In which case:
1. You should add a pair of similar quality subwoofers to iron out the range below 200 Hz and offload the amps in the regular speakers, such subwoofers are powered these days,
2. Perhaps fiddle around a bit with some GENTLE eq via a graphic eq, just to iron it all out a bit.
I understand your key point - on bang per buck, such dinky systems do wipe the floor with the High End, and such systems may not match the biggies in absolute terms, but are not necessarily horrendously sounding. I am not disputing either thesis.
Ultimately, it all comes down to what you are prepared to live without for the sake of the undoubted convenience offred by such small systems. You are prepared to sacrifice something, and I am not prepared to sacrifice my low end in either quality or sheer presence.
The only reason I need a biggish box (72 litres enclosed volume, app. 62 lbs) is to be able to get that low end of the spectrum both in presence and more important, in quality of the sound produced. I realize I am paying a lot of money for it, but that is my choice.
The key point where you and I part ways is rgearding the amps. You have expounded the thesis that they are practically as good as discrete designs, which I can accept only in terms of AVERAGE industry offerings in the low class audio. However, as you move up to the middle Fi ground, this progressively stops being the truth. I have heard quite a few chip amps, they were all the rage some years ago, and my general conclusion is that they are still not substantial enough for me.
These days, putting together a VERY decent power amp is fairly easy, especially here, where you can count on some valuable help from the forum members - such is my experience, limited as it may be. When you work it all out, even the economic side is very favorable. May not be state of the art, but it could stand its ground against most industry offerings, all of which would cost quite a bit more.
And remember, I am very pro active speakers.
Hmmmmmmmm well according to this website Bybee Curl Holographic Power Source
"In order to introduce Bybee’s new AC module, generate buzz, and attract the attention of audio equipment manufacturers, Jack has created an extremely limited run of power conditioners with these AC modules inside. There are only 10, and no plans to make any more than this."
So at $5400 a pop I guess that will pay off his new car
"It really has to be heard to be believed"
I think I'm going to be ill.
Actually David, this MIGHT be true on occasion. I lived through several such occasions when my own power line filter surprised me as much as the owners of the astronomically priced systems it was working in.
The problem is not in that statement as such, but in its tune of the absolute. As I have stated many times here and everywhere else, the probem with line filters ("conditioners") is that one has no idea how they will fit into a system. Too many variables to even guess. THE ONLY WAY to really KNOW is to put it into your own system and listen. The effects may go from insignificantly better to truly unbeliavebaly better, which will, as you might expect, be the rare event.
Statistically, the bigger and costlier a system is, the lower the effect, but there have been some nasty surprises, my last one being with an all Krell system. If I hadn't been there, frankly, I wouldn't have believed it myself.
Perhaps adding discrete BJTs will remedy the situation?
I ask because in my limited experience with op amps, I have yet to hear one which did not sound better with a pair of simple dicretes added to the output as current boosters.
AD 829 is a good example. With a pair of BJTs added for current boosting, it really starts to sing in many simple linear applications. Ditto for AD 847.
The opamp that creates -OUT for the balanced output, loads 2134 +OUT output by its -IN Rin input impedance. Limited low-distortion output capabilities of 2134 asked for Rin = 10k. This is too much re noise. Different opamp like the one mentioned hereabove would allow to decrease Rin of the inverting output opamp significantly, reducing the noise.
And this is indeed where I part ways with you, deep bass is a very low priority with me, infinitely more inportant is the midrange and treble, because this is where almost all the action is,
. Subjectively, when a system is truly firing the impression is extremely strong that all the bass is there - all other systems that I've come across that impressed me, that would be considered high end by the nature of the components, the last thing I noted about them was the low frequency element, it was only a tiny part of the whole picture.I'm not stuck on chip amps, until several years I was happily playing with discrete, I'll go with what gets the job done, at the best bang for the buck. I've played with the fantasy idea of creating an immensely powerful amp, using nothing but chip amps - but this is purely a technical challenge, because the economics of this approach means that it's a nonsense. So discrete for major power is the way to go ...
But at the lower power end it makes a lot of sense - the amplifier bit is all taken care of, so all you have to worry about is the power supply and related elements - and this is where the real impact of smart engineering works for one.
My interest is how the final product does its job - I'm not fussed about having an engine with the best ideas in it, what I want is a vehicle that is brilliant to drive on the road, because everything is in perfect balance - the donk may nothing special, but it blends perfectly with the rest of the car.
And, yes, I agree with active speakers being an excellent means to an end - economically, it makes very good sense.
Last edited:
Thanks Demian, this test is interesting.
My concern is with aliasing of test frequencies when using 44k, 48k or 96k sample rates.
Is aliasing a concern with this tri-band test ?.
Eric.
Fast42 said:
"And this is indeed where I part ways with you, deep bass is a very low priority with me, infinitely more inportant is the midrange and treble, because this is where almost all the action is, . Subjectively, when a system is truly firing the impression is extremely strong that all the bass is there - all other systems that I've come across that impressed me, that would be considered high end by the nature of the components, the last thing I noted about them was the low frequency element, it was only a tiny part of the whole picture."
