I used Canvas, which I've used since my time at Tektronix as a technical writer. It's mostly a technical drawing program, and the earliest versions go back in the Mac Plus. Support for OS X ended around 2005, so I have a disk partition with OS 10.4.9 on it, and use that partition only for Canvas. Canvas X runs well on 10.4.9, but it gets pretty buggy for anything later than that.
I also have the Windows version, but I didn't have much luck transporting my libraries of custom objects from the Mac to the Windows version.
I like Canvas because the learning curve is much shorter than specialized programs like AutoCad and the various work-alikes, and it imports JPEGs as objects that can be dimensioned in the vector-drawing world. It does export DXF files with one or two wrinkles in them, but I wouldn't trust it to drive a NC-controlled system. That's what AutoCad is for.
I also have the Windows version, but I didn't have much luck transporting my libraries of custom objects from the Mac to the Windows version.
I like Canvas because the learning curve is much shorter than specialized programs like AutoCad and the various work-alikes, and it imports JPEGs as objects that can be dimensioned in the vector-drawing world. It does export DXF files with one or two wrinkles in them, but I wouldn't trust it to drive a NC-controlled system. That's what AutoCad is for.
“DACless” Stereo Bass Management?
My music sources are uncompressed WAV files of CD tracks. And since computers are beset with EMI and RFI noise (which can upset data clocking and cause jitter), I reasoned that a $$$$ DAC-one that among other things buffers the data it gets via USB and then reclocks it-is essential for justifying my investment in two First Watt amps and custom built mains and a pair of Ryhmik subs (or two pairs, if the room calls for it, as per Todd Welti’s paper). Therefore, since I can’t afford multi-channel DACs priced comparably to my main DAC, I won’t be pursuing SACD or DVD-A sources. Indeed, beyond what I’ve spent and will be spending on two channel hardware, I won’t have the funds to go with another pair each of amps and mains for those multi-channels formats.
As to the question of whether the sub’s bass integration facilities are analog
or DSP based, though I can’t find such confirmation here Rythmik Audio • FAQ - Frequently asked questions, a reasonably thorough overview of the plate amp’s functionality is provided by Rythmik’s designer Brian Ding here at the site of their apparent partner A370PEQ Regarding its delay circuitry, Brian says: “In the middle are our regular controls. The one worth discussion is the phase/delay. It is same as the previous one except I improve the resolution and change the label. The circuit is a simple RC all pass filter. Similar circuit is used for adding delay time (such as those
in Linkwitz's all active speakers). That is why I add delay to the label. While the circuit does provide delay, but it will top out at 180 degrees.”
Evidently, rather than DSP, this delay circuitry consists of a good quality (Burr-Brown chips were mentioned in the FAQ page) IC op-amp with a user variable RC filter in the op-amp’s feedback loop. Thus, except for the mandatory switching power supply, all of the plate amp’s circuitry-and its Class AB amplifier-are likely to be analog.
My music sources are uncompressed WAV files of CD tracks. And since computers are beset with EMI and RFI noise (which can upset data clocking and cause jitter), I reasoned that a $$$$ DAC-one that among other things buffers the data it gets via USB and then reclocks it-is essential for justifying my investment in two First Watt amps and custom built mains and a pair of Ryhmik subs (or two pairs, if the room calls for it, as per Todd Welti’s paper). Therefore, since I can’t afford multi-channel DACs priced comparably to my main DAC, I won’t be pursuing SACD or DVD-A sources. Indeed, beyond what I’ve spent and will be spending on two channel hardware, I won’t have the funds to go with another pair each of amps and mains for those multi-channels formats.
As to the question of whether the sub’s bass integration facilities are analog
or DSP based, though I can’t find such confirmation here Rythmik Audio • FAQ - Frequently asked questions, a reasonably thorough overview of the plate amp’s functionality is provided by Rythmik’s designer Brian Ding here at the site of their apparent partner A370PEQ Regarding its delay circuitry, Brian says: “In the middle are our regular controls. The one worth discussion is the phase/delay. It is same as the previous one except I improve the resolution and change the label. The circuit is a simple RC all pass filter. Similar circuit is used for adding delay time (such as those
in Linkwitz's all active speakers). That is why I add delay to the label. While the circuit does provide delay, but it will top out at 180 degrees.”
Evidently, rather than DSP, this delay circuitry consists of a good quality (Burr-Brown chips were mentioned in the FAQ page) IC op-amp with a user variable RC filter in the op-amp’s feedback loop. Thus, except for the mandatory switching power supply, all of the plate amp’s circuitry-and its Class AB amplifier-are likely to be analog.
