I don't need great equipment to enjoy great speakers

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I keep reading how revealing the various Alpair's are and how they they point up all of the warts in the signal stream. Well, maybe, but I am here to tell you that the impression that this gives is overblown and I'll bet that there are folks out there that avoid these very good drivers because they don't have kilobuck electronics.

At this moment, I am listening to a Haydn string quartet on a pair of A7.3's in my folded transmission lines. The feed is from Sirius XM through Dish Network. The signal is most likely 256K or 320K AAC decoded in the Dish receiver/DVR (Model #722). That passes to a Yamaha RX-V665 7.1 receiver then to the A7.3's. Very musical, clean and clear. A bit rolled off at the top and moderately compressed dynamically. What I am saying is that the detail and resolution of the A7's does not make the suboptimal signal train unlistenable.

Two days ago, I took and afternoon to compare amps. I has slapped a pair of Pensil's together for a pair of A10.2's I just received. I put the drivers in the boxes, hooked them up to my shop amp (a $100 2-channed Sony STR-DH100), cranked them up to ~70dBs, pushed the boxes together face-to-face and walked away for three days. When I came back, I gave them a listen. Sounded OK, so I took them to my listening room and started listening and swapping amps.

I have three amps in my listening room, an old Yamaha 5.1 receiver that I use most of the time because it has remote volume control, a custom built tube amp (6BX7 pp, 9w/ch) that I use for all of my demo's, and a Dayton DTA-100 (50w/ch T-amp). My signal source is a laptop running Foobar2000 USB to an M-Audio Fast Track Pro. Again, the speakers are Pensil 10.2's

The first thing that I did, just because I do those things. was run an RTA through each of the amps. The traces lay on top of each other except at the very top where the tubes started to roll off a bit. Of course, an RTA doesn't necessarily say anything about how the amps sound, and indeed these do not. The cheap Sony has a definite grain to it. (This amp was not in the test, but I need to mention it anyway.) The Yamaha does not,butis a bit glassy on top. The 6BX7 has the best bass, probably because of the higher output Z and has a nice warm sound but indeed a bit rolled of on the top. The DTA-100 in clearly the most detailed. One of the track I played was a Vivald bassoon concerto. The DTA-100 as the only amp where I heard the bassononist breathing. Very subtle, but there. This amp also does wonders with one of my favorite guitar tracks -- Jim Croce's "Operator".

So, what I am trying to say is that you can put together a very listenable system to work with Alpair drivers for not a great deal of money. I assume that if you are reading this, you already have the computer and the player is freeware. A new M-Audio Fast Track Pro will run you ~$175, a Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1 Pro ~$70, Parts Express has a USB DAC for $65 (this I have -- it works fine!). The DTA-100 for $100. A computer and $200 of outboard parts and you are good to go.

I can't say the same thing about bad recordings. One day, my son-in-law brought over two U2 CD's -- "The Unforgettable Fire" and "No Line on the Horizon". We played these on a pair of TB W8-1772's (not Alpair's, but the logic applies). The former sounded great. The latter was absolutely unlistenable. The loudness wars completely destroyed an otherwise great CD.

Bob
 
So, what I am trying to say is that you can put together a very listenable system to work with Alpair drivers for not a great deal of money. I assume that if you are reading this, you already have the computer and the player is freeware. A new M-Audio Fast Track Pro will run you ~$175, a Sound Blaster X-Fi Surround 5.1 Pro ~$70, Parts Express has a USB DAC for $65 (this I have -- it works fine!). The DTA-100 for $100. A computer and $200 of outboard parts and you are good to go.

I can't say the same thing about bad recordings. One day, my son-in-law brought over two U2 CD's -- "The Unforgettable Fire" and "No Line on the Horizon". We played these on a pair of TB W8-1772's (not Alpair's, but the logic applies). The former sounded great. The latter was absolutely unlistenable. The loudness wars completely destroyed an otherwise great CD.

