Hey guys,
well, we should calm down a bit...
What we are discussing here is musicality, which is, like so many other things in hifi, a very subjective matter.
Just a few more thoughts, also meant as a reply to some of the posts above.
Regarding the Reference 3a speakers:
I bought my pair of these for a few hundred bucks from ebay (an older version, from the early 80's, I think). So to me this not a "cost-no-object"-thing. On the other hand I heard some very expensive speakers in the past that didn't impress me at all. Ok, the 3a's measure terribly, but: There are for example a few valve amps that do also measure terribly, but some of these have the ability do draw you into the heart and soul of the music like no other piece of equipment. Further more, measurements that are made in a special room for measurements do say very little about the frequency response in MY room or in YOUR room. A rouler flat response in a certain room can become a very odd resonse in another room. Just think about some of the very popular fullrange drivers, which many people do like very much. Look at their frequency resonses for a moment!
Then, some of us here in this thread do seem to be of the oppinion that a flat response and good electrical measurements are one key for musical sound reproduction. Others do seem to think that measurements do not mean that much in terms of musical reproduction (me for example). In a post above I said I find the 3a's to sound very "accurate". With this I didn't meant accurate in terms of a flat frequency respose, but accurate in terms of timing and speed of every single note or tone. This stiff and lightwight carbon fibre membrane is capable of following nearly every single impuls immediately, which is, in my oppinion, a very important thing when it comes to a speedy, impulsive, live-like reproduction of music.
There are a few conventional loudspeaker driver designs that are able to work with no or at least with minimum crossover requirements. One older driver that is unfortunately no longer available is the good old Seas W140NP. This one really works best without any crossover! Not new but still available is a unit from Monacor International, the SPH-165KEP. I tested this one a while ago and it sounds quite good with only a single inductor in the range of 0,33 to 0,47mH, but it can even be used without crossover. This one is great for a smallish standmount 2-way or a MTM floorstand. Also quite good without crossover or just with a single inductor of around 0,47mH is the Monacor SPH-170, which is good for sealed volumes of aorund 15-20l or vented in 35l with very deep bass down to 40Hz. It has a poypropylene membrane that is not as fast and precise as the SPH165KEP, but it's also a lot cheaper. I build a few speakers with this driver and the customers are quite happy with them until today.
Last thing is, of course a "crossoverless-2way" always means: no crossover for the woofer, and (in most cases) a single capacitor for the tweeter! Sometimes an additional RC-stage parallel to the tweeter for impedance linearisation is also required (as in the Reference 3a's), but in some cases a single cap does the job (often 2,2 to 3,3uF if a 8ohm tweeter is used).
In all these cases you will always have to deal with a few compromises. Sometimes a more complex crossover indeed sounds more precise and may be preferable for certain music like classical music. But then, the same speaker with a minimum crossover may sound more organic, fluid, open and involving, which may be suitable for other kinds of music like rock, pop or jazz. It's a matter of personal preferences, but it really is fun to try things out!
MONACOR INTERNATIONAL😛roduct detail page
MONACOR INTERNATIONAL😛roduct detail page
(Not a recommendation! Just to put some general ideas in your heads... ;-)
Regards!
Martin
well, we should calm down a bit...
What we are discussing here is musicality, which is, like so many other things in hifi, a very subjective matter.
Just a few more thoughts, also meant as a reply to some of the posts above.
Regarding the Reference 3a speakers:
I bought my pair of these for a few hundred bucks from ebay (an older version, from the early 80's, I think). So to me this not a "cost-no-object"-thing. On the other hand I heard some very expensive speakers in the past that didn't impress me at all. Ok, the 3a's measure terribly, but: There are for example a few valve amps that do also measure terribly, but some of these have the ability do draw you into the heart and soul of the music like no other piece of equipment. Further more, measurements that are made in a special room for measurements do say very little about the frequency response in MY room or in YOUR room. A rouler flat response in a certain room can become a very odd resonse in another room. Just think about some of the very popular fullrange drivers, which many people do like very much. Look at their frequency resonses for a moment!
Then, some of us here in this thread do seem to be of the oppinion that a flat response and good electrical measurements are one key for musical sound reproduction. Others do seem to think that measurements do not mean that much in terms of musical reproduction (me for example). In a post above I said I find the 3a's to sound very "accurate". With this I didn't meant accurate in terms of a flat frequency respose, but accurate in terms of timing and speed of every single note or tone. This stiff and lightwight carbon fibre membrane is capable of following nearly every single impuls immediately, which is, in my oppinion, a very important thing when it comes to a speedy, impulsive, live-like reproduction of music.
