Copper, you are not alone.
I know that there are music loving audiophiles with good tastes in music.
middle aged men listening in reverence to a girl playing a guitar... very graphic description. man up and play some Wagner, damn it LOL
I am saddened about this because I start feeling that it's not about music after all but about having something to do. start playing with model planes, get a motorcycle. there are tons of hobbies with a high level of satisfaction which don't make you look like an obsessive-compulsive freak.
I know that there are music loving audiophiles with good tastes in music.
middle aged men listening in reverence to a girl playing a guitar... very graphic description. man up and play some Wagner, damn it LOL
I am saddened about this because I start feeling that it's not about music after all but about having something to do. start playing with model planes, get a motorcycle. there are tons of hobbies with a high level of satisfaction which don't make you look like an obsessive-compulsive freak.
My ears are also sensitive, not only to peaky sounds, but also to ill and fatiguing sound that has no life. So Fostex and Lowther are not my cup of tea. Nor the opamp sound of active systems.
Hmm. May be I have been safe because I don't like Jimi Hendrix's
But I believe that high frequency performance is the key to high end sound. I prefer the amplifier system that has good phase performance up to MHz. Tweeter also has to be good up to at least 40KHz
Like I mentioned previously, I don't like the peaky fullranges, but seriously, I still prefer them to the fatiguing lifeless speakers.
Many things that I don't understand. For example, my speaker sound good even if I put the tweeter one meter apart from the woofer(s). The crossover is very complex but they blend well even with such distance. So I don't understand about those speakers where the tweeter is made at different distance from the ears than the woofer. Or those speaker where the sweet spot is only between the speakers. I think that is the effect of trusting the measurement tools.
I fear you are right and I may have to address the room acoustics. I am actually reluctant to do this, because in my mind that means I have gone over to full audiophile mode, rather than just being a music lover with an interest in DSP who likes great sound!
Thanks for all the suggestions - it may take some time to digest it all.
I have been striving for an automatic impulse response inversion for each driver, but I also think that I should smooth the correction as well, rather than correcting every little wrinkle in the amplitude and phase responses. I am also applying a pre-calculated baffle step correction curve to each enclosure, rather than attempting to do this by measurement.
I then apply separate delays to give the smoothest crossovers possible at the listening position. I haven't tried for any kind of room correction beyond this, however.
Other people think they sound great. Someone who owns Quad electrostatics thinks mine sound the same plus they go louder and have bass, so I think I'm not too far off!
All my hi-fi's work just fine. I can't help it if I'm lucky.
I don't tweak things. I just build one thing after another.
The principal need they're built to fulfil is the need to build and make things. Plus maybe the momentary need for the item. If I'm honest though, I don't need 9 headphone amplifiers. Call them experimental prototypes.
I've built radios, speakers, amplifiers, combos, DACs, a turntable and arm, motor controllers, motors, digital meters, a chronograph, flashlights, aeroplanes, helicopters (from kits). A plantpot furnace to smelt aluminum, a coilwinder, a photographic enlarger (reaching back a while now), a colour print tank agitator, a pinhole camera, a waterdrop microscope. Boats, rafts, a steam engine, a miniature cannon (what else are you gonna do with a lathe?) I made the gunpowder and ball for that. One thing I wanted to build, but never got round to, is an internal combustion (piston) engine. I'd have a go at a jet (turbine) too. I've cast bullets and lead soldiers and plaster gnomes in a rubber mould.
If I thought for a while a few more things would come to mind. A bandurria (not too successful). Glass. I made some glass. A chemical garden. A reflux condenser. A Leyden jar. PCBs. A UV lightbox. An acetylene torch with calcium carbide (dangerous). Gun cotton. I'd have made cordite, but I stopped short of the nitroglycerine.
A cotton-reel tank. A jigsaw. French knitting. Crochet. A loom. Cloth (not much). Trousers. A skirt for my sister. Fire. I made fire.
I don't tweak things. I just build one thing after another.
The principal need they're built to fulfil is the need to build and make things. Plus maybe the momentary need for the item. If I'm honest though, I don't need 9 headphone amplifiers. Call them experimental prototypes.
I've built radios, speakers, amplifiers, combos, DACs, a turntable and arm, motor controllers, motors, digital meters, a chronograph, flashlights, aeroplanes, helicopters (from kits). A plantpot furnace to smelt aluminum, a coilwinder, a photographic enlarger (reaching back a while now), a colour print tank agitator, a pinhole camera, a waterdrop microscope. Boats, rafts, a steam engine, a miniature cannon (what else are you gonna do with a lathe?) I made the gunpowder and ball for that. One thing I wanted to build, but never got round to, is an internal combustion (piston) engine. I'd have a go at a jet (turbine) too. I've cast bullets and lead soldiers and plaster gnomes in a rubber mould.
