I've been following this thread on and off from the beginning, and have really learned a lot from the knowledgeable folks posting here. I've even started a speaker project that is based on an early version of Lynn's proposed design, although it is way behind due to other more pressing projects. However, after all the discussion over the last few weeks on concert-hall realism, compression driver behavior, room treatments, etc., I think that most of the posters here are getting lost in the details and have forgotten where the appreciation of music really happens - its in our mind, not in the air surrounding us.
Music goes into a emotional part of the mind, which can help explain the very emotional and occasionally irrational response to the appreciation and musical-related aspects, including the quality of the sound that we hear. Both the style of music enjoyed and the quality of reproduction tolerated are learned behaviors, and as such, evolve as we grow older. The curse of the audiophile is that as we get exposed to better reproduction methods that tickle our emotional neurons, we get "hooked" on the new methods and notice the flaws in the older methods. Not everything new can do this - if the first time you hear amplified music in a venue with strident, over-driven P.A. amplifiers, this generally is not an effect you would want to hear again!
On the other hand, if there is an increase in realism in a good way, say through more musical detail or a pleasing tonal balance, your brain will want more. And because this is a psycho-acoustic effect, your environment strongly affects your appreciation. Examples I've heard about or experienced myself include: listening to a rock song on AM radio in an early 1960s car on your first date, listening to a fantastically emotional symphony on vintage recording media*, hearing well-sung Christmas carols through a closed door, and listening to a live chamber music recital on an FM table radio. In all of these cases, the sound quality was definitely "low-fi", but the music was enjoyable nonetheless.
In numerous high-end equipment "shoot-outs" I've participated in over the years, one thing I've discovered is that different people want to optimize different things. Sometimes it is simple-minded things like "bass slam" or the absence of background noise. These folks are usually at the beginning of their path of musical enjoyment. With more experience, more subtle effects such as soundstage, ambience or tonal balance become important. Often, there aren't words to describe what you can hear. (Although this hasn't stopped reviewers - hence meaningless descriptions such as "chocolate bass and caramel highs", etc.)
Lynn Olson is quite far down this path for the quest for more enjoyable music. Note that the goal is not more realistic music or a simulation of a concert hall, but just more enjoyable music. Lynn has heard things such as well-designed tube amplifiers, colorless horn speakers, well-executed multi-bit DACs, etc., each one of which increased his enjoyment. I know Lynn quite well, and I am pretty sure he would agree with this, and could probably expand on this list. The essence of this thread (beyond the Ariel and the improved Karna amplifier) is to push further towards better musical enjoyment.
That's enough for now - I plan to post some examples of the enjoyment of music reproduction that would surprise most modern high-end perfectionists.
- John Atwood
* - A spectacular example of this is the last movement of Brahms 1st Symphony, recorded on Jan. 23, 1945 by the Berlin Philharmonic under Wilhelm Furtwangler (on Tahra FURT 1006), the day before Furtwangler left Berlin for Switzerland. If this doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, nothing will!
Music goes into a emotional part of the mind, which can help explain the very emotional and occasionally irrational response to the appreciation and musical-related aspects, including the quality of the sound that we hear. Both the style of music enjoyed and the quality of reproduction tolerated are learned behaviors, and as such, evolve as we grow older. The curse of the audiophile is that as we get exposed to better reproduction methods that tickle our emotional neurons, we get "hooked" on the new methods and notice the flaws in the older methods. Not everything new can do this - if the first time you hear amplified music in a venue with strident, over-driven P.A. amplifiers, this generally is not an effect you would want to hear again!
On the other hand, if there is an increase in realism in a good way, say through more musical detail or a pleasing tonal balance, your brain will want more. And because this is a psycho-acoustic effect, your environment strongly affects your appreciation. Examples I've heard about or experienced myself include: listening to a rock song on AM radio in an early 1960s car on your first date, listening to a fantastically emotional symphony on vintage recording media*, hearing well-sung Christmas carols through a closed door, and listening to a live chamber music recital on an FM table radio. In all of these cases, the sound quality was definitely "low-fi", but the music was enjoyable nonetheless.
