I'll go with which ever of those set ups delivered the most current for general principles on an unknown load. Both good amps. and I'd bet the jewels on no consensus picking one over the other in a db with non-silly speakers matched up for level. Ive owned dc300 and hafler dh220. I'll pick the Hafler for reasons other than sonics.
And I would, and have, picked the Hafler on sonics alone. We may be sensitive to different things.
Strange, I've heard your speakers and thought they were very good from the first few notes. Having spent about 3 hours with them, they didn't seem particularly fatiguing, either. But I like horn/waveguide + 12" woofer type speakers, so I may be biased. 🙂
The definitive answer to the question "what causes listening fatigue?"
This thread over text to speech
Baboom.
This thread over text to speech
Baboom.
I feel that around the "Crown" era we probably topped out in distortion detectibility. A test of amps ala Floyd Toole with a house full of audio pros would probably no undoubtedly show that you could use just about any higher wattage (rms) decent consumer reciever off the shelf at best buy as long as your speakers were decently efficient. You are right however about people being sensitive to different things. I am very sensitive to audio bulschiit Bwahaaaahaa.
Last edited:
Sure. I like Crown amps and have used them plenty on gigs. But for domestic listening, Hafler sounds better to me in a blind test.
Well, we would need Floyd Toole to test that would we not?
And my gut says Hafler too, but we are talking jewel betting here, so we had best be right with reality. Are you near New Orleans? (-;
FYI I have a 90s Crown XLS ,
(pro cheapish) laying around that has the the level control done in a weird way, or so it seems. I need to post the schematic at amps .
(pro cheapish) laying around that has the the level control done in a weird way, or so it seems. I need to post the schematic at amps .
I always work on the snap decision - if I hear a system it only needs about 30 secs for me to decide whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' - the 'wrong' sound is the one that forces me to have to listen through a 'stain' of clearly audible distortion to hear what the system is doing 'right' ...
yet , yourself you're not an innocent lamb either (and I am guilty as charged ) You and your lovely wife stopped at Audio Note room with their 211 "budget " amp Jinro ($22k) and model E speakers and after maybe 10-15 sec you announced dismissively "larger than life " and left😀. We all react in similar way. If there is something in sound that grabs our attention we stay longer .
Also where there is nobody in the room because the sound is terrible and we feel sorry for that sad guy doing the demos😉
I have trouble believing that I said anything. I am just not prone to comments on sound systems - not subjective ones that is. It would be quite unlike me.
maybe you said it to your wife and because of music playing in the background it came out louder than intended .. sorry to bring it up but it just struck me as a slight dissonance with your post and I only remember it because I thought that system sounded lovely. Stupidly overpriced and of course you were absolutely correct that it was slightly "larger than life" but very musical and non fatiguing nonetheless. Lets put it to rest 😱
IF YOU HAVE THE ROOM and an understanding significant other, get set up with a 100% horn system. Bass speaker (or speakers) should be at least quarter wave. (hyperbolic -exponential, M=.6)(25-150 Hz) This is greatly helped if you can use a corner of a room for speaker placement. One bass speaker is more than adequate. Midrange tractrix (150-2000 Hz) should be minimum quarter wave long (23") and mouth circumference should be full wave. (min 28" diameter) Theoretically a third horn and then a tweeter should be used, but my midrange extends to at least 6000 Hz so I just don't have a third upper mid horn. I just use a bullet tweeter. Been listening to the system for 10 years and still am anxious to hear it every time I turn it on. Never get listening fatigue. I do know what listener fatigue is though. I designed and helped built a similar system for a good friend and he feels the same way I do. You can play it loud with NO audible distortion until your ears bleed, but I rarely do this. Only for a few short seconds when someone asks "how loud will it go?" I bi-amp with 100 watts RMS per bass speaker and also each mid-tweeter combination gets 100 watts per channel. For indoor use, 20 watts per speaker would be plenty. The beauty of this system is that you can play it very softly and it still sounds great.
Another example of what works. In normal listening the amplifiers are dawdling along, like a car inching forward in a traffic jam, with the foot off the accelerator. Zero stress on the electronics, the power supplies barely know they're supposed to be working, no nasty current spikes happening anywhere - it's Sunday afternoon snooze time for the system.
Relaxed electronics means relaxed listening - easy peasy ...
Relaxed electronics means relaxed listening - easy peasy ...
