Lynn,
My feeling is that a great sounding speaker will be great sounding with either vacuum tubes or SS if they are of good quality. It is really a preference rather than a one is better than the other. I was making the comment though that it can be less expensive today to make an active network than a passive with the cost of your autoformers and the cost of large value copper inductors today. I can only guess what some of the Erse perfect layer coils would cost todsy, they weren't cheap twenty years ago and copper has only gotten more expensive. I used to have them wind me exact values for networks and would buy volumes of them. Today if I need a value I either string a couple together or peel off any windings to get an exact value. I had a friend who owned one of the cap manufacturers back then and I could get bags of 100 polypro caps for cheap with 100v or even 250v ratings and would bunch values together to get perfect values. I even went as far as to use 0.5mfd caps to make the final adjustments, I was rather anal about getting all the networks to match. I expect that you are still the same today. I just want to move on a go active, it is worth it to me not to waste the lost energy in the networks today and it is nice that we can now do phase matching and time alignment that was next to impossible with passive networks back in the day. Offsetting the devices was really the more practical solution when we only had passive networks. That made enclosure design a different animal than just delaying the device output today.
I have no problems with what you are doing. I don't think I want to have to find some of the older drivers I liked back then, older JBL or Altec drivers most likely will need reconing and how well they match the original paper cones is a question. I still would probably enjoy a system built around the JBL D130 drivers with a horn above, that would be very nostalgic to say the least. I did grow up with Altec and JBL and tube Mac gear, with my still sitting on a shelf Revox A77 tape deck and Dual turntable that is also still sitting in a cabinet. I still have a working pair of Altec Barcelona cabinets in working original condition.
I do know where you are coming from. I just can't make those types of systems into current consumer type of products. I have to think smaller and less like a piece of furniture. I have to design like I was designing for Apple, that is where the current thinking is for a consumer product. It is change and adapt or fade away today. The audiophile market as we knew it is just shrinking all the time. I only see a few dealers anymore and one that I know of I wouldn't even step inside of today, way to arrogant for me to stomach anymore.
My feeling is that a great sounding speaker will be great sounding with either vacuum tubes or SS if they are of good quality. It is really a preference rather than a one is better than the other. I was making the comment though that it can be less expensive today to make an active network than a passive with the cost of your autoformers and the cost of large value copper inductors today. I can only guess what some of the Erse perfect layer coils would cost todsy, they weren't cheap twenty years ago and copper has only gotten more expensive. I used to have them wind me exact values for networks and would buy volumes of them. Today if I need a value I either string a couple together or peel off any windings to get an exact value. I had a friend who owned one of the cap manufacturers back then and I could get bags of 100 polypro caps for cheap with 100v or even 250v ratings and would bunch values together to get perfect values. I even went as far as to use 0.5mfd caps to make the final adjustments, I was rather anal about getting all the networks to match. I expect that you are still the same today. I just want to move on a go active, it is worth it to me not to waste the lost energy in the networks today and it is nice that we can now do phase matching and time alignment that was next to impossible with passive networks back in the day. Offsetting the devices was really the more practical solution when we only had passive networks. That made enclosure design a different animal than just delaying the device output today.
I have no problems with what you are doing. I don't think I want to have to find some of the older drivers I liked back then, older JBL or Altec drivers most likely will need reconing and how well they match the original paper cones is a question. I still would probably enjoy a system built around the JBL D130 drivers with a horn above, that would be very nostalgic to say the least. I did grow up with Altec and JBL and tube Mac gear, with my still sitting on a shelf Revox A77 tape deck and Dual turntable that is also still sitting in a cabinet. I still have a working pair of Altec Barcelona cabinets in working original condition.
I do know where you are coming from. I just can't make those types of systems into current consumer type of products. I have to think smaller and less like a piece of furniture. I have to design like I was designing for Apple, that is where the current thinking is for a consumer product. It is change and adapt or fade away today. The audiophile market as we knew it is just shrinking all the time. I only see a few dealers anymore and one that I know of I wouldn't even step inside of today, way to arrogant for me to stomach anymore.
Good reply. It's a legitimate question if the mass-market has any interest in quality audio at all, with the rapid rise of low-fi Bluetooth speakers and TV soundbars outselling HT receivers and HT speakers. I find it interesting that even in my funky-sounding car stereo, I can easily hear the difference between wireless Bluetooth audio and a direct USB iPod connection.