Bob

Hi Bob, guys,
Goes to show that its worth experimenting with audio gear. I've heard good things about Hypex amps recently. Personally, I've always shopped around. Can't think the last time when I bought from the "high street". Apart from having Tony and Kenneth custom 300B's, all my gear is second-hand, mostly from Japan. I'm in Tokyo this weekend guesting at the Tube show and the Hi-Fi show, also doing lectures/workshops on Full-Range with Tokyo Diy groups. Will be busy but still hope to see what bargains can be bought in Akihabara. I've got my eyes fixed on a rather nice Luxman 503S.

Like Bob, I'm very fussy about source material.

Cheers
Mark.
 
Last edited:
<snip>
At this moment, I am listening to a Haydn string quartet on a pair of A7.3's in my folded transmission lines. The feed is from Sirius XM through Dish Network. The signal is most likely 256K or 320K AAC decoded in the Dish receiver/DVR (Model #722). That passes to a Yamaha RX-V665 7.1 receiver then to the A7.3's. Very musical, clean and clear. A bit rolled off at the top and moderately compressed dynamically. What I am saying is that the detail and resolution of the A7's does not make the suboptimal signal train unlistenable.
<snip>
Bob

Got a new car last month with the upgraded Sony stereo including 6 months of SiriusXM. Is that different from what you're listening to? What I'm getting is LOW bitrate with a 'metallic' sound. It certainly won't get me to PAY for that sound. I like the programming but just can't get past the awful sound. The stereo using CD is not at fault and is quite good.

 
I keep reading how revealing the various Alpair's are and how they they point up all of the warts in the signal stream. Well, maybe, but I am here to tell you that the impression that this gives is overblown and I'll bet that there are folks out there that avoid these very good drivers because they don't have kilobuck electronics.

I can't say the same thing about bad recordings. One day, my son-in-law brought over two U2 CD's -- "The Unforgettable Fire" and "No Line on the Horizon". We played these on a pair of TB W8-1772's (not Alpair's, but the logic applies). The former sounded great. The latter was absolutely unlistenable. The loudness wars completely destroyed an otherwise great CD.

Bob

Hi Bob,

Obviously better electronics should improve your system and of course it is worth optimizing your system but to me it seems illogical when some argue that "having more distortion will make the sound better" yet this is basically what someone is suggesting if they say better speakers will make a system sound worse. Well made modest cost electronics can be pretty good, we all know they will measure better than highly expensive high grade loudspeakers.

Loudspeakers virtually always remain the most imperfect part of the chain so if the drive units distort less, diaphragms break up less obviously or more gently, produce a smoother sound with better driver integration, the box has less boomy bass, the cabinets add less colouration then they contribute less harmful distortions to the sound.
The only times I feel this does not apply is when you try to drive totally inappropriate insensitive speakers with a difficult highly reactive load with very underpowered electronics.
Another thing to consider is that often budget loudspeakers will be voiced to sound "polite" so they do not expose inferior budget components, but this could just as easily be to disguise the drive unit deficiences too, such as harsh strident treble.

However, great equipement should definately improve any decent speakers, it should be quite obvious when you get better drive electronics. The less colouration from the speaker the more obvious that should be.

The iPod (and decent earbuds) are capable of far superior reproduction than the horrid compressed rubbish all too often being pumped out today and they do not contibute significantly to bad sound, indeed they are probably far superior to the average portable devices such as the majority of walkman style product owned by the masses 20 yrs ago.

U2's recent efforts are painful to listen to. Somehow I doubt they would sell less records if they increased the dynamic range.
 
Last edited:
Very much appreciate the opinions, Bob as I am one of those people you refer to. I also appreciate the well-meaning advice of those who warn of the alpairs or whatever of revealing all the warts in your system. To some of us even a couple of hundred dollars is a lot of money. My approach is to build some inexpensive speakers to start with and listen to while I save and aspire to something better. When that time comes I'll be ready to remove those warts like a good audio dermatologist. Can't hang with the Jim Croce though - sorry.:)
 
Got a new car last month with the upgraded Sony stereo including 6 months of SiriusXM. Is that different from what you're listening to? What I'm getting is LOW bitrate with a 'metallic' sound. It certainly won't get me to PAY for that sound. I like the programming but just can't get past the awful sound. The stereo using CD is not at fault and is quite good.