“DACless” Stereo Bass Management?
Regarding line level loading versus the DAC’s two pairs of unbalanced outputs, it looks like I might actually catch a break here: One pair of DAC outputs will only have to feed a stereo attenuator used to “set-and-forget” the level of my First Watt J2 power amp-the one that will drive my HF & MF drivers (with a speaker level crossover between them). That is, the attenuator will balance the volume of the high & mid drivers against the pair of GPA Altec 414 (or 416) midbass drivers powered by my First Watt F4 amp.
The J2 amp’s input impedance is 100K ohms, so it’s quite unlikely that an attenuator in parallel with it would lower the impedance enough to pose any problem. Yes?
Things seems almost as rosy for the other pair of DAC outputs: My First Watt F4 voltage follower amp needs a line stage, and Nelson Pass’s First Watt B3 preamp should be out next year-hopefully not long after I finish deciding on drivers for my mains and build the boxes (big thanks to Gary Dahl for his complete plans on his Altec 416 sealed midbass boxes). In that case, the DAC’s other pair of outputs will certainly be seeing a nice high impedance from the B3 preamp. Likewise, the B3’s output impedance will be low enough to where the F4 amp’s 47K ohm input impedance-and 30K ohm from the master Rythmik sub-won’t be a problem either. Indeed, their paralleled impedance comes to 18.3K ohms. Bingo! And the B3 will have volume controls to balance
the Altec midbasses with the HF/MF drivers. If not, inserting a stereo attenuator between the DAC’s outputs and the B3 preamp should also
cause no loading issues.
Of course, you’re right to point that lacking balanced differential I/O one has to be mindful of cable lengths versus capacitance. However, my room will be less than 330 square feet and most of the electronics will be within 12 feet of each other. Also, unlike the one above, I’ll choose a Rythmik Class AB plate amp like this with balanced I/O http://www.rythmikaudio.com/images/XLR2.jpg
So by daisy-chaining the two subs (and assuming that a cable under the wall-to-wall carpet is sensible), I would place the pair of subs as per Todd
Welti (http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...s/multsubs.pdf , see figures 48 & 50)-and with my mains a few feet in front of one of them.
Thus, at least between the slave sub’s output and master sub’s master/slave input, their diff amps give double what would be the usual single-ended line level voltage-plus common mode noise rejection to boot. Then, I would wire the master sub’s input unbalanced and connect that to the output of Nelson’s B3 preamp, along with the F4 amp’s input. Again, that 18.3K ohm total load should be no sweat for the B3 preamp.
Regarding line level loading versus the DAC’s two pairs of unbalanced outputs, it looks like I might actually catch a break here: One pair of DAC outputs will only have to feed a stereo attenuator used to “set-and-forget” the level of my First Watt J2 power amp-the one that will drive my HF & MF drivers (with a speaker level crossover between them). That is, the attenuator will balance the volume of the high & mid drivers against the pair of GPA Altec 414 (or 416) midbass drivers powered by my First Watt F4 amp.
The J2 amp’s input impedance is 100K ohms, so it’s quite unlikely that an attenuator in parallel with it would lower the impedance enough to pose any problem. Yes?
Things seems almost as rosy for the other pair of DAC outputs: My First Watt F4 voltage follower amp needs a line stage, and Nelson Pass’s First Watt B3 preamp should be out next year-hopefully not long after I finish deciding on drivers for my mains and build the boxes (big thanks to Gary Dahl for his complete plans on his Altec 416 sealed midbass boxes). In that case, the DAC’s other pair of outputs will certainly be seeing a nice high impedance from the B3 preamp. Likewise, the B3’s output impedance will be low enough to where the F4 amp’s 47K ohm input impedance-and 30K ohm from the master Rythmik sub-won’t be a problem either. Indeed, their paralleled impedance comes to 18.3K ohms. Bingo! And the B3 will have volume controls to balance
the Altec midbasses with the HF/MF drivers. If not, inserting a stereo attenuator between the DAC’s outputs and the B3 preamp should also
cause no loading issues.
Of course, you’re right to point that lacking balanced differential I/O one has to be mindful of cable lengths versus capacitance. However, my room will be less than 330 square feet and most of the electronics will be within 12 feet of each other. Also, unlike the one above, I’ll choose a Rythmik Class AB plate amp like this with balanced I/O http://www.rythmikaudio.com/images/XLR2.jpg
So by daisy-chaining the two subs (and assuming that a cable under the wall-to-wall carpet is sensible), I would place the pair of subs as per Todd
Welti (http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompa...s/multsubs.pdf , see figures 48 & 50)-and with my mains a few feet in front of one of them.
