Controling transient response
Hello guys,
I'm not really into electronics, but I have interest in DIY sometimes.
I have the Adam ANF-10 passive studio monitors for a test period. I have a Marantz Model 1150 running them. It's a '78 model IIRC, and looks very robust, at least it's heavy as hell. It's an 8 ohm amplifier, but the the ANF-10 are 4 ohm.
I really, really like the resolution and image I get from this combo, the sound is totally 3D, never heard anything quite like it. I don't drive the speakers to insane levels at all, only "quite loud" from about 1.5m listening when I listen for fun (and low levels when I monitor). Should I be afraid to damage the amp?
Anyway, to the point. I came to realize that both the ANF-10 and their active counterpart, the A7, has exaggerated transient response. This is obvious since percussive instruments are more forward, and because there is not enough "flesh" to the sound, which is actually meens that the transients don't blend into the decay well, and form a non natural time response. I put the Waves's TransX transient shaper on the stereo buss to tame the transients, and the impressions I've writen above were formed with the TransX, which I use now all of the time. I tuned the TransX to indentify transients on all frequencies down to about 100Hz. The natural transient response of the speakers below that is fine and taming that area hurts bass accuracy and does not give the pluses mentioned. However, I don't wish to keep on using the TransX, and look for a hardware solution.
My recording teacher (also an electronics engineer" told me that tubes has that "warm" sound because of a relatively low transient response. Do you think that it will solve my problem?
If it's ok that I'll keep using the Marantz, do you think that a tube preamplifier will do the trick? Or will an amplifier serve the cause better anyway?
It's still possible that I might go for the A7, I'll have to audition them, in that case it must be a preamplifier.
I would really like to have the option to tune the sound's transient by switching tubes, but maintain the bass's transient response, high resolution and keep low distortion figures and good S/N ratio.
How is this best achieved? ("and not too expensive....ni, ni")
Thanks
Adam
Hello guys,
I'm not really into electronics, but I have interest in DIY sometimes.
I have the Adam ANF-10 passive studio monitors for a test period. I have a Marantz Model 1150 running them. It's a '78 model IIRC, and looks very robust, at least it's heavy as hell. It's an 8 ohm amplifier, but the the ANF-10 are 4 ohm.
I really, really like the resolution and image I get from this combo, the sound is totally 3D, never heard anything quite like it. I don't drive the speakers to insane levels at all, only "quite loud" from about 1.5m listening when I listen for fun (and low levels when I monitor). Should I be afraid to damage the amp?
Anyway, to the point. I came to realize that both the ANF-10 and their active counterpart, the A7, has exaggerated transient response. This is obvious since percussive instruments are more forward, and because there is not enough "flesh" to the sound, which is actually meens that the transients don't blend into the decay well, and form a non natural time response. I put the Waves's TransX transient shaper on the stereo buss to tame the transients, and the impressions I've writen above were formed with the TransX, which I use now all of the time. I tuned the TransX to indentify transients on all frequencies down to about 100Hz. The natural transient response of the speakers below that is fine and taming that area hurts bass accuracy and does not give the pluses mentioned. However, I don't wish to keep on using the TransX, and look for a hardware solution.
My recording teacher (also an electronics engineer" told me that tubes has that "warm" sound because of a relatively low transient response. Do you think that it will solve my problem?
If it's ok that I'll keep using the Marantz, do you think that a tube preamplifier will do the trick? Or will an amplifier serve the cause better anyway?
It's still possible that I might go for the A7, I'll have to audition them, in that case it must be a preamplifier.
I would really like to have the option to tune the sound's transient by switching tubes, but maintain the bass's transient response, high resolution and keep low distortion figures and good S/N ratio.
How is this best achieved? ("and not too expensive....ni, ni")
Thanks
Adam
AdamZuf said:
Really? It's a bit more complicated than that and I'd be very wary of anyone who makes such catch-all simplified statements. It could be argued that all transistor amplifiers have a fatiguing brittle sound because of their Class AB output stage and distortion that rises with frequency, but that would be just as wrong since there are some perfectly decent transistor amplifiers.
