I agree. If I didn't, why would I have dedicated 6 months of my life to developing my own speakers the way I did?
My reasoning was that I needed a pivot point, so to speak, the one thing which had all its key issues resolved, and which comes in as the last instance before I hear any sound. If I get that right, the auditioning the eletronics should be much easier as I have a standard to rule myself by.
I am certainly not saying or suggesting that my friend and I built the best ever speaker, but I am saying we built a damn good one, the likes of which you will have to search wide for, and this does inlude its price at the time. It was not small, in 2002 €1,500 was no joke, but again, still very reasonably priced for what it offered, the key points being: 1) exceptional neutraity, 2) exceptional linearity (40-18.000 Hz +/- 1.5 dB) and balance (total sum difference between L and R box less than 0.5 dB) and 3) a very easy load to drive, with no phase funnies (nominal 8 Ohms, manimum 6.5 Ohms, maximum 12 Ohms, worst case phase shift -25 degrees) and with reasonable efficiency and power handling (92 dB/2.83V/1m, nominally 100 WRMS, maximum unclipped input 160 W). What I wanted, I got. As expected, it is ruthless in replaying what it's fed by, and will show up any deficiencies with no mercy, but in return it will replay what many speakers slide over or do not do as well. A 5W tube amp will drive it with ease, although obviously not nearly to its dynamic limits.
Then I got greedy and tried biamping, Actually, I have two complete biamping systems available, one by vintage Marantz (85W for bass + 76W for mid and treble) and another by vintage Harman/Kardon PA2400 and Citation 24amps (170W bass + 100W mid and treble). Power to the people, I say. It took some doing, but I got there in the end. Just a small step towards fully active.
Last edited:
Of course, because it's kinda unfair to compare a single amp drive with a twin amp drive, my faithful Karan Acoustics KA-i180 (180/256W into 8/4 Ohms) itegrated, still the best INTEGRATED amp I have ever heard, is in standy by for direct comparisons one on one.
Taking a que from SY here, I must declare it to be a High End boutique device, at around $6.5k it's hardly cheap and not available in your neighborhood super market. Excellent for your hernia if you try to lug it around, I think it's something like 55 lbs or so, fully balanced inside, with balanced connectors available, with just a volume cntrol and a selector on it, even the power off/on switch is at the back.
Taking a que from SY here, I must declare it to be a High End boutique device, at around $6.5k it's hardly cheap and not available in your neighborhood super market. Excellent for your hernia if you try to lug it around, I think it's something like 55 lbs or so, fully balanced inside, with balanced connectors available, with just a volume cntrol and a selector on it, even the power off/on switch is at the back.
The best amp I have ever heard is a DIY amp designed by
late G.Randy Slone which was published in his books.
Interesting though, I have searched for quite some time
a reliable source of solid state schematics in the area
where I live and found almost nothing from local authors
and the rubbish I bought was good for trashcan only.
That was a long time ago.
Then I discovered "High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction
Manual" and I was enlightened.
The way author explains the matter and working principles,
I can tell he is a highly moral person and a good engineer.
This was my best investment so far. The price I paid for the books
was nothing compared to information within. Absolutely amazing.
God bless you for it through all eternity!
late G.Randy Slone which was published in his books.
Interesting though, I have searched for quite some time
a reliable source of solid state schematics in the area
where I live and found almost nothing from local authors
and the rubbish I bought was good for trashcan only.
That was a long time ago.
Then I discovered "High-Power Audio Amplifier Construction
Manual" and I was enlightened.
The way author explains the matter and working principles,
I can tell he is a highly moral person and a good engineer.
This was my best investment so far. The price I paid for the books
was nothing compared to information within. Absolutely amazing.
God bless you for it through all eternity!
Let me give an example of 'separating' one distortion source from another, that became first noticeable to me when I worked at Ampex designing pro analog tape recorders.
First, to remind everyone, analog tape has a lot of distortion, and it is usually very predictable at any specific frequency. Remember 0Vu on the old analog meters? That was originally specified as the 1% level of harmonic distortion at 1KHz or so. Over the decades, tape improved somewhat so the original level had to be moved up to get the same subjective distortion, thus improving the S/N that was a true weak spot.
Now, from this 1% level, every 3dB increase gives double or 2 times the distortion, so +6dB above 0Vu would be 4% and 12db (about the practical limit) would be 16%. Of course LESS output from 0Vu would be similarily lower so -6dB would be 0.25%, -10db would be 0.1% and so forth.
Now HOW could we then and still today stand this sort of performance and not be driven out of the room? Well, the distortion was virtually all pure 3rd harmonic, not much else, UNLESS there was something compromised in the recorder. (more later)
First, to remind everyone, analog tape has a lot of distortion, and it is usually very predictable at any specific frequency. Remember 0Vu on the old analog meters? That was originally specified as the 1% level of harmonic distortion at 1KHz or so. Over the decades, tape improved somewhat so the original level had to be moved up to get the same subjective distortion, thus improving the S/N that was a true weak spot.
