As I said I built the system for a friend and so the system has gone a pair of years ago.
No reason to upgrade the system since the owner is very satisfied with the results.
She likes listening to the music as close as possible to the original event and she don't care about measurements since she doesn't know anything about our hobby.
For me (we) the amp is still far now, there are other designs to be completed.
My co-developer is the owner of the LM3886 based amp, and the LM3886 is not one of our possible options.
The full range L-CAO 8" AlNiCo has a very light cone and there is a ribbon tweeter to help in high frequency.
There was no room for electrostatic speakers (I also like very much the sound of these speakers) for almost two reasons: sensitivity and cost.
As I said the LM3886 is not one of our options, it was a merely example of an amplifier which measures very good compared to and amp which measures much worse.
Of course, we cannot try all the possible options.
Last edited:
Even though this is a speaker & amplifier thread, for the most part, I'll just chime in again on sound quality vs measurements in IEM's. So some people will read it & find it useful.
The extensive repository of FR measurements at http://www.goldenears.net / goldenears.ko - now abandoned (including due to conflicts with other audio people in Korea, I don't know what their conflict was about) - provided nothing useful in terms of finding which IEM or headphone is high quality or top tier.
For example, a $20 IEM can measure excellent in FR, just like a $1900 Usd IEM can measure excellent, or sub-par. An example is I think it was the JH Audio Roxanne which costs around $2,000 Usd & the FR only extended up to 10 kHz in someones FR measurement, plus subjectively when I tried it it didn't sound like those custom IEM's usually sound.
There's many examples of IEM's looking nearly identical on paper, in FR, yet their design is totally different & they sound different.
However, the good news is since I spent so much time trying IEM's & reading other blogs which measure stuff, then I started to arrive at the conclusion myself in tandem with some of the other measurement guys how to find the high quality, or top tier.. IEM's.
So, broadly speaking...
- Sony MDR-EX1000 & Vsonic GR07 -- lowest THD
- Final Audio FI-BA-SS -- fast BA (balanced-armature) driver, vented design, achieved fast transient response & detail retrieval. Not low THD.
- custom in ear monitors with many BA (balanced armature) drivers, for example Canalworks in Japan.
Aside from those, a few cheap IEM's achieved high quality sound with excellent speed / transient response / velocity & THD with ok FR. For example the vented JVC FXC51.
Hm & in the IEM measurement area of the internet no one provides enough sophisticated data, they are just not sophisticated enough to measure how IEM's sound & that is just how it is... so people relying on measurements like they're a tell-all & objective center won't find anything.
Also separately if someone were to measure the sound of a Casio keyboard with synthetic instruments & show me the measurement of a middle C as a violin, then a middle C as a shamisen,... then show me the data, the data doesn't make any sense to anyone visually & it just looks like noise in nanoseconds to milliseconds.
So an imperfect & noisy speaker diaphragm (they are all imperfect) can be leaning towards a violin or leaning towards a shamisen in the millisecond noise then all humans see is "0.001% noise" or "\/\/\/\/\/___\/\/__ (10ns) \/\/\/\/__\/\/__(60ms)" on the paper.
The extensive repository of FR measurements at http://www.goldenears.net / goldenears.ko - now abandoned (including due to conflicts with other audio people in Korea, I don't know what their conflict was about) - provided nothing useful in terms of finding which IEM or headphone is high quality or top tier.
For example, a $20 IEM can measure excellent in FR, just like a $1900 Usd IEM can measure excellent, or sub-par. An example is I think it was the JH Audio Roxanne which costs around $2,000 Usd & the FR only extended up to 10 kHz in someones FR measurement, plus subjectively when I tried it it didn't sound like those custom IEM's usually sound.
There's many examples of IEM's looking nearly identical on paper, in FR, yet their design is totally different & they sound different.
However, the good news is since I spent so much time trying IEM's & reading other blogs which measure stuff, then I started to arrive at the conclusion myself in tandem with some of the other measurement guys how to find the high quality, or top tier.. IEM's.