There are a few conventional loudspeaker driver designs that are able to work with no or at least with minimum crossover requirements. One older driver that is unfortunately no longer available is the good old Seas W140NP. This one really works best without any crossover! Not new but still available is a unit from Monacor International, the SPH-165KEP. I tested this one a while ago and it sounds quite good with only a single inductor in the range of 0,33 to 0,47mH, but it can even be used without crossover. This one is great for a smallish standmount 2-way or a MTM floorstand. Also quite good without crossover or just with a single inductor of around 0,47mH is the Monacor SPH-170, which is good for sealed volumes of aorund 15-20l or vented in 35l with very deep bass down to 40Hz. It has a poypropylene membrane that is not as fast and precise as the SPH165KEP, but it's also a lot cheaper. I build a few speakers with this driver and the customers are quite happy with them until today.
Last thing is, of course a "crossoverless-2way" always means: no crossover for the woofer, and (in most cases) a single capacitor for the tweeter! Sometimes an additional RC-stage parallel to the tweeter for impedance linearisation is also required (as in the Reference 3a's), but in some cases a single cap does the job (often 2,2 to 3,3uF if a 8ohm tweeter is used).
In all these cases you will always have to deal with a few compromises. Sometimes a more complex crossover indeed sounds more precise and may be preferable for certain music like classical music. But then, the same speaker with a minimum crossover may sound more organic, fluid, open and involving, which may be suitable for other kinds of music like rock, pop or jazz. It's a matter of personal preferences, but it really is fun to try things out!
MONACOR INTERNATIONAL😛roduct detail page
MONACOR INTERNATIONAL😛roduct detail page
(Not a recommendation! Just to put some general ideas in your heads... ;-)
Regards!
Martin
Last edited:
@ audiojoy
My point precisely. In 266 words and 2 paragraphs Paul Szabady uses the word 'music' or a derivative therof 10 times. This clarifies nothing. What it does go to show is that he has nothing original, novel or illuminating to say. It's just churn. Journalese. What does 'fleetness of foot', his brief stab at originality, have to do with musical reproduction? What is a descriptive phrase normally attributing a talent for running doing in an article about speakers? How likely is it that any 2 people will extract the same meaning from this phrase in this context, never mind the dozens of readers he is presumably addressing?
The extract is all about Paul Szabady. Not speakers, reproduction or, dare I say it, music and musicality. It's typical of the kind of nonsense authored by people who are neither musicians nor engineers but who position themselves to shine by the reflected glory of either or preferably both. People whose main talents are spending money on equipment designed by others and listening to music played by others, and who are unfortunately representative of too large a fraction of the readership and contributors here.
This site is for people who are interested in DIY audio, and this section is about the construction of multi-way speaker systems, not for the discussion of 'existential crises', which should properly be confined to the 'lounge' where they will attract less criticism.
All in, you have posted some 550-odd words which have left me with no greater insight into what might be considered 'musical sounding' speakers than might have been expressed by the simple distinction between 'good ones' and 'not-so-good ones'. Which makes your question a pretty broad one by anyone's standards. If you have a question to ask about loudspeaker construction please make it a little more specific and express it in plain English. If you are undergoing an 'existential crisis', please ask for advice elsewhere.
w
My point precisely. In 266 words and 2 paragraphs Paul Szabady uses the word 'music' or a derivative therof 10 times. This clarifies nothing. What it does go to show is that he has nothing original, novel or illuminating to say. It's just churn. Journalese. What does 'fleetness of foot', his brief stab at originality, have to do with musical reproduction? What is a descriptive phrase normally attributing a talent for running doing in an article about speakers? How likely is it that any 2 people will extract the same meaning from this phrase in this context, never mind the dozens of readers he is presumably addressing?
The extract is all about Paul Szabady. Not speakers, reproduction or, dare I say it, music and musicality. It's typical of the kind of nonsense authored by people who are neither musicians nor engineers but who position themselves to shine by the reflected glory of either or preferably both. People whose main talents are spending money on equipment designed by others and listening to music played by others, and who are unfortunately representative of too large a fraction of the readership and contributors here.