Now, from this 1% level, every 3dB increase gives double or 2 times the distortion, so +6dB above 0Vu would be 4% and 12db (about the practical limit) would be 16%. Of course LESS output from 0Vu would be similarily lower so -6dB would be 0.25%, -10db would be 0.1% and so forth.
Now HOW could we then and still today stand this sort of performance and not be driven out of the room? Well, the distortion was virtually all pure 3rd harmonic, not much else, UNLESS there was something compromised in the recorder. (more later)
Now, what am I getting at? OK, analog tape inherently has a lot of harmonic (and IM) distortion. YET, hear 'Kind of Blue' with Miles Davis, or '(Harry) Belafonte at Carnegie Hall' and you get 'magic' and it is certainly not the distortion that makes it.
Two factors that apparently these, and many other early recordings got right, is that they used vacuum tube based recorders, (even 35mm film recorders) and the electronics did not clip severely or have crossover distortion at lower levels.
When we changed over to solid state, we introduced these distortions and the quality of analog recording degraded, even though the tape itself got better and better. The ear can separate the higher order harmonics from the 3'rd present, relatively easily, and this parallels loudspeaker distortion and its significantly greater magnitude over the electronics driving it. IF the electronics has higher order distortion, then it will separate from the loudspeaker's distortion contribution and that is one reason why xover and other higher order distortion generating mechanisms are detectable.
Two factors that apparently these, and many other early recordings got right, is that they used vacuum tube based recorders, (even 35mm film recorders) and the electronics did not clip severely or have crossover distortion at lower levels.
When we changed over to solid state, we introduced these distortions and the quality of analog recording degraded, even though the tape itself got better and better. The ear can separate the higher order harmonics from the 3'rd present, relatively easily, and this parallels loudspeaker distortion and its significantly greater magnitude over the electronics driving it. IF the electronics has higher order distortion, then it will separate from the loudspeaker's distortion contribution and that is one reason why xover and other higher order distortion generating mechanisms are detectable.
I know eaxctly what you mean, John. The last open reel deck I had was a mammoth Philips 4520 (68 lbs), which had both VU meters and independant +3 dB and +6dB LEDs. The worst case I allowed myself with it, using Maxell II tapes was a short blink of the +3 dB LED because I knew it could only just get away with that without gross distortion. My other plus point was that it had a front fascia bias adjustment pot, and Philips supplied a chart telling me what it should be like for various tape types, which did help to keep the distortion at bay, as well as the S/N ratio. I could be wrong, but to me, that deck sounded better than what reVox B series offered at the time (I bought it in july 1981). It seems that the German Stereo magazine felt the same, because they adopted that deck as their reference instead of the reVox, equalt to total sacriledge at the time.
I remember your comment a few thousand posts ago right here, when you said something to the effect of Studer machines having outstanding mechanics but lousy audio circuits. It appears we agree on that completely independently. Let me also add a thought of my own: Philips was criminally slow in introducing new products, but rarely let one down on sound alone, despite their poor standing in the eyes of the High End lovers. That said, I must own up and say I must one of the very few products which do not sound as good as they should or can, and that is my AH280 preamp, which was supposed to be their entry into the High En market, from the Black Tulip serie. It had a well thought out design, it's 100% discrete, it's fully complementary, yet sounds cold and uninvolved. In other words, it needs to be tuned to sound as good as the accomapnying FM tuner, AH180, which is not neutral, but is still a jy to use. No wnder they withdrew them from production after just two and a half years, we all knew they could do better.
Odd things sometimes happen in mammoth companies like Philips. To complete the circle, Studer/reVox, famed for their tape machines, made my reVox B760 tuner as well as anyone ever could, and it truly sounds neutral and divine, nobody would ever expect a tape comany to make such a wonderful FM tuner. It's like expecting Akai or Teac to make an outstanding power amp.
I remember your comment a few thousand posts ago right here, when you said something to the effect of Studer machines having outstanding mechanics but lousy audio circuits. It appears we agree on that completely independently. Let me also add a thought of my own: Philips was criminally slow in introducing new products, but rarely let one down on sound alone, despite their poor standing in the eyes of the High End lovers. That said, I must own up and say I must one of the very few products which do not sound as good as they should or can, and that is my AH280 preamp, which was supposed to be their entry into the High En market, from the Black Tulip serie. It had a well thought out design, it's 100% discrete, it's fully complementary, yet sounds cold and uninvolved. In other words, it needs to be tuned to sound as good as the accomapnying FM tuner, AH180, which is not neutral, but is still a jy to use. No wnder they withdrew them from production after just two and a half years, we all knew they could do better.
