On the other hand, Frank, as we both know, wuite a few problems can be resolved in cheap integrated amps by taking a ong, hard look at their PSUs and by upgrading them.
Very often, just swapping the two say 6.800 uF caps with two 10.000 uF caps of known good quality will push the envelope limts higher up.
What's really killing me about that small Toshiba I have is that the space is very limited and swapping the small trafo for a bigger and better one is well neigh impossible. If I could do that, I suspect that little 'un would put to shame quite a number of nominally better and certainly more expensive amps. Not that really need to, I can always fall back on my H/K 6550 integrated, where all that was done in the factory.
Hi,
Frequency extension at the expense of sound quality.
That pretty much sums up the progress that's been made from the late Sixties until this day.
A few exceptions notwithstanding.
Cheers,
Yes, frequency extension, and of course better cone materials, high temperature composites and voice coil formers, more linear magnet assemblies, Faraday rings, better magnets, optimized baskets, improved measuring equipment and methods, deeper theoretical understanding.
All this at the expense of sound quality since the Sixties? C'mon, middle of the road consumer speakers nowadays run circles around the high end gear of the sixties.
A few exceptions not withstanding, such as Tannoy, Altec horn based systems and the ESL57. But even those can be improved upon using modern know how.
You remember well, Jan,it is indeed and EI transformer.
However, it's rather small and in a VERY cramped area, so the only option would be stacking two smaller toroids one on top of the other.
Also, I am not looking for more power, rather I am looking for better quality of the sound. That Toshiba only serves to remid me that a cheap product can sometimes surpass what's expected of it. At the prnicely som of €20 which it cost me, that's a gift. Recapping cost more than that,
I agree, memories of Sixties is only a nostalgia. We do not want to admit our age
New speakers sound much better than those from sixties. Beyond any compare.
I admit I'm 61.5 years old - so what?
I can't hear beyond 16 kHz any more - so what? If anything, I enjoy music today more than before, perhaps like old wine I have actually matured somewhat.
As for the speakers then and now, I completely agree, the new kids on the block are way more revealing than the old guys, but then, so are our modern electronics.
What you have listed above is all quite true, BUT the time dedicated to the development of new models has shortened. In part, this is normal and to be expected, given the computer tools and laser readings we now have but didn't have way back then, but in parts is the victim of the same tools.
Today, it's not the sound first, but the price first. Designers are limited by the projected end user cost of the product, both in terms of what they can use, and in terms of the time and development expenses they have to deal with. The development time has been drastically shortened, and the development costs have been drastically cut.
Today, far too many people think that just because they know how to use a sumilator, they don't need anything else. Like exeprience, for instance. There is an aura of illusion that technology can do anything, but complete denial regarding the fact that technology is indeed a powerful tool, but only in the hands of those who understand what's going on undernetah the sexy screens.
I don't have to feel it, I KNOW FOR A FACT that while my simulator has been set to as to be conservative, perhaps even too conservative (I prefer to err in the right direction), that doesn't make me smart. What makes me smart is that I know who to ask what I don't know.
I admire many of you out there who can use Spice simulation easily and conveniently. I can't do it, myself, even though I have been associated with computer operation for more than 50 years.
Over the decades, I have learned a number of approaches to computer circuit design, starting with running the earlier program: ECAP back in 1966-7, an IBM developed program for the military that used a mainframe computer. We used it for both transient response and Worst Case Analysis (where you make all the resistor, beta, etc tolerances go worst case for a given output). I was initially impressed by the power that this gave us, but one day it fell on its face, when the BIG boss proved the computer wrong with his slide rule. This almost got my immediate boss and me, fired, although it was not our fault. The ECAP program just did not always give the right answer when you worked close to the limit. I learned not to be a 'slave' to computer output, and that was 47 years ago.
When I went to Ampex in 1967, I found that they did not use a computer for circuit design. They used a mechanical calculator for the hard stuff, and a slide rule for the regular stuff. Of course, complex filters were an exception, but we did not design many of those. In 1968, while in the Audio Department, I did get access to a modem connected computer and I made a few calculations, but actually, I really did not need it.
Unfortunately, for some years I had to rely on my trusty slide rule, but in 1973, I finally could purchase a HP35 scientific calculator, and I fell in love. It was with me, almost always, just like many people have their cellphones today. It gave a real advance in making analog circuits, and made calculations easier and more accurate. This is about all that I have really needed to make my audio designs up to today. There just is not that much to it.
Over the decades, I have learned a number of approaches to computer circuit design, starting with running the earlier program: ECAP back in 1966-7, an IBM developed program for the military that used a mainframe computer. We used it for both transient response and Worst Case Analysis (where you make all the resistor, beta, etc tolerances go worst case for a given output). I was initially impressed by the power that this gave us, but one day it fell on its face, when the BIG boss proved the computer wrong with his slide rule. This almost got my immediate boss and me, fired, although it was not our fault. The ECAP program just did not always give the right answer when you worked close to the limit. I learned not to be a 'slave' to computer output, and that was 47 years ago.
