Frank, we both know that's not how it has to be.
And I don't mean you have to splash out $100+k for good sound.
Lack of congestion and zero loss of coherence during loud passages is one of the key virtues of the Otala/Lohstroh amp. Even if it isn't even medium power, it pushes all the right buttons.
Since it appears that only John Curl and I have hands-on experience with it, you can verify the following claim with John - that amp is a prefect example of how it should be done, and you never really miss high power unless you push it very hard using ineffcient speakers at high volume (ineffcient means 89 dB/2.83V/1m or less).
Let's just say that it's an exceptionally capable SYSTEM, the point being that it works exceptionally well together.
I have heard a comment, from two different and completely unrelated people, both sworn tube affictionados, that I got one better on them, because what I got was a sweet sound of a good SEPP amp, but without any of the usual limitations of SEPP amps, such as relatively low power but with excellent speaker control. And these guys own Conrad-Johnson and Audio Research peamps, Manley amps and so forth, that kind of big buck gear.
However, the really BIG surprise comes from the NAD C565 BEE CD player. It cost me just €440 (I know those guys and they always give me a healthy discount) and upon my word, it makes music like I would never expect it to, more in line with units costin 4-6 times that. I never liked NAD, so you can imagine my surprise when I heard that one. I don't know what happened, but whatever did, all I can say is go NAD, go!.
Last edited:
Then first, you need dedicated recording materials. Second, assuming that stereo is capable enough, you need large open baffle multi-speakers and a large room (Ask Nigel). Third, forgiving neighbors?
I think part of the Art is to recreate the live illusion using stereo system with small drivers in a small room (near-field)? The hard part is the bass. The lower (the frequency) the harder. But I have a minimum standard, which is 60Hz (-3dB).
The closest to live (it's like standing in front of the band) I have achieved is using transmission line for the midrange drivers and dedicated (passive) woofers 1m behind each transmission lines (the woofers are more than 1m from the wall). I just couldn't accept the "size".
For all those who commented on this point:
Of cause we can recognize a humbucker from a single coil after years, a Bösendorfer from a Steinway and we can find more examples.
But I'm talking about remembering EXACTLY how things sound, this is a whole different matter altogether. And it's kind of important when subjectively (with our ears) testing equipment.
This kind of memory doesn't last long. The wiki article on echoic_memory mentions times ranging from 0.2 sec to 20 sec.
In that sence echoic memory is not much different from other sensory memories: It last very short and is very very blurry after a while. We just don't store large amounts of information and our brain fills in the gaps when remembering things.
Notice the bitrate and feedback in the picture below! The central nervous system just stores a few bits per second and the feedback is used to fill in the gaps. The gaps are kind of large.
No, not dedicated materials, just good commercial products. For LPs, to me that means Decca Phase 4 stereo recordings are the standard, even if their choice of music is sometimes questionable.
I do not have open baffle speakers, rather standard bass reflex. Enclosed volume is 72 litres, so fairly large, upper limit of bookshelf (28 kg, or or some 62 lbs, each). They are 3 way speakers, bass 10", midrange 4", both cones with Son Audax' version of aerogel, and 1" titanium domes. They do 40-18.000 Hz +/- 1.5 dB, which is the standard studio tape machines are bult to. Or 36-22.000 Hz at +/- 3 dB. Port tuned to 36 Hz. Reasonably efficient at 92 dB/2.83V/1 m. The front baffle surface is at an angle of 7 degrees, so at 3 m, they are also phase coherent. Nominal impedance 8 Ohms, minimum impedance 6.5 Ohms, worst case phase shift -25 degrees. An exceptionally easy load to drive. XO points at 800 Hz and 3.5 kHz.
My room, on the other hand, is relatively small, some 14 m2, with the back surface behind the speakers covered by curtain.
The Karan amp is a dual mono unit (single transformer, but separate secondary windings for each channel), in a fully balanced topology, with a total of 40,000 uF per channel in the PSU. It's rated at 180W/8 Ohms and 250W/4 Ohms. It shows first signs of congestion at just over 210W/8 Ohms.
My neighbor, whom I share one wall with, is a widow living alone with the cutest little dog I have ever seen. We go way back to student days, in the early 70ies, i.e. 42 years back. Therefore, tolerance level is exceptionally high.
