As is so often the case, people imagine that there is some 'perfect' configuration where all the stars are in alignment. If only they can find that magical combination, a sow's ear really can be turned into a silk purse. It's the same argument that says a single transistor and a couple of resistors can make a perfectly good amplifier if only a true artist is allowed to spend months finding the perfect values for those resistors. Commercial timescales don't allow that, which is why companies throw complexity at the problem instead. The fools.
But even if it were possible for this magical occurrence to occur, and you find it after 20 years of hitherto fruitless 'tweaking', why should it remain valid if the temperature changes, or the humidity, or the air pressure, or your magic 6" driver's materials age, or you move the furniture? Can you tell us why your removal of "damping material" supposedly improved the sound? I have a commercial amplifier with damping material fastened to the inside of the steel lid in order to reduce mechanical resonance - put their by some idiotic un-enlightened engineer who didn't realise what he was doing, no doubt. Should I remove it and expect a transformation? If so, why? If it doesn't work and I replace it with different glue, will I have mucked up the sound permanently?
What is this 'tweaking' of which you speak anyway? I've seen the results of people swapping 'audiophile' caps for the ones that the idiot un-enlightened electronics engineer fitted on the PCB and it isn't pretty! Long wires acting as antennae. Badly soldered joints providing the only mechanical anchorage for large resonant weights suspended from the PCB. And they're proud of it!
Is all your 'tweaking' safe? I'm surprised you and your fellow conspirators haven't killed yourselves by removing earths to reduce "planetary inertia" (gives slow bass) or applying conductive "damping materials" to the mains input to absorb "harmful energy fields".
Attachments
Last edited:
It can seem as if EQing to the equal loudness curves is a good thing. I think the reality of it is more that it represents something good sounding if you want to hide a speaker's issues, as you've mentioned. I've come to a similar conclusion in the past, but now I'm finding that the timbre within a piece of music doesn't change a great deal as it fades out. Perhaps the fact that the audibility of some issues can be level dependent causes some frequencies to appear to fade out at lower levels.
Good tools will always be of value ... whether they can reveal the 'mysteries' of what makes one system come to life, and another not, is a whole different issue ...Truth is a big word to use, if the person making the measurements can think beyond a T.O. or text book we have some hope
Fortunately for all, there is. Not necessarily 'perfect', but of sufficient competence to be a mind-bending moment. Most audio people catch glimpses of it now and again, but dismiss it as one of those things, and don't fervently pursue it. Which is a shame, but also understandable ...
No. I have suspicions, but the literature is very bitsy and piecey in the area of materials behaviour that may be relevant, I would need sophisticated and sensitive instrumentation, which would probably cost a bomb, to properly investigate, oodles of time to try each combination and permutation of configuration, and motivation to fool around endlessly to in order to come up with a satisfactory explanation. So, in lieu of all that, I do practical experimentation - if something has an audible benefit it's used; otherwise, not.
You'll probably need your ears to tell you - every situation is different. I'm reminded of a review by a well known audio figure of a competent amplifier which had its steel lid removed for photos, who then realised it sounded "better" while missing the lid.
* Sigh * ... I've mentioned many times the things I worry about, which all revolve around improving the integrity and robustness of the playback system - if someone wants to play with 'blessed' and expensive knick knacks that's up to them ...
I'm surprised this didn't get more comment. And the forum member over there "Bitflipper" posted a link to some of his song analysis here:
Dixie Chicks vs. Dream Theater vs. Floyd | Cakewalk Forums
I've done the same thing (and maybe even posted it). It's interesting to find a few tracks that you feel are well mastered and not fatiguing - then run the analysis on them. My finding were much like Bitflipper's. The annoying modern pop songs tended to have much more energy in the 5-7 KHz range than the old smoothies I like. They still roll of at the top, tho.
A system that accentuates those faults is going to wear on you. And it may not even take a whole song.
Yes, there are other subtle things that cause long term fatigue, but my guess is that the meat of the problem lies in bad tonal balance. I hear a lot of "Hi-Fi" speakers that are overly bright.
imagine two situations.