This site is for people who are interested in DIY audio, and this section is about the construction of multi-way speaker systems, not for the discussion of 'existential crises', which should properly be confined to the 'lounge' where they will attract less criticism.
All in, you have posted some 550-odd words which have left me with no greater insight into what might be considered 'musical sounding' speakers than might have been expressed by the simple distinction between 'good ones' and 'not-so-good ones'. Which makes your question a pretty broad one by anyone's standards. If you have a question to ask about loudspeaker construction please make it a little more specific and express it in plain English. If you are undergoing an 'existential crisis', please ask for advice elsewhere.
w
@ wakibaki
Honestly, if this thead is of no interest for you, then why don't you just let it go and have a look at other topics?
I think this forum (and even this category) is NOT only for questions about construction. This thread is a bit difficult, I agree. But perhaps this discussion can lead to some kind of idea of which technical aspects in general could be a good starting point for a new project.
DIY audio is not only about building something, it's also about the development of a "philosophy", an overall concept in order to achive the goal of fine music reproduction.
For example, my philosophy after serveral years of diy is: Less is more (not always, but very often!). This means to me, less x-over components (if the drivers are suitable), less components in the signal path (avoiding active preamps if impedance matching between source and amp is taken care of), better a good 2-way than a large but crappy made 4-way speaker and so on...
I guess this thread might be helpful for the thread starter, even if the question is asked a bit unspecific.
Reagrds!
Martin
Honestly, if this thead is of no interest for you, then why don't you just let it go and have a look at other topics?
I think this forum (and even this category) is NOT only for questions about construction. This thread is a bit difficult, I agree. But perhaps this discussion can lead to some kind of idea of which technical aspects in general could be a good starting point for a new project.
DIY audio is not only about building something, it's also about the development of a "philosophy", an overall concept in order to achive the goal of fine music reproduction.
For example, my philosophy after serveral years of diy is: Less is more (not always, but very often!). This means to me, less x-over components (if the drivers are suitable), less components in the signal path (avoiding active preamps if impedance matching between source and amp is taken care of), better a good 2-way than a large but crappy made 4-way speaker and so on...
I guess this thread might be helpful for the thread starter, even if the question is asked a bit unspecific.
Reagrds!
Martin
>>> I have always been more impressed by inexpensive speakers that deliver the music than I have by cost-no-object designs.
Agreed. I have heard mono radios draw me into the music more than complicated stereo systems.
>>> In all these cases you will always have to deal with a few compromises... But then, the same speaker with a minimum crossover may sound more organic, fluid, open and involving... but it really is fun to try things out!
Thanks Martin! I agree with your posts. This is a difficult thread and should not be flushed out just because it's not easy to answer. I understand the feeling the original poster is trying to find when he listens to music. But it's not easy to quantify that feeling. DIY empowers you to try your own thing and find what you prefer. Without the resources, knowledge and time to figure crossovers that work with difficult to use but potentially excellent drivers, i find that simple is best. Perhaps simple is best even if i had access to everything available. I spent enough time for myself to determine expensive drivers with difficult to manage break up modes are not worth my time. Others will differ and they have the right to find what works for them. Regardless, over time i have discovered i prefer simpler speakers that open up more effortlessly than tightly controlled ones. I tend to hear the tweeter separate from the mid and woofer which reminds me there is a mechanical device reproducing the music. In the simplest terms, a decent full range driver playing less accurate treble pleases me more because it 'feels' a part of the whole. The sound is more natural. The sound is more relaxing to listen to and maybe since it's less technically correct my brain interprets that as 'Hey, it's not perfect but there's nothing intruding on the enjoyment of the music, so enjoy.'
Working with drivers (both quality and crappy ones) in trying to accomplish something really great, i think i learned to hear the artifacts of crossovers. It's frustrating when that fizz coming from a dome tweeter makes me think... yeah, that's a tweeter playing those cymbals and it sounds fake... or mechanical. Or when the woofer sounds detached from the 'whole' of the presentation.
I just like simpler systems based on my experience, which will be different than someone else. It is my experience that cheaper can sound better.
Zilla
Agreed. I have heard mono radios draw me into the music more than complicated stereo systems.
>>> In all these cases you will always have to deal with a few compromises... But then, the same speaker with a minimum crossover may sound more organic, fluid, open and involving... but it really is fun to try things out!
