like much audiophile discussion - Swallow a horse, then choke on a gnat
why waste time differentiating amps on clipping performance - just use bigger ones, more sensitive speakers, or add "clever clipper" in front
likewise amp slew rate limiting anywhere above even 0.25 V/us/V doesn't impact any commercially mass distributed music recording audio signals – higher slew rate may be desirable as it correlates with some errors in classic V mode “op amp” topology though
for linear operation concerns about electronics settling time appears by the evidence to be another audiophile myth - closed loop corner frequency of our electronics is typically 1-2 decades higher than recording microphone high frequency roll off
the mics roll off can initially be higher order than many home amp electronics, and the preamp, processing electronics in the studio will typically pile on several more low pass filters below our power amp's fc
"girl with guitar" may be recorded with 14 kHz fc mic, Earthworks sells 25 kHz mics in their drum kit packages with 50 kHz fc mics in the premium package
real audio recordings simply don't capture/convey signals that stress electronics settling time
psychoacoustics shows temporal post masking is strong for many milliseconds
from Fastl's book it looks like even 1 ms single pole time constant settling envelope would clear all the temporal post masking plots
another summary statement is that ~ 1 dB deviation in any critical band is about the threshold for temporal masking – that's 10%
amp settling time constants are sub us, easily 100x faster settling to 1% - even doublet settling artifacts are typically <<1% at few us
while decade old mp3 tunings may fail at castanets at 128k – modern tuning, good psychoacoustic lossy codecs that are audibly transparent at high bit rates still have awful "settling time" - spending only ~7 bits per critical band ~= never "settle" to much better than ~ 1% in the shortest ~2.5 ms dft windows used for transients even at 320k
how about speakers and room temporal/settling time - cabinet diffraction @~1ms, floor, wall bounces up to 10+ ms - at many %
and "transient perfect" crossovers haven't totally won - many LR4 with ms of midband phase rotation are sold, listened too happily - even in "high end"
then we could look at dynamic driver's temporal limitations - mass, distributed radiation surface, resonances...
so we don't record initially or distribute recorded music with frequency content challenging electronics settling times
we don't appear to hear temporal detail within orders of magnitude of common electronics settling time effects
and we don't turn electrical signal into sound with loudspeakers and room having temporal precision corresponding to electronics capabilities – again by orders of magnitude
why waste time differentiating amps on clipping performance - just use bigger ones, more sensitive speakers, or add "clever clipper" in front
likewise amp slew rate limiting anywhere above even 0.25 V/us/V doesn't impact any commercially mass distributed music recording audio signals – higher slew rate may be desirable as it correlates with some errors in classic V mode “op amp” topology though
for linear operation concerns about electronics settling time appears by the evidence to be another audiophile myth - closed loop corner frequency of our electronics is typically 1-2 decades higher than recording microphone high frequency roll off
the mics roll off can initially be higher order than many home amp electronics, and the preamp, processing electronics in the studio will typically pile on several more low pass filters below our power amp's fc
"girl with guitar" may be recorded with 14 kHz fc mic, Earthworks sells 25 kHz mics in their drum kit packages with 50 kHz fc mics in the premium package
real audio recordings simply don't capture/convey signals that stress electronics settling time
psychoacoustics shows temporal post masking is strong for many milliseconds
from Fastl's book it looks like even 1 ms single pole time constant settling envelope would clear all the temporal post masking plots
another summary statement is that ~ 1 dB deviation in any critical band is about the threshold for temporal masking – that's 10%
amp settling time constants are sub us, easily 100x faster settling to 1% - even doublet settling artifacts are typically <<1% at few us
while decade old mp3 tunings may fail at castanets at 128k – modern tuning, good psychoacoustic lossy codecs that are audibly transparent at high bit rates still have awful "settling time" - spending only ~7 bits per critical band ~= never "settle" to much better than ~ 1% in the shortest ~2.5 ms dft windows used for transients even at 320k
how about speakers and room temporal/settling time - cabinet diffraction @~1ms, floor, wall bounces up to 10+ ms - at many %
and "transient perfect" crossovers haven't totally won - many LR4 with ms of midband phase rotation are sold, listened too happily - even in "high end"
then we could look at dynamic driver's temporal limitations - mass, distributed radiation surface, resonances...
