are really good. They are not in any way harsh as it is case with previous models according to some online reviews. These new reference premiere series have really huge soundstage and the most realistic cymbals i've ever heard. I'm very pleased with the sound although they are not broke yet. The sound is constantly improving. They are really accurate and have plenty of details compared to Infinity's. What i miss at the moment is a bit of a boost in the bass. Increasing the bass through the amp bass control seems to solves the problem but its not a permanent solution. I will wait for full break in period and than i'll decide if i will go for sub. Now on to the mids, and this is where I am having a bit of trouble with these speakers. The upper mids seem to have a bit of a bump to their output (especially with guitars), which is unfortunate as I feel that can muddy up the sound. Of course, as i said they are only ~8-10 hours active and have plenty of time for further improvements. I must confess as the time pass i like them more and more. But, as always my questions doesn't end up here :D As these speakers tends to be bright from time to time (but not harsh in any moment) i was thinking of selling the amp and get a tube amp for a first time in my life. Are there any good entry level budget friendly tube amps in the price range under 600$ ? As the sensitivity is insane on these speakers i think 15 wpc wold be more than enough. Its not that i don't like the current setup but a bit of warmer sound would always be welcomed |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18621 Registered: May-04 | . Check the specifications for your amplifier's tone controls. Bass controls often affect more than what is considered bass. For the most part, anything above 120Hz is no longer bass and has moved to the lower midrange. Most male vocals can reach into the lower midrange and even the upper bass range in some cases. Unless the spec for the bass control states it only acts beneath 120Hz, then you are changing frequencies which are not truly bass. Tone controls are broadband and affect a wide swath of frequencies. Similar to room treatments, it's almost impossible to solve a specific problem with a tone control. Remember what we discussed more than any other issue with your system, you are listening to your room. Obviously, you can hear differences between the Infinty's and the Klipsch but you are still listening to the room's contribution to the sound. The frequency response, the dispersion of the drivers and the release of bass frequencies from the enclosure of the Klispch is exciting the room resonances in ways the Infinity's did not. So changing speakers is not just changing speakers, it is changing the way the room responds to the new speakers. What you perceive from a system is always going to be mostly the room's response to your system and the speakers. If your listening position is still close to the wall, then you are hearing very early reflections off that wall immediately behind your ears. The reflections are contributing to the overall sound you perceive. Use a folded piece of cardboard behind your head to check for early reflections. I would normally suggest a double fold LP album cover but you've not listed any vinyl in your music collection. That size, however, is the smallest you want to use. Place the cardboard behind your head and slowly move the cardboard around. Fold the sides in toward the front. What do you hear? A difference that improves the music says you need to address the room in most cases. The alternative is to change your listening position. " ... i was thinking of selling the amp and get a tube amp for a first time in my life." No, you do not need to apply tone controls as BandAids to your system. This is a very common response to a problematic system and it's wrong in many ways. First, good amplifiers do not sound differently. Good amplifiers reproduce music and frequency response doesn't change with the music being played. In fact, when one of the magazines reviewed both a McIntosh tube amp and its equivalent power solid state amplifier in the same review, the listener concluded the differences being heard in the music were minimal. McIntosh designs around the music, not around tubes or solid state. The only noticeable differences between the two topologies from McIntosh were those that are the most inherent differences between tubes and bipolar solid state. The solid state amplifier was better with speakers with difficult impedance swings that required high current delivery. The solid state amps had a higher damping factor which might have benefited certain speakers. The solid state amp used autoformers and the tube amp had output transformers and one amp was not designed around a goal of high current delivery. There are other differences between tubes and solid state but they are not what I'm going to talk about here. The review concluded the buyer should select which amp to buy based not on a "warmer" or a "brighter" sound, a "tube sound" or a "solid state sound", but to use the very technical benefits of either amp's output devices and circuit topology to benefit the music reproduction. In most systems without difficult loudspeakers, according to the reviewer, either amp would be perfectly acceptable. Only when a system required a certain benefit of tubes or solid state would one amp be the best partner with their system. Now, that's McIntosh and both amps cost well over $7000 each. The point the review made about how "good, well designed amplifiers" work is what I found interesting. You can safely assume there are very few $600 tube amps that would have the same results when compared to a $600 solid state amplifier. Tube amp's are not "warm" by their nature. They have technical differences which will result in tube outputs responding to the signal in ways solid state cannot. And vice versa. Your Marantz is considered to be a "warm" sounding solid state amplifier. However, it is the music you should be paying attention to. Most often I can't change the frequency response of your system because the change required is not in just buying different gear. Long ago I asked you for a few priorities you pay attention to when you are enjoying music. You gave a list where every item centered on frequency response, not one on the music. That's still where you are at with your system, you're judging the system based on frequency response and the music just happens to be there as a source. IMO the music isn't that important if all you can talk about is frequency response. IMO you need to change your priorities and determine which priorities apply to the music and which to the system. I understand what you're hearing and how you're listening. IMO it's not the best way to listen to music and it certainly isn't the best way to compile a musical system that provides long term satisfaction from the music you enjoy. Now you, like hundreds of others, have heard something about tube amps sounding "warmer" and you think another BandAid on your system will be the answer. IMO every reviewer who stupidly suggests tube amps are "warm" should be taken out and shot. Your thinking is based on too many reviews which say tube amps aren't "bright". But they can be and not all tube amps roll off the highs. Tubes are tubes and tubes don't roll of highs. Tubes are actually the most linear gain devices we have available. Transformers roll off highs and cheap transformers that roll off the highs don't benefit the music. Rolling off the highs is not the way to good music reproduction. All that will be accomplished with a new tube amp that sounds "warm" is, you will get more locked into the "buy more stuff" approach to audio. Buy something, then buy something else to fix what you just bought. That makes no sense! Look through the archives of this forum. I can personally guarantee that most of the people who were posting here ten years ago where on the merry go 'round of buying just to find a different frequency response. As I still communicate with many of those members, I can also tell you many no longer even listen to music through their systems. Many have either sold their system or haven't powered it up in ages. They got worn out buying new stuff and never having the frequency response they thought was out there. They didn't know what they wanted, just that buying more stuff didn't get them what they had thought it would. Most just thought buying more stuff was easier. They got into the habit of buying to fix what they had just bought and that's what they did. And, of course, I have to assume you'll be right back in the same situation of not having a way to audition an amp before you buy. So you'll be buying based on reviews on line. Not smart, particularly with tube amps. What I've told lots of people who buy from reviews; everyone loves what they just bought, until the day they don't. Then they start to hear all the things that aren't great about what they bought. Then most just buy more stuff from reviews. And they never learn. In most cases, the past forum members who bought like that had spent thousands of dollars on new gear and still had never settled on priorities which focused on the music and not the system. Like you, they would buy something new and before they had even set on the proper location for the speakers, they were already thinking about what else they could buy to fix what they had just bought. Don't get sucked into the circular firing squad. I made a good deal of money selling and reselling to people who did just that. They all had ideas they had heard that led them to buy more stuff that I knew wasn't going to stay in their system. As I have said, I wasn't there to stop them, only to suggest how to avoid the repeat buying if they listened to some advice. Most just bought without ever developing a priority for what they actually wanted from the music. The frequency response changed here and it changed there and they heard something different from this and that but they never actually settled on how to create a system that focused on the music. I'm not talking about upgrading, upgrading over time is different from buying just to be buying, or to be fixing what they had just bought. Upgrading means you have a list of priorities that is not being met and that can be improved buy thinking long and hard about what would actually change the reproduction of the music, not just change the frequency response of the system in the same room. I've already told you, if you move the speakers over to a different wall, you will have a different frequency response. That's cheaper than buying a new amp. Don't buy a tube amplifier. There really are no good tube amps with excellent transformers for $600 that I would recommend to you. If you don't know about tubes and just see them as a Bandaid, then it's very unlikely a tube amp is the answer to the music's requirements. That doesn't mean you may not get there but, you're not there right now. Listen to the music your new system turns out. Let me know in a few weeks what you have concluded. What speaker cables are you using? What about stands for the Klipsch? What are you using? . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 58 Registered: Apr-10 | I will take your advice Jan, i'm not going for a tube amp in near future. Check the specifications for your amplifier's tone controls. Bass controls often affect more than what is considered bass. For the most part, anything above 120Hz is no longer bass and has moved to the lower midrange. According to the the lab report http://i.nextmedia.com.au/avhub/pdf_marantz_pm_7003_amplifier_review_lores.pdf?1 29185550852450000 "The circuitry of the bass and treble controls isn't the conventional Baxandall topology either, Marantz instead provides dualfrequency EQ, which is very unusual in this price range, and far superior." I really don't understand this so a bit of your help is really appreciated. Listen to the music your new system turns out. Let me know in a few weeks what you have concluded. - Sure What speaker cables are you using? Im using OEHLBACH type 1058 2x4mm OFC wire http://www.oehlbach.com/de/home-hifi/lautsprecher/meterware/streamline-40 bought it for 20euros What about stands for the Klipsch? What are you using? I bought Bowers & Wilkins STAV24 https://www.audiot.co.uk/products/b-and-w-stav-24-s2-speaker-stands-9766.aspx Also, as these speakers have 4 terminals each i was thinking of bi wiring them using the A+B functionality, are there any benefits? Or furthermore I can give it a try to bi amp them with my fathers NAD T 760 AV receiver using the rear channels for the tweeters and fronts for the woofer. But as we live in separate towns i will need to arrange transport so would it be worth a trial? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18622 Registered: May-04 | . I guess I don't really know which speakers you now own. You've listed several Klipsch models but I don't think you've said what you were going to buy. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 59 Registered: Apr-10 | Sorry if i missed that, its Klipsch RP-600M bookshelfs |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18623 Registered: May-04 | . Let's start off with the advice to do nothing. Just allow the speakers to settle in and your ears to adjust to the new frequency balance. If you haven't done any speaker set up, then do that much. That can only help the system. If you haven't done a speaker set up, the assistance I can provide from here on out is going to be limited by the simple fact I'm trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. This has to be a two way street and I can't do much if you decide which suggestions to ignore. I have to base my suggestions on the assumption you have tried what I have suggested and you can give me feedback based on what you've heard when you have made a change. Speaker set up is far more important than new gear or biwiring or anything else you can do at this point. Please read that sentence several more times. I have no priorities from you other than frequency response so I'm getting to the point where I'm flying blind unless we get back together on the same page. I can't change the frequency response of your room and I am very limited with my effect on the system overall when giving directions on a forum. Just shuffling deck chairs is not improving your music. As with any process, one thing is based on what has come before it. I've provided several links to several speaker set up procedures. To be honest, they are basically what you need at this point to bring the system in line with "audiophile" expectations. The only other thing required is for you to adjust your listening to focus on the music. If you pay attention to the music - and follow the admonition to get the mids right - most of the rest will fall in place. Go listen to some live music and pay attention to how the musicians think and communicate with each other. Next, the room is still your greatest contributor to the perception of sound. The horns limit high frequency dispersion somewhat. That does not take your room out of the equation. Even the highest frequencies the speakers can reproduce still exists "within the room" and are reflected by every surface in the room - multiple times. The review you linked to tells me nothing about the action of the tone controls other than Marantz has used a design they can say is not "conventional". The only data I have found is here; https://www.manualslib.com/manual/516664/Marantz-Pm7003.html?page=18#manual I find those numbers to be unrealistic. If the treble control had its knee frequency at 20kHz, it would be totally useless to 99% of users. If the bass knee is at 50Hz, that too would be rather useless to most owners. Simply know that tone controls are not the best choice for solving speaker and room issues. I see nothing that says the amplifier has a "loudness" control. This is a simple addition that compensates for the naturally occurring loss of frequency extremes at low volume levels. The Fletcher/Munson curve, which is - or should be - the basis for a "loudness compensation circuit", is not an option. It is a well documented function of human perception of sound. This isn't a big deal since most loudness compensation circuits are more often wrong than right but an odd omission if tone controls are included. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18624 Registered: May-04 | . Bi-amping is a technique which has been used almost since the introduction of muti-way speaker systems. That takes it back to the 1930's at least. To be truly functional, it should, IMO, not be based on a, "I have a spare amplifier in the closet", type of thinking. It achieves best results with purpose built outboard active crossovers with adjustable filters and dedicated amplification components which have been selected based on the true benefits of bi-amplification for the music, not for any other reason. Certainly not just for the reason the speaker retailer made it a known possibility in the sales brochure. What bi-amping and bi-wiring have become are buzzwords of the mid-fi industry. It is another way to sell the sizzle and not the steak. For the most part, it exists in marketing and not in reality. A common problem both techniques address is Back EMF. This is essentially the only issue to be affected by bi-wiring. Though to be more ... "accurate" in the way bi-wiring should work, you would be selecting individual speaker cabling runs based on their performance in either the low or high frequency regions. Not just for frequency response but for their benefits to the music that one cable claims vs what the other cable claims. So, to be truly effective, I would tell you the cabling employed in bi-wiring is not just slap dash I got cable. And it is not best done on the cheap. If there are benefits to be had, they require some thought - some priorities? - and some experimentation. Just running cables that are just cables and calling it done is not likely to produce much more than a healthy dose of placebo effect. Bi-amping, while addressing the issues of crossovers, can do more than just remove a common ground plane. However, as it is suggested in a speaker such as the Klipsch where all internal components remains fixed in place, what is termed "bi-amping" is a poor reflection on the proper implementation of the technique. The motor of the drivers (the moving parts of the electro-magnetically driven voice coil) both takes in Voltage and Amperage from the amplifier and put out Volts and Amps back to the amplifier through the grounding circuit which connects the two components. This Back Electro-Motive Force is fed to the amplifier's NFB (Negative FeedBack) circuit in an attempt to reduce distortion within the amplifier. NFB has been used as a crutch for poor amplifier design as a cheap and dirty way to reduce THD for on paper specs. All amplifiers require some % of NFB in order to remain stable. NFB on its own is not the boogeyman many have made it out to be. It is simply a matter of how NFB is applied to a circuit which can determine is benefits or its faults. At its worst - which is generally in mid fi components and speakers designed to a strict budget - Back EMF exacerbates the problems associated with NFB. At its worst, back EMF means the speaker begins to drive the amplifier instead of the other way 'round. The conventional way to design a budget oriented crossover in a mid fi speaker joins the two (or more) drivers through the shared common ground plane of the filters. A possible problem exists when the back EMF of the woofer (with the strongest motor in the system) exerts an influence on the upper range driver(s). Removing this ground plane link may subtly improve the performance of the speaker system. No one has conclusively proven this will occur, only stated that it may occur. On paper we can measure the amount of Volts and Amps which might exist on the crossover ground, that's a given. Yet, how much this actually affects the performance of the drivers, or the listener's perception of such an occurrence, is not measurable due to the highly dynamic nature of music. Time and phase issues further reduce the ability to predict what effects common ground planes introduce to music reproduction. A good many theories exist and a good many solutions have been suggested. Take your pick as to which best addresses whatever problems you have yet to discover. I will say, making a change to solve a problem which you don't know about, and haven't isolated to an area to be addressed, is ridiculous. Research is fine and experimentation is beneficial - when they are methodical and rigorous. "Rigor" is not a word used in the marketing department. If you haven't yet identified a problem you wish to solve, you might as well hang polka dot underwear from the lamp shade and call it done. Are you seeing what I'm getting at here? Given the complexity of most mid fi components and speakers the reduction of EMF to one or more drivers is minimal at best. Back EMF to the amplifier has not been reduced by bi-wiring. Bi-amping and bi-wiring share one common trait in the jumpers used to connect the filter sections of the passive crossover. Typically, these are simply two bar type links used to run between the inputs to the lower and upper frequency portions of the filters. Some people claim success by exchanging these OEM jumpers with "audibly superior" jumpers of either "audiophile quality" jumpers or short runs of high quality speaker cabling. As with bi-wiring itself, the effects of such modifications are relatively inexpensive and quickly returned to OEM status if no benefits accrue from the experiment. A basic problem with bi-wiring other than its "woo-woo" placebo type benefits of having done something supposedly beneficial, is the user has no idea what they are actually doing to the system. Everything that actually matters is on the crossover board and the user can't see what is there and most wouldn't understand what they were looking at even if they could see inside the enclosure. Therefore, bi-wiring is simply taking the manufacturer's word that you might be able to affect performance by making a small change to the physical connections to the speaker on whole. I won't go into all the other aspects of design which are, IMO, far more important to excellent design at any price other than to say there are many and the actual benefit to be derived from bi-wiring is small by anyone's estimation. Bi-wiring is in many ways a gimmick if the user believes they can have a better performing system but they still plunk their speakers down where they fit and do not bother to properly set up the speakers for better performance. One is free - other than the time spent in the set up procedure, the other may be a total waste of time and money that is easily swamped by virtually all other aspects of the system design. One allows you to spend more money on your system, the other does not. Bi-amping is a somewhat different issue in that true bi-amping does away with internal passive crossovers and the multiple issues they may inflict on the time and phase coherence of the signal as it arrives at each individual driver. IMO bi-amping is best done by jumping in with both feet and wallowing in the very essence of tweakdom. Understand and accept what you are trying to achieve and do all the preparatory work prior to going full fledged tweaky. In other words, just because you have access to another amplifier doesn't mean jack sh1t. Either you go full Monty on the train that gets you to bi-amping or you just play around the edges at being an audiophile or a music lover. Marketing drives these additions which can be sold in the demo room or on a sales blurb on line. They allow the less informed buyer play time at being an audiophile or a music lover. The issues of "tweaks" is enormous, highly personal and highly profitable for those who sell the tweaks. I have sold many, many tweaks and I am an adamant user of tweaks. I typically do not recommend tweaks however for most systems until other criteria have been met. Many tweaks such as bi-wiring allow users to play at improving their system by doing none of the actual work that goes into making a music reproduction system more musical. Ignoring the physics of how the room interacts with the pressure waves introduced by a loudspeaker or how resonances build up and collect in supporting structures of the system only to add a jumper between the OEM passive filters of a mid fi speakers system is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Way back in this thread you were told a well set up mid fi system will out perform a higher quality and more expensive system which is not well set up. Bi-wiring a mid fi speaker prior to doing any of the other tasks associated with set up is only play acting IMO. Do what you like to the system, I can't stop you and I can't change your mind as to the benefits. Just know that I consider ignoring the basics to be a cardinal sin in a music reproduction system and focusing only on frequency response to be wrong headed. If you bi-wire and you believe you have made an improvement, perception, which occurs in your mind and is not fully understood due to its highly personal nature, is more powerful than hearing which occurs in your ears and is a mechanical process we can easily define. We can discuss those two thing later, if you wish. First, however, I'd prefer you do a proper speaker set up and consider just how much the room is affecting what you perceive from your system. Adjusting your thinking to focus on the music rather than the frequency response is the next step IMO. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 60 Registered: Apr-10 | Hi Jan, I've been experimenting much in the past with the speakers setup, and finally i'm really happy how the music sounds in my home. Its a real joy, and i'm very grateful to you for not letting me spending my money and time on bi amping/wiring etc. Many thanks! However i would like to replace the current cables and have an obvious upgrade in quality (not in sound) as now i use very cheap cables. How much money should i spend on cables for a mid-range system like mine? FYI, we don't have any monoprice or BlueJeans cables here. The choices are very limited. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 61 Registered: Apr-10 | I just found audioquest type 4 speaker cable listed for 162.85 euros. Should i go for this one or it's a overkill for my setup? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18628 Registered: May-04 | . Always happy to hear from a satisfied listener. Type 4 has been around since the '90's. I'd say it's longevity in the market indicates it does a lot of things right and very few things wrong for a wide variety of listeners. The same can be said for the baseline Kimbre Kable, which has been around since the '80's. Reviews exist for both on line. The cables do not share all values I consider important to decent music reproduction, though either would be quite acceptable in a midline system and spending more is unlikely to gain you much in audible performance. At this price point, the law of diminishing returns enters into the picture. Spending more will not guarantee higher quality music reproduction. Transparency to the source is often a cumulative quality which involves bottle necks upstream in the system. The old adage of "garbage in = garbage out". I would suggest you not use cables as tone controls though "tone" is arguably a significant difference between the two cables. Kimbres will place a slight perceptible character difference in the top end, not in the sense of making the system bright but more in the direction of clearing up any congestion in the upper ranges. Such "congestion" is often found in RF rich conditions where the cables are subjected to external forces in the environment outside of the immediate system. They achieve this "uncongested" sound mostly by their braided construction and its inherent rejection of electromagnetic interference. While technically superior to the Type 4's in this regard, I wouldn't tend to suggest the Kimbres for a system that tends to be top heavy. They would certainly require an audition in such a system with return privileges clearly understood. Type 4's will be a bit more "laid back" with no particular emphasis or character in any particular frequency range, just a basically neutral cable that may not "open up" your music as the Kimbre would but will also not offend or distract in any way. What you will perceive with the Type 4's is arguably the basic sound of your system. That's my impression of the cables based on my experiences with the designs. I've not experimented with either cable in quite some time and the designs have been upgraded somewhat over the years. Both cables though exist as the baseline for each company and I would expect the designs have done nothing to damage the quality of either cable. As I had mentioned previously, TAS posted a speaker cable comparison years ago which drew quite a bit of attention to a cable from Black and Decker. The reviewer mentioned the Quad reps had decide to use the B&D cables for their shows after "temporarily" being put in place of some high end cables which didn't get delivered in time for the show. The rep was in a bind and headed out to buy some cheap cables which would just get the system up and running. He wanted the heaviest gauge cable he could find quickly and the B&D's met that requirement. And they were cheap. The B&D cables surprised the rep with their basic neutrality, doing most everything right and possessing very few "sins of omission". The reps eventually replaced their high end cables they had been carrying around. (As I have said, I consider it more important in a mid-priced system to accept inevitable "sins of omission" and reject self imposed "sins of commission" which leave a distinguishable character on the system's performance.) The cable selected by the Quad reps was a simple B&D outdoor extension cable with the plugs cut off the ends. The comparison review raised a ruckus between the subjective listeners who believed "high end" cables made a significant improvement in sound quality and the purely objective listeners who believed a cable was a cable. In this respect, the objectivist view taken is contrary to their accepted opinion that measurements tell everything the buyer needs to know. It is easily proven that certain values do influence the performance of a cable. None the less, in the TAS comparison a $39 very basic cable was being favorably compared to "audiophile" cables upwards of $1k and holding its own. I would expect B&D has changed vendors in the years since the comparison but, IMO, the success of the B&D cables did indicate the amount of "design" that goes into a quality cable starts with good basic electrical engineering principles. From the B&D comparison the Home Depot extension cables of similar quality gained a lot of attention as equivalents when the B&D's were not available. Keep in mind the word "equivalent" means a lot of different things to a lot of people. In my world, it depends on your priorities as to what is equivalent to what. My experience with the HD cables does say a good cable shouldn't cost a lot of money, particularly in a midline system. Another cable which has good basic design and sound quality is the baseline Belden speaker cable. Belden is a decades old company producing "pro" cables for sound systems both in permanent and semi-permanent installation. Any Belden dealer can guide you to an appropriate cable though you may only be able to purchase the Belden cables in bulk lengths. They are good basic cables with no story to sell to a subjective listener. They just work well and do nothing offensive. They will not be a good value however if you can only buy them in 100' rolls. Any Belden cable will be highly flexible if that matters to you. Dielectric materials and cable construction (parallel runs, twisted pairs, braiding, etc.) do matter IMO as differences can be easily explained by basic electrical theory. Most cables in your price range will have a basic poly type dielectric so there's not much to choose from there unless you decide to go with something like Anticables; http://anticables.com/ The Anticable cables had a great story to tell when they first showed up on the audiophile market. Basically, they follow the idea that the simpler the cable construction, the better the performance. Just my opinion but I'm a little disappointed in their marketing of "upper end" cables nowdays and their website shows their cables connected to some old, tarnished and slightly corroded terminals. Good housekeeping (cleaning connectors, cable dressing, etc) and basic electrical proprieties is essential to quality performance. Still, though I've not had direct experience with Anticables, their original idea of "less is more" in cable performance is worthwhile. One complaint with the Anticables speaker cables pertains to their solid core construction in rather heavy gauges. Decades ago all cables were solid core, in other words one single run of a single conductor within a dieletric which simply avoided current flow between + and - legs of the cable. However, as gauge became more important in a modern home and cosmetics became more important to the look of the domestic home installation, solid core cables fell out of favor due to their rigidity and lack of flexibility when running to exposed appliances. Stranded cables solved the problems of flexibility, the higher the number of thin gauge conductors in the cable leg, the more flexible the cable will be with the same dielectric material. Therefore, the Anticables represent a time when solid core cables were the only cables available and the simplest cable construction possible (somewhat similar to the idea of single driver, full range speakers). Both the Type 4 and the Kimbres are constructed with stranded conductors. The Type 4 is slightly more flexibe than the Kimbre - if that matters to you. Twisting or braiding the conductor legs matters to the electromagnetic "cross talk" to which a cable is susceptible. You could easily argue the Kimbre is less congested in the top end vs the parallel runs in the Type 4 due to the construction of the cables. Another way to avoid electromagnetic interference is to widely space the + and - legs of the cable. This is seldom seen in consumer cables due to the size of the dieletric required to minimize interference. Though, if you don't care about appearance, IMO widely spaced, solid core runs of cable are superior to any other design seen in the consumer audio market. I have a diy cable design I will explain to you if you wish to experiment. The cables are inexpensive to build but they will look homemade. Let me know if you want to experiment, otherwise, any of the cables I've discussed would be good, solid suggestions for your system. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18629 Registered: May-04 | . "Twisting or braiding the conductor legs matters to the electromagnetic "cross talk" to which a cable is susceptible. You could easily argue the Kimbre is less congested in the top end vs the parallel runs in the Type 4 due to the construction of the cables." I mentioned the objectivist view that "cables are cables" despite the fact we can easily measure the effects of various dielectric materials and those effects related to construction techniques. The objectivist argument for, say, the inexpensive B&D cable vs a more costly cable specifically constructed around use as an audio cable falls along the lines of, most effects of dielectrics and construction techniques occur at frequencies well above the limits of human hearing. Which is true but, IMO, shortsighted. As I have mentioned, there is a distinct difference between hearing and perception. We understand hearing as the mechanic process of pressure waves impinging on the ear drum to create vibrations. Hearing can be measured and defined as existing in humans between a low and a high frequency and between the lowest SPL detected and the highest before discomfort sets in. Perception, on the other hand, is not definable to the point it exists either within a frequency bandwidth or due to physical actions exerting a force on the physical body. Ask anyone who suffers from tinnitus to explain where the noises they hear in their head come from. Any tinnitus sufferer will tell you they cannot escape the noises they perceive and any attempt at removing all external sounds only makes what is in their head all the more obvious. So hearing exists within the mechanical processes in and around the ears. Cognitive scientists will say perception exists in the mind and various types of perception are relegated to certain portions of the brain. Therefore, we say perception is what occurs not in your ears but in your mind. Things which exist solely in the individual's mind are far less easily quantified as existing between certain limits of "hearing". If you are interested in researching perception, here are a few starting points; https://www.google.com/search?q=this+is+your+brain+on+music&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754U S756&oq=this+is+your+brain+on+music&aqs=chrome..69i57.5437j0j1&sourceid=chrome&i e=UTF-8 Perception also changes with brainwave frequency; https://www.google.com/search?q=brainwave+frequencies+and+their+effects&rlz=1CAA CAY_enUS754US756&oq=brainwave+frequencies+and+their+effects&aqs=chrome..69i57.11 695j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 As we comprehend more about perception, the audio industry - and specifically those subjectivist listeners who believe measurements cannot define everything that occurs in the experience of listening to music, have developed tweaks which play to perception; https://www.google.com/search?q=schumann+resonance+generator&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754 US756&oq=schumann+resonance+generator&aqs=chrome..69i57.7983j0j1&sourceid=chrome &ie=UTF-8 Add to that the less easily defined tweaks which are more difficult to explain despite repeated examples of their efficacy; https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-112 https://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-113 So, there's your beginning lessons from me on the issue of perception and subjective vs objective listening. The wars - and they are incredibly vicious wars - which have existed between the two camps have been fierce and well beyond the bounds of human decency toward another's opinion. IMO as we learn more regarding human perception, the less interesting the purely objectivist ramblings and attacks become for me. I'll leave it to you to decide which camp you prefer to operate from - if you decide at all. Only know this, many tweaks which operate on a perceptual level are only easily acknowledged when other issues of transparency within the system have been addressed. In other words, don't expect great things to occur with a simple "tweak" if you have ignored the greater issues which pertain to measurable gains in musical performance from the system. Know that THD is only a measure of Total Harmonic Distortion and not a measure of how that distortion exists in relation to musical instruments or human perception of distortion. Any high end amplifier with a THD spec of 0.01% is running its signal into a loudspeaker which may have THD measurements as high as 20% at certain frequencies. While a power conditioner may have a quite obvious benefit to one system, another listener may dismiss the same component as worthless for several different reasons. First among those legitimate reasons would be "priorities". We all have different ways of listening to the same piece of music. I've sat beside any number of friends (and clients) at a concert, or while tweaking their system, and asked them what they took from the performance we had both just experienced sitting side by side. Most often I've been completely surprised by some of their responses. Since we all have our own priorities in listening, we all also have our own answers to the question, "What did you think of the performance?" From this diversity in responses I developed the suggestion to create your own priorities, enumerate them to the point you can list them in a few short phrases and to concentrate on developing those values which benefit your own personal list of: 1) have to have 2) would like to have 3) neutral at this time 4) can live without and 5) do not want at all. Secondly, since the bottlenecks in a system begin at the front of the chain of components, realize that anything left or added to out at the very front of the system can neither be removed nor added to in the latter stages of the system. Distortions which are created by the source player cannot, in a system which is transparent to the source, be removed by later stages. Information and temporal cues which are not in the wheel house of the source cannot be inserted through the use of any component or tweak later in the system. Basically, "garbage in = garbage out". Therefore, many tweaks will not be readily apparent unless the system is ready to accept their contribution to improving the perception of the musical performance. For example, if you do not have PRAT as one of your overall priorities, a tweak intended to increase the perception of PRAT, or any of its parts, will do nothing for you. Or, if you are auditioning a device intended to reduce line noise on the AC coming into your system but you have dirty or poor fitting connectors within the system or have not accomplished correct cable dressing with your interconnects and speaker cables, the fault(s) within the system will likely swamp the benefits of AC noise reduction. Thirdly, certain measurements have more weight than do others. While it is unusual to find a human who can hear 24kHz, the component which has been designed to have a "power bandwidth" out to 70kHz, or even to 150kHz, is almost certain to exhibit better square wave performance. And, while square waves do not exist in nature, we can generally say even those listeners who are limited in their hearing to lower than 20kHz sounds can perceive the benefits of improved square wave performance as exhibited by a component designed to address the occurrence of naturally occurring harmonic structures out to 150kHz and beyond. The opposite is also true and at times a component capable of reproducing information related to noise can become detrimental to your preception of music. Therefore, when listening/auditioning any component/accessory/tweak, trust your ears first and your perceptions and priorities foremost. Even if you don't understand how something might benefit your music, accept there are generally rules which do exist which might explain your preference. Most of all, develop your priorities. You will find they do not always remain static and unchangeable over time but get to the point where you have priorities you can state very briefly and with concision. The more you listen and take in, the more you should be capable of thinking about. The more you think, the more firmly placed your priorities will become. Most of all, listen to as much live performance in real time and within a real venue to understand what any modern recording tends to distort or ignore. For instance, historic, mono recordings were typically made with all performers playing as if they were in performance and playing to an audience rather than to a microphone. Recordings were cut to a master disc in real time. There were no edits and overdubs, no multiple stages of post production. If a performer screwed up, they started over again from the beginning. One microphone captured the sound of all the musicians playing in a live space. Very few recordings follow even a few of those rules today. Your priorities are your own and unlike anyone else's. Your source for priorities (your reference point) should be what we all should have in our heads, live music played in real time by real musicians in a real world venue. Become a music lover and not just an audiophile. It was once said a music lovers record collection was worth far more than their equipment. The audiophile's system cost was far more than the value of their music collection. Too many audiophiles only listen to the recordings they own that make their system sound good. A music lovers system makes the music sound good. If you buy based on what is reviewed as best today, it will be outdated tomorrow. Music on the other hand, has not changed much at all in the last 2,500 years. If you have those values established, IMO you can walk into any audio salon and audition any piece of equipment and, within one minute, you can detect where on the spectrum of your priorities that component or that system falls. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 62 Registered: Apr-10 | Thanks for everything. It's always a pleasure to read at what you wrote. I'm really interested in the DYI cable design and i like to experiment. Actually i'm so existed and cant wait to see at your tutorials. Regarding your second comment, few days ago i did attend live performance of a local band covering Couldn't Stand the Weather SRV's album. The performance was outstanding and i decided to play the same album in my home just to tell the differences between live and home music. Only two things was missing in my home. 1. Dynamics 2. Energy |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18630 Registered: May-04 | . OK, the diy cables consist of enameled magnet wire and painter's tape. They work on the theory of the simplest is the best. For current to flow we need a + and a - leg in the circuit. Or a send and a return leg if you prefer. We need to keep the send leg away from the return leg or a shorted circuit will result. "Insulation" in the form of a "dielectric" is typically applied to the conductor(s) of each leg to minimize interaction between the two legs. In some cases, individual conductors are encased in a dielectric, which creates what is termed "Litz wire"; https://www.google.com/search?q=litzwire&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&oq=litzwire&aq s=chrome..69i57.2842j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 In the history of specialty audio cables, Nordost introduced ribbon type cables which used flat runs of cable with individual runs of + and - conductors arranged in parallel construction; https://www.google.com/search?q=nordost&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&oq=nordost&aqs= chrome..69i57.2372j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Either method of construction tends to have a measurable increase in the capacitance of the cable. Capacitors are one of the elements of a filter, as in a crossover filter in a loudspeaker. Capacitors and inductors make up filters - along with resistors where the resistor in a X-over trims back the sensitivity of one driver to better match another driver. If you remember our discussion of what makes a "difficult load" in a loudspeaker, we talked about the effects of inductors and capacitors and their influence on electrical phase when paired with impedance. Therefore, I have avoided the use of cables with significant capacitance as they tend, IMO, to act as tone controls. Once again we can discuss priorities and not everyone feels capacitance is a bad thing in cable design - particularly since most cables will have some amount of capacitance due to the construction techniques employed. Twisting the conductor legs will minimize both capacitance and inductance within the cable's effects on the signal. And it will cause the cable to reject radio frequency interference (RFI) to a certain extent. RF rejection is increasingly important for a cable as the modern world is becoming more and more drenched in radio frequencies from multiple sources which exist in every domestic environment and many outside the environment which can find their way to an unsuspecting conductor acting as an antenna. An old fashioned T-type FM antenna works on the principles of controlled tuning within a bandwidth of the RF field to allow radio frequencies to be accepted by the configuration of the cables. Minimizing RFI should be an important part of any cable design IMO. Widely spacing conductor legs accomplishes this effect. Additionally, braiding of multiple conductor legs (Kimbre) provides a sort of natural RF rejection which is superior to simple twisted pairs. The downside to braiding is the increase in overall cable diameter and its stiffness and the added expense of the more sophisticated construction. I will stop to once again remind you of the rule that there are very few totally positive benefits to anything in audio. If I give you one thing - braiding - I will take away another. This is merely an overview of those pros and cons for any one construction technique. Electromagnetic interference and crosstalk are also considerations for a cable design. This is essentially conductors picking up stray electrical fields which are radiated by components such as power transformers. Transformers, autoformers, coils, electro-magnets and inductors are all constructed in identical fashion by layering conductors aside each other; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&ei=II4uXN75B9LYsQX9irPICg &q=how+is+an+inductor+constructed&oq=how+is+an+inductor+constructed&gs_l=psy-ab. 12..0i30.50815.51489..62331...0.0..0.95.161.2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i 7i30.Zk_Jzfj9ImE To keep the layered conductors from shorting out where they touch each other, an enamel dielectric is applied to the magnet wire when winding a transformer, inductor or coil. The enamel serves as the insulation between conductors but does not interfere with the effects of electro-magnetic coupling. Therefore, we can see the layering of conductors upon each other creates another type of filter action. Twisted pairs tend to have a somewhat higher inductance measurement than parallel runs. Parallel runs (zipcord and Type 4) tend to have measurements that fall equally on the capacitance and the inductance scale. Neither good nor bad, parallel runs tend to be simple, somewhat effective when done well and mostly inoffensive. Quality of materials is often the most important value in