On concerts, I prefer to sit 6 to 8 rows away from the performers, in the center, I find that to be an ideal distance allowing me to hear it all. My system fits in very nicely into my preference range.
Last edited:
That' right . Measurements save weeks and months of wrong choices. The answers are often embarrassingly obvious once found. This is exact like a Formula One teams with great resources who end up at best middle of the table. One even has the Mercedes engine so no possible excuse. Vision is required.
All things are imperfect. Seems to me people don't know how to use that. They overly perfect somethings and ignore others. The assumption we hear to 20 kHz might be the problem? In some senses far less and in others far more. Leading edge shape suggests we need the speed and linearity. Sustained 100W 20 kHz we don't. The fact the latter is easy to do makes it mandatory I guess? 3 watts class A for tweeters would be ideal. Ask more and they become toast. That might even be valve as the transformer will be tiny. The distortion can be tiny also. Damping factor not a great need. An EL 84 in UL SE would be lovely and need no loop feedback. The dual device PCL 86 even better.
Measurements are like photos. Used with care they point out changes that might go unnoticed. For example I like the MC33078 as a cheap op amp. If it goes obsolete I might be forced to consider the NE5532. They are very similar devices. I suspect my ears would not agree with that. At least with measurements I might be able to check that and then look for something else.
Photos are 2D and sometimes black and white. We know a little of Victorian London from them. Lets not kid ourselves, it is far from being there. Far better than nothing and more reliable than a drawing.
90 % of a design should be possible without simulation by using maths plus experience. Layout and vagueness of parts spec sometimes make the 10% very hard to guess. Often a workable previous layout helps. If the bias current is correct and gain is enough the measurements should be as calculated. I do assume a few things successfully built to say that. Sometimes a very wonderful thing happens and the spec is exceeded. Often this is a mystery taking time to solve. The typical would be the Ft of a dependable transistor type having improved without a spec update. The reverse when a fake part gets through. I always design to allow the use of a lower grade part. MPSA42/92 or 2N5551/5401 as defaults. I fancy 2SD756 2SB716 I bought are them. They were gain 150 which seems far too low.
There is an expression Poacher turned Gamekeeper. The best test is to sell something. Houses and fortunes have been lost this way.
Joachim if he doesn't mind me saying was taught by the great Malcolm Hawksford. No one who has read one of his papers can doubt the depth of his thinking and willingness to tackle Manhattan Project maths.
Joachim was telling me about Malcolm whilst walking in Blenheim Palace grounds. Then the most beautiful statement. " Malcolm has a system that measures exactly as Malcolm wants and has researched ( paraphrased ). "It doesn't sound very good ". I smiled and said " I bet he is happy with it"? Joachim smiled back and said " yes". Joachim then said he seems oblivious to the fact it doesn't sound like real music.
For good or bad the public do not have this ability to love a machine for what it is ( me neither ). That's the problem. Can the science exist in a spiritual vacuum? I doubt bad measurements = good sound. It is making the photo come alive that counts. Joachim's speakers are top notch designs I should add.
Joachim if he doesn't mind me saying was taught by the great Malcolm Hawksford. No one who has read one of his papers can doubt the depth of his thinking and willingness to tackle Manhattan Project maths.
Joachim was telling me about Malcolm whilst walking in Blenheim Palace grounds. Then the most beautiful statement. " Malcolm has a system that measures exactly as Malcolm wants and has researched ( paraphrased ). "It doesn't sound very good ". I smiled and said " I bet he is happy with it"? Joachim smiled back and said " yes". Joachim then said he seems oblivious to the fact it doesn't sound like real music.
For good or bad the public do not have this ability to love a machine for what it is ( me neither ). That's the problem. Can the science exist in a spiritual vacuum? I doubt bad measurements = good sound. It is making the photo come alive that counts. Joachim's speakers are top notch designs I should add.
You can kill a live sound so that it is completely dead. That's the point. The brain is inventive. Make it OK and all is perfect. Multi microphones and expediency destroys the OK is perfect formula. Some weeks ago I was listening to the Williams Sisters on a late 1920's acoustic or early electrical recording ( 1927). I could clearly hear them sway in time to the music as they sang. It was intoxicating as my best description. Probably an accident of the simplicity of the machine used. The willingness not to record things like this makes me pull my hair out. A&M records were not like this. Herb learning to get a sound then bounce it was always present in the recordings. Joan Biaz Diamonds and Rust for example.