Thus, at least between the slave sub’s output and master sub’s master/slave input, their diff amps give double what would be the usual single-ended line level voltage-plus common mode noise rejection to boot. Then, I would wire the master sub’s input unbalanced and connect that to the output of Nelson’s B3 preamp, along with the F4 amp’s input. Again, that 18.3K ohm total load should be no sweat for the B3 preamp.
Last edited:
Newbie Speaker Build: Part 1
Knowing of your fondness and experience with the RAAL ribbon tweeters, please let me know me which one of these https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/index.php?p=catalog&mode=search&search_in=all&search_str=raal
(except for the Lazy, which Aleks said only works well with horns) might work best with one of these alnico midrange drivers
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...fostex-f200a-8-full-range-with-alnico-magnet/
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...fostex-f120a-5-full-range-with-alnico-magnet/ or
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-8-woofers/seas-exotic-w8-x2-08-8-woofer-alnico-magnet/
I would go with this alnico tweeter https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...-exotic-t35-x3-06-tweeter-with-alnico-magnet/
but it won’t have the dispersion nor the “airy” qualities that these ribbons do (?).
Any precautions or other considerations that I should know about when using that chosen ribbon?
Knowing of your fondness and experience with the RAAL ribbon tweeters, please let me know me which one of these https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/index.php?p=catalog&mode=search&search_in=all&search_str=raal
(except for the Lazy, which Aleks said only works well with horns) might work best with one of these alnico midrange drivers
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...fostex-f200a-8-full-range-with-alnico-magnet/
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...fostex-f120a-5-full-range-with-alnico-magnet/ or
https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-8-woofers/seas-exotic-w8-x2-08-8-woofer-alnico-magnet/
I would go with this alnico tweeter https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.c...-exotic-t35-x3-06-tweeter-with-alnico-magnet/
but it won’t have the dispersion nor the “airy” qualities that these ribbons do (?).
Any precautions or other considerations that I should know about when using that chosen ribbon?
“DACless” Stereo Bass Management?
Replies Brian: "...it is an analog design very similar to what Siegfried Linkwitz has used in his active crossover. The OP AMP is TL072"
Replies Brian: "...it is an analog design very similar to what Siegfried Linkwitz has used in his active crossover. The OP AMP is TL072"
If one has not heard them one can never be sure. What may be more important is what system are you going to drive them with. Can that deliver the audio sound to excellent levels in known proven speakers.
So many think of the speakers as being the weakest part in the chain and it can also be the system driving them.
The T35 is a new classic balanced sounding driver, but it is also not cheap. I looked at them, but could not justify the cost versus quality compared to the mainstream tweeters.
Newbie Speaker Build Part 1
Naturally, we all know that indisputable proof of satisfaction from an audio device can only be determined via one’s own pair of ears. And yet, consider when a respectable number of experienced listeners conclude, for example, that drivers happening to use Alnico magnets seem to possess a certain smoothness and/or tonality which they often find to be pleasing (i.e. GPA Altec 414 & 416 midwoofers). Or that some listeners commend tweeters tending to have an “airiness”-and possibly also an useful vertical and/or horizontal dispersion (i.e. ribbons)-that other tweeters often lack. Or that certain other tweeter may have a very smooth sounding range, even if its response may be down 3 db or more beyond ~17kHz. And if these listeners’ performance criteria are much the same as yours, then that driver (s) under consideration is much more likely to give you the sound you’re looking for. That way, if you’re lucky, you might amass enough credible user feedback to narrow your choice down to two tweeters and/or two midrange drivers.
Those were my goals for posting here these questions about these particular drivers.
However, as you well point out, for these auditions by a fellow listener-in this case, RAAL, SEAS and Fostex tweeter and/or midrange drivers-to be truly relevant to another listener, requires that the driver (s) under review be used in conjunction with very similar amplifiers. Indeed, in asking Lynn Olson’s opinion on what might have been his experience with one or more RAAL ribbons together with or without one of these midrange drivers (and he has posted here several very positive comments on RAAL ribbons), I was also quite aware of the very fortunate similarities between his amplifier design philosophy Design Philosophy and that of Nelson Pass http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_dist_fdbk.pdf
and FIRST WATT ARTICLES , et al. I’m certainly no kind of expert, but from what I know of discrete amplifier circuit topologies, were it not that each designer works exclusively with tubes and transistors, I’d doubt that Olson and Pass amps would sound very different. And so, as I have every reason to expect great satisfaction with a pair of GPA Altec 416 midwoofers
http://www.greatplainsaudio.com/downloads/416-8B Spec Sheet.pdf (used in Gary Dahl’s sealed boxes), they will be powered my First Watt F4 amp FIRST WATT F4 Now I only need to select a tweeter and midrange driver-hopefully with assistance from those at this highly informative and helpful thread. They both the tweets and mids will be powered by my First Watt J2 amp FIRST WATT J2 .