I'd say it's a whole lot more likely that your amplifier is objecting to having to drive a 4 Ohm load when it was designed for 8 Ohms.
My teacher didn't classify tubes as such and "that's it". He's a very knowledgable man. He says that the transient response ain't as good because of the time it takes electrons to travel through the tube, which contributes to rounder sound, some say "warm".
About my amp and its match to the ANF-10, they have the same transient behaviour with other amps as well, so does the active A7 monitors.
But is it likely that I'll damage the amp? I don't listen past 9 o'clock with the pot (it wakes up at 6:00
)
So... what do you think I should do?
Thanks
Adam
About my amp and its match to the ANF-10, they have the same transient behaviour with other amps as well, so does the active A7 monitors.
But is it likely that I'll damage the amp? I don't listen past 9 o'clock with the pot (it wakes up at 6:00
)So... what do you think I should do?
Thanks
Adam
Adam,
Your 1978 Marantz is probably in need of a tune up ... replacing power supply capacitors as well as all electrolytic capacitors in the audio stages as well as re-biasing the output stages.
Exxaggerated transient (square-wave) response could be a result of excessive high frequency distortion ... possibly because you are driving 4 ohm loudspeakers from an amplifier that is designed for 8 ohm loudspeakers.
Some of the best sounding amplifiers that I have heard are vacuum tube amplifiers. Properly designed (and with very good output transformers), they can produce a truly stunning audio experience.
Your 1978 Marantz is probably in need of a tune up ... replacing power supply capacitors as well as all electrolytic capacitors in the audio stages as well as re-biasing the output stages.
Exxaggerated transient (square-wave) response could be a result of excessive high frequency distortion ... possibly because you are driving 4 ohm loudspeakers from an amplifier that is designed for 8 ohm loudspeakers.
Some of the best sounding amplifiers that I have heard are vacuum tube amplifiers. Properly designed (and with very good output transformers), they can produce a truly stunning audio experience.
Hi Adam. Another possibility is weak tubes or perhaps non-optimal subs, the added upper harmonic distortion content giving the impression 'speed' or exaggerated HF transients.
Re: the transit time impact on transient response, ask your teacher for me if a larger amplifier chassis also sounds warmer for the extra wiring it contains. One radio station I technically manage pounds 12,000 watts 24/7 at 100 MHz from a tube two feet tall and doesn't seem to have any issues with transients far above the audio range.
Re: the transit time impact on transient response, ask your teacher for me if a larger amplifier chassis also sounds warmer for the extra wiring it contains. One radio station I technically manage pounds 12,000 watts 24/7 at 100 MHz from a tube two feet tall and doesn't seem to have any issues with transients far above the audio range.
AdamZuf said:
Try the amplifier with some 8 Ohm loudspeakers. And if you have a diagram of the amplifier, post it.
By the way, an electron accelerated through 150V will hit the anode at 7.26 x 106m/s. That means it will require 275ps to travel from the cathode (at 0V) to the anode (at 150V) if they are separated by 1mm (pretty typical distance for a small-signal audio valve). Transit time isn't significant in audio...
Frank Berry said:
Well to me it sounds awesome. It was very well kept.
But as I said, this behaviour is typical for the speakers, not my amp.
I have no doubt of that.
rdf said:
Didn't get it, what case are you talking about?
I won't ask him in such a disrespectful manner but I'll sure talk to him about the issue again. It seems no one confirmes that tubes are less fast then SS, and by EC8010's explanation it's logical. However, specs aside, my teacher is a 20 experienced sound engineer and electronic engineer. He wouldn't say something unless his ears verified.Re: the transit time impact on transient response, ask your teacher for me if a larger amplifier chassis also sounds warmer for the extra wiring it contains. One radio station I technically manage pounds 12,000 watts 24/7 at 100 MHz from a tube two feet tall and doesn't seem to have any issues with transients far above the audio range.
EC8010 said:
I sure did try it with other speakers, it's a great focused amp.
Thanks, I'll quote you for my teacher and see what's his answer.
So, how CAN I reduce the transient sensitivity of my speakers?