Thanks Martin! I agree with your posts. This is a difficult thread and should not be flushed out just because it's not easy to answer. I understand the feeling the original poster is trying to find when he listens to music. But it's not easy to quantify that feeling. DIY empowers you to try your own thing and find what you prefer. Without the resources, knowledge and time to figure crossovers that work with difficult to use but potentially excellent drivers, i find that simple is best. Perhaps simple is best even if i had access to everything available. I spent enough time for myself to determine expensive drivers with difficult to manage break up modes are not worth my time. Others will differ and they have the right to find what works for them. Regardless, over time i have discovered i prefer simpler speakers that open up more effortlessly than tightly controlled ones. I tend to hear the tweeter separate from the mid and woofer which reminds me there is a mechanical device reproducing the music. In the simplest terms, a decent full range driver playing less accurate treble pleases me more because it 'feels' a part of the whole. The sound is more natural. The sound is more relaxing to listen to and maybe since it's less technically correct my brain interprets that as 'Hey, it's not perfect but there's nothing intruding on the enjoyment of the music, so enjoy.'
Working with drivers (both quality and crappy ones) in trying to accomplish something really great, i think i learned to hear the artifacts of crossovers. It's frustrating when that fizz coming from a dome tweeter makes me think... yeah, that's a tweeter playing those cymbals and it sounds fake... or mechanical. Or when the woofer sounds detached from the 'whole' of the presentation.
I just like simpler systems based on my experience, which will be different than someone else. It is my experience that cheaper can sound better.
Zilla
'This thread is a bit difficult, I agree. But perhaps this discussion can lead to some kind of idea of which technical aspects in general could be a good starting point for a new project.
DIY audio is not only about building something, it's also about the development of a "philosophy", an overall concept in order to achive the goal of fine music reproduction'
Thank you Martin for echoeing my thoughts almost precisely. There we have it in a nutshell and there I was thinking I had been too explicitive.......though obviously not for Martin.
DIY audio is not only about building something, it's also about the development of a "philosophy", an overall concept in order to achive the goal of fine music reproduction'
Thank you Martin for echoeing my thoughts almost precisely. There we have it in a nutshell and there I was thinking I had been too explicitive.......though obviously not for Martin.
Thank you
so keep it simple, possibly full range driver. I also now have the name of a driver I can investigate and perhaps decide to try.
I received a few days ago a pair of speakers made by VALAB (another one of the reasons I started this thread)
Here they are as described by the seller
MS Audio MB1 Bookshelf Speaker (pair) on eBay (end time 19-Oct-10 15:34:29 BST).
Having bought his products many times before I had never been dissapointed. His last speaker was truely very involving - it was a single driver in a very small enclosure, the driver was from Tang Bang 3" no cladding to the enclosure made of birch with a single bass port less than an inch in diameter immediately above the driver on the front of the speaker. Speaker was about 7"x5"x4" as a rough guess.
If you see the advert it informs us the mid bass driver is from a JAmo speaker I am not familiar with. The only component in the way of the signal is a capacitor in series with the tweeter to blend it in at the right frequency. I sat and compared it to my neat petites. Yes tonally it seemed more true to life, there was more weight to the musicians, making them sound more present and believeable. They were more detailed and extended further in the treble compared to the Neat. However, they had poor PRAT. I found myself losing interest in them very quickly once the excitement of the better resolution had worn off. Is any one able to shed more light technically as to why these speakers cannot match the PRAT of the Neat Petites. Or suggest what mods could be made to help improve the PRAT. Does anyone know much about these JAmo drivers??Could we please assume that as the Neats work well with my other equipment up stream that these may not be such big factors in the final outcome??
so keep it simple, possibly full range driver. I also now have the name of a driver I can investigate and perhaps decide to try.
I received a few days ago a pair of speakers made by VALAB (another one of the reasons I started this thread)
Here they are as described by the seller
MS Audio MB1 Bookshelf Speaker (pair) on eBay (end time 19-Oct-10 15:34:29 BST).
Having bought his products many times before I had never been dissapointed. His last speaker was truely very involving - it was a single driver in a very small enclosure, the driver was from Tang Bang 3" no cladding to the enclosure made of birch with a single bass port less than an inch in diameter immediately above the driver on the front of the speaker. Speaker was about 7"x5"x4" as a rough guess.