1st where low damping amp is used and with boxes gives decent bass. no eq is needed
2nd rockhard amp is used, but sounds a tiny bit flat, to have similar sound, eq is used.
poeticall style question - what is better, and explain shortly with own words why
also want to know from you opinion about clean, pristine sound
1st where low damping amp is used and with boxes gives decent bass. no eq is needed
2nd rockhard amp is used, but sounds a tiny bit flat, to have similar sound, eq is used.
poeticall style question - what is better, and explain shortly with own words why
also want to know from you opinion about clean, pristine sound
My objection to the artsy crafty style of system is that it's all a bit random and uncontrolled. Adding some resistance at the output of the amp, or rather choosing a valve amp with 'warm sound', in order to change the frequency response of the speaker means that we also increase the distortion (cone no longer under control) whereas we could apply some EQ and have the best of all worlds. However, I understand the objection to this. I, too, would never run a commercial amp on any setting but 'source direct' if it had tone controls. The radical step of going DSP active allows me to avoid this dilemma!
This question has implicit answer to the difficult phenomena regarding how a good speaker may sound terrible with bad recording.
It is hard to unleash because people tend to stick with the same amplification "style" forever.
If you use active crossover and your system is good enough then u will find out that bad recording will sound awfull. I didn't realise this for a long time because I didn't accept opamp in my system and tried to get the "purest" sound with simple but hi quality amplification.
In other words, my amplification is not super hifi in term of resolution but I wish super hifi in term of tim and other fuzzy distortions. This is a deliberate choice. I believe this kind of amplification has been chosen by those who find out that their speakers produce good sound regardless of recording quality. Believe it or not, I'm done with the issue
Now that depends on what Tek, not any of the Phillips colaborated garbage that came out in the early 90's. 2200 series DSO's were solid and didnt skip a beat. Also helped having the service manuals for them. Was NIST certified cal center, bit of PMEL background under my nails too.
Didn't like the early Fluke dso's.
Our laugh would come from companies like when Emerson bought Beckman Industrial and changed the name to Beckman Precision. Now there is an oxymoron.
99th, dont see much need for more, unless you were doing astronomical research
This well known figure, who I do not know the identity of either has financial motivation, is an idiot or a very sad sad brain.
Great, and I mean this. I now know another name of a person who would say something like that. It helps. We have respected people here who can "hear the difference" in cables and use magical devices. I want to know their names. No need to post them now, no need to embarrass them unless it becomes pertinent to myself as a contributor to this forum, but I personally want to know those names. That is helpful beyond measure.
How about a list of engineers who are known to eschew magical things as a start for eliminating possible sources of fatigue? I note that Earl Geddes does not seem to tolerate that level of BS. what amp guys publically decry such things? I think we could by process of elimination, at least for some of us, get a model system closer to "no fatigue"
Of possible interest, I heard a Roger Sanders amplifier product, Sanders Sound Systems We sell Electrostatic Speakers, Magtech and ESL amplifiers, preamplifier and cables., at the show, and it made all the 'right' noises ...
Yes! Exactly, sans the variable axis. There is a piece of analog gear I will find and use. Thank you!
Thank you. The fact that he does sell cables at this price ($125 t0 $150) and does not simply recommend using decent non-faulty cables, added to the cavalier and non-qualifier use of the term "interconnects" as in (cables/interconnects) for those of us new enough to not understand that your butt should pucker and your wallet clench and your IQ lower if you hear the word "interconnects", puts him very, very firmly on the "do not pay attention" list. Honesty is everything. Next.
list Sanders Sound Systems Interconnects
list Sanders Sound Systems Interconnects
Last edited:
How about:
"Here at ErectoSond we totally understand that you do *not* want the current woman you are trying so desperately to impress, or the "friends" who need to know that yours really is bigger, see nothing but functional and sonically ideal $15 Radio Shack cables being used with your new ErectoSond GoldenPhallo Amplifier, so we are offering you our impressive looking TestoSound interconnects at $125.
Thanks,
Arty Toupe, ErectoSond
"Here at ErectoSond we totally understand that you do *not* want the current woman you are trying so desperately to impress, or the "friends" who need to know that yours really is bigger, see nothing but functional and sonically ideal $15 Radio Shack cables being used with your new ErectoSond GoldenPhallo Amplifier, so we are offering you our impressive looking TestoSound interconnects at $125.
Thanks,
Arty Toupe, ErectoSond
Last edited:
If you go searching on the site, he qualifies his "interconnects" with "properly designed etc, etc, known full well that it's very east to find those That should be done up front. He also has some very simplistic "white papers" especially regarding dispersion that are sort of weird if you know a bit. I put this fellow into the "means well but very gray area" Seems not as harmful as some of the others, but again by my non BS parameters, given that there are no BS choices........
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.