Odd things sometimes happen in mammoth companies like Philips. To complete the circle, Studer/reVox, famed for their tape machines, made my reVox B760 tuner as well as anyone ever could, and it truly sounds neutral and divine, nobody would ever expect a tape comany to make such a wonderful FM tuner. It's like expecting Akai or Teac to make an outstanding power amp.
Excuse me, but I think it's unexpected for a tape deck company to produce epic tuners, and that one's on the 8th place of the best ever made on the Tuner Info pages. Look at the competition, like Sequerra, and you might think that's quite a success.
I do not think that tape circuits is all their engineers can do, but I find that case to be a bit too big. I feel they did a hell of a job they were not really trained to do, just as I would find a big deal if a company know for their excellent tuners suddenly produced a great analog tape machine.
Wouldn't you be suprised if suddenly Fiat, best known for their small cars, suddenly produced something that beat Rolls-Royce hands down, or if Rools-Royce suddenly competed with Fiat in the small car segment?
I do not think that tape circuits is all their engineers can do, but I find that case to be a bit too big. I feel they did a hell of a job they were not really trained to do, just as I would find a big deal if a company know for their excellent tuners suddenly produced a great analog tape machine.
Wouldn't you be suprised if suddenly Fiat, best known for their small cars, suddenly produced something that beat Rolls-Royce hands down, or if Rools-Royce suddenly competed with Fiat in the small car segment?
Good point, I recently had the option of listening to reel to reel at a really good system, the sensation of a live event was outstanding, later we compared the same recording over TT and CD, neither of those were even close to the tape, felt like a ton of information was simply missing. The tape was a dub of the master (sergeant pepper) LP was both original first release and an audiophile reissue, as were the CD's.
Hard to say, but we lost something under the way.
Hard to say, but we lost something under the way.
Inaccurate? The intention, at least for me, is that the system replicates the experience when I hear live music playing, and I am not talking PA or sound reinforcement here, but the acoustic qualities one finds when the real instruments, singing, music making, is happening. What I get may not be technically accurate, but it possesses those qualities that make listening to the sounds a pure joy, and make one want to keep listening, indefinitely.
The giveaway here are the people who say audio never sounds just like the real thing - that immediately says that you don't get it, in both senses of the term ...
Fiat, you mean the company that make Ferraris, Maseratis etc? Yeah I could believe that. BMW make minis now. The fiat 500 is bigger than the average estate car these days. A Rolls Royce has the same number of parts as a VW Golf. in fact the golf should have higher quality as more are built.
You know that people do not leave university with a degree in tape deck amplifier design? Pretty insulting to professionals to suggest that do you not think?
But I don't agree, for the simple reason that I achieved the type of sound I mention above with very ordinary, even mediocre speakers. If I hadn't achieved the first real burst of "premium" sound with as boring a rectangular box setup as you can get I might consider your point very important - but I've demonstrated to myself, over and over again, that it's not.
Having premium quality speakers helps in some areas - I've noted the the classic type of audiophile recording does render better on these, the "purity" of the individual notes come across impressively at times - but put on a decently complex recording, and the vast majority of systems, with highly expensive speakers, in subjective quality terms fall to pieces when the going gets tough ...
What happened was not that something was lost, but, that a whole lot was added, mostly at the point of playback. Dan (Max Headroom) gave an excellent alternative explanation in that earlier post, for what typically goes on, that damages the subjective experience, unfortunately quite badly at times. The noise he mentions intrudes into the sound for a variety of reasons, and IME for solving it there is no, magic, bullet!! Only decent attention to detail, knocking off the problems, one after the other, is a "guaranteed" path to "good sound".
Some playback environments can make subjectively satisfying playback much easier to achieve than others, and good quality R2R, minimally tweaked, just happens to be one of them ...
I think you can achieve it easily because it IS a mediocre speakers.
Expensive speakers are multi-way that try to cover the full bandwith. To do this you have to introduce the crossover, which is the source of many problems. To get certain sonic quality people introduce exotic cone material, another source of problem.
"Realness" can be easily had with speaker without complex crossover, but the tonal accuracy suffer. Trade-off again. Taste.
Some high end speaker companies choose extra-ordinary good driver and throw in minimal crossover components.
A little tip: you know how the system might be going along quite nicely, and you're quite content with it - and then something happens, for example, a person suggests doing some simple, trivial tweak - and the immediate comment is, "Ahhh, the system is sounding more musical now - that's interesting!" - what that's shorthand for, is that the system now has less audible distortion, it's now more "correct". Previously, you had adjusted, mentally, to dealing with the distortion from the playback, and had it "under control" - that change had decreased the real, measurable distortion or noise, and your brain no longer had to work so hard to hear past it - the spontaneous take in your head is that the sound is now "more musical" - that's an excellent way to identify positive results, in your experiments.
Had you ever considered putting a potted plant on your desk and talking to it?
Actually I get more sense out the gecko.- Status
- Not open for further replies.