And "adequate" says it all perfectly.
People like to forget that the LS3/5A was initially developed for ENG purposes, so it had to fit in a report van, where space is at an ultra premium. When taken that way, it was a rather good solution.
Taken as a home speaker, it was a joke.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please use the quote function correctly. Misuse leads to misquoting, which is against the rules. Thanks.Whose's specifications? I would like to know. This whole arena has been so devoid of reference standards its silly. Even the FTC is not very aware of its own rules.
Designing speakers to agreed upon standards would be great. The only thing close is THX, who tries to keep their standards a secret.
AES has a standard for loudspeakers, drivers not systems. The method is often applied to entire systems and is being expanded to cover them.
see SC-04-03 meeting report, Budapest, 2012-04
Wavey,
The main capacitor bank will be 10,000 uf or more. That powers the output stage. The driver section is fed from a regulator.
There is a different supply for the driver stages. If the primary capacitor of the regulator circuit drops before any capacitors on the output discharge, then the regulator transistor is going to breakdown above 6-9 volts of reverse voltage.
If the regulator section input capacitor discharges before the output stage, under some conditions this can place a reverse voltage on the outputs and drivers, very bad news. But that is unlikely to happen.
If you short the main capacitor bank it will not cause any load on the reverse protection diode.
Now I know why those glass case transistors you use glow so red!
ES
That, and throwing a stick of TNT into the device, with a lit short fuse.
Come on, Wave, how many users are likely to do that? We're talking about standard ops, not about acts of terrorism and/or vandalism.
But, since I generally use just three types of diodes (1N4148, 1N400x and 1N5406), I guess I could use the 1N5406 instead.
Hear, hear!
That's what I have been lamenting for two decades now. In the 80ies, there was a move away from practically all standards or attempts at standards. Some standards, like DIN 45500, were hopelessly behind the times as the German industry moved from manufacturnig to buying in, and as it was run over by the Japanese and the Americans (who also purchased their share of German quality companies), leaving only small, specialist companies to go on. IHF standards were never really adopted in Europe in general, which is a pity, because even poor standards are still way better than no standards.
The first en masse standards renegades were the Brits. Look over their ad material form the period and you will see about as many ways to declare power output as there are manufcaturers. Try </titlehifi> <link rel="shortcut icon" type="image/x-icon" href="http://wegavision.pytalhost.com/favicon.ico"> <title>HiFi Archiv
Then the Scandinavians joined in, and the Chinese were the last to join the fray. In their earnestness to make and sell, sell, sell, I find that in many instances they simply threw the standards out of the window, their sole concern being that it's cheap and that it looks more expensive than it really is - some call it "bling".
And very soon, this becomes dangerous. On a different forum (duyaudio.sr), there's a discussion about Chinese made Schuko sockets, which are dirt cheap, but some were found to melt after a while - and that's 230 VAC/50 Hz they are supplying, perfect for a nice home fire. You can use your smouldering house to bake some marshmellows.
However, as I said there, this could not be possible if our goverment authorities did their job. Random testing, find something to be below current official standards, and simply ban it. Of course, that means actually working for their pay, and it might pi*s off the Chinese, and no VAT and/or local taxes, so nobody seems to give a damn.
As a Brit ( well Brit flag , sorry to assume , living here anyway ) you should understand understatement , the BBC are masters of it . The reference to " perfect " was about devotees and not the BBC . I knew Robin Marshal who I suspect understated his part in it ( Audio Master ) . I think I could call Spencer Hugues a friend ( Spendor ) .
The one thing people never get excited about in LS3/5A is the auto-transformer to the tweeter . I was baffled by it ( no pun ) . Big money and added distortion . Even though I do not know the exact reason it was done I take it to be the better way . My speculation is that it allows better control of the tweeter by the amplifier ( yes and level ) . If that is true an op amp like 5534 ( or better ) as a buffer might drive a tweeter ( 60 mA in close to class A ) . It could be fed from the main amp if better was not available . Now that's something to do when it rains ( always Dvv where I live ) . Remember 5534 is not happy at unity gain so measure first on scope . Sorry everybody I have about 50 x 5534 which get used first . Something posh later . MC 33079 , that's 80 mA if used in paralell . They are happier at unity gain . We could use the inverting input as driving a low impedance is not a problem for a power amp . Also the current limiting action might protect the tweeter ? In the unlikely event there is not enough voltage drive use in bridge ."Something better " would be a matched branch form the preamp . This would automatically match the power amp . This would use the positive input and could be configured as a filter also .