So, broadly speaking...
- Sony MDR-EX1000 & Vsonic GR07 -- lowest THD
- Final Audio FI-BA-SS -- fast BA (balanced-armature) driver, vented design, achieved fast transient response & detail retrieval. Not low THD.
- custom in ear monitors with many BA (balanced armature) drivers, for example Canalworks in Japan.
Aside from those, a few cheap IEM's achieved high quality sound with excellent speed / transient response / velocity & THD with ok FR. For example the vented JVC FXC51.
Hm & in the IEM measurement area of the internet no one provides enough sophisticated data, they are just not sophisticated enough to measure how IEM's sound & that is just how it is... so people relying on measurements like they're a tell-all & objective center won't find anything.
Also separately if someone were to measure the sound of a Casio keyboard with synthetic instruments & show me the measurement of a middle C as a violin, then a middle C as a shamisen,... then show me the data, the data doesn't make any sense to anyone visually & it just looks like noise in nanoseconds to milliseconds.
So an imperfect & noisy speaker diaphragm (they are all imperfect) can be leaning towards a violin or leaning towards a shamisen in the millisecond noise then all humans see is "0.001% noise" or "\/\/\/\/\/___\/\/__ (10ns) \/\/\/\/__\/\/__(60ms)" on the paper.
It is the blending of the drivers that creates issues. 8" driver will have different off-axis performance than any tweeter (without waveguide) and especially ribbon tweeters (very directional) in the crossover frequency.
You are lucky that your speaker is full range or at least 2-way. Three-way have more issues. But being 2-way with small drivers, you don't know what real/live music really is. Many tube amps (even CFP amps) will collapse when handling low frequency woofers.
Oh, BTW, full range is usually not detailed because it has to produce lots of frequencies (high frequency requires small cone movement, low frequency requires bigger movement)
THD as its name implies is the "sum" of its harmonics. These harmonics should have different importance, hence THD is not 100% reliable. And many limitations in the THD measurement method. But in general I agree (with Chris) that there is nothing audible that cannot be measured. It is just not the THD alone and not everyone knows which measurements correlate with which perception.
Last edited:
Can you name someone who does know?
Aside from those who prefer a certain type of distortion, how is the ability of the system to accurately reproduce what was recorded(regardless how and where) have to do with sq? The only thing that matters is whether it is convincing enough to grab your attention, or better yet, fool you. But not fool you into perceiving it's the original because you weren't there in the first place so that doesn't matter. If you were there in the first place and it doesn't sound like the original but still convincingly real, it still doesn't matter because you will still be impressed.
No one knows everything. This makes the statement "not all audible performance can be measured" almost true
If an amp cannot reproduce the input signal properly, it is just a matter of time until you will find it has to reproduce something that turn out into disaster. Highly dynamic music, low bass frequency or whatever.
BTW, have you ever heard a standing double bass (e.g. in a jazz trio) 3 meters in front of you? Tell me, do you think your 8" speaker can produce that? Sound quality should cover wide frequency and more.
I doubt a full range 8" speaker can show the beauty of this massed string performance:
2CELLOS - Now We Are Free - Gladiator [Live at Sydney Opera House] - YouTube
Perhaps in Shangri'La or in your dreams. The gadgets we mortals have still would not allow for reproduction of a soundfield resembling the original event.
That's true. So the tube amp for the mid/tweeter and LM3886 for the woofer?
I'm using almost similar amps for woofer and mid/high. Same topology. The mid/high amplifier is designed for 60/80MHz output transistor, the bass amplifier is designed for slower output transistor (A1943/C5200).
So read my post again and get back to me. My premise was that if it does not, yet still convincingly real(not original)
Nothing is perfect. You just stated "there is nothing audible that cannot be measured". All I'm saying is that the question of "accurate" reproduction is moot since it doesn't have to be the same to be "convincingly real". It's not whether an amp "can", but whether it "will". It may very well not matter. Certain performance aspects do need to be "accurate" to make it convincing but FR is not one of them. Which ones are they?No one knows everything. This makes the statement "not all audible performance can be measured" almost true
If an amp cannot reproduce the input signal properly, it is just a matter of time until you will find it has to reproduce something that turn out into disaster. Highly dynamic music, low bass frequency or whatever.