Thanks
Adam
Sorry Adam, no disrespect was meant to your teacher. The theory just makes little sense. If transit time is important then, on its face, the device shouldn't matter: 'short' transistor vs. 'long' tube, small enclosure vs. large. The difference in circuit path length between a typical small signal tube and an opamp (today's most popular SS audio device) is easily swamped by circuit board layout.
My hobby stock contains 50+ year old radar tubes with application data advising how best to keep them stable around 1 GHz. Radio, TV and radar came well before the general application of solid state and tubes had by then long since demonstrated bandwidth and transient capabilities many orders of magnitude greater than any required for audio reproduction.
My hobby stock contains 50+ year old radar tubes with application data advising how best to keep them stable around 1 GHz. Radio, TV and radar came well before the general application of solid state and tubes had by then long since demonstrated bandwidth and transient capabilities many orders of magnitude greater than any required for audio reproduction.
Adam,
OK, honest questions by you. But again as is often the case, there are several possibilities, quite difficult to pinpoint without being there. I would first start very basic, if possible for you, by using a signal generator and scope to find whether the amplifier actually delivers a constant signal voltage to the loudspeaker. That will sort out whether the problem lies with the speaker or amplifier.
Too high a h.f. output into the loudspeaker would be curable in the amplifier, or if the output voltage is constant but the sound too bright, then you could try with a h.f. attenuating network.
Also, as was said, driving 4 ohm loudspeakers with the same signal amplitude as an 8 ohm unit will accentuate their response by 6dB where the amplifier can maintain a constant outputvoltage into all of this.
OK, honest questions by you. But again as is often the case, there are several possibilities, quite difficult to pinpoint without being there. I would first start very basic, if possible for you, by using a signal generator and scope to find whether the amplifier actually delivers a constant signal voltage to the loudspeaker. That will sort out whether the problem lies with the speaker or amplifier.
Too high a h.f. output into the loudspeaker would be curable in the amplifier, or if the output voltage is constant but the sound too bright, then you could try with a h.f. attenuating network.
Also, as was said, driving 4 ohm loudspeakers with the same signal amplitude as an 8 ohm unit will accentuate their response by 6dB where the amplifier can maintain a constant outputvoltage into all of this.
I tried the speakers with other amps as well, even one capable of 2 ohm, and the Marantz ain't brighter then any of them. I really don't see a reason to check with a scope that I don't have.
If it work ok now, then can I keep on using the amp or not?
I thank all of trying to "troubleshoot" my problem, but really guys, I've noticed the transient thing in the store before I took them to demo! And exagerated transient response doesn't have to meen bright! I know the difference, I'm a sound engineer (well I'm on my way). The exagerated transient goes down to the midbass. I see it as a problem and not as a plus because I'm trying to have a reference system that translate mixes well to other systems. if it was for pure enjoyment then I might not have started this thread, the ANF-10 sound awesome either way.
So, please help, what the heck can I do to reduce dynamic response other then processors?
If it work ok now, then can I keep on using the amp or not?
I thank all of trying to "troubleshoot" my problem, but really guys, I've noticed the transient thing in the store before I took them to demo! And exagerated transient response doesn't have to meen bright! I know the difference, I'm a sound engineer (well I'm on my way). The exagerated transient goes down to the midbass. I see it as a problem and not as a plus because I'm trying to have a reference system that translate mixes well to other systems. if it was for pure enjoyment then I might not have started this thread, the ANF-10 sound awesome either way.
So, please help, what the heck can I do to reduce dynamic response other then processors?
The whole idea of 4 and 8 ohms speakers is a bit misleading, as is the idea of an amp that's only good for whatever somebodies idea of an 8 ohm speaker is. More important is the minimum impedance of the speakers and the level you intend to drive them. My guess is you don't have any problem at all in continuing to use the Marantz amp, though no matter how good you think a 30 year old amp is, a good session on the test bench would likely reveal some components or connections that are in need of attention. As for the transient problem, the ear is really good at detecting amplitude problems from various causes, but really bad at determining the root cause. Thus the need for test equipment of some sort. IMO, you've described speakers that are poorly suited to your intended purpose, and the real cure is probably different speakers. I'm always leery of "awesome" sounding speakers, because that's usually a sign that something in the design isn't right. The speakers should have no inherent sound quality of their own. I'd try a parametric equalizer and some room treatment, but the problem may be inherent in the choice of drivers, crossover design, shelf problem, or even a box radiation issue, and may not be easily cured with passive measures.