In numerous high-end equipment "shoot-outs" I've participated in over the years, one thing I've discovered is that different people want to optimize different things. Sometimes it is simple-minded things like "bass slam" or the absence of background noise. These folks are usually at the beginning of their path of musical enjoyment. With more experience, more subtle effects such as soundstage, ambience or tonal balance become important. Often, there aren't words to describe what you can hear. (Although this hasn't stopped reviewers - hence meaningless descriptions such as "chocolate bass and caramel highs", etc.)
Lynn Olson is quite far down this path for the quest for more enjoyable music. Note that the goal is not more realistic music or a simulation of a concert hall, but just more enjoyable music. Lynn has heard things such as well-designed tube amplifiers, colorless horn speakers, well-executed multi-bit DACs, etc., each one of which increased his enjoyment. I know Lynn quite well, and I am pretty sure he would agree with this, and could probably expand on this list. The essence of this thread (beyond the Ariel and the improved Karna amplifier) is to push further towards better musical enjoyment.
That's enough for now - I plan to post some examples of the enjoyment of music reproduction that would surprise most modern high-end perfectionists.
- John Atwood
* - A spectacular example of this is the last movement of Brahms 1st Symphony, recorded on Jan. 23, 1945 by the Berlin Philharmonic under Wilhelm Furtwangler (on Tahra FURT 1006), the day before Furtwangler left Berlin for Switzerland. If this doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, nothing will!
By way of background, John Atwood is one of the three co-founders of Vacuum Tube Valley, which started publishing in the mid-Nineties. (The name is a pun on Silicon Valley, where the VTV office was located.) I was asked to join as Technical Editor when John left the magazine, and since I'd already done a brief gig with Glass Audio in the same capacity, I said OK. In retrospect, my work at the magazine wasn't as deep or knowledgeable as John's, who really knows his history, and continues to be a resource for the entire vacuum-tube industry.
John's the one I call when I'm curious about some arcane aspect of the power distribution systems of the early Twentieth Century, or why Major Armstrong used a very complex phase-modulation system for the first FM transmissions. I've always been interested in the history of technology (and economics) in the USA, Europe, and Asia. Things don't arise out of nothing: there's always a long historical tail that's a complicated mix of technology, people, economics, and political decisions with technical ramifications.
Although I don't discuss it on the forum in much depth, the audio projects I'm involved in draw on this history. Good technology gets forgotten more often than we would think, and it's not unusual for it to be re-discovered fifty years later.
John's the one I call when I'm curious about some arcane aspect of the power distribution systems of the early Twentieth Century, or why Major Armstrong used a very complex phase-modulation system for the first FM transmissions. I've always been interested in the history of technology (and economics) in the USA, Europe, and Asia. Things don't arise out of nothing: there's always a long historical tail that's a complicated mix of technology, people, economics, and political decisions with technical ramifications.
Although I don't discuss it on the forum in much depth, the audio projects I'm involved in draw on this history. Good technology gets forgotten more often than we would think, and it's not unusual for it to be re-discovered fifty years later.
Last edited:
Movies and symphonic music are different, in the sense that the even the most beautiful and amazing movies aren't good for more than a few viewings. You already know the plot and everything that's going to happen, so you look for little details of set-dressing, wonder how they did the special effects, and admire the acting, cinematography, and direction.
The right symphonic piece has a sense of limitlessness to it; it doesn't have a meaning, there's no scripted plot, and it exists in an abstract place of emotion, feeling, and musical sensation. The performers bring the work to life, and put themselves into the performance. I'm not a musician, and certainly nowhere close to the level of Gary Dahl, but music is important to me, and I want to bring the recordings to life.
I'm not interested in "accuracy" in the accepted audiophile sense. Most so-called "accurate" systems that I've heard don't sound much like live music at all. The other audiophiles would go ga-ga and I just wanted to leave the room. If it doesn't sound like live music, it's not good, no matter how it measures.