If I thought for a while a few more things would come to mind. A bandurria (not too successful). Glass. I made some glass. A chemical garden. A reflux condenser. A Leyden jar. PCBs. A UV lightbox. An acetylene torch with calcium carbide (dangerous). Gun cotton. I'd have made cordite, but I stopped short of the nitroglycerine.
A cotton-reel tank. A jigsaw. French knitting. Crochet. A loom. Cloth (not much). Trousers. A skirt for my sister. Fire. I made fire.
Last edited:
Jay, you got involved on the "invisible speakers" thread, and obviously had some inspiring moments in achieving impressive sound. To me, what is remarkable is the obsession that a large number of people in this forum have, that the answer is in the speakers. Yes, they're easy to work with, and to try oodles and oodles of variations and combinations of drivers and cabinets and directivity and orientation and everything else under the sun. However, unless you're very lucky they will never deliver a fully satisfying answer -- it's a bit like expecting an ordinary car to become a high performance vehicle by doing nothing except varying the wheel rims and tyres, and not touching the suspension, engine or gearbox.
The MP3 thing you mentioned is a good example of what's possible: if that track is resampled to an uncompressed format and played through a well sorted out system people would get a shock as to how good it sounded.
Yes, everything is explainable, in rational terms. And part of the formula is to worry about the source component and the amplifying component, it you don't do your homework there then the sound will never reach and maintain the optimum heights ...
The MP3 thing you mentioned is a good example of what's possible: if that track is resampled to an uncompressed format and played through a well sorted out system people would get a shock as to how good it sounded.
Yes, everything is explainable, in rational terms. And part of the formula is to worry about the source component and the amplifying component, it you don't do your homework there then the sound will never reach and maintain the optimum heights ...
But that is also my opinion, that the answer is often in the speaker. Well, of course it depends on our position in the ladder of sound perfection.
If you think that they (the speakers) are easy to work with, then I think that is the mistake. The argument that speakers are not easy is actually the reason why it is important, because it will easily become a bottleneck in the system chain, without being noticed.
Basically it is the same story. Some people may and already have used bad speaker and try oodles and oodles of variations with source and amplification and never satisfied either.
Once the speaker is good, I found that the source or the amp becomes not so important. That's why we have heard many people with very expensive system say that Pass' simple class-A amps sound worse than very complex low distortion class-B amps. I believe that with most cheap systems, Pass amps ought to sound much better.
I also enjoy musical DVD very much. Many say that DVD quality is not audiophile quality
On the contrary, what I don't like is most if not all of the audiophile recordings that I have.If you want an easy recording, try to reproduce the CD with special line level tube amplification (6J5 was my favorite). After recorded back to CD, the sound becomes... more like from a tube amp.
It is very complex. The bottleneck (weakest link) can wander from source to amplifier to speaker to anything in the signal chain (room is never an issue for me). It takes a lifetime hands-on experience (and theoretical knowledge) to understand it well. At higher level, it could be just one diode or one capacitor.
It may be in the speaker, but unlikely to be the driver itself - IME,
...What different speakers will do is to highlight different deficiencies earlier in the chain, they add "spice" in numerous subtle combinations, by exaggerating or minimising problems elsewhere ...
Sorry, this doesn't happen for me. Some of the most excrutiatingly upleasant sound I've heard has been through very expensive, highly regarded speakers - I remember one occasion hearing Wilson speakers, MAXX I think, through top of the line MBL electronics - truly dreadful sound. Wilson is a brand I've heard over and over again where I wish I had brought some ear muffs -- nothing wrong with the speakers per se, but they emphasise every tiny defect earlier on ...
This I entirely agree with ...
I just played with Lego Technics till I was 18. I also did some ( free-flying)
airplane models. I think that at the end of the games I did put some propellers to the Lego thingies
It may be in the speaker, but unlikely to be the driver itself - IME,
Sure. It is the crossover. Box is probably more important, but is easier to work with so rarely an issue.
Nooo... speaker job is to reproduced AC signal to become soundwave that represents the AC form itself. Imagine what a hard job it is compared to what a source/amp has to do to produce/amplify the "right" signal to become the input for the speaker.
Hahaha did you listen to them at a hi-fi show?
You may have no problem with your speaker because you don't use complex crossover. And/or your speaker is only 2-way. Actually fullrange is imo the optimum approach in most situations in lower level of sound quality ladder.
If you want more (of the quality aspects such as details, low frequencies and SPL), then you have to pick more challenges. With cheap sensitive fullrange, what you need is simple tube amp, or a class-A amp. And may be a good source. This is one of the popular audiophile "genre". Wilson speakers are closer to this genre.