The Williams Sisters were on my mildly updated 1930's OB speakers ( 4 x 2 foot, 16 db 30 Hz EQ, 12 inch full range) . Trying box speakers the effect was lost and the usual 78's sound heard. The time machine I own allows the pre-depression era to be heard. Ironically it was the advances in valves etc that caused the Wall Street Crash. The over investment in radio station companies. One could speculate that electrical recording and higher fidelity was the direct cause. No people. If the box speakers kills the Williams Sisters sway what else does it kill?
I have been listening to 1930's organ recordings. Theses are remarkable when considering how demanding the organ can be. Space and time as good as the modern day. Where not so good is the detail. This is only obvious when comparing the best modern recordings. If the speakers are not top draw designs forget organ music. Mostly it is sine waves so even more interesting. Phase seems to be the key to the musicality.
When we go to a restaurant we only have to enjoy the food. Music is the same.
Heard Al Stewart live. Virtually identical.
The Williams Sisters were on my mildly updated 1930's OB speakers ( 4 x 2 foot, 16 db 30 Hz EQ, 12 inch full range) . Trying box speakers the effect was lost and the usual 78's sound heard. The time machine I own allows the pre-depression era to be heard. Ironically it was the advances in valves etc that caused the Wall Street Crash. The over investment in radio station companies. One could speculate that electrical recording and higher fidelity was the direct cause. No people. If the box speakers kills the Williams Sisters sway what else does it kill?
I have been listening to 1930's organ recordings. Theses are remarkable when considering how demanding the organ can be. Space and time as good as the modern day. Where not so good is the detail. This is only obvious when comparing the best modern recordings. If the speakers are not top draw designs forget organ music. Mostly it is sine waves so even more interesting. Phase seems to be the key to the musicality.
When we go to a restaurant we only have to enjoy the food. Music is the same.
Heard Al Stewart live. Virtually identical.
Nigel, what you're hearing is not the difference between box and OB speaker, but conventional reproduction and more realistic replay; a system able to drive the box speakers correctly will give the same effect, it's whether the whole she-bang is working properly that determines whether that sort of soundscape is conjured up.
Don't believe all those things in the reports they've written about me, I'm not crazy.
In that sence echoic memory is not much different from other sensory memories: It last very short and is very very blurry after a while. We just don't store large amounts of information and our brain fills in the gaps when remembering things.
Notice the bitrate and feedback in the picture below! The central nervous system just stores a few bits per second and the feedback is used to fill in the gaps. The gaps are kind of large.
Well you would think that this is old hat for anyone serious about audio reproduction. Is there anyone here who is NOT aware of these issues??
Jan
How does that saying go, "None of us is as dumb as all of us."? Maybe it applies to insanity as well.
So, the concept is that when we listen to live sound all sorts of fine subtleties will be very apparent, but this precise discrimination completely evaporates when we listen to a recording reproduction - the brain "knows" we're listening to fake sound and loses most of its ability to follow what's going on - is that how it goes ... ?
Last edited:
In my view, two factors dominate. The first is the room itself. My small room can never sound like a concert hall no matter what I do, at best it can approximate a concert hall, but even so, one is immediately aware of site limitations.
The second is how the recording was made. No playback can ever hope to transcend the original signal on the LP or CD, and I do not mean how much of whick compression, limiting, bit rate and so forth, but how much of the original ambience was recorded in the first place. In my admittedly limited studio experience days, the best recording I have ever heard was from an MCI machine, fed from a Studer mixer, BUT the four guys playing the music were captured on tape by an array of 5 microphones, not two or three, arranged over a 180 degree arc. I begged for 7 or 9, but couldn't get them, other studios were using them.
But, even the 5 mics did what no 3 ever could, they caught the entire field, the entire space ambience of the recording room. Since that was Radio Belgrade's prestige Studio 5, the room was thankfully relatively large for a four man band. And later on, even their overused and worn out pressing process managed to carry over much of that ambience, available even to those with very modest TTs.
I got no praise, not even a thank you, and I didn't expect it, instead I was politely told not to call them, they would call me. One of the studio technicians later told me their boss flipped his lid when he heard that 5 mics were being used and called it "an unwarranted extravagance", beause after all, they were just a rock band, not the philharmonia. BTW, their boss, the man who made those bright comments, had a degree in forestry and got the job as the party cadre.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.