The LS50s probably do not excite those lower frequency resonances (like your larger speakers do), because of their limited bass range.
T, your descriptions of what you hear are very professional and show your experience in listening to live music as well. You are fortunate that these speakers that you recently bought are actually improving. I thought that they had many hours on them before you got them. However, why you get 'excuses' from others as to WHY they are sounding different that amounts to you not knowing what you are listening to and your imagination, just gets in the way of more productive discourse.
Many here have read the 'wrong' books and are prejudiced AGAINST hearing differences. Yes, since the early papers by Dr. Lipshitz et al, we have had to fight to trust our ears, even when they serve us well. These critics of audio subjectivity are trying to 'prove' something and they will often mislead you if they can.
For example, Tom Holman made a fairly decent phono preamp in the 1970's and so did Spiegel (the guy who built the ABX box that I tested) and after their sessions with ABX decided to get out out consumer audio electronics entirely. They were fooled by the test (and its compromised procedures) to think everything sounded the same. Sound familiar? This was almost 40 years ago.
Many here have read the 'wrong' books and are prejudiced AGAINST hearing differences. Yes, since the early papers by Dr. Lipshitz et al, we have had to fight to trust our ears, even when they serve us well. These critics of audio subjectivity are trying to 'prove' something and they will often mislead you if they can.
For example, Tom Holman made a fairly decent phono preamp in the 1970's and so did Spiegel (the guy who built the ABX box that I tested) and after their sessions with ABX decided to get out out consumer audio electronics entirely. They were fooled by the test (and its compromised procedures) to think everything sounded the same. Sound familiar? This was almost 40 years ago.
That was before CD and player hit the consumer market. Anything on how digital music sounded in ABX?
Very good, thanks, I've also been swinging out with Benny
You may like this (if you don't already have it) Bernstein: Mass: Amazon.co.uk: Music
In the words of another great American "All that we got here is American made. It's a little bit cheesy, but it's nicely displayed"
> The first guy to do it right was Tom Holman, I believe.
It's using a jfet and bi-polar together as a differential
pair that does the trick ! .
!!!!! BUMP !!!!!!!
No comments ?
The way Holman defies usual diff-amp criteria ?
I don't see the point an all FET LTP works fine. In the day of high noise JFET's this gave a marginal benefit but there is nothing to be gained now except lots of asymmetry.
There is a french proverb that says:
"Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe".
A small pack that makes more noise than effects ;-)
> The first guy to do it right was Tom Holman, I believe.
It's using a jfet and bi-polar together as a differential
pair that does the trick ! .
Nothing new under the sun, Radford did a pentode-triode LTP for different reasons. Just a curiosity.
Attachments
It was written numerous times in the previous discussion about sitting at the point area of the equilateral triangle. So if you don't do that, what do you do?
Some listening experiences can become very objective. For example, I was listening to this piece of music which has an acoustic guitar coming into the mix after about 15 seconds. It had been double-tracked and is very obvious, so this was done in the studio since the player cannot play it two times at the same time. I was working on an amplifier (tube) and made a significant circuit change to it (local feedback added at the output tube, Anode back onto its Grid) and found myself listening to that track again - again this time it was entirely clear that the guitar part was not double-tracked, it was triple-tracked. This was confirmed by listening to other things as well, there was previously unheard of information being revealed in very obvious ways. I not only trusted my ears, I trusted my brain as it was now processing information that it previously did not have to deal with. That is reality, not imaginary.
Okay, here is the full paragraph of what I wrote in post #16955
"This is certainly lots different from what most people do, set the speakers whereever and just toe them straight at you and sit at the triangle point. It takes very little time and sounds good. And if you move away from the triangle point the music does not sound as good, so therefore that is the best place. I used to do this too."
As you can see I mentioned sitting at the triangle point.
Yes, you are correct I did not answer your question. Balancing the sound so that each speaker pressurizes each side of the room equally is an explanation I heard from Rod Tomson at Soundings HiFi in Denver Colorado. It made sense to me especially as I have an assymetrical room in dimension and configuration.
Now that I have read more about the method I use, including things written by Stirling Trayle, who developed the method along with John Hunter, the video guy, some forum posts in other forums, I do not see that explanation. However, I do think the end result gives that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.