As the helpful folks at Madisound have also cautioned, every DIYer takes some degree of risk. I too accept this risk, much as I’ve done my utmost to minimize it at every turn. (Buy the J2 and the F4 amp even used from these fine folks Reno Hi-Fi and you’ll feel the pinch). Thus, as for volume levels, because my living room is small (Earl Geddes classifies ALL residential living rooms as small rooms), that all of the RAAL, SEAS and Altec drivers have >89db sensitivity (98db for the Altec 416), that my ears won’t tolerate HF & MF range SPLs much above 86db at ~ 9 ft., that the impedance of none of these drivers ever drops below 5 ohms (according to the datasheets) and that bass below 70Hz will be amply supplied by a pair of sealed 12” Rythmik subs (with paper cone) Rythmik Audio servo subwoofer 12" F12G will together provide good assurance that my two amps can push these drivers to more than adequate SPLs without distortion.
The one unknown risk of greatest concern when using these two relatively low power First Watt amps, involves the crossovers. Unfortunately, as I am not tri-amping, I cannot cross the tweeter, midrange and Altec 416 drivers at line level (No crossovers between the 416s and the subs needed-just the latter’s LP filters). Thus, I will have to do the crossovers at the speaker level.This will result in some degree of wasted amplifier power across the passive crossover components’ real and parasitic resistances. Hopefully, once I settle on a tweeter and midrange driver and determine the crossover over points between them,
the custom made Marchand crossovers would impose no power losses of any consequence XM47 passive crossover for loudspeaker drivers
THAT is something I must verify before buying the chosen drivers.
As to driver costs, even via the DIY route, one can only economize so far before the pursuit of high fidelity sound encounters audible limitations. I could be wrong, but I think that usually get what you pay for in this market-at least at the raw parts level. One reason why the SEAS T35 is an expensive tweeter is that, like all Alnico drivers, this alloy magnet of rare earth materials is more costly to make. And the diaphragms in ribbon drivers are extremely thin and delicate enough to be damaged by a strong gust of air. Thus, design logistics for their safely, a powerful magnet for proper operation and the need for a transformer to step up the ribbon’s extremely low impedance to prevent amplifier damage and distortion can easily result in a rather costly tweeter.
Do I have the budget for Feastex drivers? Feastrex Certainly not. But while RAAL, SEAS and Fostex drivers won’t crack the bank too badly, I would much prefer choosing one of these particular model tweeter and/or alnico midrange drivers, at least partially based on what others here might have experienced used together and/or with amplifiers similar to mine.
This speaker build is way behind schedule. But even though I am probably posting this at a less than opportune time (i.e. some here may be busy networking and gearing up for the CES next month), I hope to get as much actual user feedback as I can on RAAL ribbon and SEAS alnico tweeters and SEAS and Fostex Alnico midrange drivers. Thank you.
Naturally, we all know that indisputable proof of satisfaction from an audio device can only be determined via one’s own pair of ears. And yet, consider when a respectable number of experienced listeners conclude, for example, that drivers happening to use Alnico magnets seem to possess a certain smoothness and/or tonality which they often find to be pleasing (i.e. GPA Altec 414 & 416 midwoofers). Or that some listeners commend tweeters tending to have an “airiness”-and possibly also an useful vertical and/or horizontal dispersion (i.e. ribbons)-that other tweeters often lack. Or that certain other tweeter may have a very smooth sounding range, even if its response may be down 3 db or more beyond ~17kHz. And if these listeners’ performance criteria are much the same as yours, then that driver (s) under consideration is much more likely to give you the sound you’re looking for. That way, if you’re lucky, you might amass enough credible user feedback to narrow your choice down to two tweeters and/or two midrange drivers.
Those were my goals for posting here these questions about these particular drivers.