so we don't record initially or distribute recorded music with frequency content challenging electronics settling times
we don't appear to hear temporal detail within orders of magnitude of common electronics settling time effects
and we don't turn electrical signal into sound with loudspeakers and room having temporal precision corresponding to electronics capabilities – again by orders of magnitude
Last edited:
It was nothing to do with that: my phase correction calculations were completely wrong. Exceeding the bounds of 32 bit variables or something like that; effectively applying intricate semi-random phase shifts to each driver. It created a complex delay-based 'ambience' that sounded pretty good on some types of music. Just a trick, but one that could fool anyone who was convinced that he can get sonic holography from two speaker boxes.
Complex delay based effect is series of step discontinuities in time domain of constructed filter. Yes, bad math error is way to get this. Did you fix it? I played with rePhase enough to see that it didn't suffer from this.
Direct inversion shows more promise for you, or results obtainable with Audiolense.
The process is always to fool the brain, because the musicians aren't in your room ...!
You can fool it all sorts of ways, those that jump up and down about multi-channel, with umpteen speakers, are still doing the same thing. So there is no point is saying something is not valid, because it gives the brain just a bit more ammunition to work with, to be able to unscramble what it's hearing. There will never be a 'correct' sound, yes, because there ain't no such animal ...
However, IME, subtracting defects from the sound rather than adding new bits to it, the latter complementing what the sound engineer did back in the studio, seems a more reasonable approach. It has certainly enabled me to enjoy recordings that other people have poured vast quantities of poo upon from great heights - and that's a good enough reason for me to believe in my way. Having heard the raucous mess many systems sound like, I don't feel any inclination to go down those roads ...
The process is always to fool the brain, because the musicians aren't in your room ...!
The process gave up trying to fool the brain long ago, because your ears turned out not to be so daft, and because "recording" means nothing to music, which has simply used the medium to allow you to arrange a live performance in your own home, using your hi-fi as its instrument. Music has always done this, developing new instruments in order to reach all members of the community it serves. Fidelity has always been an issue for producers, and has never been a matter of simple reproduction. Rather it is about being faithful.
Quite, but there is sounding right and sounding wrong.
If there is no "correct" as you say, then what is a "defect"? From what do your defects deviate?
Last edited:
Nice post, PlasticIsGood ...
Yes, sounding right is key, which is why I use difficult recordings to know how far I've got. I've got the UULE warming up at the moment with Exile on Main Street, this is the sort of thing I'd use to check out what members here have really got. Put in on, wind it up to just under clipping, and listen ... really listen ...
The defects in equipment can be many, due to all the sorts of things that are mentioned in this forum over and over again. Trouble is, they are not obvious, but they subtlely add, one by one, to add "dirtiness" to the sound. It's very much the white shirt syndrome, you wash and wear it many times and still see it as being white, but then directly compare it to a brand new white shirt, and realise how far it now is from the 'correct' colour. Only by getting a system really clean, and then listening to a "dirty" system, no matter how expensive, does one realise how huge the subjective difference can be ...
Yes, sounding right is key, which is why I use difficult recordings to know how far I've got. I've got the UULE warming up at the moment with Exile on Main Street, this is the sort of thing I'd use to check out what members here have really got. Put in on, wind it up to just under clipping, and listen ... really listen ...
The defects in equipment can be many, due to all the sorts of things that are mentioned in this forum over and over again. Trouble is, they are not obvious, but they subtlely add, one by one, to add "dirtiness" to the sound. It's very much the white shirt syndrome, you wash and wear it many times and still see it as being white, but then directly compare it to a brand new white shirt, and realise how far it now is from the 'correct' colour. Only by getting a system really clean, and then listening to a "dirty" system, no matter how expensive, does one realise how huge the subjective difference can be ...