SiriusXM has a serious bandwidth problem. They simply have too many channels for their allocated bandwidth. They solve their problem by reducing bitrate and bit depth way too much. What they pass to Dish Network is a small subset of the SiriusXM channels and Dish is not nearly so bandwidth limited. The same thing happens with all those internet radio stations. So many of them are 128k bit or less and that is unlistenable. Once you get to 256k, it is at least listenable as background music, Once you get to 340k, you have to listen close to hear the compression. Dish won't tell you what the bitrate is on there music, but comparing Dish's onwm music channels with the SiriusXM rebroadcasts, The SiriusXM are clearly superior. Hence my guess that the bitrate is at least 256k, probably 340k.

Bob
 
I am not going to argue that really good electronic will make really good speakers sound better. They will. My point is that once you start searching for the last few %, price goes up exponentially for diminishing returns. Consumer grade electronics have improved markedly recently. Once you get out of the entry level junk, most consumer grade stuff is actually pretty good. My Yamaha 7.1 receiver is a good example. On the digital side, DVD and Blue-Ray have forced even the cheapest players to handle 24 bid 192k data streams. That's why a $70 Sound Blaster sounds as good as a kilobuck DAC of only a few years ago.

Being a speaker guy, I think that you should spend as much as you possibly can on speakers and what's left on electronics. The warts on the less than stellar electronics will only be apparent if you have some really good stuff to compare it with.

Bob
 
About exactly a year ago, MarkL & I visited Mark F at his factory. TonyW was also around. I happened to have the 3886 chip amp that I built for my sister with me, and we had a listen side by side to a few of Tony's tube amps, as well as MarkF's Accuphase.

I think both MarkF & Tony would agree that even as simple as a 3886 (you can knock one together for << USD100) gave really very enjoyable sound.

Probably it is true that the difference between electronics these days is less than the difference between transducers.


Patrick
 
With the 7.3's, I have to agree that source material is a bigger enemy than amp. I have hifi and lofi and the thing that jumps out more to me is the material. No doubt better electronic improves things, but they are a truth meter when it comes to the recording. This driver is what you want to listen to if checking recording and mastering quality. It is simply amazing how good they can sound with good material. I wish I could compare them to a quality set of studio monitors, because I believe that would trounce them on all but the most dense music and I would say the only limitation here is in the LF. Nearfield I may even argue that the last part doesn't t really hold water.
 
About exactly a year ago, MarkL & I visited Mark F at his factory. TonyW was also around. I happened to have the 3886 chip amp that I built for my sister with me, and we had a listen side by side to a few of Tony's tube amps, as well as MarkF's Accuphase.

I think both MarkF & Tony would agree that even as simple as a 3886 (you can knock one together for << USD100) gave really very enjoyable sound.

Probably it is true that the difference between electronics these days is less than the difference between transducers.


Patrick

Indeed, the three LM3886's in each Linkwitz Pluto sound really lovely, however I have no way of finding out how they would sound away from the active Pluto crossover.

For me definately speakers are the most important part of the playback equipement, always the biggest difference with the speakers, nonetheless the speakers are far less important than the recording quality.
 
Last edited:
I thoroughly enjoyed this bit of testimonial. Thanks, Bob. It really got my ears curious, especially for the Alpairs but also for Hadyn quartets, as I've been focused on the symphonies. Frankly, I've long been under the impression that the electrical<>mechanical conversions were the most critical links in the audio chain. I can't do much about the recording end, so I'm not as fussy about sources.
 
"The warts on the less than stellar electronics will only be apparent if you have some really good stuff to compare it with."
That is one lesson I have learned. Therefore, if you're poor never listen to anything better next to your "less than stellar" stuff! I remember how happy I was with my old AR turntable until I brought to a friends house to compare to his $5k set-up (years ago - don't remember specifics). I knew it would sound better but not embarrassingly so. Oh well - just part of the journey I suppose. You have opened up some possibilities for me, Bob.
 