I find this to be a very odd statement, Frank, not least because it tremendously depends on the nature of the source material.
If you mostly listen to chamber music at low level, I would agree. But if you mostly listen to even classic pop music, without the low end you are dead in the water. Not to even mention some classic works like Also Sprach Zarathustra, or Bach's organ works. Not to even mention taiko drummers, or the Blue Man Group.
Lose the tympani in Also Sprach Zarathustra and you lose the drama of the original music. You are left with a bleached out version of what is supposed to sound momentuous. Assuming your speakers level out by 200 Hz, you are left with the 4th harmonic done properly.
If memory serves, our entire body acts as a receptor of frequencies below 500 Hz or some such, hence the expression for deep bass "kick in the liver", "kick in the groin", etc. Some love that, others hate it, to each his own, but I honestly don't see how you can call music reduced by its bottom say 3 octaves "realistic". How can relying on your brain to pick up the cues you should be hearing to "recreate" the fundamentals ever be called realistic? I haven't heard your setup, but I imagine I would find it shouty, because it would deliver the midrange but not the deep end.
That sounds a bit like having a CGI generated image of a man with no legs outsprinting Olympic sprint champions.
"And this is indeed where I part ways with you, deep bass is a very low priority with me, infinitely more inportant is the midrange and treble, because this is where almost all the action is, . Subjectively, when a system is truly firing the impression is extremely strong that all the bass is there - all other systems that I've come across that impressed me, that would be considered high end by the nature of the components, the last thing I noted about them was the low frequency element, it was only a tiny part of the whole picture."
I find this to be a very odd statement, Frank, not least because it tremendously depends on the nature of the source material.
If you mostly listen to chamber music at low level, I would agree. But if you mostly listen to even classic pop music, without the low end you are dead in the water. Not to even mention some classic works like Also Sprach Zarathustra, or Bach's organ works. Not to even mention taiko drummers, or the Blue Man Group.
Lose the tympani in Also Sprach Zarathustra and you lose the drama of the original music. You are left with a bleached out version of what is supposed to sound momentuous. Assuming your speakers level out by 200 Hz, you are left with the 4th harmonic done properly.
If memory serves, our entire body acts as a receptor of frequencies below 500 Hz or some such, hence the expression for deep bass "kick in the liver", "kick in the groin", etc. Some love that, others hate it, to each his own, but I honestly don't see how you can call music reduced by its bottom say 3 octaves "realistic". How can relying on your brain to pick up the cues you should be hearing to "recreate" the fundamentals ever be called realistic? I haven't heard your setup, but I imagine I would find it shouty, because it would deliver the midrange but not the deep end.
That sounds a bit like having a CGI generated image of a man with no legs outsprinting Olympic sprint champions.
In one sense it's something that has to be experienced to be understood, but the "kick in the guts" sensation is largely derived from higher frequencies being correctly in place - I mentioned Boney M a day or so ago, and Pavel laughed; but the tracks on that deliver a brilliantly visceral, waaay down there kick, it's like a rhythmic grunt, with crunch and bite, that goes beautifully with the style - heard the tracks on systems with supposedly good bass, and that sensation was completely missing!
Most pretentious systems I hear don't deliver that intense "kick" - there is some sort of OTT burbling and throbbing going on, but I wouldn't call the sensation a "kick".
Edit: There was a very ambitious panel speaker at the hifi show, with an absolute monster of a subwoofer with it - well, when it tried to do live R&B, let's just say the bass was having a party all by itself, didn't have much to do with what the the recording was about ...
Last edited:
OT alert Audio circuit question coming up.
Post #6 here,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/255236-opamp-based-power-amp.html#post3929960
How good could something like this be in practice (actual compared to the sim). 0.000003% @ 1kHz 1 watt and only ten times worse @ 100 w 4 ohm.
Audio circuit question coming up.Post #6 here,
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/255236-opamp-based-power-amp.html#post3929960
How good could something like this be in practice (actual compared to the sim). 0.000003% @ 1kHz 1 watt and only ten times worse @ 100 w 4 ohm.
Last edited:
Shhhhhhhhhh telling JC that he didn't do a good job designing the surge protection section on the $5400 box will send him into telling us all about his experience for the past 40 years
Whatever next
Kick in the guts comes from higher frequencies being in place?
Honestly, this is nothing short of a revelation to me, Frank. Am I to assume then that speakers which do have the kick in the guts, but come short of the best high range performance are resorting to black magic, or voodoo to do the trick?
If you are saying that poorly rendered mid and high ranges can "drown out" deep bass, I agree up to a point; anything excesive will paint not what the program is supposed to be, but their rendition of it which might be tonally flawed. But there's a simple test to check this out - play a few introductory notes from some pieces on the Blue Man album No.1, where there is almost nothing but deep bass, and if it kicks, fine, that's what it's supposed to do and you can conclude that the mid and treble are "out of synch" with the bass. But if it doesn't, than that speaker has a problem with delivering true bass in general.