Poorly suited to my intended purpose??
These monitors sound awesome with good input. With bad input, they sound horrible. You can detect and pinpoint all production errors, from source to every part of the mixing. They do have a sonic signature, but every speaker does, I never heard a system without a sonic signature. Once you have a speaker reality has changed.
However, because of the difference between good and bad recordings I want to keep with the ADAM - nothing I've heard (for nearfield) differentiate good and bad input as much as these. A bad recording can be a little undifined thing in a mushy space in the front, while a good recording can throw a soundstage that its depth is only defined by imagination according to reverbs used in the studio or natural acoustics in the original setting, with the speakers totally disappearing and all elements are stable at exact points in all 3 dimentions, some sounds can come from the behind. You start keep track of different elements of music by exact location, difference in substance and space (you can differeniate reverbs so well to a point that the image is a combinations of spaces, according to different reverbs) It's scary, really, sometimes too much info to the brains.
I've gone through most of the offerings available for nearfield use and believe me, I wouldn't bother with trying to build a system around monitors if they wouldn't be something very good for my purpose.
My room is half treated. Measures quite flat. I'm eq'ing a bit with parametric to compensate for small issues of the speaker. For now I keep using the TransX to compliment the EQ's work. It's working fine, I'm just want to see if I can improve it, and hardware is much more elegant...
Tonal balance was good before and after TransX, that's why I am not bothered by the frequency response but with the transients, it's very obvious.. a pink noise measurement would probably be quite the same before and after
Adam
These monitors sound awesome with good input. With bad input, they sound horrible. You can detect and pinpoint all production errors, from source to every part of the mixing. They do have a sonic signature, but every speaker does, I never heard a system without a sonic signature. Once you have a speaker reality has changed.
However, because of the difference between good and bad recordings I want to keep with the ADAM - nothing I've heard (for nearfield) differentiate good and bad input as much as these. A bad recording can be a little undifined thing in a mushy space in the front, while a good recording can throw a soundstage that its depth is only defined by imagination according to reverbs used in the studio or natural acoustics in the original setting, with the speakers totally disappearing and all elements are stable at exact points in all 3 dimentions, some sounds can come from the behind. You start keep track of different elements of music by exact location, difference in substance and space (you can differeniate reverbs so well to a point that the image is a combinations of spaces, according to different reverbs) It's scary, really, sometimes too much info to the brains.
I've gone through most of the offerings available for nearfield use and believe me, I wouldn't bother with trying to build a system around monitors if they wouldn't be something very good for my purpose.
My room is half treated. Measures quite flat. I'm eq'ing a bit with parametric to compensate for small issues of the speaker. For now I keep using the TransX to compliment the EQ's work. It's working fine, I'm just want to see if I can improve it, and hardware is much more elegant...
Tonal balance was good before and after TransX, that's why I am not bothered by the frequency response but with the transients, it's very obvious.. a pink noise measurement would probably be quite the same before and after
Adam
Conrad Hoffman said:
Yes I assume there's a good chance this is what will happen. I'll try the other transient shapers available and see if the TransX is the best for this purpose.
dejanm said:
hmmm... no. good interconnects should have better transient response, no? I should probably try ultra crap, bad soldered interconnets, but maybe it will be a hard time to have a matched pair
Now really, interconnects will not change this to satisfactory level, besides, I need the possibility to fine tune.
Thanks
Adam
the most indespensible item you need is a very good 31 band graphic eq.
its far too simplistic to say because percussion is forward the speakers have an enhanced transient response
you can also get somthing from a company called spl , a "transient designer" , its based upon compression /vca's, attack and release time of the compressor.