The critical under damping is also applicable to amplifiers . Impedance matching between stages matters greatly , be brave and try what is said to be wrong . If it is you will soon know . As the amplifier almost invariably has a global feedback loop it is sometimes difficult to know what has been acheived by any modification . The ears are surprisingly good at helping here ! Sorry to put it that way . Seems to me too many amplifiers are designed by the great ears of Mr L T Spice . I never met the man so must be careful not to assume his ears to be inferior to mine .
All joking aside . Damping is very important . Trans-conductance an ideal for power stations more than hi fi .
Last edited:
Nige, in the end, the sound of any audio product is determined by the hearing of its creator(s). Getting a circuit to work proprely in purely electrical terms is not too hard, but making it sound RIGHT is a whole new ball game.
I'm fairly certain that you have met up with products which measure out of this world, yet sound dull, boring or even wrong. And others which don't measure too well at all, yet somehow sound divine.
This is, in my view, the greatest problem with industrial fare, the fact that there's a team of engineers, each with a different hearing, voicing the product, which ends up as a compromise acceptable to most of them, if not all.
Whereas you and I are much luckier in that respect, because we have only our own hearing to satisfy. If it sounds right to you, what do you care what other people may think, if you're doing it just for you (i.e. non-commercially)?
I'm fairly certain that you have met up with products which measure out of this world, yet sound dull, boring or even wrong. And others which don't measure too well at all, yet somehow sound divine.
This is, in my view, the greatest problem with industrial fare, the fact that there's a team of engineers, each with a different hearing, voicing the product, which ends up as a compromise acceptable to most of them, if not all.
Whereas you and I are much luckier in that respect, because we have only our own hearing to satisfy. If it sounds right to you, what do you care what other people may think, if you're doing it just for you (i.e. non-commercially)?
Hi Dvv ,
I remember the Radford ( HD 250 ? ) . Zero distrotion amplifier . It said below any standard known and below noise . Audio Precision was not around I guess ? It sounded dreadful . I left it in the shop window so long it faded on one side . I had to fade it equally before I could sell it very cheap. I would love to have it back . I imagine I could get it to work now . I suspect it didn't love speakers ?
This is very alarming as Nytech came out of Radford who certainly made "designed by ears " amps . CT252 was superb and better than my beloved Armstong 625 . It's tainted my opinion of Radford valve amps as I consider them a happy accident if so .
At Nytech I heard Radford Tristar 90 speakers which were slightly like Goodmans of the period . Superb and perhaps better than BC1's ( same school of design I would say ) . They stopped production because the bass cone material was said to be a cancer risk .
What other people think is 70 % important . The 30 % to give it a number is from your own soul .
I love French impressionist music . I never quite got Jazz to be a love of mine . However it is from a similar root . I often use it for testing . I think Jazz live is still slightly beyond hi fi to mimic . Classical is fine because realistically the sound is that of being hung from the feet above the orchestra ( false , and absolutely ideal ) . Thus any pretense of correctness goes out the window . As Ivor Teifenbrum said to me " can you get 1000 singers in your front room " ( Mahler coral symphony ) ? I said no " that's what I thought " . Hi fi is nonsense isn't it ? Bob Stewart said at best we can judge a voice and guitar . The rest is what we make of it .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBm1w8J63mg&feature=related
I remember the Radford ( HD 250 ? ) . Zero distrotion amplifier . It said below any standard known and below noise . Audio Precision was not around I guess ? It sounded dreadful . I left it in the shop window so long it faded on one side . I had to fade it equally before I could sell it very cheap. I would love to have it back . I imagine I could get it to work now . I suspect it didn't love speakers ?
This is very alarming as Nytech came out of Radford who certainly made "designed by ears " amps . CT252 was superb and better than my beloved Armstong 625 . It's tainted my opinion of Radford valve amps as I consider them a happy accident if so .
At Nytech I heard Radford Tristar 90 speakers which were slightly like Goodmans of the period . Superb and perhaps better than BC1's ( same school of design I would say ) . They stopped production because the bass cone material was said to be a cancer risk .
What other people think is 70 % important . The 30 % to give it a number is from your own soul .