However, as you well point out, for these auditions by a fellow listener-in this case, RAAL, SEAS and Fostex tweeter and/or midrange drivers-to be truly relevant to another listener, requires that the driver (s) under review be used in conjunction with very similar amplifiers. Indeed, in asking Lynn Olson’s opinion on what might have been his experience with one or more RAAL ribbons together with or without one of these midrange drivers (and he has posted here several very positive comments on RAAL ribbons), I was also quite aware of the very fortunate similarities between his amplifier design philosophy Design Philosophy and that of Nelson Pass http://www.firstwatt.com/pdf/art_dist_fdbk.pdf
and FIRST WATT ARTICLES , et al. I’m certainly no kind of expert, but from what I know of discrete amplifier circuit topologies, were it not that each designer works exclusively with tubes and transistors, I’d doubt that Olson and Pass amps would sound very different. And so, as I have every reason to expect great satisfaction with a pair of GPA Altec 416 midwoofers
http://www.greatplainsaudio.com/downloads/416-8B Spec Sheet.pdf (used in Gary Dahl’s sealed boxes), they will be powered my First Watt F4 amp FIRST WATT F4 Now I only need to select a tweeter and midrange driver-hopefully with assistance from those at this highly informative and helpful thread. They both the tweets and mids will be powered by my First Watt J2 amp FIRST WATT J2 .
As the helpful folks at Madisound have also cautioned, every DIYer takes some degree of risk. I too accept this risk, much as I’ve done my utmost to minimize it at every turn. (Buy the J2 and the F4 amp even used from these fine folks Reno Hi-Fi and you’ll feel the pinch). Thus, as for volume levels, because my living room is small (Earl Geddes classifies ALL residential living rooms as small rooms), that all of the RAAL, SEAS and Altec drivers have >89db sensitivity (98db for the Altec 416), that my ears won’t tolerate HF & MF range SPLs much above 86db at ~ 9 ft., that the impedance of none of these drivers ever drops below 5 ohms (according to the datasheets) and that bass below 70Hz will be amply supplied by a pair of sealed 12” Rythmik subs (with paper cone) Rythmik Audio servo subwoofer 12" F12G will together provide good assurance that my two amps can push these drivers to more than adequate SPLs without distortion.
The one unknown risk of greatest concern when using these two relatively low power First Watt amps, involves the crossovers. Unfortunately, as I am not tri-amping, I cannot cross the tweeter, midrange and Altec 416 drivers at line level (No crossovers between the 416s and the subs needed-just the latter’s LP filters). Thus, I will have to do the crossovers at the speaker level.This will result in some degree of wasted amplifier power across the passive crossover components’ real and parasitic resistances. Hopefully, once I settle on a tweeter and midrange driver and determine the crossover over points between them,
the custom made Marchand crossovers would impose no power losses of any consequence XM47 passive crossover for loudspeaker drivers
THAT is something I must verify before buying the chosen drivers.
As to driver costs, even via the DIY route, one can only economize so far before the pursuit of high fidelity sound encounters audible limitations. I could be wrong, but I think that usually get what you pay for in this market-at least at the raw parts level. One reason why the SEAS T35 is an expensive tweeter is that, like all Alnico drivers, this alloy magnet of rare earth materials is more costly to make. And the diaphragms in ribbon drivers are extremely thin and delicate enough to be damaged by a strong gust of air. Thus, design logistics for their safely, a powerful magnet for proper operation and the need for a transformer to step up the ribbon’s extremely low impedance to prevent amplifier damage and distortion can easily result in a rather costly tweeter.
Do I have the budget for Feastex drivers? Feastrex Certainly not. But while RAAL, SEAS and Fostex drivers won’t crack the bank too badly, I would much prefer choosing one of these particular model tweeter and/or alnico midrange drivers, at least partially based on what others here might have experienced used together and/or with amplifiers similar to mine.
This speaker build is way behind schedule. But even though I am probably posting this at a less than opportune time (i.e. some here may be busy networking and gearing up for the CES next month), I hope to get as much actual user feedback as I can on RAAL ribbon and SEAS alnico tweeters and SEAS and Fostex Alnico midrange drivers. Thank you.
Newbie Speaker Build Part 1
Here's what Scott Hull found that the First Watt J2 amp can do with less than sensitive FULL range speakers-not the HF& MF drivers I'd be using this amp for-even if their impedances combine to only ~ 3.43 ohms, plus the crossover and cable power losses j2 | Confessions of a Part-Time Audiophile
It's largely a matter of what comprises your entire system hardware and where and how you use it that determines success with these low power amplifiers.