Next, listening to music, like everything else we do, is also subject to habit. Some weeks ago, there was an argument between me and a friend regarding our speakers, I claimed mine were much better tonally balanced than his, and he claimed his were more "open". So, we assembled a panel of three mutual friends, all with no less than 25 years of audio history behind each man, all with solid systems. Result - 3 out of 3 said his speaker was pronounced in the general 5-15 kHz region, a lift of some approximately 3 dB. Not much of an event, I knew that already, his speakers were wellrespected for their resolution, but also often criticized for being too bright. But after years of owning them, his ears were adjusted to them, and like it or not, his points of reference were coloured by those speakers.
Perhaps you have the same thing on your hands. Perhaps your hearing of the mid and treble is somewhat reduced compared to the average (whatever that might be), so you naturally react well to speakers which bridge that gap.
I on the other hand am used (by 12 years of habit) to listening to supremely linear speakers, not by any means perfect, but by all means exceptionally linear. My hearing is also adjusted to them, like it or not, so my perception of speakers which suffer imbalances I do not have sound, well, wrong, or in extremes, coloured to me.
The vast majority of people active in this hobby have never had their ears examined for sensitivity and frequency response. I am one of the few who did do that, and sure enough, I have graphs illustrating that I have a dip in my left ear midrange , small yes, but it IS there. On the other hand, my left ear is approximately 0.7 dB more sensitive than my right ear. I never did think I had perfect hearing, ot that was a "golden ear" boy, all I do know is that I might miss out on some details (probably due to my sinuses), but that I react strongly on tonal imbalance.
That's me - how about you, Frank? Have you done it? If so, what did you end up with? If not, why not, aren't you at least one bit curious? Doesn't it strike you as odd that you seem to be the only one here with the view you have? Don't you find it stange that you are so insensitive to bass kick, but so sensitive to mid and treble?
Frank, this is no challenge, much less some some kind of interrogation, but I do wonder how come your hearing seems to be so different to everybody else's. Just trying to get to the possible reason why.
Honestly, this is nothing short of a revelation to me, Frank. Am I to assume then that speakers which do have the kick in the guts, but come short of the best high range performance are resorting to black magic, or voodoo to do the trick?
If you are saying that poorly rendered mid and high ranges can "drown out" deep bass, I agree up to a point; anything excesive will paint not what the program is supposed to be, but their rendition of it which might be tonally flawed. But there's a simple test to check this out - play a few introductory notes from some pieces on the Blue Man album No.1, where there is almost nothing but deep bass, and if it kicks, fine, that's what it's supposed to do and you can conclude that the mid and treble are "out of synch" with the bass. But if it doesn't, than that speaker has a problem with delivering true bass in general.
Next, listening to music, like everything else we do, is also subject to habit. Some weeks ago, there was an argument between me and a friend regarding our speakers, I claimed mine were much better tonally balanced than his, and he claimed his were more "open". So, we assembled a panel of three mutual friends, all with no less than 25 years of audio history behind each man, all with solid systems. Result - 3 out of 3 said his speaker was pronounced in the general 5-15 kHz region, a lift of some approximately 3 dB. Not much of an event, I knew that already, his speakers were wellrespected for their resolution, but also often criticized for being too bright. But after years of owning them, his ears were adjusted to them, and like it or not, his points of reference were coloured by those speakers.
Perhaps you have the same thing on your hands. Perhaps your hearing of the mid and treble is somewhat reduced compared to the average (whatever that might be), so you naturally react well to speakers which bridge that gap.
I on the other hand am used (by 12 years of habit) to listening to supremely linear speakers, not by any means perfect, but by all means exceptionally linear. My hearing is also adjusted to them, like it or not, so my perception of speakers which suffer imbalances I do not have sound, well, wrong, or in extremes, coloured to me.
The vast majority of people active in this hobby have never had their ears examined for sensitivity and frequency response. I am one of the few who did do that, and sure enough, I have graphs illustrating that I have a dip in my left ear midrange , small yes, but it IS there. On the other hand, my left ear is approximately 0.7 dB more sensitive than my right ear. I never did think I had perfect hearing, ot that was a "golden ear" boy, all I do know is that I might miss out on some details (probably due to my sinuses), but that I react strongly on tonal imbalance.
That's me - how about you, Frank? Have you done it? If so, what did you end up with? If not, why not, aren't you at least one bit curious? Doesn't it strike you as odd that you seem to be the only one here with the view you have? Don't you find it stange that you are so insensitive to bass kick, but so sensitive to mid and treble?
Frank, this is no challenge, much less some some kind of interrogation, but I do wonder how come your hearing seems to be so different to everybody else's. Just trying to get to the possible reason why.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.