I have been attempting to boil down the various factors which affect sound, based upon physics, and lo and behold, these studio processors act on such parts, in an attempt to try and ascertain which effect produces such a change in sound, rather like yourself, however, its not straighforward and too simiplistic
there is
amplitude....volume, compression type tools ( vertical relation)
frequency....eq., filters ( horizontal relation)
and phase...time...delays and modulation effects
also harmonics....distortion type
some are interdependant, eg. eq. works on amplitude and frequency and can also change the phase
you can also get harmonic exciters which are good fun to play with
tubes may not strictly have less of a transient because of limited time, dont' electrons travel at light speed? not counting drift velocity.
its probably more to do with rolled off top end due to tube capacitances, and perhaps hi feedback in transistor amps causing transient intermodulation distortion that is more the differences.
and like I suspect, as alluded to, to do with the age of the amp wrt. capacitors, bias, perhaps not as well designed with respect to feedback, hence transient response, and perhaps not liking the load.
its far too simplistic to say because percussion is forward the speakers have an enhanced transient response
you can also get somthing from a company called spl , a "transient designer" , its based upon compression /vca's, attack and release time of the compressor.
I have been attempting to boil down the various factors which affect sound, based upon physics, and lo and behold, these studio processors act on such parts, in an attempt to try and ascertain which effect produces such a change in sound, rather like yourself, however, its not straighforward and too simiplistic
there is
amplitude....volume, compression type tools ( vertical relation)
frequency....eq., filters ( horizontal relation)
and phase...time...delays and modulation effects
also harmonics....distortion type
some are interdependant, eg. eq. works on amplitude and frequency and can also change the phase
you can also get harmonic exciters which are good fun to play with
tubes may not strictly have less of a transient because of limited time, dont' electrons travel at light speed? not counting drift velocity.
its probably more to do with rolled off top end due to tube capacitances, and perhaps hi feedback in transistor amps causing transient intermodulation distortion that is more the differences.
and like I suspect, as alluded to, to do with the age of the amp wrt. capacitors, bias, perhaps not as well designed with respect to feedback, hence transient response, and perhaps not liking the load.
The electron tubes we use here are not velocity modulated tubes so the electrons dont change speed much. When the beam is energised they just change the flow rate so to say. The relative speed they arte traveling is close to the speed of light but not at the speed of light.
It would be counter productive to make a electron travel close to the speed of light in a tube because of the exponitial increase in mass that takes place to it.
As far as transient response there are tubes made that work above the 100ghz range and above at far higer ratings then silicon can.
Nick
It would be counter productive to make a electron travel close to the speed of light in a tube because of the exponitial increase in mass that takes place to it.
As far as transient response there are tubes made that work above the 100ghz range and above at far higer ratings then silicon can.
Nick
I recently read somewhere (on the 'net, I think) that someone calculated the speed that electrons impact the phosphor screen of a TV CRT with a 25,000 volts on the anode. As I recall, it's 200,000 miles per hour, which is well under the speed of light. Good thing, since a lot of dents in the screen would eventually distort the image! As I recall from my physics, though, I believe electrons have no mass, so they won't damage the plates of my prized output tubes, if the voltage would run too high!
lt cdr data said:
But I said that I use an EQ. There's a limit to what I can do in the frequency domain. The fact is that when I reduce the transients, it works.
I'll tell you why I came to conclude that these are the transients:
1. Not adaquate dry/reverb ratio. EQ can't fix this, right?
If any part of the spectrum was too strong, I would blame the sound for lots of other things before transient response. indeed, the frequency response is not perfect to my ears, and I made some fixes with the EQ. I never ran across such a problem (blaming strong transients in a speaker), and believe me, I've done some listening and thinking about the subject.
2. The other thing that I noticed about the speakers is that they are dark. By no means they are bass heavy, they tend to be sharp sounding, if not bright. However, I noticed that the tonality still tends to have that darkness, you might laugh but I find something demonic about that tone.
Then I realized that just the same way that when you compress certain instruments and give the compressor at least a few ms of attack, you tame the highs a bit, the same principle works here. Many instruments develop high frequencies after the lows. So if the attack starts with the lows, and is accentuated relatively to the later developed, higher harmonics, that explains the dark tonality.
What does that got to do with the topic?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.