Here's what Scott Hull found that the First Watt J2 amp can do with less than sensitive FULL range speakers-not the HF& MF drivers I'd be using this amp for-even if their impedances combine to only ~ 3.43 ohms, plus the crossover and cable power losses j2 | Confessions of a Part-Time Audiophile
It's largely a matter of what comprises your entire system hardware and where and how you use it that determines success with these low power amplifiers.
For better or worse, the Pass amplifiers don't seem to work with my speakers ... at least the Ariels. I've come to the reluctant conclusion that SE transistor amplifiers are in a class of their own; some speakers work with them, others don't, and my speakers are in the latter group.
I jumped ship from transistors to tubes back in the early Nineties, after I reviewed the Audio Note Ongaku and Reichert Silver 300B amplifiers for Positive Feedback magazine (back when it was the hard copy journal of the Oregon Triode Society). That's when I decided to try my hand at designing a vacuum-tube amplifier, which resulted in the Amity a few years later. The limitations of vacuum tubes are annoying, but I haven't found any transistor amplifier that sounds quite the same, at any price, using any technology. So I stay with my favorites, 300B's and 45's, and variety of input tubes. I also like what Jim Nichols is doing with his JWN amplifiers; I own one of these as a backup for the Karna amplifiers.
The Ariels and the new speaker are designed exclusively for use with vacuum-tube amplifiers. I can't emphasize that enough; I think they sound acceptable with transistor amps, but in my opinion, the sound is only a pale shadow of what they can sound like with the right type of amplifier. If a reader has a Pass amplifier, or one of the interesting amplifiers seen in the diyAudio transistor forums, there are probably speakers that are a better match.
I think it's a really good idea to listen to a complete system created by XYZ designer; that gives you a good sense of what the designer's taste is, and what they're aiming for. Not surprisingly, designer-created systems sound very different than the mix-n-match systems at hifi shows or a dealer, but they give an immediate impression of "Aha, so that's what they're aiming for", and you can decide for yourself whether you like that taste or not.
It's also very educational to hear XYZ reviewer's system, since it immediately tells you about the reviewer's tastes and preferences. It didn't take very long at Positive Feedback to find out that my tastes were radically different than other reviewers, and that I had drifted a long way from the mainstream of high-end audio.
Although I have a "thing" for drivers with Alnico magnets, that's much less important that the designer's sense of taste, or put another way, their design priorities which is then reflected in measured parameters and the overall sound. If you're on board with Siegfried Linkwitz, follow his advice on amps and signal processing, since that's how he demos his systems at shows like the RMAF. Same for Nelson Pass, or any other folks posting here at diyAudio.
I jumped ship from transistors to tubes back in the early Nineties, after I reviewed the Audio Note Ongaku and Reichert Silver 300B amplifiers for Positive Feedback magazine (back when it was the hard copy journal of the Oregon Triode Society). That's when I decided to try my hand at designing a vacuum-tube amplifier, which resulted in the Amity a few years later. The limitations of vacuum tubes are annoying, but I haven't found any transistor amplifier that sounds quite the same, at any price, using any technology. So I stay with my favorites, 300B's and 45's, and variety of input tubes. I also like what Jim Nichols is doing with his JWN amplifiers; I own one of these as a backup for the Karna amplifiers.
The Ariels and the new speaker are designed exclusively for use with vacuum-tube amplifiers. I can't emphasize that enough; I think they sound acceptable with transistor amps, but in my opinion, the sound is only a pale shadow of what they can sound like with the right type of amplifier. If a reader has a Pass amplifier, or one of the interesting amplifiers seen in the diyAudio transistor forums, there are probably speakers that are a better match.
I think it's a really good idea to listen to a complete system created by XYZ designer; that gives you a good sense of what the designer's taste is, and what they're aiming for. Not surprisingly, designer-created systems sound very different than the mix-n-match systems at hifi shows or a dealer, but they give an immediate impression of "Aha, so that's what they're aiming for", and you can decide for yourself whether you like that taste or not.
It's also very educational to hear XYZ reviewer's system, since it immediately tells you about the reviewer's tastes and preferences. It didn't take very long at Positive Feedback to find out that my tastes were radically different than other reviewers, and that I had drifted a long way from the mainstream of high-end audio.
Although I have a "thing" for drivers with Alnico magnets, that's much less important that the designer's sense of taste, or put another way, their design priorities which is then reflected in measured parameters and the overall sound. If you're on board with Siegfried Linkwitz, follow his advice on amps and signal processing, since that's how he demos his systems at shows like the RMAF. Same for Nelson Pass, or any other folks posting here at diyAudio.