I suspect the only difference most consumers can detect is "broken" and not-broken. "Broken" could be defined as noise, hash, and no bass (like a cellphone connection), and not-broken as quiet, good S/N, and plenty of bass. 128 kbit MP3 seems plenty good enough for most folks, with 256 kbit AAC from iTunes or Pandora the ultimate in hi-fi. (It's digital and it's new, so it has to be good, right?)
Anything more subtle (or musical) departs from the mass-market and enters the wilder and more marketing-driven realms of HT, custom-install HT, and high-end audio. The gigantic success of the Beats product line tells us something about of the power of marketing.
I suspect the only difference most consumers can detect is "broken" and not-broken. "Broken" could be defined as noise, hash, and no bass (like a cellphone connection), and not-broken as quiet, good S/N, and plenty of bass. 128 kbit MP3 seems plenty good enough for most folks, with 256 kbit AAC from iTunes or Pandora the ultimate in hi-fi. (It's digital and it's new, so it has to be good, right?)
Anything more subtle (or musical) departs from the mass-market and enters the wilder and more marketing-driven realms of HT, custom-install HT, and high-end audio. The gigantic success of the Beats product line tells us something about of the power of marketing.
Last edited:
My plan as I have said before is to make something that is small, but not Bose small, that will have such an excellent sound that you would have to be deaf to not notice the sound quality. I have to reach a certain price point to sell the product but with online direct sales I can do it without having to charge a price like a traditional manufacturer who is still using print advertisement and the old channels of advertisement. I also won't have to satisfy a bunch of stock holders with quarterly profit gains. I understand how that works as I dd study business in college and that truly upsets me to no end the way that entire thinking is based around stockholder equity value. Employees have to be locked at as nothing but a commodity that needs be lowest cost. I just keeping on thinking to be disruptive, that is my goal, it will not be an easy thing for others to match, really impossible for a publicly traded company to do. I see that others want to charge 10K dollars for what I want to price at 1.5K dollars, I know I am going to P*ss others off, that is just to bad. Since I am going to be using proprietary designs it will be next to impossible to do what I am doing without just trying to copy the look without the sound. Just look at what the major players want for a Be dome tweeter, the cost of the raw Be would make the costs soar for anyone else to use that material. I'd rather eat the cost and pass it through and not make a dime on that one component and nobody else would even consider doing that. My speakers will not be toys, they will be something people keep for a lifetime. I know you like large speakers but I bet you would really appreciate the sound I'm going to get for such a small speaker. I can only compare the sound of my small cone driver to an old 15" driver in sound, they break so many rules of what others are doing. I would have to sell the round raw frame drivers in the $350-$500 dollar range if I was pricing the costs the way a normal costs to value proposition would work in a normal company. I just cringe when I think about how it all works and was taught in school.
Passive vs active. Active is faster and easier, but does not always sound better. Don't let anyone fool you. I've built and run both over the years. Active can be spectacular, but my ears always end up asking me for passive. I don't know why. No accounting for taste, I suppose.
I am pleased you have posted this fundamental comparison, because it is just one example of the whole rationale for getting the best possible reproduction. There are an uncountable list of similar comparisons or judgments
Joshua G has moved on to live music. There was more that he could have done to get to 'that is the sound I want' The TQWT would get him perhaps back to the tipping point of enjoying reproduction once more. Not perhaps at the same level as the current Beyond the Ariel, but pretty darn good. He doesn't trust what he has not heard, and that is a good safety net. I hope someone in the UK makes the Beyond Ariel. So we can hear it for ourselves
I think this was discussed around posting #2000 to #3000.
Ok, the numbers are probably off, but it was discussed years ago. You're welcome go back through the discussion!
If you want to talk about the ne plus ultra in actively crossed over systems, Mr Linkwitz is just over here - he's around hereabouts sometimes too. Use the search and you'll find something soon enough - like this
There are two points to consider, concerning my last sharing.
1. It's possible that no one in the forum here get what I'm missing.
I'll elaborate; please don't be offended, for no offence is meant.
A huge gap in the audible experience between live concerts and living room sound reproduction is always there, it always has been there.
However compared to the audible experience in 'conventional' concert halls, that gap was bearable by me; I enjoyed listening to music at home.