We humans are an odd lot. Electronics: The only part of the whole system you can count on to be linear till the bitter end of the range. I guess its easier to change amps than speakers. It is by far mechanical devices that need not to be pushed, as. If it moves......
fas42;3 597547 said:
It seems to me that an awful lot of effort in the audio world is spent in trying to ameliorate the problems caused by compromises. And those compromises seem to be willfully applied by people who don't need to compromise. Millionaires (who buy 'high end') and also DIY-ers don't need to compromise on the size of their speakers; they can have any size that works best. They don't need to compromise on the number of drivers their speakers have. They don't need to compromise on amplifier power. They don't need to compromise on the number of amplifiers in their system.
So from what I can tell, small, passive two way speakers are fundamentally flawed. People spend all their time and money trying to make them work with super-expensive drivers, super-expensive capacitors, exotic amplifiers and clever tricks to tune the cabinet for more bass output, and are still left wondering why they sound 'fatiguing'.
But they could just build or buy a no-compromises system that doesn't need super-expensive drivers or capacitors to work properly. Why so much time spent discussing DIY systems that seem to be built as though commercial restrictions apply? As a kid in the 1970s, there was a straightforward link between speaker size and price: if you could afford it, you bought the bigger speaker. Now, you see tiny little speakers on big stands at audio shows selling for $10,000 - they take up just as much floorspace as a bigger speaker*. The reviews always mention that although measurements show bass rolling off at 80 Hz, they" sound bigger than they look". The review always says that they sound great up to a certain volume level but "don't push them too hard, beyond their natural limits". For $10,000 I should be expecting something utterly fantastic. Why, if you've got $10,000 to spend, would you buy (or build) something so compromised?
* don't tell me: the nebulous concept of "imaging"
So from what I can tell, small, passive two way speakers are fundamentally flawed. People spend all their time and money trying to make them work with super-expensive drivers, super-expensive capacitors, exotic amplifiers and clever tricks to tune the cabinet for more bass output, and are still left wondering why they sound 'fatiguing'.
But they could just build or buy a no-compromises system that doesn't need super-expensive drivers or capacitors to work properly. Why so much time spent discussing DIY systems that seem to be built as though commercial restrictions apply? As a kid in the 1970s, there was a straightforward link between speaker size and price: if you could afford it, you bought the bigger speaker. Now, you see tiny little speakers on big stands at audio shows selling for $10,000 - they take up just as much floorspace as a bigger speaker*. The reviews always mention that although measurements show bass rolling off at 80 Hz, they" sound bigger than they look". The review always says that they sound great up to a certain volume level but "don't push them too hard, beyond their natural limits". For $10,000 I should be expecting something utterly fantastic. Why, if you've got $10,000 to spend, would you buy (or build) something so compromised?
* don't tell me: the nebulous concept of "imaging"
Last edited:
There is one situation where the person doesn't have sufficient knowledge whether bigger should be better or not. In this case, going bigger could be a wise decision. This I believe fits very well with your concern.
There is another situation where the person have sufficient knowledge that bigger is not always better (And that there are many requirements other than the technical ones).
You cannot dismiss the fact that many has lived long enough with both big and small speakers. Some sell the big ones because they prefer the small ones. More people prefer to retain both because each of the speaker can give them different pleasure.
For me, speaker quality is more a function of driver quality than driver size. It means price does matter.
Sometimes, the small ones work better in ways that suit some people because the carcases have considerably better structural integrity. I'm a great believer in locking the drivers into effectively as solid a connection with the structure of the room as possible - my earliest successes with achieving "bigger" sound relied very strongly on that approach.
Over the years I've been highly amused by coming across monster, tall speakers perched on absolutely nothing substantial - push on the side of them and they wobble about like a drunk from the local. You know the sound will start to fall apart, lose coherence as soon as they're asked to produce decent acoustic output ...
Over the years I've been highly amused by coming across monster, tall speakers perched on absolutely nothing substantial - push on the side of them and they wobble about like a drunk from the local. You know the sound will start to fall apart, lose coherence as soon as they're asked to produce decent acoustic output ...
Sounds like another compromise. Live with a smaller speaker because it seems easier to make the enclosure solid. And that stems from another compromise of course: in a no compromises system, the mid(s) can be in their own smaller enclosure(s) anyway. Not so, if it's already been pre-ordained that the speaker is a two way.