There are certain qualities of vintage systems (and occasionally new ones) that are striking; the tonality and expressiveness will be "just right", though a lucky combination of circumstances. I'm very curious when this happens; I want to know why. I'm not a collector of vintage gear. I want to know why it sounds that way. I have no desire to possess it.
This is where the history of technology comes in. There's a distinctive sound to Thirties (USA) audio that's surprisingly different than the Fifties sound. The RCA M44 ribbon microphone. The Westrex 555 compression driver. The field-coil versions of the Altec 288 and 515 drivers. The RCA 56, 76, 6J5, and 6SN7 receiving tubes. The RCA 45 and Western Electric 300B.
Surprisingly, they don't sound "old". They sound different than the Fifties equivalents. And the measurements can be better than the Fifties equivalents, particularly considering that Thirties gear didn't always use feedback.
The European gear from the Thirties has a distinctive sound of its own, and again, doesn't sound "old" at all. It's just different in a fascinating way.
The musical tastes of the time are clearly influencing what the engineers are doing. True, they're limited by the knowledge and measurement technique of the time, and most of all by the limitations of recording technology, which was very primitive by modern standards. But the sound on the Furtwangler recording is quite listenable; it was recorded on magnetic tape with AC bias, and is one of the earliest examples of high fidelity, although recorded under wartime conditions.
And the performance ... well, nobody sounds like that any more. The musicians and audience could have a 500-lb bomb from a B-17 explode into the concert hall at any time, and you can hear the tension in the recording. The music they were playing could have been the last thing any of them heard. Punk rock and grunge pretend to be about life and death, and sound like the teenage affectations they are. This is the real thing. The insane Nazi dream was taking all of German culture with it.
I grew up Japan and Hong Kong when both were scarred by the horrors of Japanese fascism and the ongoing horrors of Mao's Cultural Revolution. I was in Hong Kong when millions of Chinese escaped from Red China with nothing more than the clothes on their backs.
I've been lucky enough to never experience fascism, communism, or racism at first hand. I've seen the effects, though. They are devastating and last for generations.
Humans need community. We need art. We need people and animals to love. When entire societies go insane (take a good look at the Mideast), people need all the help they can get. Music is part of that. It might even be the most important part.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2006
Recently my friend and I were fortunate to have the opportunity to audition some vintage speakers at a.friend's place, speakers including AR-1(Altec 755A), Tannoy Silver, Altec 604, JBL full range, EMI, Jensen G610b, early edition Rogers LS 3/5 etc all in their orignal cabinets...
Within a second (not literally) after the Jensens were on, to our ears, we knew immediately thats the winner, by far.
The mid range horn within that triaxial was based on the 555 design I gathered, together with its highly praised bullet tweeter horn, it made Linda Ronstadlt sound so lively in the big band, we felt as if we were present in a night club, and tapping our feet along, amazing, and we never had that kind of experience from modern systems before..technologies going backward?
And... based on that experience..I bought a pair of EMIs on ebay today...
And have gobbled up some ptt2s, 45pp, etc pre/amps built by another friend as he happened to liquidate his builds currently....Looking forward to hearing how that vintage system sounds..
Within a second (not literally) after the Jensens were on, to our ears, we knew immediately thats the winner, by far.
The mid range horn within that triaxial was based on the 555 design I gathered, together with its highly praised bullet tweeter horn, it made Linda Ronstadlt sound so lively in the big band, we felt as if we were present in a night club, and tapping our feet along, amazing, and we never had that kind of experience from modern systems before..technologies going backward?
And... based on that experience..I bought a pair of EMIs on ebay today...
And have gobbled up some ptt2s, 45pp, etc pre/amps built by another friend as he happened to liquidate his builds currently....Looking forward to hearing how that vintage system sounds..
Last edited:
Agreed wholeheartedly with all the above.
Especially: "If it doesn't sound like live music, it's not good, no matter how it measures."