We're looking for the same Holy Grail, fas42. If only we knew why.
I know lots of Jamaicans, and not one has any conception of what I think we generally mean by "hi-fi". Most Jamaican music...several entire genres...is mostly played on systems we would consider appalling, cobbled together and messed about with until they sound right.
Who am I to argue? It's their music, so they get to define what hi-fi means. They add plenty, and are especially fond of rattling bass bins. Adding stuff may be OK if it's the right stuff. Perhaps hi-fi is whatever the music expects?
Little Richard sounds wrong on my system, and I pine for my old Dansette. Arguably, every hi-fi enthusiast should have an American car radio, too, and an American car to go with it. OTOH, "River Deep, Mountain High" was a flop in America because those radios couldn't resolve it, so it sounded like a wall of noise.
I'm with you on the "whatever first impressed" theory, fas42. That was when we were into the first rush of listening to contemporary music as a social activity, and we heard it on the best equipment of the time. That time, for me, was pretty much the dawn of available hi-fi, and we and our mates got into the kind of sophisticated music that made use of it. We were an elite in that respect. Perhaps we hanker still for that feeling?
The idea of having a system that is better than everyone else's is narcissistic, surely? Music is a social thing, so what's best cannot legitimately be private.
I know lots of Jamaicans, and not one has any conception of what I think we generally mean by "hi-fi". Most Jamaican music...several entire genres...is mostly played on systems we would consider appalling, cobbled together and messed about with until they sound right.
Who am I to argue? It's their music, so they get to define what hi-fi means. They add plenty, and are especially fond of rattling bass bins. Adding stuff may be OK if it's the right stuff. Perhaps hi-fi is whatever the music expects?
Little Richard sounds wrong on my system, and I pine for my old Dansette. Arguably, every hi-fi enthusiast should have an American car radio, too, and an American car to go with it. OTOH, "River Deep, Mountain High" was a flop in America because those radios couldn't resolve it, so it sounded like a wall of noise.
I'm with you on the "whatever first impressed" theory, fas42. That was when we were into the first rush of listening to contemporary music as a social activity, and we heard it on the best equipment of the time. That time, for me, was pretty much the dawn of available hi-fi, and we and our mates got into the kind of sophisticated music that made use of it. We were an elite in that respect. Perhaps we hanker still for that feeling?
The idea of having a system that is better than everyone else's is narcissistic, surely? Music is a social thing, so what's best cannot legitimately be private.
I've had plenty of those "sounds wrong" moments, the cherished album or track just doesn't do it all on a decent system, the balance seems all wrong. Deep Purple's "Smoke on the Water" was a good example when I first got the CD, it was the least impressive track on the album!!
The trouble is, we're now hearing the musicians doing their thing, rather than an overall sound package that was deliberately engineered to come across impressively on low grade gear - it's a whole different experience which can take some getting used to. But I've tuned into exploring the newly revealed facets in nostalgia music some time ago - doesn't bother me now.
No need for one's own system to be "better" - personally, I would like for everyone to get the "good stuff" all the time: it would give the music industry a kick in the pants, move it out of the dodrums it's in at the moment...
The trouble is, we're now hearing the musicians doing their thing, rather than an overall sound package that was deliberately engineered to come across impressively on low grade gear - it's a whole different experience which can take some getting used to. But I've tuned into exploring the newly revealed facets in nostalgia music some time ago - doesn't bother me now.
No need for one's own system to be "better" - personally, I would like for everyone to get the "good stuff" all the time: it would give the music industry a kick in the pants, move it out of the dodrums it's in at the moment...
I can't remember Brad, but I think there was a test in Audiophile or some such magazine.
An acquaintance told me Dan D'Agostine retested the specific sample which would not pass the IHF test and it appears a faulty thermal switch caused it to cut out sooner than it should have; how he got the info, I have no idea, but it sounds plausible to me.