If you see the advert it informs us the mid bass driver is from a JAmo speaker I am not familiar with. The only component in the way of the signal is a capacitor in series with the tweeter to blend it in at the right frequency. I sat and compared it to my neat petites. Yes tonally it seemed more true to life, there was more weight to the musicians, making them sound more present and believeable. They were more detailed and extended further in the treble compared to the Neat. However, they had poor PRAT. I found myself losing interest in them very quickly once the excitement of the better resolution had worn off. Is any one able to shed more light technically as to why these speakers cannot match the PRAT of the Neat Petites. Or suggest what mods could be made to help improve the PRAT. Does anyone know much about these JAmo drivers??Could we please assume that as the Neats work well with my other equipment up stream that these may not be such big factors in the final outcome??
If this thread were of no interest to me, I wouldn't take the time to contribute to it, would I? That makes your suggestion ill-thought-through, from where I stand. Or perhaps you think that I'm stupid enough to take it?
To give you the benefit of the doubt, I will presume that your intentions are good, and that you mean me no disrespect, although I have deep suspicions of anyone who finds it necessary to start a post 'Honestly...'
My interest arises due to an awareness of the difficulty faced by professional engineers in attempting to design audio equipment to meet the requirement that it should be 'fleet of foot' or meet other such undefined and undefinable standards such as 'musical sounding'. Spare a thought for people who are trying to make a living in the distorted environment you are creating and defending.
So no, I won't just 'let it go', although I am finished for the time being. I shall be watching, though.
w
I agree, I have yet to understand what exactly "PRAT" is and until someone can actually present measurements that show where the PRAT producing frequencies lie, it seems that the whole point is lost.
As Dan Wiggins once stated: "If you can hear it, I can measure it!"
If the OP can assemble several speakers that possess this special quality and have them measured, then there is the possibility of identifying what it is that he's looking for.
As for the idea put forth by others that simple is better, I couldn't agree more...if it does the job.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Terry o
measurements would be great to help identify the physical characteristics that make up PRAT, it might then be easy to choose the right components, drivers etc. So I guess the next stage then is to get measurements out of a neat petitie - how do we do that? which measurements?? Of course someone who hears the prat might already be aware of the components that have those physical characteristics built into them, that would make life much easier. However, i suspect alot of those speakers already doing the PRAT thing have in house designed speaker cones. I certainly can get a look at the Neat Crossover, so i guess thats a real start.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I will ensure the moderator is made aware of any continued unnecessary attitude and aggro, please lets all stick to the theme which has now been re-established very kindly by Martin.
measurements would be great to help identify the physical characteristics that make up PRAT, it might then be easy to choose the right components, drivers etc. So I guess the next stage then is to get measurements out of a neat petitie - how do we do that? which measurements?? Of course someone who hears the prat might already be aware of the components that have those physical characteristics built into them, that would make life much easier. However, i suspect alot of those speakers already doing the PRAT thing have in house designed speaker cones. I certainly can get a look at the Neat Crossover, so i guess thats a real start.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I will ensure the moderator is made aware of any continued unnecessary attitude and aggro, please lets all stick to the theme which has now been re-established very kindly by Martin.
In my case, as I have said, PRAT comes from the amplification. I have no way of proving it and it's just speculation but I think this comes from using only directly heated tubes - including the rectifier - over-specced transformers, plenty of chokes including all choke input, and nothing but polypropylene caps in the power supply. It would probably be possible to put forward some kind of argument why this works - there's certainly plenty of posts on Audio Asylum on power supplies and DHTs - but as for me that's my best guess. The amplification seems to work the same with different speakers and gives an involving, fast foot-tapping sound.
I don't know if others have noticed this, but you can take a track like track 1 on Donald Fagan's Nightfly album, and it will sound rather sluggish on one system and nicely bopping along on another. I guess this is the origin of the subjective phrases "fleet of foot" and the like. I don't think this is all in the head, because three listeners heard the same thing when we were trying out different types of amplification. Hard to quantify and can only be described in silly subjective ways of course, but I do think it's audible.
andy
I don't know if others have noticed this, but you can take a track like track 1 on Donald Fagan's Nightfly album, and it will sound rather sluggish on one system and nicely bopping along on another. I guess this is the origin of the subjective phrases "fleet of foot" and the like. I don't think this is all in the head, because three listeners heard the same thing when we were trying out different types of amplification. Hard to quantify and can only be described in silly subjective ways of course, but I do think it's audible.
andy
If amplification is the source of PRAT, then it's a misguided effort to worry about speakers, other than the impedance curve seen by the amplifier.