When I went to Ampex in 1967, I found that they did not use a computer for circuit design. They used a mechanical calculator for the hard stuff, and a slide rule for the regular stuff. Of course, complex filters were an exception, but we did not design many of those. In 1968, while in the Audio Department, I did get access to a modem connected computer and I made a few calculations, but actually, I really did not need it.
Unfortunately, for some years I had to rely on my trusty slide rule, but in 1973, I finally could purchase a HP35 scientific calculator, and I fell in love. It was with me, almost always, just like many people have their cellphones today. It gave a real advance in making analog circuits, and made calculations easier and more accurate. This is about all that I have really needed to make my audio designs up to today. There just is not that much to it.
Hi,
Those were great speakers in their day but how many manufacturers do actually produce something exceptional with all the high-tech stuff?
Not many and IM(limited)E. The few that do so also go back to materials known to be of excellent acoustic quality.
It's kind of funny how good a well made paper cone speaker can sound, isn't it?
It's the same story over and over again. The tech is there but no one seems to know how to properly implement it. Or rather, they have to cut corners so there's an upgrade path open for further product and so it goes round and round....
One of the better designers is now turning "philosophisch" I see. Hallo Herr Gerhard.
Cheers,
Those were great speakers in their day but how many manufacturers do actually produce something exceptional with all the high-tech stuff?
Not many and IM(limited)E. The few that do so also go back to materials known to be of excellent acoustic quality.
It's kind of funny how good a well made paper cone speaker can sound, isn't it?
It's the same story over and over again. The tech is there but no one seems to know how to properly implement it. Or rather, they have to cut corners so there's an upgrade path open for further product and so it goes round and round....
One of the better designers is now turning "philosophisch" I see. Hallo Herr Gerhard.
Cheers,
One of my friends builds a speaker with an Altec 604.
I measured it.
It was plus-minus 2dB from 32Hz to 18kHz.
Even 30° off axis.
The " trick " was just a good crossover he designed.
No, i do not trust in " progress ".
If that makes me a philosopher ?
If you say so.
by the way, i am not " better ", i am the best, the only living boy in New York.
I measured it.
It was plus-minus 2dB from 32Hz to 18kHz.
Even 30° off axis.
The " trick " was just a good crossover he designed.
No, i do not trust in " progress ".
If that makes me a philosopher ?
If you say so.
by the way, i am not " better ", i am the best, the only living boy in New York.
Joachim, I remember a story I heard about you from back in the Audio Physic days which impressed me. I have repeated it to others and they listened with skepticism and were not impressed either. Whenever this happened I would be inclined to doubt their powers of insight.
The story was that you made a practice of, while you were otherwise casually occupied - perhaps with a cup of coffee at the kitchen table, of taking some paper speaker cones of various formulations but without voice coil formers or surrounds and dropping them on the table top to hear what they sounded like as they hit. This gave you some insight as to their sonic character and how they might sound after assembly into a finished driver. It made good sense to me, and would be the sort of thing I would try, given the same circumstances.
Is there any truth to this, or have I been spreading falsehoods?
The story was that you made a practice of, while you were otherwise casually occupied - perhaps with a cup of coffee at the kitchen table, of taking some paper speaker cones of various formulations but without voice coil formers or surrounds and dropping them on the table top to hear what they sounded like as they hit. This gave you some insight as to their sonic character and how they might sound after assembly into a finished driver. It made good sense to me, and would be the sort of thing I would try, given the same circumstances.
Is there any truth to this, or have I been spreading falsehoods?
We MUST be related somehow, John, no idea how - I also keep to this day of easy and cheap Casio calculators the HP table calculator which needed an external power supply, which my dad bought in the mid-70ies. Just as I keep the wind stopwatch, measuring 1/10 seconds, by Heuer, in 1976, 100% mechanical. My wrist watch chronograph by Certina easily does 1/100 of a second, but it just ain't as much fun.
On simulators - ease of use is the greatest single difference among them. The one I am using, Multisim 10.2, has its fair share of bugs even after so many years, it can sometimes lock up if you try to markl something just when its save function activates, but it has two great redeeming aspects: it's child's play to use, literally, and its method of simulation is slighly conservative and fail proof. It hes never once shown me good results which later deteriorated in real life, quite the opposite - it says a circuit will do say 300 kHz, I build it, measure it and it does 350 kHz no problemo. Every time.
Unfortunately, its price is $9k in Europe, less in the USA, but still darn expensive.
Joachim, in my view, two things are appearent to me:
1. New is not necessarily better, even if it should be on paper, and
2. The tools we have today are a great help, but on the other hand, have made designers too lazy, so instead of listening, they will trust a paper simulation by default.
As a possible thrid, the designers in the 70ies and the first half of the 80ies, dedicated much more time to actual hands-on development, in an effort to outdo their competition. But the world around them has changed, and progressively, from trying to outdo each other it became a game of product planning, where the key factor was the price. This approach relegates really good stuff to occasional accidents in the normal price class, leaving true wonders to prices mere mortals cannot afford.