I mean, the mas has been making powerful amps for over 30 years now, I think it's safe to assume he knows a thing or two about thermal conditions. And from personal experience in manufacturing, I know that no matter what you do, a faulty part will find its way inside somehow. For me, one part once in 12 years, but still, theoretically, even that should not have happened. And I am low volume, so it's easier to keep track.
For 23 years I sold hi fi . For even more years I repaired it . One quality some equipment had was to always get the best out of the music . Linn called it timing . Someone said put a pencil in your hand . Can you beat time to the music . Surprisingly some hi fi makes it easy and others not . Also the pencil makes it easier . Amps with over engineered power supplies seemed to be the best . More transformer and sometimes less capacitance was the big deal . Dancing in drivers boots was how it was described when too much capacitance and not enough copper .
Quad ESL seem not to have any obvious qualities for music other than classical . Strangely they pass the pencil test very well . If carefully set up and partnered they can nearly cope with anything . I would liken them to a meal that is enough to feed in a top class restaurant ( + Sancerre , maybe 3 bottles ? ) .
This is one time too many.
Personally, I think the Quad ESL are another British urban legend.
It was the first ESL, the story goes Peter Walker delayed its launch by 3 years so that in 1959, when it was introduced, it coincided with a 100 year anniversary of the Helmholz resonator. But first it was, at least actually on the market, though some may also have shown prototypes on audio shows.
Personally, I was let down by that speaker precisely where I thought it would mop up the floor with its competition - dynamics. For classical music, it was just fine, coherent and in focused. But play some more modern electronic music, such as say Vangelis, and it will fall behind some good dynamic poudspakers. It simply cannot keep up with very fast rise times.
To be fair, one must remember that a 1959 speaker isn't likely to keep up with 1990 electronic music, so I rechecked with the newer version of the same speaker. Alas, while better than the old, it still couldn't pull of the fast transient trick as well as some high quality dynamic speakers. On fast attack times, JBL 4312 monitor wins.
This is NOT to say that the ESL is a poor speaker - of course it is not, it has excellent coherence and focus, little will get past it unnoticed. But in my view, it not nearly as good as it is touted to be by the British press. There are quite a few occasions when I feel a Tannony would be a better solution, especially for modern rock music, with extended (electronic) bass lines.
Deep bass is its greatest failing. It will do decent bass as far as it goes down, but it simply doesn't go down deep enough. He who disbelieves should spin the Blue Man Group first album and see what I mean.
So, on technical innovation 1959, definitely thumbs up. On overall presentation, very solid but no longer in the leading class. On bass, not so good. I think Martin-Logan can be better by no small margin.
I can only suggest you never heard them working properly . They have the best bass I ever heard by a very long way . They need to be ridiculously far into a room to do it ( 20 ft ) . I suspect if an even larger baffle was made around them they would go deeper than their already OK 42 Hz - 6 dB . Bass guitar is stunning on them . Also it is heard as it should be if from a bass guitar amp . The sound the guitarist heard . Make no mistake , I mean powerful as well as true in tonality . Hit you in the chest powerful .
There is always the danger of destroying them as danger is not announced by distortion .
They are one of the few speakers that has as little distortion as many amplifiers .
I have to admit being as determinedly negative as most people when I used them . It is where people persisted that the remarkable qualities became apparent . They are very fussy about partnering equipment . If the source of sound is less than perfect use something else as bad begins with Quads will bring unhappiness .
I would say 90% of the time Quads sound boring . It is not the fault of the speaker .
I love the old version . It was not designed as a stereo device . The 63's are better if enough care is taken .
Any old Naim amp works well with 57's . Funny thing is the faults of both melt away in combination . That combination can really kick .
I was using an amp with 211 valves ( Sowter transformers ) .Someone asked where the sub woofer was hidden ? " In the car park " said my boss . That combination on opera was able to pop the ears just like in real life . A German guy said to his wife " This is not the usual mechanical reproduction of music , be prepared for it to be very real " .
I would image with the Celestion open baffle sub woofer 63's would be ideal for a cinema . Crossover at 100 Hz . I am told the speed and power handling is greatly enhanced .