BTW, have you ever heard a standing double bass (e.g. in a jazz trio) 3 meters in front of you? Tell me, do you think your 8" speaker can produce that? Sound quality should cover wide frequency and more.
I doubt a full range 8" speaker can show the beauty of this massed string performance:
2CELLOS - Now We Are Free - Gladiator [Live at Sydney Opera House] - YouTube
I defer to my original post.
I agree that if signal reproduction system is bad, it is OKAY to use the speaker or the amplifier as an "instrument" adding something to the music. But this applies only to low quality reproduction systems. For high quality system this is not true. The signal is faithful and complete that there is no reason to add something more.
If you can get a "convincingly real" sound from 3" speaker using certain amplifier, that's fine, just don't think that it is a high quality reproduction system.
There are many. In a "shocking midrange test" thread you will learn that once the FR is equalized, no one can hear differences between midrange drivers. FR is THAT important.
It is true that you may find that a flat FR driver doesn't sound as good as (or as lively as or as real as) a full range driver with wild FR. But the issue here is not with the FR but the mistakes/limitations in making the FR flat. Exactly the same with low THD amplifier. It is easy to make mistake in pursuit of low THD amplifier.
Did you mean to say never changes? Because when you say not very often, it means sometimes it does.
Oh, so you were talking about personal tolerance on spiciness, not the physical damage on our taste buds.
Right, startling moments, the more the better. If you're hearing them, it's as good as it gets. However some ballparks are smaller than others.
So do you think the speakers penalized the LM3886 amp?
Do you think Troels Gravesen is an incompetent or a cheater?
OBL11
Are you sure?
The LM3886 is a cheap amp. What I meant was the speaker is more suitable for the tube amp. The LM3886 has probably better damping factor that may shine (compared to the tube amp) when playing dynamic LF music thru a crossover-heavy 3-way speaker.
Hmmm I don't understand the relationship with OBL11. Do you think he is a God? He's learning and get better everyday for sure
Because the speakers used was just a variant of the OBL11, 3 way speakers with heavy crossover.
I don't know any God, certainly not the God of measurements.
I read too many "probably" and "maybe" in your posts.
So "maybe" the question is simpler and always the same?
I cannot repeat because some members don't like.
I don't know any God, certainly not the God of measurements.
I read too many "probably" and "maybe" in your posts.
So "maybe" the question is simpler and always the same?
I cannot repeat because some members don't like.
Ok well it's a very delicate fish. Often just cooked in butter and served with just a few slices of cooked apple. Arvo Part Fur Aline compared with the Wagner of your chili loaded burger
The point i was trying to make was that an accurate rendition of a recipe may not be the preferred rendition. Preferences are fine but generally whenever someone says 'X sounds better' they actually mean 'I/we prefer'. All good, but meaningless to anyone who was not there.
People build whole cults on saying things sound better when either they have no evidence of that or they are trying to collect followers for their belief system.
And of course if someone has decide that close in phase noise is the boogyman and has wasted countless hours coming up with a 'better' clock ignoring all the published research on audibility because their ears are better they will never then backtrack and admit they were beguiled by a false parameter
.BTW I like spicy too and where a dish calls for it I am happy to start sweating.
And now the British have become culinary masters?
This is a great news.
But since we choose an audio system by the measurements rather than listen to it anything can happen.
Now Massimo Bottura is an english man just like the LM3886 is the best amp ever.
Osteria Francescana
I forgot, since you also trust so much the measurements please let me know about your wonderful tools.
This is a great news.
But since we choose an audio system by the measurements rather than listen to it anything can happen.
Now Massimo Bottura is an english man just like the LM3886 is the best amp ever.
Osteria Francescana
I forgot, since you also trust so much the measurements please let me know about your wonderful tools.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.