When there is some sort of agreement on the factors that contribute to PRAT, then perhaps some progress is possible.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Agreed! Remember the days of yore when Na*m, L*nn, &c had the reviewing community convinced that they possessed the aforementioned PRAT exclusively
😕!
The readers were expected to acknowledge that "obvious" quality!
Best, Don
No, it comes from the musicians. Otherwise, how could live concerts from great performers always rock, independent of what PA they were using?
In audio, it's a marketing concept that has helped Martin Colloms sell a lot of columns and Linn/Naim sell a lot of stereo gear.
a few years ago, I went to a shop here in the uk called audio T, as they had a clearance sale on and I thought I might pick a amplifier up cheap from a discontinued line.
Having heard all the amps in the sale, I was left with a strong feeling that I probably had come to the point where commertial offerings just didnt appeal as the cost realy didnt represent value anymore having now owned a cheap (but great sounding)diy chip amp.
None of the amps demoed realy sounded very different at all. I forced the salesman to keep the same set of speakers throughout as I wanted to hear the true difference.
to memory, I heard offerings from audiolab, rega, linn, cyrus, and arcam. - all the usual contenders over here in the uk.
The cyrus was 'clearer' to my ears, but only a little- and I was convinced that actually, it was the others that were actually dulled down.
Thoroughly dissalusioned with the whole experience, I was making reasons for a exit when the salesman asked what my impression was of them all and I said that to be honest- Im just not sure that I realy want a commertial offering anymore- he thought a moment and asked me to give him a second to rig up his personal favorite amp- a naim unit.
I couldnt beleve the difference. I was getting fatugue from listening to music already by this point- but i just couldnt leave once this thing was running.
Eventually, I went home- without the amp, but a real confusion about how a amp could do this. It wasnt more trebble or bass or a different balance from as much as i could tell. It was rhythem. The music didnt sound more in the room or perfect, nither did the performers sound more real, its just had tremendous 'drive'.
A year later and I got the chance to talk to a engineer for naim and I asked him whats the design aim when they build a amplifier? His reply was simple- he said that the amps are designed around the power supply and that the topology is just a way of converting the supply to your speakers. Simple circuit designs with massive peak delivery and very very tightly spec'd transformers and regulating stages. Half of the transformers supplyed to naim fail bench testing.
The cost for the 'naim' sound seams to be practically no soundstage.
since then, I have owned several old and new and the closely related early exposure amps as well (which im my view dont seam to be quite as good-but awfull close).
They do introduce alot of the 'prat' element, but the remainded seams to somehow be gained by connecting them to certain speakers- I dont know why. Naim and neat are a ludicrously good combination that individually are good, but not a world changing experience. I wish I knew why!
This was shown to hundereds of people who attended the last hifiwigwam show here in the uk, the naim/neat owner was one among 50 or 60 on show. most of whom had vastly more expensive and serious systems- quad esl 57s,watt/puppys,appogees,vacuume state and so on. most voted the naim/neat system as better by a fair margin.
There has to be somthing in that when that many people like it surely??
coincidentally, the last series of neat speakers were designed by the now owner of kudos speakers. I believe his aim is simple 1st order crossovers as far as possible. He is contactable on pink fish media forum I beleve. Amazing speakers to imo.
Having heard all the amps in the sale, I was left with a strong feeling that I probably had come to the point where commertial offerings just didnt appeal as the cost realy didnt represent value anymore having now owned a cheap (but great sounding)diy chip amp.
None of the amps demoed realy sounded very different at all. I forced the salesman to keep the same set of speakers throughout as I wanted to hear the true difference.
to memory, I heard offerings from audiolab, rega, linn, cyrus, and arcam. - all the usual contenders over here in the uk.
The cyrus was 'clearer' to my ears, but only a little- and I was convinced that actually, it was the others that were actually dulled down.
Thoroughly dissalusioned with the whole experience, I was making reasons for a exit when the salesman asked what my impression was of them all and I said that to be honest- Im just not sure that I realy want a commertial offering anymore- he thought a moment and asked me to give him a second to rig up his personal favorite amp- a naim unit.