Recently my friend and I were fortunate to have the opportunity to audition some vintage speakers at a.friend's place, speakers including AR-1(Altec 755A), Tannoy Silver, Altec 604, JBL full range, EMI, Jensen G610b, early edition Rogers LS 3/5 etc all in their orignal cabinets...
Within a second (not literally) after the Jensens were on, to our ears, we knew immediately thats the winner, by far.
The mid range horn within that triaxial was based on the 555 design I gathered, together with its highly praised bullet tweeter horn, it made Linda Ronstadlt sound so lively in the big band, we felt as if we were present in a night club, and tapping our feet along, amazing, and we never had that kind of experience from modern systems before..technologies going backward?
And... based on that experience..I bought a pair of EMIs on ebay today...
And have gobbled up some ptt2s, 45pp, etc pre/amps built by another friend as he happened to liquidate his builds currently....Looking forward to hearing how that vintage system sounds..
It's not clear. Was it the Jensen G610B you all liked or the EMI???? and which model of EMY? I'm not familiar with what appears like a triaxial three-way horn.
We all agree that it's the total damping (i.e. Fs/Qt) that controls the low frequency behaviour of a Woofer.
But, let's take a couple of idealized examples.
Woofer 1) Fs = 30 Hz, Qes = 0.43, Qms = 1
This results in:
Fs/Qes (electrical damping) = 70
Fs/Qms (mechanical damping) = 30
Fs/Qts (total damping) = 100
% of mechanical vs. total damping: 30%
Woofer 2) Fs = 30 Hz, Qes = 0.31, Qms = 10
This results in:
Fs/Qes (electrical damping) = 97
Fs/Qms (mechanical damping) = 3
Fs/Qts (total damping) = 100
% of mechanical vs. total damping: 3%
Wouldn't you agree that Woofer 2 is preferable, even if the resulting overall damping (Fs/Qt) is the same?
In other words, doesn't the fact that a lower percentage of the total damping is provided by the mechanical resistance of the suspension result in a "better" Woofer?
In my opinion/experience, Woofer 2 would be better at reproducing micro-dynamics and "detail" than Woofer 1.
And this is not just academic. Two real examples as cases in point:
TAD TL-1601b) Fs = 28 Hz, Qes = 0.32, Qms = 6.8
This results in:
Fs/Qes (electrical damping) = 87.5
Fs/Qms (mechanical damping) = 4.1
Fs/Qts (total damping) = 91.6
% of mechanical vs. total damping: 4.5%
JBL 2225H) Fs = 40 Hz, Qes = 0.31, Qms = 2.5
This results in:
Fs/Qes (electrical damping) = 129
Fs/Qms (mechanical damping) = 16
Fs/Qts (total damping) = 145
% of mechanical vs. total damping: 11%
I think the TAD woofer will be more "detailed" than the JBL one (and of course, it will go lower in frequency as well, but that's beside the point being made here).
Thoughts?
Marco
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2006
Recently my friend and I were fortunate to have the opportunity to audition some vintage speakers at a.friend's place, speakers including AR-1(Altec 755A), Tannoy Silver, Altec 604, JBL full range, EMI, Jensen G610b, early edition Rogers LS 3/5 etc all in their orignal cabinets...
Within a second (not literally) after the Jensens were on, to our ears, we knew immediately thats the winner, by far.
The mid range horn within that triaxial was based on the 555 design I gathered, together with its highly praised bullet tweeter horn, it made Linda Ronstadlt sound so lively in the big band, we felt as if we were present in a night club, and tapping our feet along, amazing, and we never had that kind of experience from modern systems before..technologies going backward?
And... based on that experience..I bought a pair of EMIs on ebay today...
And have gobbled up some ptt2s, 45pp, etc pre/amps built by another friend as he happened to liquidate his builds currently....Looking forward to hearing how that vintage system sounds..
I've lived through the era of the above speakers.
Nostalgia is great but it nearly always attracts exaggerated claims and puts sentimental value or other consideration into the equation.