Last edited:
My big realization about the divergence of taste happened shortly after turning in the Positive Feedback reviews of the two different triode amplifiers and getting a whirlwind tour of the other reviewer's systems. Wow, my tastes were really different ... and that was twenty years ago. Have my tastes evolved closer to the audiophile mainstream since then?
Not exactly. In addition to amps and speakers, I've been chagrined to discover that I don't care for top-reviewed turntables, or top-reviewed DACs. Put another way, if you like the sound of the top-reviewed "Class A" components in Stereophile or Absolute Sound, my recommendations aren't going to be useful. That's a different market aimed at different goals.
Not exactly. In addition to amps and speakers, I've been chagrined to discover that I don't care for top-reviewed turntables, or top-reviewed DACs. Put another way, if you like the sound of the top-reviewed "Class A" components in Stereophile or Absolute Sound, my recommendations aren't going to be useful. That's a different market aimed at different goals.
Last edited:
In as much as I'd like to agree with you here Lynn, my personal experiences have led me to conclude that the benefits of properly implemented DSP outweigh the presumed or speculated costs. Particularly in the case of low frequency bass management, mechanical solutions simply can't do what DSP can. I've yet to hear or measure a two channel stereo arranged system run full range that even comes close to my DSP based rig where all four corners are loaded with 15" sealed subwoofers and minimal mechanical treatments. What DSP has done here is astounding and astonishing to listen to IMO.
There's been a repeated theme of what works for HT vs Stereo, but IMO and IME this simply isn't the case where low frequency extension is concerned. If anything, the single listening position music oriented system is more forgiving than the multi seated home theater environment. For music, our goal is to get the bass smooth and time aligned at only one position. Simply put, this cannot be done with two sources. Even the most robust DSP solutions fall short here, and maybe this is where the misconceptions of the drawbacks of DSP use arose.......from audiophiles holding dear the golden triangle that simple doesn't work in the modal region. The contension arises or shifts to entry grade ADC operations adding jitter and time aligned anomolies and so on and so on. I've come to firmly believe that most who ride the audiophile train these days are simply more interested in the ride, filled with tweaks, upgrades and manipulations that keep them attached to the hobby instead of the destination.....a system that presents the music in a dynamic means with an accurate repeat of the performance as captured by the recording and intended from the artists or engineer.
Many of the concepts brought forth and discussed by you and others reflect my own where the response range is limited to 250hz to 15khz. What happens above simply no longer concerns me and what happens below is simply the foundation for the most enjoyable listening experience possible IMO. DSP has and will continue to bring me to my destination and without it, I'd still be riding that damn train! Lol. Life itself is a journey, best to follow one path at a time.
There's been a repeated theme of what works for HT vs Stereo, but IMO and IME this simply isn't the case where low frequency extension is concerned. If anything, the single listening position music oriented system is more forgiving than the multi seated home theater environment. For music, our goal is to get the bass smooth and time aligned at only one position. Simply put, this cannot be done with two sources. Even the most robust DSP solutions fall short here, and maybe this is where the misconceptions of the drawbacks of DSP use arose.......from audiophiles holding dear the golden triangle that simple doesn't work in the modal region. The contension arises or shifts to entry grade ADC operations adding jitter and time aligned anomolies and so on and so on. I've come to firmly believe that most who ride the audiophile train these days are simply more interested in the ride, filled with tweaks, upgrades and manipulations that keep them attached to the hobby instead of the destination.....a system that presents the music in a dynamic means with an accurate repeat of the performance as captured by the recording and intended from the artists or engineer.
Many of the concepts brought forth and discussed by you and others reflect my own where the response range is limited to 250hz to 15khz. What happens above simply no longer concerns me and what happens below is simply the foundation for the most enjoyable listening experience possible IMO. DSP has and will continue to bring me to my destination and without it, I'd still be riding that damn train! Lol. Life itself is a journey, best to follow one path at a time.
Over the years in a local audiophile club, I have found a lot of the audiophiles like mini-monitors with super imaging/soundstage properties over tonally balanced and dynamic presentations. So much so that what a lot of audiophiles in my club refer to as dynamic is merely HF dynamics and the lower registers are quite restrained.
This is not at all the speaker/system I enjoy. I eventually quit going.
This is not at all the speaker/system I enjoy. I eventually quit going.
Actually, "mayhem13", I agree with you more than you might think. Below 250 Hz (or slightly lower), it's very much DSP, or at the least, analog parametric equalizer territory. The drivers are flat and well-behaved, and the room is a mess, dominated by a collection of reflections. The floor reflection comes first, followed by the front wall and side wall, then the ceiling. And then the 2-bounce reflections.