The MBL on the other hand is from different "genre". The amp you heard probably use an opamp, and it probably have strong drive of paralleled output stage. Do not use it with Wilson. The suitable speaker may be a speaker with many drivers of at least 12" each
I don't understand what defect. Then do not allow the defect in the source/amp. I strongly believe that recording defect is not the reason why you need some ear muffs.
And it is easier to produce a "perfect" sound if what you need is only 2 Watts SPL. I believe that either MBL and Wilson is designed to produce more than 2 Watts, probably more than what can be produced by your system.
Straightfoward electromechanical transducer, with minimal opportunity for all sorts of really nasty distortion elements to intrude -- not really hard at all: they hardly bother to show higher order distortion harmonics than 2nd or 3rd when testing because they are so low down in amplitude
Dealer, actually ...
Aahh, there's the rub! Easy to say ... very, very difficult to achieve. To me, virtually every system I listen to is "defective", the problems scream at me ...
Yes, highly efficient speakers are an excellent shortcut. The MBLs are precision powerhouses, the best measurements I've seen at Stereophile for power amps
Of course, even live shows are defective. But people still come to the show without problems screaming at them.
Like in my case, during this month I have been listening to music through my cheap handphone, and yes, MP3. And cheap TDA2030A. But I don't have a problem with that (if I do may be I would have pulled out my best sources and amps). But I can't stand listening to my headphones and some of my speakers.
Low frequency is one of important aspect of high-end sound. Without those low frequency, our system is NOT complete, and probably not good enough.
To produce this low frequency we need large cone. Use of box to augment the low frequency is one common but imperfect method (especially TL
).Most of the LF drivers are power hungry. So there's nothing a first watt amp can do about it.
But why rely on measurements if it doesn't guarantee anything we need. The measurement tools cannot detect if an opamp exist in the audio chain. Actually, the measurement is good probably because of an opamp in the audio chain.
To produce this low frequency we need large cone. Use of box to augment the low frequency is one common but imperfect method (especially TL
Wrong. The purpose of the box it to take control of what happens in the vicinity of the resonant frequency. It happens also that it makes available an in-phase usable output that sums to the regular emission.
You don't need the extra volume then
My point is, you cannot stretch a driver if you want quality sound. People use 2-way bookshelf because they want the soundstage and midrange (and some others). People use 2-way floorstander because they want the bass (a poor man's approach)
For me, most of the time, they do it wrong. I gave them up years ago, I found the sound too execrable 98% of the time. Yet, there were a couple of shows that did it right, that proved that PA sound can work if the people handling it know what they're doing ...
Have never been fussed about deep LF; it's a bonus if it's there and working properly. I've heard mega expensive towers filled with monster drivers, which just sound like a blubbery mess - not my thing at all ...Low frequency is one of important aspect of high-end sound. Without those low frequency, our system is NOT complete, and probably not good enough.
To produce this low frequency we need large cone. Use of box to augment the low frequency is one common but imperfect method (especially TL
Some of the best power amps I've heard over the years depended on opamps; like everything, they can be done well, and not well ...
Can you give some examples? I will not put MBL in my list of best amps. Musical Fidelity uses the opamp in composite structure. Public Address amps are surely not on my list.
I consider a Bryston as a PA amplifier. One of the top Accuphase use opamp but it is not ordinary opamp. May be one of the current feedback one.
Better to compare them with their own model which doesn't use opamp.
well, what can I say? friend did a shootout between a Pass Labs, a Classe, a Bryston and Accu 7100 (sorry, I don't recall the types of others but similar ranges). Bryston came third, surpassing the Pass Labs amp.
their C2820 preamp is second below top of the range and uses 4 different opamp types (many of them actually) of 3 different brands, none of which is current feedback. true, they're precision, low-noise ones, but no CFB.
it's not an amp, but I guess it's supposed to match in quality their top of the line amps.
Last edited:
hmmm.
then I guess you are restricted to a handful of brands, and that is being optimistic. looking at the Stereophile measurements, very few amps extend in the hundreds of kiloherthz range, let alone MHzs. also, I think you are aware that any digital source has a steep digital filter with a cutoff frequency close to fs/2. filter which is many times non linear phase. and then a relatively steep analog filter with cutoff well below MHzs.
and it is pretty much known that group delay sensitivity is actually lower at high frequencies. harmonic distortion sensitivity is the one that increases at the top of the range, AFAIK (I'm speaking from memory).
and very few people seem to be are aware of the fact that the DC blocking caps (and that is including the ones present at the recording side) can easily have an influence on the phase response in the midrange region, where it's proven to be most important, since the 70s.
I am not saying that there's not any merit in getting the phase response right if it doesn't take stupid efforts but IMO most of the times you're fighting an undefeatable enemy.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.