The Quad ELS57 I bought new in 69. In all the years the clarity surpassed everything I heard. I could have bought many of reknowned speakers or drivers etc but I did not prefer their sound. This post is about Beyond the Ariel, not Before the Ariel. My Quad 57 speakers are kept only as a 'dare I say' comparator.
We did not get automobiles, to where they are, by hankering over an old Bentley 8, or even James Bond Aston Martin Vantage. It is the same with modern audio systems, where they are designed to get very close to reality as the overall goal. They are usually much better. The state of the valve art in Ongaku is better, than all of the valve memorabilia. If it is sentiment buy the antiques, if it is state of the art then you have to buy new.
At a price, you could have a totally new system valve or solid state direct driver or horn which can give the impression of 'you are there', with the advisory that is, only when reproducing a live broadcast into the room. No conventional recording comes close. But still very enjoyable for music you like.
Exceptional recordings may get you closer. If you can make such a system, as repeatedly in prevoius posts, and conveyed for Karna, it will set you back many thousands of dollars. Only an expert systems designer or manufacturer, plus the few non industry guys can design and make such a system at an affordable price for their own use.
Kindhornman and many others her, know the limitations of drivers and other parts of the system, and what is realisable goal versus cost and time.
Why would anybody think it is possible to have a really 'you are there' system with only little knowledge. Would you try to completely design and build a modern car from scratch.
I concur with Lynn that if all the Quad57 attributes could be had, with all the limitations and weaknesses neutrallised by modern standards it would be fine for me.
And it remains an ongoing goal for many of us who have already gone a long way with it to finally get there.
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2006
Fortunately in this part of the world we have many opportunities to hear from friends or shops/ hifi shows megabucks modern systems...but a very high majority of them are not interesting at all, or shall I say disappointment given the price tag..imho
To us, particular my friend whom is so new to vintage systems, its definitely not a nostalgia thing, perhaps a matter of being more euphoric ?
Anyway, just wanted to concur on Lynn's 30s and 50s sound comment... they are different indeed from modern designs'..and our ears (my friend's and mine) prefer that...
And, would a Linkwitz system come close to as a modern Quad 57.equivalent?
To us, particular my friend whom is so new to vintage systems, its definitely not a nostalgia thing, perhaps a matter of being more euphoric ?
Anyway, just wanted to concur on Lynn's 30s and 50s sound comment... they are different indeed from modern designs'..and our ears (my friend's and mine) prefer that...
And, would a Linkwitz system come close to as a modern Quad 57.equivalent?
please google it on the jensen triaxial structure.
The EMI 319s cost me only usd250..(we heard the Benjamin s1050 though)...but my friend just bought the Jensens after hearing them for 50x that price, what do you think?
There truly can be something special come out of an efficient light weight mid-base driver. Combine this with the beauty and naturalness of point source and I can understand the glory giving. I wish I had, or could listen to them.
How are the EMIs?
Member
Joined 2006
I see no reason that would be true.
When I am looking for a woofer I don't even consider the Qes, Qms, etc. These are strictly related to the fundamental resonance and nothing more. Its all about how well it handles the upper range of cone breakup as well as structural resonances that cause small peaks and dips. How is it that damping is a "bad thing"? I just don't get it.
But heck, I completely disagree with "If it doesn't sound like live music, it's not good, no matter how it measures." so what do I know. I don't want a studio recording to sound like it is in an auditorium. That's not what it is supposed to sound like. We need to separate the very real appreciation of music from the equally real appreciation of its reproduction. The two things are not the same to me - one can be quantified, the other cannot.
I totally agree that "how well it handles the upper range of cone breakup as well as structural resonances that cause small peaks and dips" are very important factors.
I was just focusing on the electrical vs. mechanical damping characteristics, assuming all the rest to be equal.
I never said that all damping was a "bad thing". I just proposed that, given that there are different ways to achieve the same overall damping, it would be better to have high electrical damping and low mechanical damping.
To take this to an extreme, would you be happy with a Woofer whose main damping mechanism was mechanical?
