Amp related fatigue is similar to crossover related fatigue. Only trained ears can understand. Driver related fatigue, ie cone breakup, is obvious to all ears. Both must bem avoided. No preference from my side as i dont want them both. U r lucky u can accept one type and get that noble experience easily.
I went to single drivers around the time of two ways with large woofers and high crossovers. I was beginning to think this was just the way a crossover was.
The goal of extending the frequency that I'd try not to listen beyond, by even an octave into the upper midrange seemed more important than fixing the treble, and worth some bass sacrifice.
Not ignored, accepted choice due to circumstances. None the less fulfilling.
I don't agree with this statement at all. Perhaps you and others feel this sounds fine, but I do not concur. Whenever a breakup occurs shunting it into oblivion with a crossover doesn't fix the issue. I've said this before and I'll say it again, a signal that rises at the rate of the breakup frequency will induce distortion in the primary signal. This I hear readily, most annoying and fatiguing. It's also a PITA trying to find a mid/midbass that has minimal breakup can drive you to near insanity on your quest for perfection.
Everything else I do agree with and what drives me to do better. 🙂
eYup
I've given this a bit of thought over the eons and have come to the conclusion that in part must be related to mental fatigue and stress.
Yes, same "small" sound I heard from Lowther I mentioned above. It can be sweet, nice coloured at mid/high, but the sound seems limited or tied to the speakers. I then built a pair of Pluto and they have big sound under the small and humble profile, but I sometime miss the sweetness of Lowther which Pluto does have.
i think i know what you mean but thats not it. Not about riteness. Not about luck or random achievement. Its a direction. A method. Originated from beliefs
For me "Cumbia villera" and "Marcha peronista" (Village Cumbia and Peronist's march) causes too much fatigue, not only listening one.
What i mean is i dont feel like running in circle in chasing this ghost. I think i already nailed her. LOL
I agree entirely. It's not luck, it's understanding at each point, when the sound is not "right", why that is so, and what can or needs to be done to alleviate the situation. It means that you can live with less than 'perfect' sound, because you "know" the steps that are available to lift it well beyond what you're hearing at that moment.
Why you don't do that may be because you're lazy, tired, got more urgent things to do, lack of funds, etc, etc ... it's a Round Tuit thing ... 😉
What level of understanding is necessary for this transformation? Is it necessary to understand how digital audio works, how DACs are built, for example? (different types of reconstruction filter etc.) or can we regard the DAC as essentially "right"? If through our deep understanding, or simply listening to the system, we decide that the DAC is not right, what can we do about it? Buy a different one, build our own, use a laser to modify the chip?
Do we then move onto amplifiers, and understand all there is to know about power supplies, long tailed pairs, feedback, PCB layout and so on? Do we decide the amp is flawed by design, or by simply listening to it? What do we do about it?
And then there's speakers. Lack of bass is not a problem you say. But what about group delay, dispersion, compression, baffle step etc. etc. Do we have to understand all of this? Or simply listen to the TV speaker and decide its measurable 'idiosyncrasies' by chance all add up to rightness? Is your method major surgery of the hardware that those idiot designers threw together, or is it a question of selecting the right combination of flawed components to make the whole "right"? Or is it turning off all RF devices in the house?
The simple answer is ... - basically working in reverse to how you stated it. My "belief", my approach is that the intrinsic, core circuitry, design, components are sufficiently "correct" to get the job done - but don't achieve a subjectively satisfying result because of a number of weaknesses, or deficiencies in the overall setup -- eliminate or bypass each of those problem areas and you will get a positive outcome.
Obviously, experience counts for a lot - hearing a certain, negative quality in the sound now just automatically translates into trying a certain "fix".
Yes, listening is key. I'm always aiming for the sound to be realistic, that, say, voices sound like real people in the room - rather than just aiming for a certain flavour of 'hifi'. From experience, I have found that if I go through the process of resolving each issue, one by one, then I get closer to the goal of having all recordings perform at a satisfying level, that even the "bad" ones are convincing.
I have in myriads of posts mentioned the various things I concern myself with - the most important thing is to consider every aspect that may be helping, or hindering the sound being good enough, and keep trying each option. Obviously, do the simple, easy ones first and progress through to the more messy, expensive things further down the track
One thing will guarantee failure - deciding that something is good enough and doesn't needs to be worried about, because you "know" it's good enough. With audio, it only needs one, tiny problem to not be dealt with properly ... and it will bring the whole enterprise down. That is, it will technically be brilliant - you'll be able to get measurements galore to "prove" that there's nothing wrong - yet, your ears will say, "No ..."
Obviously, experience counts for a lot - hearing a certain, negative quality in the sound now just automatically translates into trying a certain "fix".
Yes, listening is key. I'm always aiming for the sound to be realistic, that, say, voices sound like real people in the room - rather than just aiming for a certain flavour of 'hifi'. From experience, I have found that if I go through the process of resolving each issue, one by one, then I get closer to the goal of having all recordings perform at a satisfying level, that even the "bad" ones are convincing.
I have in myriads of posts mentioned the various things I concern myself with - the most important thing is to consider every aspect that may be helping, or hindering the sound being good enough, and keep trying each option. Obviously, do the simple, easy ones first and progress through to the more messy, expensive things further down the track
One thing will guarantee failure - deciding that something is good enough and doesn't needs to be worried about, because you "know" it's good enough. With audio, it only needs one, tiny problem to not be dealt with properly ... and it will bring the whole enterprise down. That is, it will technically be brilliant - you'll be able to get measurements galore to "prove" that there's nothing wrong - yet, your ears will say, "No ..."
Last edited:
No DSP, I use 2 modified BSS FDS360.
Driver-wise it's a 12" Tannoy DualConcentric, 12" Volt Radial in a T/L and a near-pointless ribbon super tweeter.
There isn't much that needs aligning time-wise so I don't really miss DSP.
Amps are 3 MC2 Audios and a little Omniphonics for the ribbons.
All are bipolar Class AB although the MC2s run in class A up to 30-50W or so.
They get surprisingly hot when idling.