To not hear ESL working correctly is like seeing an aircraft taxi but not take off . Then go home and say what is all the fuss about .
There is always the danger of destroying them as danger is not announced by distortion .
They are one of the few speakers that has as little distortion as many amplifiers .
I have to admit being as determinedly negative as most people when I used them . It is where people persisted that the remarkable qualities became apparent . They are very fussy about partnering equipment . If the source of sound is less than perfect use something else as bad begins with Quads will bring unhappiness .
I would say 90% of the time Quads sound boring . It is not the fault of the speaker .
I love the old version . It was not designed as a stereo device . The 63's are better if enough care is taken .
Any old Naim amp works well with 57's . Funny thing is the faults of both melt away in combination . That combination can really kick .
I was using an amp with 211 valves ( Sowter transformers ) .Someone asked where the sub woofer was hidden ? " In the car park " said my boss . That combination on opera was able to pop the ears just like in real life . A German guy said to his wife " This is not the usual mechanical reproduction of music , be prepared for it to be very real " .
I would image with the Celestion open baffle sub woofer 63's would be ideal for a cinema . Crossover at 100 Hz . I am told the speed and power handling is greatly enhanced .
To not hear ESL working correctly is like seeing an aircraft taxi but not take off . Then go home and say what is all the fuss about .
certainly not my experience either, the QUADs I heard last year left me completely cold with anything with a dynamic bassline, wishy washy transients and even partnered with a pair of subs, left on the start line by everything I own. the source was fine, sorry but blaming the source for this sort of shortcoming is just wierd...
driven too hard with serious bass late in the session, no louder, just a change in program material, they sounded like they actually started arcing ... it was obviously not the type of music our host was used to playing and he became visibly concerned.
passable with some easy listening jazz and girl and guitar, but thats not a test of equipment.
driven too hard with serious bass late in the session, no louder, just a change in program material, they sounded like they actually started arcing ... it was obviously not the type of music our host was used to playing and he became visibly concerned.
passable with some easy listening jazz and girl and guitar, but thats not a test of equipment.
Sorry to say, only have heard the latest iteration driven by the 'new' Quad tube gear, and this was very plain jane ...
The timing thing is really about whether the sound has the lift such that your body instinctively wants to bop along with the beat. If the system has that dreary, dragging quality, which for me represents a type of distortion, then it's all downhill from then on ...
The timing thing is really about whether the sound has the lift such that your body instinctively wants to bop along with the beat. If the system has that dreary, dragging quality, which for me represents a type of distortion, then it's all downhill from then on ...
Can this issue with "timing" be measured? It's beginning to sound as though the word isn't being used meaningfully, merely being substituted for more flowery, nebulous (imaginary?) phenomena. "Timing" sounds very objective and technical; "dreariness" doesn't.
I suspect that "timing" is another of those crucial parameters which
a) has little or nothing to do with the time at which something happens (i.e. timing!)
b) cannot be measured by currently known instruments - which can measure timing quite well.
"Dreary dragging quality" could be due to lack of distortion. "Sparkle" could be due to a nasty HF resonance in a tweeter.
a) has little or nothing to do with the time at which something happens (i.e. timing!)
b) cannot be measured by currently known instruments - which can measure timing quite well.
"Dreary dragging quality" could be due to lack of distortion. "Sparkle" could be due to a nasty HF resonance in a tweeter.
As far as I'm concerned all this terminology (and I've said exactly this some time ago) are just words for the subjective impact of different types of distortion. To get a proper handle on the whole matter, to be 'technical' about it, an apt test signal or track needs to be devised which in a straightforward manner exposes what the distortion is and its level. And that, is the hard bit ...
Not in my experience. I have never found a recording to go "backwards" when the system improves.
Though, there is a sort of exception: recordings carefully constructed by "audiophile" labels do tend to end up sounding terribly lame, they have been so stripped of everything except the primary sound, and the treble content so severely cut at times, that they end up being the most boring recordings to listen to - the string tone on a Bach CD I have of this type is almost stone dead ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.