Woofer 3) Fs = 30 Hz, Qes = 1.5, Qms = 0.375
This results in:
Fs/Qes (electrical damping) = 20
Fs/Qms (mechanical damping) = 80
Fs/Qts (total damping) = 100 (still the same as Woofers 1 and 2 of my previous post)
% of mechanical vs. total damping: 80%
Marco
Marco,
You could look at this in a completely different way in my opinion. Though the speaker you are talking about, the TAD, with less mechanical damping may seem to allow more detail consider also that a very loose and soft surround may actually allow that cone to much more easily bend, to have many more bending modes at the termination of the cone to surround connection. This is more towards what Earl is speaking to, what is it in the speaker that controls cone breakup and how is that done. i very rarely if ever see anyone discuss the different surround types, whether they are 1/2 roll, M-roll or any other type and how this truly does affect the way a speaker sounds and how they work at terminating the cone. Some surrounds may even be very good at suppressing bending modes at the edge of the cone but create a bunch of out of phase response causing havoc with the upper frequency response. The connection between these functions is just overlooked. Some of the ideas I have had I have run by another speaker guru I know and in his actual testing using laser tracking that idea was shown to cause slapping in the surround, so this is really a very misunderstood area of speaker design. Just look at a typical large surround 1/2 roll as used in many subwoofer, much of that surround is working in anti phase to the what the cone itself is doing but people want to believe that surface is moving linearly with the basic cone movement which is far from the case. Now calculate the surface area of those very wide surrounds and you will start to see some of the issues that just go unnoticed.
So just looking at the electrical vs mechanical damping can be a foolish effort. You could be sorely disappointed in taking one factor and basing your choices on that.
You could look at this in a completely different way in my opinion. Though the speaker you are talking about, the TAD, with less mechanical damping may seem to allow more detail consider also that a very loose and soft surround may actually allow that cone to much more easily bend, to have many more bending modes at the termination of the cone to surround connection. This is more towards what Earl is speaking to, what is it in the speaker that controls cone breakup and how is that done. i very rarely if ever see anyone discuss the different surround types, whether they are 1/2 roll, M-roll or any other type and how this truly does affect the way a speaker sounds and how they work at terminating the cone. Some surrounds may even be very good at suppressing bending modes at the edge of the cone but create a bunch of out of phase response causing havoc with the upper frequency response. The connection between these functions is just overlooked. Some of the ideas I have had I have run by another speaker guru I know and in his actual testing using laser tracking that idea was shown to cause slapping in the surround, so this is really a very misunderstood area of speaker design. Just look at a typical large surround 1/2 roll as used in many subwoofer, much of that surround is working in anti phase to the what the cone itself is doing but people want to believe that surface is moving linearly with the basic cone movement which is far from the case. Now calculate the surface area of those very wide surrounds and you will start to see some of the issues that just go unnoticed.
So just looking at the electrical vs mechanical damping can be a foolish effort. You could be sorely disappointed in taking one factor and basing your choices on that.
Thank you!
This is a very well reasoned reply that actually makes a lot of sense to me.
Clearly, there is much more to a good surround design than minimizing its mechanical resistance (Rms).
But, just as a thought exercise, if two otherwise similar surrounds (and spiders) could be made which only differed in their Rms, would you then agree that the one with the lower Rms would be preferable (resulting in a lower % of total damping being mechanical vs. electrical)?
Regards,
Marco
Kindhornman,
Great post, you do touch on important aspects in the behavior of the 'soft parts' in drivers. The anti-phase comment on the large 1/2 roll surrounds is quite interesting - never knew that. I've always wondered why the hi-fi driver manufacturers such as Scanspeak, SEAS etc. don't make some of their smaller drivers, say in the 5"~8" range with multi-roll cloth surrounds.
Since you also design drivers, have you ever tried a design with a soft spider and a stiff surround? I wonder if there would be any benefit to that, barring of course any bending modes inside the spider itself by being too soft.
Why do you see a low percentage of mechanical damping as desirable? Are you implying some non-linearity or threshold effect as a consequence of mechanical damping?