I couldnt beleve the difference. I was getting fatugue from listening to music already by this point- but i just couldnt leave once this thing was running.
Eventually, I went home- without the amp, but a real confusion about how a amp could do this. It wasnt more trebble or bass or a different balance from as much as i could tell. It was rhythem. The music didnt sound more in the room or perfect, nither did the performers sound more real, its just had tremendous 'drive'.
A year later and I got the chance to talk to a engineer for naim and I asked him whats the design aim when they build a amplifier? His reply was simple- he said that the amps are designed around the power supply and that the topology is just a way of converting the supply to your speakers. Simple circuit designs with massive peak delivery and very very tightly spec'd transformers and regulating stages. Half of the transformers supplyed to naim fail bench testing.
The cost for the 'naim' sound seams to be practically no soundstage.
since then, I have owned several old and new and the closely related early exposure amps as well (which im my view dont seam to be quite as good-but awfull close).
They do introduce alot of the 'prat' element, but the remainded seams to somehow be gained by connecting them to certain speakers- I dont know why. Naim and neat are a ludicrously good combination that individually are good, but not a world changing experience. I wish I knew why!
This was shown to hundereds of people who attended the last hifiwigwam show here in the uk, the naim/neat owner was one among 50 or 60 on show. most of whom had vastly more expensive and serious systems- quad esl 57s,watt/puppys,appogees,vacuume state and so on. most voted the naim/neat system as better by a fair margin.
There has to be somthing in that when that many people like it surely??
coincidentally, the last series of neat speakers were designed by the now owner of kudos speakers. I believe his aim is simple 1st order crossovers as far as possible. He is contactable on pink fish media forum I beleve. Amazing speakers to imo.
Last edited:
Sorry doorman cannot keep entertaining you unless you give me some more nuggets, i am getting hungry again
Terry O i use the same amp but get different prat results depending on the speaker, so yet to be convinced by that argument. But DHT amps may well have an important role in 'musicality'
Terry O i use the same amp but get different prat results depending on the speaker, so yet to be convinced by that argument. But DHT amps may well have an important role in 'musicality'
Last edited:
IBstyling thank you for your contribution.
So a simple cap in series with the tweeter would not be first order?, in which case you make an important point in helping identify what may be contributing to PRAT. But and this is a big BUT musicality also includes timbres and harmonics that give instruments and voices emotion which is or I think is seperate from speakers PRAT abilities, but is part of what gives the music its musicality IMHO.
So a simple cap in series with the tweeter would not be first order?, in which case you make an important point in helping identify what may be contributing to PRAT. But and this is a big BUT musicality also includes timbres and harmonics that give instruments and voices emotion which is or I think is seperate from speakers PRAT abilities, but is part of what gives the music its musicality IMHO.
I got my exposure amp cheap from ebay and suppossed to do the musicality thingey. You know what my foot is tapping, the music has more rhythm and I'm enjoying it more than my Fouriere pantheres. Mind you early days yet. It just seems to get better. All I need now is the rega apollo cd player. To think I spent up to 30-40k on a system, highly respected, that had no longevity in listening pleasure beyong one minute in the past. So what must the very high end where they get it right sound like ??Naim Ultimatums???
cue.....
cue.....
SY
I truely believe that evil comes first and foremost stupidity will always be recognised as being benign in nature.
But its nice you have faith in humanity still
I truely believe that evil comes first and foremost stupidity will always be recognised as being benign in nature.
But its nice you have faith in humanity still
I had the opportunity a while back to work on a pair of Swiss-made Innovac Reference 3a's. The cabinetry was beautifully done. This pair came with an upper vented cabinet two way with carbon fiber bass/mid (no xover) and tweeter with a simple 2nd order xover. It also had a lower woofer section.
I did some measurements on the upper section; testing the bass/mid separately from the tweeter on and off axis. As you can see below, they do measure badly with a decline in response starting around 500 hz (someone mentioned this in a previous post) trailing off to 15 db down at 4 kHz and not rising much after that. I thought an off axis measurement might show some decline in the bass/mid's 100-500 hz 'hump' but it didnt. Off axis done at 30 deg.
I have no opinion on the sound because I didn't spend much time listening to them. Wanted to include the measurements in the discussion just for the record.
Attachments
Please dont think that for one moment this is what i wanted to hear. i do not care whether it is a flat frequency response or not just what i perceive emotionally.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.