To the contrary i don't think i need great (Hi-Fi) speakers to enjoy the HiFi using a great (Hi-Fi) front end, (good recordings too).
Case in point; "Mid-Fi" EPI 100's for a quick do they work test of a new pair of 45 tubes i got for my Fi2A3 amp. Plan was to keep the volume low so as not to drive the amp into clipping. As it turns out i don't have to turn the volume up much further than with 2A3 tubes and they sound fantastic at comfortable listening ~80db levels, actually more powerful sounding than the 2A3's at the same measured SPL. I've experience similar with 300b SET amps/mid fi speakers.
To be honest, years ago, Herb Reichert had told me that would be the case with SET's so long as the impedance plots where benign to those types of amps.
Will i stop playing with other more costly drivers, Hell no! However AER, Feastrex and so on, not a chance, i'd have to make the Forbes list for those.
 
Hi Bob,

Just out of curiosity, how does a 128K AAC compare to this in your view. I don't have Dish or SiriusXM.

SomaFM.com has a free 128K AAC stream at http://somafm.com/groovesalad130.pls

Thanks,

Scott

128k is going to be 128k. Whether it is MP3 or AAC, too much detail has to be thrown out. Remember that red book is 1.4M. If you really want to hear the difference, rip a CD to WAV or FLAC (or any other bit perfect format). Then convert it to MP3 at various speeds -- 340, 256, 128. Then compare the results. You won;t be happy a 128.

Bob
 
Hi Guys,
Really interesting posts. Shows how much the new technologies are influencing developments in audio.

I'll be spending time with Matsumoto san this weekend. He's well into the new tech stuff (former engineer - Honda F1). Be interesting to get his ideas.

I need to find time to experiment more. Derek Shek (Mini-watt) is giving me a prototype Class D + some other bits. We want to run CHR, CHP and most of the Alpairs on it. See what it does and run some tests.

Maybe source technology is the growing issue. Recently had 2 younger Diy guys in my studio listening to Alpair 7's, CHR's (Gen. 3's) and CHP's (Gen. 2). They liked to Alpair 7 the most. I noticed they both had I-phone 4's with headphones. There seems to be a trend preference for a "high tone semi compressed sound". I guess this is the influence of compressed music formats? Ummmmmmmmph???

Cheers
Mark.
 
IMO, source technology has been the issue for as long as there has been recorded music performances. It seems to me a shame that so much of today's modern music is purely synthesized. This makes it quite difficult to know what is "right" when listening to audio gear. The real reference should be live acoustic music, and even then one must know the venue well enough to understand its contribution to the recording.

I don't have any particular religion about sources but do have an exceptionally good vinyl rig and associated electronics that I find satisfying.

To Bob's original point.... I agree that one can enjoy good speakers without spending a small or medium fortune on supporting electronics. That said, it's easier to hear improvements in the chain with better speakers. Chain improvements rapidly becomes a matter of severely diminishing returns. (And we end up with snake oil salesmen. :) )
 
IMO, source technology has been the issue for as long as there has been recorded music performances. It seems to me a shame that so much of today's modern music is purely synthesized. This makes it quite difficult to know what is "right" when listening to audio gear. The real reference should be live acoustic music, and even then one must know the venue well enough to understand its contribution to the recording.

Chain improvements rapidly becomes a matter of severely diminishing returns. (And we end up with snake oil salesmen. :) )

Hi Silver,
Good points. I'll hopefully be in 1 or 2 live jazz venues in Tokyo next week. Being a regular concert attendee helps to keep me on a level driver design path (mostly).

Yes, chain improvements V diminishing returns, good point and hence why I tend to hunt for bargains.

Cheers
Mark.
 
128k is going to be 128k. Whether it is MP3 or AAC, too much detail has to be thrown out. Remember that red book is 1.4M. If you really want to hear the difference, rip a CD to WAV or FLAC (or any other bit perfect format). Then convert it to MP3 at various speeds -- 340, 256, 128. Then compare the results. You won;t be happy a 128.

Bob

No need to try different bit rates, I rip my CDs to FLAC. I was merely curious concerning the comparison since you commented on compression. To me, the last time I listened to XM radio it sounded more compressed than the 128K AAC stream that I referenced. Moot point though.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.