When a concert hall with 'superb' acoustics came up, that gap became gradually unbearable by me.
It looks like anyone who didn't hear live concert in a hall with such acoustics cannot possibly get what I'm talking about, what I'm missing in the reproduced sound.
Someone mentioned here the 'echoing' sound of churches; this is definitely not the acoustics in that concert hall. Some may 'think' they know what I'm talking about, what I miss, but it looks to me that they don't actually get it, they cannot possibly get it prior to actually hearing live concert in that specific hall.
2. Over the years I've read and heard numerous recommendations by others, 'audiophiles' and 'non-audiophiles' alike; professional reviewers and 'plain' sound-quality enthusiasts.
It is my experience that more often than not, most others have completely different expectations and preferences concerning sound reproduction.
Thus I learned the hard way not purchase audio gear based on others' recommendations, without hearing it first, preferably in my own (tiny) living room.
This is so especially when it's the last remaining of my available money. Should I spend it on something that will not meet my expectations, or needs, I'll be left without money and without stereo setup.
As for those TQWT speakers, I get that they excel in reproducing classical music. However so are my present speakers. Their higher sensitivity isn't a major consideration for me at this point in time, since I cannot afford god DHT amp. (Which may also exclude the 'Beyond Ariel' for me. The 'Beyond Ariel' may not be suitable for me anyhow, since I have a tiny living room).
Before even considering them, I'm yet to hear impressions from someone who heard them AND the speakers I own at present. Then, possibly, I'll be able to get some initial picture about them.
I think this was discussed around posting #2000 to #3000.
Ok, the numbers are probably off, but it was discussed years ago. You're welcome go back through the discussion!
If you want to talk about the ne plus ultra in actively crossed over systems, Mr Linkwitz is just over here - he's around hereabouts sometimes too. Use the search and you'll find something soon enough - like this
Yes, I know who he is and have met him in Atlanta. He is famous. I am not,and although we are "Lansmen" we do not always agree on things.
Some day, perhaps, we will sit down together to have one goodt beer, and discuss all things audio.
Passive vs active. Active is faster and easier, but does not always sound better. Don't let anyone fool you. I've built and run both over the years. Active can be spectacular, but my ears always end up asking me for passive. I don't know why. No accounting for taste, I suppose.
Yes, I suppose it is very possible one could also muck up an active system.
By it's very merits, an active system will be superior, but I have seen some mighty amazing things done by audiophiles.
By now, I would bet you are missing the wonderful pine scent of the North Carolina mountains. Regrettably, I never did meet you, but the region misses you greatly. I know, because I can feel your absence. Best to you and yours, sir.
There's no change with music at home, correct?
So after hearing this magnificent sound (in the magnificent concert hall), suddenly you cannot enjoy listening to your music at home. Is that correct?
Analogy is, you have enjoyed drinking Australian whisky, but after you drink a French whisky, suddenly Australian whisky is not enjoyable anymore (Sorry Fast42
).The word I underlined ("gradually") must have critical meaning. I think it is that you have the free option to go to the concert hall. So when you listen to your music at home, you will "compare" with how it was in the concert hall, and you think "sheet, why not just go to the concert hall!". (Note: you get used to the concert hall sound)
I have many speakers at home. Listening to the inferior ones has been always UNBEARABLE, simply because I have the option to listen to my best speaker (I have been using my best speaker with my BELOW average electronics for many years).
First,
my other inferior speakers are unbearable (or never been used) because I have the better one which I can freely choose to listen. How can I listen to those speakers when what I need to do to hear much better sound is simply to use the best speaker?
If I don't have the best speaker "A", I might have the second best speaker "B" as the new best speaker. And because I don't have option to listen to the "A", I can get used to the sound of "B". My expectation is lowered, or I simply forget about "A".
Second,
Why can I live with below average electronics but not with below average speaker??? You have to be open-mind to understand the message.
Which point?
The first, basically you can't enjoy your home system because you have the option to go to the concert hall when you want to. Once you don't have access to the concert hall, you can gradually enjoy your home system again.
The second, you have to be open minded to understand my message.
I can live with inferior electronics because the different between these electronics are merely "cosmetics". Expensive electronics having lower noise floor, lower THD, etc. Basically, all amplifiers are good enough!