I love French impressionist music . I never quite got Jazz to be a love of mine . However it is from a similar root . I often use it for testing . I think Jazz live is still slightly beyond hi fi to mimic . Classical is fine because realistically the sound is that of being hung from the feet above the orchestra ( false , and absolutely ideal ) . Thus any pretense of correctness goes out the window . As Ivor Teifenbrum said to me " can you get 1000 singers in your front room " ( Mahler coral symphony ) ? I said no " that's what I thought " . Hi fi is nonsense isn't it ? Bob Stewart said at best we can judge a voice and guitar . The rest is what we make of it .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBm1w8J63mg&feature=related
Last edited:
The point isn't getting 1000 singers in your front room, it's virtually knocking away the walls and reveling the concert hall beyond.
But that isn't easy and demands a lot of work on room acoustics and speaker placement. It can be done, it just isn't easy. Alas, most of us will never have that at home.
But that isn't easy and demands a lot of work on room acoustics and speaker placement. It can be done, it just isn't easy. Alas, most of us will never have that at home.
Well, yes and no.
Yes, insofar that many people can't get much different out of a recording.
No, because a surprisingly large number of recordings are actually better made than we initially suspect, but in return requirem just as unusally good playback equipment to show it.
If from this you deduce that I'm saying most audio equipment is found wanting, you are right. Much, indeed most of it could have been MUCH better with just that little bit of extra oomph. Not perfect, not ideal, but better to much better.
I think the point Ivor was making was that many unquestioned things will never be accurate . Many disliked stereo as mono had more depth . I find that to be true , however I like two speakers regardless . Don't take the mono stereo point too much to heart . I just support what was said when stereo first arrived .
The Quads do the illusion very well . Robin Marshall ( BBC / EPOS ) said it was mostly in not having a box . I must one day put that to the test . Keep phase good to 7 kHz so the major electrostatic virtue is not lost ( DSP perhaps ) .
There were some very small Magnaplanars . I wish I had bought a pair when offered very cheaply in the past . If people can live with no bass from Linn Kans I am sure I could from them . I would have built them side extensions to get more .
Now we get into fuzzier issues. If I consider my last set of speakers (rebuilt Acoustat 1+1, ESL line sources), I could get this effect with lots of recordings. If I consider my current set of speakers (modified and multiamped NHT M3.3), it happens with fewer recordings, but when it does, the effect is more profound- and when it doesn't, I can hear exactly what the engineer did for miking and mixing. Which is "better"? I don't think there's a single right answer, but clearly, the current speakers tell me more of the truth as to what's actually on the recording.
Now we get into fuzzier issues. If I consider my last set of speakers (rebuilt Acoustat 1+1, ESL line sources), I could get this effect with lots of recordings. If I consider my current set of speakers (modified and multiamped NHT M3.3), it happens with fewer recordings, but when it does, the effect is more profound- and when it doesn't, I can hear exactly what the engineer did for miking and mixing. Which is "better"? I don't think there's a single right answer, but clearly, the current speakers tell me more of the truth as to what's actually on the recording.
Absolutely nothing fuuzy about it. Those you like better ARE better, no matter what anyone else thinks. If they prefer something else, by all means, let them buy something else.
I own what I do not to impress anyone, or to please anyone else but me - period. What someone else thinks of my system has nothing to do with me, that's entirely their problem.
As things stand, I am happy with my system. It lets me hear things I don't hear elsewhere with the same source material, even at much higher prices overall - I mention this purely as an observation. True, I have heard better, but unfortunately for a price equivalent to at least two Mercedes-Benz sedans in top form. Even if I had the money, I would never pay so much for a music system.
And, quite frankly, I don't give a damn how it all sounds on an absolute scale, I am aware that ALL reproduced sound is simply a simile of the live sound, an illusion. A very pleasant illusion, but still only an illusion.
It all boils down to how each and every one of us understands and approaches our common hobby (to most, profession to some, but that's something else). I do not own everything I do own to hear this or that, in one way or another, but quite simply to feel free to enjoy the music. As long as I feel I'm getting my money's worth, I'm satisfied.
Last edited:
Nige, naysayers are inerent to the human race. They have been around for as long as events changed, which is to say forever. Some people abhor change no matter what.
And it's not every day that a new technology is much better than the old straight off from the bat. It takes time for every technology to spread its wings full span, to mature, to be fully investigated and developed. Stereo was no different.
And it's not every day that a new technology is much better than the old straight off from the bat. It takes time for every technology to spread its wings full span, to mature, to be fully investigated and developed. Stereo was no different.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.