parallel run cables. Solid core conductors make up magnet wire. Their main disadvantage is seen when lower gauges make the conductor heavy and very rigid (Anticables). As mentioned, stranded conductor legs make the cable more flexible, which is generally a desirable quality in a domestic household. My diy cables try to address each area where I feel commercial speaker cables fail in some way. They are however diy and their appearance is a function of your skills and patience in constructing the cables. They have certain limitations and are not for all systems. IMO they work best with rather easy to drive loudspeaker loads as they are not intended for extremely high current delivery over an extended time period. That's not to say they are puny so much as it is meant to imply most consumer audiophile cables are grossly overbuilt. "Overbuilt" sells to the average home audio buyer. Monster Cable introduced the first "specialty cable" for consumer audio use in the mid-1970's. They were nothing particularly special, just different than the very typical cheap 18AWG lampcord/zipcord used in most consumer audio systems at that time. Monster's first speaker cables were essentially nothing more different than 10 gauge, heavily stranded conductors in a clear poly dieletric that appeared to be zipcord on steriods. They sold as much on the idea of "if a little is good, more is better" as anything else. They did measure with slightly lower resistance than the average zipcord and thus they did offer some advantages in an average audio system. Unfortunately, most receivers, integrateds and even basic power amps of the day would not accept 10AWG cabling and the earliest Monster Cable cables were often trimmed back to a smaller gauge to fit into the press type connectors found on most consumer equipment of the day. My diy cables go the opposite direction from virtually all "audiophile approved" cabling with single runs of light gauge solid core conductors. Each dielectric type will have its own "dieletric absorption ratio" with its own effects on the cable's transmission qualities. Generally "Teflon" will be the likely best dielectric for the money but unavailable as a diy product for the average cable builder. Cotton is a very good and inexpensive dielectric but somewhat difficult for the typical diy builder to deal with. Air is the dielectric superior to Teflon for the diy'er and a vacuum is the absolute best of all but once again very difficult for the diy builder to accomplish. Air - no dielectric - of course introduces its own issues when diy cable construction is employed. It's almost impossible to maintain consistent conductor spacing over any distance when you are relying on an air dieletric. Consistent spacing between the legs is preferrable to maintain consistent measurements for capacitance, inductance and RFI rejection. In the end I've settled on paper as my dielectric of choice due to cost and ease of application. Knowing that each construction technique has pros and cons, I've decided parallel runs are the most effective when done correctly. In order to minimize capacitance, inductance, and RF pick up I space the two conductor legs as widely apart from each other as practical for audio use without going to extremes. I forego connectors as the best connection is always the simplest bare wire, clean connection. To construct the cables you will need enough enameled magnet wire as needed to complete four individual runs (two legs each for two cable runs) between the amp and the speakers with enough addition to allow for convenient movement of the components or speakers when necessary; https://www.google.com/search?q=magnet+wire&rlz=1CAACAY_enUS754US756&oq=magnet+w ire&aqs=chrome..69i57.3596j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Nothing special really about magnet wire just make sure you're buying copper and not alloy or aluminum wiring. Oxygen free copper is desirable but most copper sold for use today is sufficiently free of contaminants that you don't need to spend for anything special. For ease of handling anything between and 18 and a 22 AWG cable is sufficient. Thicker gets difficult to handle and isn't required for this installation. Thinner gets too difficult to handle easily and too prone to breakage unless you are very careful in the construction phase. Settle on 18-22 AWG and you'll be fine. The dielectric for the cables is the enamel coating so you could actually create your own twisted pairs if you can wind the conductors together while maintaining a consistent wrap. Which is almost impossible over more than a foot or so of cable. So we're going to add some painter's tape to maintain a fairly consistent spacing between the parallel conductor legs. Buy a roll of 4" wide Scotch blue painter's tape at any home improvement store. Wider than 4" won't gain anything appreciable considering the Voltages we'll be dealing with so don't get OCD here. Lay out an area where you can roll out the entire length of tape you will need for each speaker run and a little extra for comfort. Tear off two short strips about six inches long and set then aside. Pull off enough tape to complete one cable run and lay it sticky side up on your work surface. Take one of your strips to secure the tape at one end while you roll out the required amount. Use the other strip to secure the rolled out tape, sticky side up to your work surface. This will become one cable run. Starting at one end of the tape, begin to unroll the magnet wire with about six inches extra extending beyond the end of the tape. Slowly roll the wire out as you press it to the sticky side of the tape and add another six inches beyond the end of the tape. Keep the wire as straight as possible without getting OCD and lay the wire about 1/4" to 1/2" in from the edge of the tape. The magnet wire is not all that compliant with your wishes and will want to curl back into a rolled shape. Take your time as patience is the key here. After you've completed one leg you may need to use another short strip of tape to secure the wire in place as you repeat the process on the other side of the tape, again about 1/2" from the edge. Once you have both conductor legs completed, run another length of painter's tape on top to secure the wiring and complete to cable. The completed taped cable will be somewhat stiff but not unworkable. When you have both speaker cables completed, take a single edged razor blade and scrape off about 1" of the enamel coating on each wire. It's best to use a continuity checker, or a DVM, to make sure you have bare wire on all ends with continuity between the ends of each individual magnet wire run. That's it. Simplicity at its simplest. Power down your system and make your connections. Insert the bare wire into your speaker connectors just to the point where the enamel is still on the conductor and hand tighten sufficiently. Power everything up and listen. If you aren't getting signal to one or both speakers, you likely have not cleaned the enamel completely off the ends of a conductor or you've inserted the conductor leg too far into the connector. They aren't exactly pretty but I've had good success with these cables and several friends have used them to good purpose. Any questions? . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 63 Registered: Apr-10 | Hi Jan, I've been very busy these days. Thanks for your guide. At first glance seems like a simple operation, just twist the wire and isolate with duck tape. All i need is finding pure cooper magnet wire. Thanks |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18636 Registered: May-04 | . No, you missed the points about twisting vs spacing. "Pure copper" is almost any copper you buy today. The industry has reached the point where impurities are virtually non-existent in any copper sold for electrical usage. Just make sure you're not buying an alloy or an aluminum magnet wire. Either would be out of the ordinary today but they do exist. I would suggest you first build the widely spaced cables. IMO they address several issues common to twisted pairs that I find objectionable. Use them and get accustomed to their performance. If you then want to try twisting pairs together, that's up to you. Twisting over more than about 1' of cabling however is very difficult to achieve if your goal is a consistent "machine type" winding. If the winding is shoddy and inconsistent spacing exists, you lose many of the benefits of twisting cables together. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 64 Registered: Apr-10 | Hi Jan, I'm thinking of getting a subwoofer to fill the bass under 50hz. Do you have any recommendations? Should i look for sealed or ported? My budget is around 500-600$. Thanks |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18659 Registered: May-04 | . Any lines available in your area for an audition? REL and SVS remain mainstay recommendations. ELAC does have a few subs to consider and I think the line has proven it has the ability to give you excellent performance for the dollar spent. You can save a bit of money by putting together a kit. My past experience with this sort of combination is a very good choice for most listeners; https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-12-reference-series-ho-subwoofer-and- cabinet-bundle--300-7092#lblProductDetails Pair it with a BASH plate amp and the combination will shake your floors - if that's what you want;https://www.parts-express.com/bash-300s-digital-subwoofer-plate-amplifier-300w-r ms--300-750 Parts Express kits are easy to assemble in a short amount of time with basic hand tools. As always, the room is what you will hear, so subwoofer recommendations are always contingent on set up. My personal preference is for a sealed system though I built a ported system several years back that has all the qualities I desire from a sealed system. Unfortunately, there is no "kit" form for that sub and the driver is no longer available. How much information do you want? If you buy a kit or separate components, you'll want to know a bit about values such as Qts and Fs to enable you to communicate with the retailer. If you buy a manufacturer's complete product, those aren't values you can really dispute or change. Knowing all there is to know about Qts at that point is wasted time and effort. For the most part, knowing that a sealed system rolls out the response more slowly than does a vented system is usually sufficient. If all things are equal - which they most likely can't be as drivers tend to prefer one type of enclosure over another - a sealed system rolls out the bass response at a -12dB per octave rate. Sealed systems are more forgiving of most things the typical user/builder needs to know and deal with. In other words, it's either more difficult to screw up a sealed system or it's far easier to f-up a vented system. Subs with passive radiators roll out bass at the same rate as a vented system though the back wave is sealed which makes set up somewhat easier. Passive radiators also allow for a slightly smaller enclosure for the same amount of bass. A vented enclosure has a bass roll off which occurs at -24dB per octave. Specs on paper might show the vented system with a stated lower bass extension point but the bass rolls out very rapidly beneath that point. A sealed system makes up for its slightly higher bass extension frequency spec by allowing bass to actually be heard at lower frequencies. Keep in mind an octave in the bass frequencies covers a lot of territory though once you get beneath about 40Hz, things tend to become more "feeling" to the bass than actually hearing bass. The low E string on a bass guitar should be tuned to about 42Hz. Only a few acoustic instruments actually produce usable bass sounds beneath about 32 Hz. Saying your sub can reach 19Hz for music doesn't impress me. That doesn't make it a bad choice, it's just not usable bass because acoustic instruments don't need 19Hz response. Car crashes tend to be about impact and vented systems do well with that type of sound since it comes and goes rapidly. Thermonuclear explosions in the Gamma-Gamma 13 Galaxy have no realistic comparison and are completely generated in the mixing studio though most people like the rumble of the after effect which makes sealed systems preferable. Six of one and a half dozen of the other. Sealed systems tend to be more "agile" - "tight bass" - but saying so doesn't necessarily make it so. Bass is what the designer wants it to be and while "tight bass" is always what people ask for, the designer can give the impression of "tight bass" with either a vented or a sealed system by manipulating values. Since you would be hearing the room as much or more than the sub in any audition, and stores don't really care to lug around subwoofers to make comparisons equal as far as the room goes, a designer can "sell" a sub by placing a bit of a hump at the right frequencies. Stores can sell a sub simply by choosing its position in a room vs another sub. Fourth order filters in the plate amp are preferrable though not always necessary for the easiest placement in most rooms. I tend to set the crossover frequency a bit lower (50-60Hz) for music systems and higher (80Hz) for video systems. Only a few rooms can actually benefit from a continuously variable phase control. 0 and 180 degrees phase selection by a switch will do for most systems. I wouldn't pick a sub by the phase control alone. Also, you have some discrepancies between a sub that does best for video use vs one for musical use. The Dayton kit is very good for video IMO without giving up much for music. It finds the beat in music and doesn't draw attention to itself. IMO the 12" SVS is probably the best all round sub in your price, very good musical performance and quite acceptable video performance. I have no direct experience with the ELAC subs. I would certainly give them consideration based on what I have read about their subs. Looking at a bunch of specs only, there's nothing to complain about in their subs. When you were selecting speakers I think you said ELAC would be out of your price range in Canada. Sealed system are somewhat easier to locate in a room since there are no back pressure waves sneaking out of a port to deal with. Passive radiators are fairly easy and vented systems have noises coming from the port to deal with. None are impossible to place if you take your time and do some experimentation, some are just more forgiving than others. Need more? . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 65 Registered: Apr-10 | Thank you! The sub will only be used for music (100% of the time) as i don't watch movies to often. It doesn't need to shake floors as i live in apartment. Most of the time i listen quiet to moderate volume. I'm currently looking at SVS SB-1000 (12" Sealed) which i don't have a chance to demo it but i can order it from my neighbor country. I'm only concerned about the dimensions of my room which is ~35 square meters. Many online reviews recommends this Sub for smaller rooms. As i said, it doesn't need to shake the cabinets but i would like to hear the presence of the bass at my sweet spot which will be at ~2.5-3m distance from the sub. Do you think 12" Sealed SVS will do the job? |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18660 Registered: May-04 | . For music use, no doubt it will do fine. |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3532 Registered: Oct-07 | Twisting Cables? I use an ELECTRIC DRILL. Put the pair of wires in the chuck. Have someone get well away with the OTHER end. Get the drill spinning and applly tension to the bundle. Twist until you achieve desired effect. As for a sub? Some new designs are 'switch hitters' being configured as Ported or Sealed.....with appropriate adjustments on the amp for those purposes. SETUP of a sub can range from easy to difficult. Learn about and perhaps PRACTICE a little ritual called 'The Sub Crawl'. this is where you put the sub IN YOUR LISTENING POSITION and work backwords to where it sound best, which presumably is where the sub could go to provide the best listening BACK where you started! My sub is in its second location. Original was corner loaded and produced a booming and indistinct effect. My den, just off the listening room was like sitting in a 55 gallon drum with someone beating on it. After relocating the sub to the OTHER side of the room, behind the RH speaker? Fixed, and sub is out of the corner. And I didn't change ANY settings on the sub. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18661 Registered: May-04 | . I've found the "sub crawl" to be absurd. You look like a toddler crawling around the room on your knees. You certainly should work on the set up the speakers and subwoofer but slowly crawling around the room is similar to kneeling down to a Linn Sondek table to put an LP on the table because you used a "Linn approved" super short stand. Enough with the genuflection to audio products! Read a few set up directions and, if need be, borrow interconnects long enough to allow several placement options in your room. Using a LFE/Sub out from the receiver, you're simply sending Voltage that covers a very limited frequency range to the sub. You don't need anything special. Phase controls on the plate amp allow for many options in the placement of the sub. Though, given the manner in which bass in mixed on 99% if the recording available, most people won't hear anything different when they change the phase. You want all things to arrive at your listening position in synch and in phase. That's all. Use your ears and your mind. The only rule I would tell you to stick by is, any speaker/sub that gets plopped down based on where it fits best or looks right will always find the worst place for sound quality. Hide the amp if you must but speakers and subs almost always stick out in any room. We're not talking Bang and Olufsen here. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 66 Registered: Apr-10 | Thanks! Just one more question, my amp doesn't have sub out option, i was planning to use the pre out option which will send out full broadband of frequencies. But knowing that every sub have internal crossover i guess that wont be a problem. Am i right? |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3533 Registered: Oct-07 | Internal crossover should work fine. However? You will still be feeding the full-range signal to the main speakers. THAT is potentially a problem. It is possible to have phase issues which lead to either suckout (lack) or peaks. That last? thru the crossover where you'll have overlap between mains and sub. It is possible to purchase for relatively low cost a LOW CUT filter which inserts at line level between preamp and main amp... If you are self conscious doing a sub crawl, send the wife and a GF to the movies. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18662 Registered: May-04 | . "Just one more question, my amp doesn't have sub out option, i was planning to use the pre out option which will send out full broadband of frequencies. But knowing that every sub have internal crossover i guess that wont be a problem. Am i right?" No problem. The filter type is a low pass filter, the mids and highs are simply rolled out on an infinite slope. Still, nothing special required in interconnects. "THAT is potentially a problem. It is possible to have phase issues which lead to either suckout (lack) or peaks." No idea what that's meant to warn you about. Compared to the room effects, the peaks and nulls created by the room itself and the X-over in the main speakers, electrical phase shift at the sub input is barely an issue. If the plate amp has a phase control, this is definitely a non-issue. Most of the recordings you'll listen to are unlikely to have paid attention to the phase of the bass signal or of most of the instruments' output for that matter.. Don't worry about this. Basically, don't worry about anything, just listen to the music. It will tell you when you have things good enough. You can't compensate for everything in every recording. "That last? thru the crossover where you'll have overlap between mains and sub." No idea what that means. Too many things to worry about IMO. Get the system sounding right and then don't mess with it on the suspicion some phase issue is screwed up. Spend your time listening to music not worrying about the controls on the sub. "It is possible to purchase for relatively low cost a LOW CUT filter which inserts at line level between preamp and main amp... " Again, don't worry about phase in 99% of installations. Too many things to worry about only get you worrying about all the things there are to worry about. Too many points of adjustment only get too many things "adjusted". "If you are self conscious doing a sub crawl, send the wife and a GF to the movies." It's not about being self conscious. It's about just doing the simplest things in the simplest way. Just pay attention to the music and forget about the hifi. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3534 Registered: Oct-07 | The crossover region where the speakers OVERLAP will be the potential problem area. This is where you'll get effects which may produce bloated bass or possibly suckout. The phase control on the sub will help across a very narrow range. IMO, the solution is to low-cut the mains in such a way they minimally overlap with the sub. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18663 Registered: May-04 | . "IMO, the solution is to low-cut the mains in such a way they minimally overlap with the sub." " ... my amp doesn't have sub out option, i was planning to use the pre out option which will send out full broadband of frequencies." leo, how do you "low cut" the main speakers when the user only has full range pre amp outs on the main amplifier? And when anything you place in line, short of another active filter, will further mess with the phase? And when the crossover's low/high pass filter rate on the plate amp is fixed. What do you do to "low cut" the mains (when the pre amp doesn't have an adjustable low cut filter) that won't further screw with the system or cost a bunch of cash for probably minimal benefit? What you say is basically theoretical common sense but, first, rather than giving all kinds of warnings about phase this and phase that and low cut anything, that's what sub placement is all about IMO. We made subwoofers work long before all the controls were added. IMO the controls are there only to fine tune the system, not to compensate for a potential mess of a system and a mess of a room. Second, your words are of no help if you don't go further to explain how to accomplish what you suggest. And, IMO, you might want to keep in mind which front speakers are being used and the type/size of the port they use. Remember, the room is what Hristijan is going to be listening to. He can't "low cut" the room. Hristijan, what arrives at your ears in your listening position (typically an acoustic phase mess due to the room and the way the recording was actually mixed) and when does it arrive vs when another signal from another source arrives? Does it sound like live music? If it does, then you have your position. IMO, Hristijan, don't get your head f'ed with. Don't go into this thinking how many things can go wrong. Too many people just pay attention to all the things that can go wrong with their system. They only listen to the system to hear all the things that aren't right, or good enough, and they forget about the music. Just listen to the music as you go along. Always remember, music is temporal; it takes place in time and it has time as its most basic element. When the timing is right, then you have your position. The rest is mostly BS accomplished with minimal use of the controls - turn it up and turn it down, wiggle the X-over control a bit. Does the music sound better or worse? Stop and listen for awhile. If you make a change, write down what you started with so you can always go back to that point. Keeping records and writing down what you hear in the music is the best - only? - way to do this. If you're the only person who really listens to the music and it's always from the same spot when you seriously listen, it doesn't matter what the "phase" is anywhere else in the system or in the room. You can have a standing wave that totally wipes out all bass three feet in front of you. If the music sounds right at your listening position, the job is done except for the small stuff. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18665 Registered: May-04 | . https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/737599.html |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 68 Registered: Apr-10 | Hi Jan, I'm thrilled by the fact that Herb Reichert from stereophile reviewed Klipsch RP600m in their last issue. https://www.stereophile.com/content/klipsch-reference-premiere-rp-600m-loudspeak er. If you have a chance to take a look i would really like to hear what are your opinions on Herb and John Atkinson words. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 69 Registered: Apr-10 | Especially on JA measurements as it seems to me that these speakers would not be easy load for a tube amp. |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18673 Registered: May-04 | . "Especially on JA measurements as it seems to me that these speakers would not be easy load for a tube amp." If you have taken nothing else away from this thread, it is best for you to have gleaned the value of matching components and most particularly the value of matching a compatible speaker load to a tubed powered, transformer coupled amplifier. No, though it would have been uncommon in the days of Paul Klipsch running the company, I wouldn't think this is the speaker to hang on the outputs of most tubed power amps. One of PWK's infamous quotes is, "What this world needs more of is good five watt amplifiers." And I can think of no decent five watt amplifier I would burden with the small, present day Klipsch speakers if these measurements are indicative of how the designers think about loudspeakers and amplifiers as a signal chain. * I have to begin this post by saying I have never enjoyed Reichert's reviews. He says things that are absurd IMO. Which brings me to a point I was about to make in the "reference sound" thread. Obviously, there are hundreds of components available to any audio buyer at any time - even more so today when on line buying is quite common and in store auditions are down due to the lack of available brick and mortar retailers. Throw in the vintage components still out there which at one time earned rave reviews and the hundreds are multiplied by another hundred or so. Consider the number of system combinations which could be accumulated by any one listener with all of the available gear and you have overwhelming possibilities for a single system to put together. Finally, take into account the room's inevitable effects on the character of the music reproduced through any number of combinations of components. Even in the days when reviewers would routinely give descriptions of their listening rooms, this threw more of the blanket over the reviewer's words than it did open a more transparent window on the system's final product. No reviewer gives much in the way of room descriptions any longer, we are just to assume they know their environment and we are to ignore the most obvious elephant in the room - pun intended. With this in mind the typical "audiophile" turns to the soft p-rn of the subjective review magazines to get their thrills and possibly even some amount of information. Each month - and several times per month if you subscribe to more than one magazine - you can read the impressions of half a dozen or more reviewers yakking about a few dozen combinations of components and speakers reproducing numerous recordings, most of which you probably do not - and never will - own. Not much different than reading about the wine reviewer's trip through Tuscany's Chianti region at harvest time. Good bathroom reading for several reasons. In the days when I was being paid to keep up with the reviews, I could mostly ignore most reviews. Most reviewers simply did not speak in terms I found interesting or informative. Most reviewers did not share my priorities for music playback and so had not paid attention to those values which I was searching for in my own system. I read the reviews to know what was being said in order to discuss the comments with clients but I certainly did not take their reviews seriously for my own use. And that is the point I would have you take away from any review. If the reviewer is not speaking to your priorities and your wants and needs in music playback, you might as well be reading National Geographic's words covering the discovery and exploration of the Titanic and using their words as a reference for building a system. Find those few reviewers who over time have expressed themself in ways you first comprehend and second agree with. They are the kindred spirits who will guide you along the way to thinking about what matters to you and the music you prefer. Lightly or not so lightly disregard the rest unless they are the not so often characters who play largely for laughs and don't take themself or the hobby too seriously. Being able to see the audio market for what it is may be the most important thing you can take away from any of the review magazines. I'll eventually post on the "reference sound" thread a bit more about this but for now just take away the idea this isn't all that important. Music playback is what you perceive it to be and when all options are taken away for whatever reason most people can live with most decent equipment and in many cases the equipment doesn't even need to be that decent. Virtually from the day the subjective review magazines began to be formally, monthly issued rags which promoted the purchase of ever more equipment meant to scratch an itch they had initiated, they have been accused of being soft p-rn for the slightly soft minded, easily led and well heeled reader. IMO most reviews should be ignored and those that are worthy of more than lining a bird cage should be given only a slight bit of relevance to any one buyer. They're fun to read and, if the reviewer has taken on a piece of equipment you own, they can be enjoyed for that reason alone. Otherwise, the daily comics are also fun to read and also out of date by the next day. If you read the reviews,find the two or three writers who share your goals for music playback and pay attention to how they phrase their ideas about the music, not about the system or the recording. Apply your own experiences with live music to what they write and go ahead and use your own common sense when you hit the shops. In other words, use reviews as a way to refine your own priorities for music playback and then make yourself able to be understood when you discuss music and its effects on you when it is reproduced through the inevitable signal chain we all must use. See words such as "soundstage" and "imaging" for what they are, not for what they are meant to represent as a goal for a music playback system. If you follow the music, the rest will come along for the ride. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18674 Registered: May-04 | . "1946: Paul W. Klipsch founds Klipsch and Associates, and patents his design for the famous Klipschorn corner loudspeaker. This original design, along with Peter Walker's original Quad electrostatic loudspeaker (1957), marked the beginnings of high-fidelity home audio as we know it today." IMO any audio reviewer who attempts to give a history lesson for the audio industry and then misses the Acoustic Research line of sealed enclosure speaker systems (plus the Vilchur designed AR turntable) is sorely misinformed. Actually, IMO, any audio reviewer who tries to give a history lesson for the audio industry in less than 20 pages minimum is really in over their head. "In my room, moving them 3' from the front wall reduced soundstage depth by at least 50% ... " Who writes this sh!t? "My review samples were covered in a black ash vinyl that felt extremely durable and solidly applied." Well, give Klipsch credit for a "solidly applied" vinyl veneer. Who writes this sh!t? "As noted above, more sensitive loudspeakers will play more succinctly at low and high SPLs." In reality, this isn't true, not even close. I would have thought any reviewer aware of the history of, and the importance of, the original Quad electrostatic would immediately know how absurd this statement is and do some self editing of their ideas. An equal amount of incredulity is to be appropriated to JA for allowing such a statement to go on into print. And so it goes with my reading of any Reichert review. And, unfortunately if you are a relative new comer to subjective reviews, IMO, you could be excused for not seeing the sloppiness of the writing but you would be missing a great deal of what has come and sadly gone in the process of turning a great idea into a monthly commodity. One example of the "history" of audio I would mention to you is the concept, first stated by Ivor Tiefunbrun of Linn Sondek fame, for the ascendance in value to the system's final product when quality is placed in front of the speaker. Garbage in equals garbage out was for many years the guiding principle of audio system matching. Better to obtain the most satisfying source than the most pleasant looking or the most powerful amplifier. The source can only reflect the quality of the recording. Better to have the most neutral gain stages than to put all your money into the speakers. Best to use equipment and accessories capable of sins of ommission rather than sins of commission. In short all that says the importance of a "good" loudspeaker is to be a neutral partner in the signal chain. The better the system - the more "transparent" it becomes to the source material - the more capable it comes to displaying the benefits of compiling a high quality music reproduction system. In the original iteration of the idea the system began with the turntable because that is what Linn was selling. The idea however lost none of its value when the early CD players were deemed largely less than musical. In adherence to the concept, and to confirm to myself the logic of such thinking, I often displayed a system which had over $10k (1980's USD's) of electronics in front of some $399 a pair speakers. The speakers were IMO good mid-fi systems which did more things right than wrong. They came from a company called Camber which benefited from the Canadian system of manufacturing support. Here's a Stereophile review of the slightly more expensive Camber speaker; https://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/plateau_camber_35_loudspeaker/index .html I have linked to the review for several reasons. First, one reason I liked the Camber line of speakers was their sonic similarities throughout the line from lowest to highest (which was never that much) cost. The line was highly consistent in its voicing from model to model. That value has been important to me for decades; that the products created by any one company did not represent simply throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what stuck and what sold. If a company turned out products which all suggested to me there was a guiding concept for what music sounded like and for what music did for me, then that was a good line. One of the many reasons I had earlier recommended the KEF speakers. Also I would like you to read the review from 1988 to see how reviewing has changed over the years. IMO the '80's review and the measurements provided for the Camber give the reader a very good idea of what to expect from this speaker on its own right. I can no longer find reviews which I feel do such a good job of explaining to the reader what to expect from any product under examination. When I played music through the Cambers with a $10k system in front of them, they produced music which IMO no one could fault until they began to put more money into the system in the way of speakers. That is to say, no one would have listened and thought initially that they were hearing music coming through a $399 speaker system. Certainly not if their reference was what typically came from a $399 speaker in a system which typically suited $399 speakers. Every time I played around with such a system the results were similar. Each time I put the same components in front of good but still budget oriented speakers of "better" quality (Spicas for instance) than the Cambers, I heard the same sort of results. I never sold such a system but it was in my mind a confirmation of the value of the components over the importance of the loudspeaker as the final arbiter of system performance. Therefore, we come to the value of a review in which a $549 speaker is paired with an amplifier which costs no less than seven times the price of the speakers. Add to that the comparison against speakers costing several several multiples the price of the Klipsch when the Klipsch has been "merged" to stands which are as costly as the speaker itself. Even the speaker cables used in the review are more expensive than the speakers themself. This is a bit of a question for any reviewer. Is the ultimate performance of the speaker to be studied with the speaker producing the results of extremely high quality components? Or, should the speaker be reviewed with components which are more likely the type of gear which will be selected by someone buying a "budget" speaker? What good does it do for the reader to know the speaker can produce such favorable results if the results are actually those of a system costing thousands of dollars and tweaked to the max? In one system, if we had already had the experience of the budget Camber responding to the output of a $10k system, we would expect any "good quality" speaker to produce pleasant results due to the quality of the signal it is fed from the front end of the system. In the other system, the problems of mid-fi components becomes the issue of how much can we expect from a truly budget system and what do we report on, the speaker or the system? In Reichert's review of the Klipsch I can't see that it doesn't come out on the short end of the comparison with any other speaker he mentions. We would obviously expect to hear about differences between a $549 speaker and an $8400 speaker. So, does it mean anything that the lower cost system is not meeting the standard set by the more expensive - and less sensitive/efficient - system? In the end, I can see no real description of what to expect from the Klipsch other than to expect less than the performance given by far more costly systems. By saying the Harbeth would normally mate with a far more powerful amplifier than would the Klipsch, Reichert simply bypasses the idea of truly efffortless sound achieved with a 500 watt amplifier paired with any loudspeaker. The sense of unlimited power and limitless dynamics and grip on the speaker is also a completely different experience than most listeners will ever have with a mere 125 watts. Which is better: 5 watts or 500 watts? To "sell" horns by pointing to their sensitivity - particularly when the spec doesn't seem to meet reality - is to state the obvious. Though, IMO, Reichert manages to do little in the way of 'splainin'. The review is such a mess of "I need to mention this" writing that I really can't see much praise coming from Reichert for the Klipsch other than it only costs $549. All total, I can only come away with the sense Reichert liked what he heard from a very expensive system working through a less expensive speaker. So did I when I would pair the Cambers with a $10k system for demo purposes. And, in the end, maybe that's all you should know about any audio component - it didn't make me want to walk away. That's just not a justification for spilling so much ink while saying so little. In no part of the review do I sense Reichert has used live music as a reference for his comments. This bothers me as I see this as a perpetuation of the idea that live music is not the reference for putting together a high quality system at any price range. It would, as I see it, only go further to say you only need to compare the products of one audio company against another to make any decision regarding musical values. The difference between the Klipsch provided sensitivity spec and the measured value is bothersome. Even rounding the measurement to an average sensitivity of 90dB @ 1 watt is quite a difference if the buyer had been expecting the Klipsch to be a suitable partner for an amp such as the two or six watt Decware; http://www.decware.com/newsite/tubes.html IMO the measurements have also been somewhat "dumbed down" for buyers more interested in simply being told what to buy than for the listener with clear ideas of what they want in a system. Knowing the history of Stereophile, it seems to me the magazine has become no better than the "everything is good, everything deserves an audition" type of review Holt was rebelling against way back in the '60's. Though the testing equipment is more sophisticated than back in the days of the Camber review, I feel the person taking the measurements is less interested in doing a good job of explaining what the measurements might actually mean to a buyer. Maybe JA is simply tired of explaining anything over and over. Klipsch as I knew the company is no longer run by one man's vision. Stereophile as a magazine is no longer the product of one man's input. The high end audio market is certainly not what I knew when I was selling. I hope none of this comes across as me being a curmudgeon. Things change, that's all. If you know a bit of the history of the hobby, there are some things about the changes which you don't fully find satisfying. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18675 Registered: May-04 | . One final (I think) comment on Reichert's review which is IMO misleading at best and completely wrong at the worst. "At one point I saw Miles, who'd introduced Hancock to the Rhodes, motioning to him, drawing him out, begging for more keyboard. Hancock's notes revved and floated effortlessly, like orbs of light. My eyes followed his hands—they seemed lifelike, and at their proper height above the floor." I cannot locate any photos of the actual performance space occupied by Davis' group at the time of this recording. I doubt they would make much difference to my opinion though since what Reichert has claimed is, to the best of my knowledge, so incorrect as to be laughable. "My eyes followed his hands—they seemed lifelike, and at their proper height above the floor." The recording is a studio production which was made during the time of multi-mic techniques. Given the nature of Davis as a producer, IMO it would be safe to assume his sense of control over the final product would have told him more control is better control and so multiple microphone positions would have been the norm for this recording. Multiple microphones placed on specific instruments, say, a half dozen mics on a single drum set alone, allowed for more complete control of the mix as "gain riding" techniques were employed to various channels of the mix to more accurately "spotlight" a snare or a ride cymbal. Any acoustic instrument is likely to have had more than one microphone; one more directional mic directly in front of the instrument to capture the immediate sound of the performer and one slightly back from (and often above) the instrument with a more omni-directional polar pattern in order to capture the space surrounding the performer. Studio recordings at this time were often set up with post production in mind and it would have been rare for the musicians to arrange themself in a large studio as they would for a live performance. Studios were typically large enough to remove the reverberant character of the venue, which would have been created artificially and inserted into the mix through electronic means during the post production stages. Where I have said music is a temporal event for both the musicians and the audience, the use of a large studio and a non-typical placement for the musicians tends to minimize the temporal value of most studio recordings made with multi-mic techniques and editing/overdubbing to correct for any "mistakes" made during the initial recording. We know this recordings used editing and overdubbing as it is clear the recording was "doctored" by the addition of other performers after the original studio date. This recording was made before the days of DI (direct injection) boxes for electrified instruments. Therefore, the most logical and most likely way for any electronic instrument to be recorded would have been either by plugging the output of the Fender Rhodes piano directly into the mixing board with a splitter to send the signal in two directions; one to the board and the other to the amplifier heard by the musician(s). (In a situation where the performers are so separated from each other that each musician is listening through headphones, the opportunity for temporal values to be further shifted away from normal - if only by micro-seconds - is another point of contention for "purist" listeners.) Alternately, and more likely, the placement of a microphone directly in front of the amplifier's speaker would have been typical for the recording engineer of the day. In that situation, where to place the mic is of critical importance as a few inches closer to or more distance from the speaker changes quite a large amount of the character captured on the tape. However, since the Fender is an "amplified" instrument, there would be absolutely no need to place a mic at the keyboard of the piano and there would be no mic used for the soundboard since the Rhodes has no soundboard. For the most part, stereo recordings cannot detect, nor provide to the listener through two channels of amplification, height clues. There are certain exceptions to this rule though none of the exceptions are likely to have been employed for this recording. One exception to the "no height" rule is of course a recording made within a known venue where the space is somewhat critical to the sense of performers playing in a known environment. Bill Evans played at the Village Vanguard with two other musicians on one of his most memorable recordings. While not a large group by jazz standards, it is still a somewhat good sized group for the space in which they performed. Photos of the Vanguard's stage can be seen in this group of images; https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x89c25995cf058dd5:0x21dab46c9da0af89 !2m22!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m16!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1 m1!1e4!2m2!1m1!1e6!3m1!7e115!4shttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/p/AF1QipPVNjsFu tPCUQlyGA8Mxv6nFAl9uCIxsZjHpn5E%3Dw213-h213-k-no!5sthe+village+vanguard+-+Google +Search&imagekey=!1e10!2sAF1QipPVNjsFutPCUQlyGA8Mxv6nFAl9uCIxsZjHpn5E&sa=X&ved=2 ahUKEwjAuNmyjpvhAhVPvKwKHXACCZkQoiowCnoECAsQBg As you can see, the stage is more or less shoved off to one side and somewhat into a corner which would provide early reflection points on an accurate recording. The small space, which all together with the low ceiling directly above the stage, should remain detectable with the very simple stereo recording techniques employed at the time of Evan's performances. If a listener were to expect the "wide and deep soundstaging" suggested as the ideal in most audiophile equipment reviews, playback of the Evans recording would either disappoint or be an obvious example of what not to expect from a reference recording if you only read audiophile equipment reviews. In other words, the Vanguard recordings should be presented as they existed within the space represented being very small and cramped, with a low ceiling, for even a three piece group with an upright/grand piano. If that is not what your system is suggesting to you, either your recording has been altered to contain more "acceptable" audio clues or the system is not providing accurate spatial information. Since the Evan's recordings were made with microphones whose polar pattern we can research and their position was more or less at the front edge of the stage apron, the audience sounds captured on the recording should appear, if correctly reproduced, as being around and behind the listener with a noticeable distance between the apron and the front of the audience space. Microphone placement should give the listener a first row perspective on the performance. There is a certain amount of audience sound which has been reflected from the back wall and ceiling of the stage and therefore would be perceived as coming from behind the the performers. The more accurate the system becomes, the more capable it should also become of demonstrating the slight time differences between what has been captured as originating in and around the listener (the mic position) and those sounds which are reflections off the stage wall. Given the nature of the recording techniques employed and the very good recording notes provided, the Evans' recordings remain a hallmark of jazz recordings not often faithfully reproduced by less than SOTA systems. The recording is, on the other hand, so completely faithful to the original event that even a rather good but not great system should be able to give a good dollop of what is there for further exploration. On the other hand, if your system is consistently of the wide and deep type, you will miss the very important clues to the intimacy of the Vanguard's signature sound. Given Reichert's suggestion the Klipsch were perceived to give a soundstage which was a "mile deep" at his friend's location, though his position 3' from the front wall cut that down by 50%, if the speakers were presenting the Vanguard stage as only 1/2 mile deep, there would be problems which should be addressed. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18676 Registered: May-04 | . Traditional perceptions provided by "better" audio systems typically have fallen into two discrete groups; the "they are here" group or the "I am there" group. Taking the Evans at the Vanguard recordings as an example for a reasonably accurate reference recording, the listener should be made to feel they have the Vanguard and the performers contained within their own room or that the listener has been transported back through time and space to be in the front row at the Vanguard in 1961. Obviously, since most domestic listening rooms do not have the space to accurately reproduce the sounds associated with large venues, the occasional exception to the preferred rule should apply. As presentational qualities tend to change with each recording, there is not always the opportunity to make such a decision as there was no definitive recording date and no single venue in which the recording was made. "Reference" recordings allow for this sort of distinction, which should be rather obvious and highly consistent. (As mentioned in the "Reference Sound" thread, this was the hallmark of the Sheffield Direct to Disc recordings, each recording was consistent with a presentational style typical of the type of performance being captured.) When selecting a high quality audio component or speaker it is suggested the component's "personality" - its ability to maintain a consistency in character - should align with other system parts to create a "synergistic system" which does not push and pull signals apart. Broadly, this means warm goes with warm, up front goes with up front, etc. Obviously too much warmth can be just as bad for presentation as would be a mix of personalities which contradict one another. The same can be said for the point of "I am there" vs "They are here". This would suggest careful auditions of equipment within a system and listening space should be made before completing a purchase. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18677 Registered: May-04 | . Back to Reichert's review, my point of contention with Reichert, and Atkinson for again allowing this sentence into print, is the ability of Reichert to "see" Hancock's "hands - they seemed lifelike, and at their proper height above the floor." The Evans recording shows one exception to the rule of two channels not being capable of providing height clues. The most simple microphone techniques often yield the most accurate and informative spatial information and therefore the most honest reproduction of the original event. Dolby would certainly agree with that general rule as Dolby Atmos provides discrete height channels just for the purpose of creating a taller window for the listener to experience. Prior claims by Thomlison Hollman (of 1970's Advent receiver fame and then his own '80's personal audio company which produced some of the finest components of the day at lower than market price) who designs for Dolby (it's generally accepted the well known letters "THX" stand for "Thomlison Hollman's Experiment") suggests a minimum of ten channels of amplification and discrete speakers will be required in the typical domestic listening environment to most accurately reproduce the live experience for music only playback. Another exception to the rule of "two channels, no height" is the situation where a single broadly non-directional microphone is used to capture the output of a single instrument, group or vocalist. Listening to, say, the early RCA Living Stereo recordings of Elvis in the studio represents a good example of minimal mic techniques providing sonic clues not available with more "modern" recordings. On this recording Elvis sings into one microphone which is used to capture primarily his voice but also to most accurately represent the space in which the recording was made. Therefore, the polar pick up pattern of the microphone give us the direct signal coming from Elvis' mouth plus the sound of the reflections off the floor and the studio walls. As in real life, his voice should be reproduced as a small space in the center of the stage. (Voices consistently presented as other than occurring in a "small space" suggest phase issues somewhere in the reproduction chain.) It is the reflected sound taken primarily off the studio floor which hints at the height of the microphone relative to Elvis' position. Elvis should "sound as though" he stood roughly six feet tall - which is essentially what his physical height would have been. As production techniques were introduced to hand more control over every aspect of the final mix to the post production/mastering departments of record production, vocalists were often moved into their own booth which was lined with soundproofing material. This technique therefore negates the reflected sound as a clue to the height of a vocalist. They were also very typically extremely close mic'd so there would be little reverberant sound to hear. The same rule applies to multi-mic recordings where time clues and acoustic phase have been distorted by the individual arrival times of multiple signals at each microphone position. Bleed over from the snare mic will occur in the ride cymbal mic with a slight time delay which shows up as acoustic phase distortions in multi-mic recordings. There is no way to remove the bleed over by boosting or cutting the output of any one microphone. If we assume from the time of the Davis recording that these more "modern" techniques were in place, the recording of the Fender Rhodes would have been accomplished by placing a microphone in front of the piano's amplifier/speaker or by directly sending the piano's output into the mixing board. Electric piano keys do not make a sound when depressed. If the piano was outputted directly to the mixer, the keyboard - and Hancock's fingers - would show up as complete silence. It is ever so slightly possible a microphone for the Rhodes' speaker, or for another nearby instrument, would have picked up the sound of Hancock's fingernails as they struck each key but that is less than likely in the typical multi-mic recording situation and that is not what Reichert mentions. Nails on the keyboard sounds are typically the result of "close mic'ing techniques" such as sinking a mic into or directly above the soundboard of a piano. Without such a mic arrangement for the Rhodes, Reichert's comment seems as logical to me as saying he has heard Clapton's fingers dancing across the fretboard of his otherwise silent without amplification Stratocaster. Otherwise, with no mic directly above the soundboard of the Fender - since there is no soundboard to the Rhodes - how Hancock's hands could be indicated as being "at their proper height above the floor" seems to be realistically impossible for this recording. I concede that Reichert is describing is his own personal "perception" of the event as suggested by other sonic clues taken from the recording. I can't debate "perception" as it is highly personal and, as I've previously said, two people can listen to the same performance and both come away with very different perceptions. Reichert's perceptions are his own and he is open to say this is what he perceived. That is not what I take from his words. Realistically I find the suggestion readers of Stereophile should begin to listen for the sound of invisible, and quite possibly completely inaudible, fingers dancing across a keyboard that makes no sound and therefore has no direct microphone output to detect "their proper height above the floor" is absurd. You can't listen for things which do not exist without moving into the world of "whoo-whoo" audio. At the most generous reading of this sentence, the sound of fingers on a keyboard are artifacts of the recording only - an extremely close mic'd keyboard which would have no realistic reason to be mic'd at all. Recognizing the height above the floor for a typical Fender Rhodes keyboard might in some cases make for a more realistic reproduction of the original event. Possibly, Reichert was so entranced by the performance he was experiencing that he indirectly perceived something that wasn't there for the sake of his satisfaction with the performance. That's not what I take from his writing and it would be IMO a stretch to give him that much rope for his own hanging. However, I find it difficult to accept the idea this is what makes this recording - or its playback specifically through the Klipsch speakers - anything special when played back through any system of any pedigree. Very much like the hyperbole of a "mile deep" soundstage, I have to take a good deal of exception to what Reichert suggests is of value to the listening experience and to what Stereophile's readers should begin to ask for in an audio shop. If realism and fidelity to the original event are the goals of a better system, then it cannot include things which cannot reasonably exist on the source. The Evans at the Vanguard recordings provide a very clear example of when the "soundstage" should be of importance to the listener and the buyer of improved audio performance. It is the very intimacy of the venue which is of value to recognize for the perceptive listener with the Evans recordings. The artistic feedback between performer and audience is of value in that recording and that is due to the recognition of the intimate space. The more the relatively small audience responds, the deeper into the music the performers dig. This is one thing to be taken away from this recording as a historic record of the original event. It is the fact it is the direct opposite of the "mile deep" soundstage held as the perceptive ideal for a "better" system that matters with the Evans - and many other - reference quality discs IMO. The intimacy pulls the audience in and the performers respond in kind. This should with the most decent system create the same reaction from someone who is listening to the performance nearly sixty years after the fact. However, when reference is given to the Stereophile reader that they should be listening for values which at best have little to do with the performance and at worst are completely non-existent, then I think lazy writing accompanies lazy listening. If lazy listening is your goal, or you simply follow such ridiculous suggestions for audio perfection as Reichert often gives (a "solidly applied" vinyl veneer), then you are on your own on an isolated island of make believe sonic values which only a few would dare even dream about. Listen to live music. Experience live music in a real world venue. Then determine what is of importance to the music and the performance. Know what is simply an artifact of either the recording process or your imagination fueled by lazy reviewers before you spend your money on gobbledegook provided by an absurd writer. . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18678 Registered: May-04 | . RCA Living Stereo recordings: https://www.google.com/search?q=rca+living+stereo&rlz=1CAHKDC_enUS754US756&oq=rc a+living+stereo&aqs=chrome..69i57.3812j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 These recordings were introduced in reaction to the original series of Mercury Living Presence recordings which had received glowing reviews and high sales numbers. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAHKDC_enUS754US756&ei=vb2XXMeSO8TGsQWLkpaoCg &q=mercury+living+presence&oq=mercury+living+&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l10.5985623.60007 67..6005639...0.0..0.185.1450.16j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i7i30j0i8i7i 30j0i13i30j0i30j0i22i30._OJv09cNVLE I'll give you the entire search engine results for the Living Presence recordings. If you care to read the interviews given by Wilma Cozart Fine at the time the original three channel recordings were re-introduced on multi-channel SACD's, IMO it would be worth your time. The SACD's represented the first time the original recordings as captured on three channel tape were presented to the public in their "at the time" original sound quality. Until that time, only a handful of people had heard what actually was put on tape at the original recording session. .https://www.google.com/search?\rlz=1CAHKDC_enUS754US756&q=speakers+corner+mercur y+living+presence&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPm9vIvJvhAhUMW60KHY6zBzQQ1QIoBnoECAoQBw&biw=1 024&bih=508 Though the Mercury and the RCA recordings were copied directly to tape rather than a master cutting lathe, they represent the ideal which the Sheffield direct to disc recordings copied to a large extent. Ultimately, time considerations for such careful set up and recording styles, along with the unusual mixing techniques employed, made such "reference recordings" too expensive for the major studios to continue. The emphasis then began to shift toward post production effort rather than necessarily getting it right the first - and only - time. It might also be beneficial to know many audio components in the middle of the 20th c/ at the advent of stereo reproduction had a "center channel" output just for such recordings. Also David Hafler, of Dynaco fame and later known for the Hafler line of high end electronics, produced and gave away plans for a synthesized "quadrophonic" playback system with a front center channel. The original Dolby surround and later Dolby Pro Logic multi-channel systems were largely based on the Hafler synthesized circuitry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafler_circuit As a side note, I still have a bound collection of papers written by Paul Klipsch. From the introduction of the company and through well into the late '60's, Paul would send out his thoughts in what were known as "Dope From Hope" entries. (Hope, Arakansas of course being Klispch's home town.) With the introduction of stereo recordings Paul doubled the sales of his Klipschorn as now two were needed for the new format. To satisfy the requests for a third center channel to mate with the two Corner Horns, Klipsch designed smaller, free standing speakers which he recommended for placement between the two horns. The La Scala, Cornwall and Heresy speakers were Paul's answer to the requests for a center channel. Each developed their own following as stand alone systems where a Corner Horn would not have been appropriate. Where the Corner Horn was triple horn loaded, the LaScala was a double fold horn in the bottom end. I always found the LaScala to be a very good system and one I could have lived with had I ever had a room large enough for its bulk. The mythology of the Cornwall says Klipsch made his cabinets large enough to be cut from a single 4X8 sheet of plywood. It was not horn loaded in the bass and it was a boomer. Both the Cornwall and the LaScala (plus a now discontinued Belle, which was a furniture grade version of the LaScala and named after Paul's wife) used the same drivers and crossover components found in the Corner Horn (though there was for a while a "short horn" version of the Klipchorn which omitted the midrange horn). The Heresy was so named when Paul omitted the horn loaded bass driver (a heresy in Paul's mind) and simply produced a very high efficiency small speaker first meant as a center channel speaker for smaller spaces. The Klipschorn and its triplet siblings all were spec'd at 104dB @1 watt input. To prove the value of the high efficiency of horns, we would often drive the Corner Horns with an Advent table radio outputting a stated 4 watts of power. (Again with some audio lore, Advent was founded by Henry Kloss. Kloss was the other founder of Acoustic Research along with his once professor at MIT, Ed Vilchur. Vilchur, if you remember back a bit, was mentioned in connection with Reichert's omission in his short history of audio. Vilchur introduced the AR turntable which became the suspended sub-chassis model for other British table such as Linn and Ariston and the Norwegian Thorens and later copied by Bang and Olufsen. Rabco also used a subchassis design for their tangential tracking tables sold by Harman Kardon. Together, Kloss and Vilchur conceived of whole systems of their components down with multiple speakers available for any size space . Both AR, KLH and Advent were by then producing very high quality table radios to go with the "life style" products. The 4 watts of the Advent radio drove the Klipschorns to beyond concert hall levels. Later Kloss departed from AR to begin KLH which then produced the KHL 6. In rapid succession Kloss had founded three companies with each in order of development selling the most popular speaker in the US. Advent eventually designed a 15 watt receiver which could easily be used as a separate pre amp in a top quality, easily comparable to the best available system. Thomlinson Hollmann designed the SOTA phono pre amp for that unit. Kloss held his receiver's output to 15 very good watts in order to make a point.) To the best of my knowledge I still hold the record for the greatest number of LaScalas sold in one day, which is six pairs all sold on a Saturday to clients I had been talking to for several months. It was fortunate no other client came in that day as I had wiped out out stock room of all the LaScala's we held. One example of the Klipsch efficiency is seen in one pair of Cornwalls I sold. I went to the client's home to set up the speakers and the electronics he had purchased. After I said I was satisfied with the placement of the speakers, he opened his windows, went across the street and into his neighbor's front yard. It was then he told me to turn the volume up. In the end, listening from about 100' away, he was satisfied his system could handle what he intended to do to it. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3539 Registered: Oct-07 | What was your client going to do to the neighbors? Annoy them? I'm guessing that Gregorian Chant at 0600 would piss anybody off! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18679 Registered: May-04 | . I was under no obligation to ask about intentions. TX is a "LIVE FREE OR DIE - VICTORY OR DEATH - BRING IT! - YEEEEEHAAAAAA!!" state. Audio systems do not require a license nor training prior to use. For all I know, he was going to serenade his sweetheart living across the street with Maurice Chevalier tunes; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orYGBE_95lY . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 70 Registered: Apr-10 | Jan you made my day with your last comment One example of the Klipsch efficiency is seen in one pair of Cornwalls I sold. I went to the client's home to set up the speakers and the electronics he had purchased. After I said I was satisfied with the placement of the speakers, he opened his windows, went across the street and into his neighbor's front yard. It was then he told me to turn the volume up. In the end, listening from about 100' away, he was satisfied his system could handle what he intended to do to it.} . I really appreciate you effort and comments on Herb review. Thank you very much. As you said, Herb tested these speakers with 10k $ gear but believe me, even with my "midfi" equipment these speakers makes me the happiest man on the planet. There are thousands of speakers within the same price range, but these speakers sounds the best to my ears. I will always remember your statement: "All things in audio are trade offs, you must prioritize your values and make a selection that gets you the most "wants" and "needs" without trading off the most important values or including numerous unwanted values"} |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18680 Registered: May-04 | . Actually, that should have said, "All things in life are trade offs ... " We just happened to be discussing audio at the time. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 71 Registered: Apr-10 | I agree |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18681 Registered: May-04 | . What did you think of the difference between vintage and current Stereophile reviews? In your opinion, is there a difference? Is it all in what I want to see? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 72 Registered: Apr-10 | Unfortunately i started following Stereophile one year ago so i cannot make a comparison. However i have a very high regard for JA and whole stereophile team. For example if i compare reviews between stereophile and other similar sites like whathifi etc, stereophile is always the source of true for me. Certainly, many things have changes over the past so i guess vintage stereophile reviews have been better |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 74 Registered: Apr-10 | Jan if you have a time please take a look at https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/737749.html I'll be very grateful. I posted on a separate tread so you might help to someone else with similar problem . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18685 Registered: May-04 | . Did and done. |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 75 Registered: Apr-10 | Thanks! |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 77 Registered: Apr-10 | Hi Jan, Today when reconnecting the RCA cable from the sub to the amp I was surprised to receive a shock from the male connector the moment i touched the amp pre out plug. To be more clear, both the amp and the sub were turned off but still plugged-in in to the AC outlet. The one end of the RCA cable was plugged into the sub while the other was in my hand. The moment a touched the Amp pre out while holding the rca cable in my hand i felt the current shock which was "mild" and unpleasant. So i went to investigate furthermore. First, i disconnected everything from the amp including the power cord and the network audio player and afterwards i connected the sub. No shocks everything fine. Then i went to connect back the network player and boom, again shocks on my fingers. Now I'm even more confused, i unplugged the sub from the amp and tried again to connect the network streamer alone. Again, everything fine no shocks. So, everything is fine as long as only one device is connected to the amp. The moment i try to connect the second device no matter which one is first i always get current shocks on my fingers. Im really confused. Why and what is happening? |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 78 Registered: Apr-10 | And the last and most confusing thing: Amp power cord detached, Network player power cord detached, Sub power cord placed in AC outlet but turned off. NO RCA connections between units. First, I went to plug the rca sub to the amp, no problems. Then, i took the rca cable from the network player (which is disconnected from power) and tried to plug to the amp which is also disconnected from power. Guess what, again current shock on my fingers. So how is this happening when both units are disconnected ?! |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18696 Registered: May-04 | .. Could be just a very severe case of static electricity. Where is the shock coming from? The case/chassis of the amp? Or, specifically from the jack on the rear of the amplifier? (Cables have plugs, components have jacks.) In other words, do you receive the shock when simply touching the case of the amplifier? . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 79 Registered: Apr-10 | In other words, do you receive the shock when simply touching the case of the amplifier? -Yes Here is what have i experienced this morning. Sub connected to amp via RCA, network player is on, but still not connected to the amp. In my right hand i hold the two male rca plugs comming from the network player and then, if i touch the chassis of the amp with my left hand i feel the shock in my right hand from the rca plugs that im holding. This is case only if the sub is connected to the amp. If i unplug the sub from the AC outlet or remove Sub's rca plugs, no shocks at all |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 80 Registered: Apr-10 | And the most annoying thing is ... It is not happening all the time. Im trying to do the same at this moment .. no shocks .. Don't have any idea what causes and when |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18697 Registered: May-04 | . No easy answer to this. It's beginning to sound as though the sub is the component at fault if you only feel the zap when the sub is plugged into the AC outlet. Is there a common AC plug, extension strip or AC conditioner all three components plug into? Can you use an extension cord to plug the network player into another outlet, preferably on another circuit or breaker? If so, after moving the AC input to another circuit, can you still get zapped as you describe above? If that doesn't change the situation, try using the extension cord with the other two components individually. I am suspecting the sub to be faulty but the goal is to hopefully locate which component is causing/creating the situation. They all share a common AC ground through the negative leg of the interconnects. In other word's, if you measured between the negative side of the input jack to, say, an unpainted chassis screw, there would be continuity between those two points in most cases. Not always due to the construction of the component but that would be a typical ground plane in an audio system. That ground potential however doesn't act alone to zap you. You are grounded by standing on the floor (unless you're wearing rubber soled shoes) and ground travelling to another ground shouldn't be bothersome. Apparently, however, you are feeling the flow of electrons when you ground yourself to the system by touching the amp's chassis. Just holding the cable from the network player doesn't get a reaction though. And this only occurs when the sub is in the AC circuit, powered up and connected to the amplifier? Does the on/off situation of the sub change the status of the situation? Normally, any AC finding its way to the ground plane would likely first blow a fuse or circuit breaker somewhere in the system. This is leading more to assuming the sub is at fault. Static electricity though would not be "in the system", you simply create a path for discharge by touching a grounded component's chassis. Static discharge is not that uncommon is an audio system and generally comes when the environment is in a low relative humidity state. HVAC systems tend to dry out the air in order to work more efficiently. Or it may be built up by the user walking across a rug or carpet that acts as an energizing source. However, static discharge is typically a one time/every time situation. You get zapped once as you touch the system and then no more until you've once again built up the charge potential. There can't be very much Voltage in what you are feeling, right? More like a static electric discharge? A sharp burst and then no more. Or can you get zapped repeatedly in short succession when this occurs? If this occurs only once and then you can't immediately repeat the situation, I would guess you are dealing only with static electricity discharge and the answer might be a static reducing mat in front of the system or moving a rug that sits in front of the system. Do you have any sort of carpet or rug you stand on when this occurs? Often with static electricity, there is a small "snap" sound which accompanies the discharge. Are you hearing any such sound when this zaps you? The order of the questions here is ... 1) Do you have any carpet you stand on or walk across when this discharge occurs? 2) Does the discharge occur repeatedly in quick succession? Or, only once and then no more for a few minutes? 3a) How strong is the discharge? Just a zap and then no more? 3b) Or, does the feeling last as long as you have your hand on the amp? The former is most likely just static discharge, the latter would be a more serious situation. 4) Can you try moving the AC plug on each component individually to another circuit? Not just to another AC outlet but to another circuit. 5) I assume this is a new phenomenon. Has anything else changed in the system just prior to this situation's first appearance? 6) What were you doing to the system when this first occurred? Why did you have the system disconnected in some way? 7) Is there a common AC plug, extension strip or AC conditioner all three components plug into? 8) Does the on/off situation of the sub change the status of the situation? 9) When the system is up and running while playing music, do you notice any odd sounds coming through the speakers or sub in between songs? In particular, is there a 60Hz ground hum? 60Hz is low frequency while 120Hz is more of a buzz than a hum. Please answer each question specifically. . |
|
Bronze Member Username: Liquid_sunPost Number: 81 Registered: Apr-10 | Jan, first of all thank you so much for your time and effort helping me overcoming the problem. I owe you so much. Finally i located the problem and i know how to reproduce it. Please take a sit before reading this The only thing that i need to do if i want to "toggle" the current shocks is to unplug the cable from the outlet rotate for 180 degrees and then attach again. Please take a look at this video for more clarification https://photos.app.goo.gl/uoWoHBpyn65B31Yq6 . Now that you know how do i trigger the shocks i'll answer all of your question and please shed some light on me why is this happening 1) Do you have any carpet you stand on or walk across when this discharge occurs? -Yes i have carpet that i'm standing on 2) Does the discharge occur repeatedly in quick succession? Or, only once and then no more for a few minutes? -When the shocks are present they occur every time i touch the chassis they never dispensary until (now obviously) i unplug the cable from the sub, rotate for 180' and re-attach again. 3a) How strong is the discharge? Just a zap and then no more? -It not zap, its continuous and Unpleasant 3b) Or, does the feeling last as long as you have your hand on the amp? The former is most likely just static discharge, the latter would be a more serious situation. -The feeling last as long as you keep your hand on the amp 4) Can you try moving the AC plug on each component individually to another circuit? Not just to another AC outlet but to another circuit. I can move to another outlet, but i dont know if i cant move to another circuit (prob. not). Actually, i've moved it to another outlet and the same phenomenon appeared again. 5) I assume this is a new phenomenon. Has anything else changed in the system just prior to this situation's first appearance? -I was experimenting with my Sub moving around the room (several plug-ins and plug-outs during the tests), and the last time before i plug the cable i guess unconsciously i've rotated it 6) What were you doing to the system when this first occurred? Why did you have the system disconnected in some way? -See 5) 7) Is there a common AC plug, extension strip or AC conditioner all three components plug into? The network player and the sub are on the same outlet. See https://photos.app.goo.gl/KT8tsn4ggxKkET1u9 . But keep in mind that the same happend when i moved the sub to another outlet 8) Does the on/off situation of the sub change the status of the situation? Yes, When the sub is ON no shocks in any combination. This only happens only and only if the sub is turned off. 9) When the system is up and running while playing music, do you notice any odd sounds coming through the speakers or sub in between songs? In particular, is there a 60Hz ground hum? -Nothing, even if i glue my head to the sub or the speakers Picture for the cable, and the sub input: https://photos.app.goo.gl/xwst1jeua9joBEzY6 |
|
Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 18698 Registered: May-04 | . "When the sub is ON no shocks in any combination. This only happens only and only if the sub is turned off." Wow! No idea on this one. I forgot your AC plugs are not polarized as we have in the US; http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/hsehld.html Polarized plugs and sockets generally provide an audio system a common ground plane and minimize line noise from out of phase operation between multiple components. A good many of our lower end components still have only two legs to the plug, with ground and neutral being shared on one leg, but are still polarized with a slightly larger blade on one side of the plug. Even without the discrete ground leg, this still ensures in phase operation of all components. So I can only guess the problem begins with the sub operating out of phase with the other components. However, ... Why this only happens when the sub is powered down is a mystery to me. There should be no AC reaching beyond the On/Off switch. And the AC that is present would, I would think, cause a fuse to blow in the sub. How you can feel an electrical surge through the interconnects makes no sense and would suggest to me a possibly defective component. I don't think the situation is dangerous to you though it could present a problem when the system is unattended. I would suggest you contact the rep for the sub and explain your findings. The sub should still be in warranty so take advantage of that. Glad you figured this out, it makes no sense to me. . |
|
Gold Member Username: MagfanUSA Post Number: 3556 Registered: Oct-07 | Hot / Neutral reverse? on the sub. Hot wired to neutral, which is chassis ground. ??? |
Main Forums
Today's Posts- Home Audio Forum
- A/V Receivers Forum
- Amps Forum
- Cassette Forum
- CD Players Forum
- CD Recorders Forum
- DAC & Transports Forum
- DVD-Audio & SACD Forum
- Equalizers Forum
- Integrated Amps Forum
- iPod Docks Forum
- MiniDisc Forum
- Mini Systems Forum
- Digital Music Systems Forum
- Phono Forum
- Preamps Forum
- Speakers Forum
- Subwoofers Forum
- Tuners Forum
- Home Video Forum
- Home Theater Forum
- Car Audio Forum
- Accessories Forum
- All Forum Topics