I can't live with inferior speakers could mean that the difference in speakers are not just "cosmetics" (like flatter frequency response off and on axis, low group delay, etc.). An expensive speaker can be "wrong" and a cheap speaker can be "right". There are many compromise in speaker design. Understanding these compromises could be an art.
If you examine the physical appearance of the Bossendorfer speakers, you can relate with many common design errors. Just post the picture here and let the speaker expert such as Kindhornman to comment on it.
Yes and no.
For many years I enjoyed both live concerts and listening to music at home. It changed when the concert hall's acoustics was greatly improved.
I agree with you that differences between different speakers are huge.
I don't agree with you that the differences between electronics are merely "cosmetics". My ears tell me something different. I also don't agree with you that all amplifiers are good enough – not to my ears.
Agreed.
Since I don't design speakers I have no interest whatsoever in understanding, all I care about is the listening outcome.
I judge speakers only and solely by the way they sound.
I don't care at all about what others may perceive as design flaws.
I don't care at all about the opinions of those who never heard those speakers.
Those who heard those speakers and didn't like them – it only tells me that their taste and sound preferences are completely different than mine, therefore their opinions are utterly meaningless to me.
It may serve well also others to judge speakers by the way they sound, not by the way they look.
Give the man some credit. He heard cheap or expensive speakers without many common design errors and choose Bossendorfer based on his taste and listening preferences. He seemed to be a well seasoned classical music lover with many years of attending live concerts and with knowledge of recorded material. At his age he belongs to the generation of the past , which still goes to opera and symphony.
Joshua , I don't think there is a solution for you here unless you are willing to invest years and lot of money to get to the illusory point of satisfying results Following the thread and Lynn/Gary solution would mean changing all the chain and getting ,good tube amp (they are not as common as some let you believe). If your present setup is/were satisfying compared to average quality concert halls you are lucky man indeed.
Have you heard fairly expensive Audio Note setup ?
Sorry, I forgot what was the original intention Joshua posted here, looking for advice or simply sharing his new experience (and expecting agreement) regarding a very good concert hall...
If looking for advice or suggestion, accept it, it wont work, because his systems are already very good, and we all know that there is no perfect sound system that can reproduce the real thing.
My intention was to SHARE my own logical thinking when I hit an "obstacle" during my pursuit of audio perfection. When something is wrong with my enjoyment I have always asked myself what was wrong with my system, especially speakers. Was it the recording issue? Was the phase performance not good enough? Was the step response not good enough? Was the non-linear distortion not good enough? Was the room, etc. etc... So there is no discredit at all...
Thanks.
I didn't look for solutions here, nor did I think a solution will emerge here.
I only shared my experience.
I don't have a lot of money to invest, though I wish I would.
As I mentioned before:
1. I doubt if the 'beyond Ariel' will suite my tiny living room.
2. I Cannot possibly afford a good DHT amp.
Thank you.
I get that I attained a noteworthy achievement, though I'm not sure how much it's about 'luck', or about toiling and investing towards it.
Unfortunately not. I don't know of any such amp anywhere in my country.
I agree with you that not all amps sound "good enough". But you also agree that speakers are more important. Have you heard the Sonus Faber Stradivari? Troels Gravesen has the poor man's Stradivari (PMS).
It is just my guess that you will like such speakers, but ah... unfortunately you have mentioned that your room is "tiny" (tho it could mean a hall size for me
). Such design requires bigger room for a good soundstage.Room and hence its accoustics, is said to be the most underestimated factor in audio reproduction, so to achieve a little perfecttion you may consider a better listening room
(Some rich people really have concert hall listening room with very huge speakers. If you want to hear opinions from these players you can join the WhatsBestForum)
Having followed this with interest and having some exposure to a couple of the (arguably) best systems in the World, I would say that for the highest level of reproduction nothing beats a really good Binaural system.
Some people just can't stand a headphone system, but for those that can, it offers a level of sound that is nearly impossible to beat. Do I want to listen only to headphones? No, I'm a bit more talkative than that, but to my mind it offers a number of sonic merits that are very hard to deny.
Just my opinion of course...YMMV
Best Regards,
TerryO
Some people just can't stand a headphone system, but for those that can, it offers a level of sound that is nearly impossible to beat. Do I want to listen only to headphones? No, I'm a bit more talkative than that, but to my mind it offers a number of sonic merits that are very hard to deny.
Just my opinion of course...YMMV
Best Regards,
TerryO