And prices have soared. As an example, I found out that the replacement stylus for my Ortofon LM20 TT cartridge, wich cost DM 110 in its time, now costs €250. That's 4.5 TIMES as much, and at that price, it's doubtful whether it's worth that money, when compared to a roughly similar Audio Technica costing €159. Calculate the world and EU annualy inflation rates and increased incomes, you still end up with products which cost more today than they did then.
Exactly!
Same thing here. Crossovers are deceptively simple things, and in my experience, it was the "simple things" which always gave me the biggest headaches.
On the other hand, a poorly made crossover network will ruin an otherwise potentially great speaker. Look back at the BBC monitor series made under licence in the UK and you will find that the best of them had very seriously designed and executed crossover networks. No magic, no mystery, just solid and well thought out engineering.
"Good sense" is right.
When you hear the thump of a pressed steel frame and compare it to the thump of a die cast alimunium frame, comapring them is fairly easy.
Extending this logic further, the front baffle has to absorb around 90% of the total mechanical energy of the drivers. It stands to reason one should use a still MDF carrier of the drivers, yet far too many speakers have the flimsy 19 mm MDF boards. I would have used at least the 27 mm thick MDF board. Mine uses 54 mm thich MDF.
Nigel, you've got it bad when you describe natural sounds by the type of amp sounds they resemble ... get a grip, man,
The point is this. When using hi fi we often hear an enhanced sound. Only when real sound we realize things we thought wrong are the real sounds. Slightly bloated and slow bass is often a real sound. Clanking triangles also a real sound.
Electronic instruments often are special. Especially so when the better electronic pianos. 70% of the time they are convincing. 30% of the time they are an instrument in their own right. In ELP the Nut Rocker it starts with what sounds like a British pub piano vaguely ( all the better that is doesn't sound real) , even more so on LP. I love it. Then the sound so famous of ELP arrives ( Try Tarkus ). If you don't love this you have no soul and a boring hi fi. 110 dB is a minimum level listening level and neighbours should be at the door. Dejan you must give it your best.
Our hi fi systems do this. It can not be avoided and it can be very nice. Problem is real music then sounds incomplete. This never happens to me as I know this and allow for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiRBQ_hSNt0
In the pipeline that one as I have all the parts. The Sub might resemble the Celestion one. There is a mad quality that OB has and that is like myself. 400 watt Hypex and 6 watts SE EL 34. I sent JJ and idea for a TR 34 valve. She owes me a bottle of cheap champagne if it works. The idea is to take a JJ EL 34 and take out g2 and g3 . As I said the geometry might have to change. I hope for a PX25 sound at very low price. If it works Josephina might have a winner. It should even work in Marshall amps if a different sound wanted . Personally I think the EL 34 is the reference device of all we have. I took this idea to friends who said if it succeeds it will be copied. I said like Coka Cola the original never suffers from imitation.
Ah, well, speaking of ELP (Emerson, Lake and Palmer), a grand example of the energy needed for a convincing sound is their immortal track "Lucky Man". It has exceedingly powerful bass lines, so weedy little things pretending to be amplifiers soon die out with it. Even on my very easy to drive speakers, that really draws serious power.
As you put it, just play it louder than usual and you're looking at peaks approaching 100W/8 Ohms for the electronic synthesizer generated heavy bass lines. One of my test tracks, beside the fact that I love that particular number. That one usually shows up the quality of low bass power.
For speed and low bass power, nothing I know of beats the Blue Man Group CD 1. Four complete rhythm sections follow, at full blast, a slow and delicate introduction. They appear out of nowhere, literally drop in from the sky. If the amp hass balls of glass, that's when its pain starts. But if it has balls of brass, you are treated to a phenomenal attack passage.
Another good track to test that would be Vangelis' piece "Metallic Rain", from the movie "Blade Runner". Easy does it, and that wham, an attack from the heavy bass side. I am partial to that track not because I've been a Sci Fi addict since before 1970, or because I have the collected works of Philip K. Dick, or because I believe nobody does ambience on movies like Ridley Scott, or because I like Vangelis, but because that track is well played only if you get a sense from the music that something evil this way comes and is almost palpable, it's so real.
Or John Congos' number "We're Gonna Step On You Again". Ot has no great, massive attacks, but the whole number is driven by drums and a distorted bass guitar. If you feel something mean coming your way, then it's well rendered.
For midrange coherence and timing, there's Peter Sarstead's "Frozen Orange Juice", and Katarina and The Waves' "Walking On Sunshine". For female voice, Joan Baez in "Diamonds And Rust", or Loreena McKennitt, take your pick. For melody and ambience, there's Enya, or Enya, or Enya.
In my view, and remember I have never tried any drugs in my life, the best ever junkie song is Incredible String Band's "Air". I get high just by listening to it. For soul food, collected works of Gordon Lightfoot.
Musical riches available to us are too many to even count.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.