Moving the speaker only a short distance changes the phase summation of the reflections at the listening position ... and the reflection pattern for the left and right speaker are not usually the same, so they require independent correction.
However ... I have mixed feelings about the floor reflection. It's obnoxious for making measurements, since it has to be damped out, or the FFT window shortened to a nearly useless short interval. Aside from that, though, it might be beneficial to leave it as-is.
Why? Recordings are typically made with mikes very close to the performer (so the floor reflection is very low in comparison to the direct sound), or far-field mikes that pick up the overall ambience of the studio or performance hall. The far-field mikes are not located at the same height from the floor as an audience member; they're usually suspended well above the musicians. The floor bounce is recorded, but it's not the same time interval an audience member would hear.
In the real world, we hear a floor or ground bounce all the time. The only time you don't hear it is if you're sitting in a tree or at the edge of balcony. Both locations are uncomfortably psychologically and not conducive to musical enjoyment. Real-world, live acoustic music always has a floor reflection present. Interestingly, although the floor bounce is absent or mistimed on the original recording, it is re-created both at the final mastering stage (where floor-standing speakers are standard practice) and in the listener's living room. So I suspect attempts to remove the floor reflection might end up sounding unnatural, since the original recording was balanced with it present.
Moving the speaker only a short distance changes the phase summation of the reflections at the listening position ... and the reflection pattern for the left and right speaker are not usually the same, so they require independent correction.
However ... I have mixed feelings about the floor reflection. It's obnoxious for making measurements, since it has to be damped out, or the FFT window shortened to a nearly useless short interval. Aside from that, though, it might be beneficial to leave it as-is.
Why? Recordings are typically made with mikes very close to the performer (so the floor reflection is very low in comparison to the direct sound), or far-field mikes that pick up the overall ambience of the studio or performance hall. The far-field mikes are not located at the same height from the floor as an audience member; they're usually suspended well above the musicians. The floor bounce is recorded, but it's not the same time interval an audience member would hear.
In the real world, we hear a floor or ground bounce all the time. The only time you don't hear it is if you're sitting in a tree or at the edge of balcony. Both locations are uncomfortably psychologically and not conducive to musical enjoyment. Real-world, live acoustic music always has a floor reflection present. Interestingly, although the floor bounce is absent or mistimed on the original recording, it is re-created both at the final mastering stage (where floor-standing speakers are standard practice) and in the listener's living room. So I suspect attempts to remove the floor reflection might end up sounding unnatural, since the original recording was balanced with it present.
It is always the sum of the parts i.e whole (entire) system. But we all know one bad choice and the system will not reveal its capabilities.
Maybe why so many audiophiles prefer the stand mounted two way in all it's floor bouncing glory! lol I've been sharing your exact viewpoint on the subject for a while now but it's amazing how many actually prefer the 200-250hz deep nulls. The common explanation is often 'tight' bass. Really?
Well, if the real world always has a floor bounce, that's important. We don't hear for it for the simple reason that it's always there. It's the absence that sounds unusual.
Recordings have the odd property that floor bounce is not accurately captured; it's re-created on playback instead. If a phenomenon occurs in the real world, I'm not too sure going to extra lengths to remove it from playback is automatically a good idea.
Measurements without the floor-bounce notch are nicer, of course, but we all carry a mental model of what things sound like in the physical world. If a playback system deviates too far from that, it becomes noticeable. The trick is setting up the system so colorations fall below perceptual thresholds.
Interesting viewpoint. Maybe on my end some experimentation is in order. I'd be surprised but it won't be the first time! Lol. My perceptions and experience tell me there's sooooo much initial drum attack in the floor bounce range though. Do you think the preference for it might be genre specific?
Interesting point - if I may ask what are the genres that you generally listen to / enjoy?
Hi Lynn - this is not a widely held belief. Many studies have shown this bounce to be "audible" - the ceiling as well. To me the reason that it isn't so disruptive stems from Griesingers work on hearing where the fundamental is enhanced by the modulation of the higher harmonics within the ears nonlinear aspects. This makes us far less sensitive to these lower frequencies fundamental tones as long as the higher frequencies are coherent. A missing 200 Hz fundamental just gets filled in by our hearing. So while I do believe that the floor and ceiling bounce are audible, I do not believe that they are critical issues.
In my room I negate both the floor and ceiling bounce. I can't say as it is a huge difference, but I would certainly say that nothing bad happened.