Beat you to it. I just bought another before logging back on. Besides it sounding great on the mains, it sounded better than the Hafler I had on the subs. (Actually a surprise, subs should be easier so any 'ol big amp would do.) I thought about waiting for a 2200, but I really don't need it. Money is better spent bringing the rest of my systems up to snuff.
Now I am contemplating if I should do a new crossover with op amps or try and do one with fets. Attack the next weakest link first. Op amps, I can just build it. Jfets is study time again. My current one is a pretty sad.
Now I am contemplating if I should do a new crossover with op amps or try and do one with fets. Attack the next weakest link first. Op amps, I can just build it. Jfets is study time again. My current one is a pretty sad.
Has anyone built a moving coil baffle speaker in recent years ? Robin Marshall said to me that it was the lack of a box that made a Quad ESL work as well as it does . Another friend made a MC speaker with good phase response proving that to be possible , the Quad is very good on that . R M went on to say the moving mass of many small speakers would not be drastically different ( I guess KEF B110 or Fostex 5 inch ) . I was reminded the other day that some PA people used Tannoys without cabinets as Mid / top units . I have tried a Spendor BC1 bass-mid in free air and was very pleased with the results allowing for lack of bass .
And I just got back from mine. As usual had a great time in Greece, although it was hotter than hell the first three days - up to 43 C (app. 109 F), but then it quieted down to the more normal 33-34 C (app. 91-93 F). So, pure class A the first three days, thereafter more reasonable class AB.
I dunno why, but the first three days I thought of Nigel a lot, him and his class A amps, feeling like one of his output transistors ...
))))))))) So Nige, if you were hiccuping a few days ago, that was me.
As the Greeks' notion of hot is far removed from mine, that bottle of Tabasco helped out a lot, poor as it may be and as I have been told here by those in the know. It laid its life juices down for me, bless its bottle, but thankfully, it has a LOT of brothers and sisters. Also, messers John Grisham and Stephen King selflessly helped out with their mental food creations.
I dunno why, but the first three days I thought of Nigel a lot, him and his class A amps, feeling like one of his output transistors ...
))))))))) So Nige, if you were hiccuping a few days ago, that was me.As the Greeks' notion of hot is far removed from mine, that bottle of Tabasco helped out a lot, poor as it may be and as I have been told here by those in the know. It laid its life juices down for me, bless its bottle, but thankfully, it has a LOT of brothers and sisters. Also, messers John Grisham and Stephen King selflessly helped out with their mental food creations.
Fine, but as we've covered that topic here already, I'll just reiterate what we concluded - many of the alternaive products recommended here by US citizens is simply not available in most of Europe. Generally, Tabasco is available almost everywhere, and a little off and on, a Lousiana sauce (I forgot the name), plus a variety of Chinese and Thai offerings (some of which are really good, others so-so).
As a general rule, I like best the taste of unprocessed, fresh hot peppers. I have plenty at home, but in Greece, their idea of hot is a watered down version of mine. Tasty, but far removed from what I'd call hot.
I got hooked on Tabasco in the late 60ies while in the UK. Ever since those days of my misspent youth, it has been a part of my "survival kit" when traveling abroad, Tabasco and a small tin can of Nescafe, since I like my coffee strong, really strong, even on the go. But since coffee is a cult all over the Balkans (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, FYRM, Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Hertzegovina, Croatia and my native Serbia), I don't often need to use it. Remember, out here, we don't drink coffee like water as many do in the US, and of course, if they drank it as we strong as we do, people would be dropping like flies inside of three days, rather out here, coffee is a process, it's a time honoured custom to pause for a coffee break and damn the soul of anyone drinking his or her coffee in less than 30 minutes. Usually not more than twice a day.
And there's a part of my native Serbia where people would give a run for their money to anyone liking it hot, they have a local type and tradition of growing some darn hot peppers, which look innocent enough, so long as you don't bite them. If you do, make sure your fire extinguisher is nearby. Never fails to remind me of a graffitti I saw the first time I visited the US, in March 1970 -Kennedy airport was being renovated, and there was a writing on the wall which stated: New York air can't hurt you if you don't breathe it.
i'll agree w/abraxalito for the most part.
tho i could not imagine this w/out the compression (and reverb)
my favorite over-compressed bit of music
The best compression comes from analogue tape decks . On top of that one can gain ride ( gently adjust levels as the music changes ) . At the rehearsal make time notes as to where the loud bits are , that way you can enjoy not always using headphones to monitor . If done carefully no compression seems to have been used . However as much as 30 db extra range might be added ( 20 dB adjustment and 10 dB transients to the VU limit ) . Detail is heard as in real life . It is false yet very realistic . Reason is our ears do it in real life . They gain ride .
I haven't done this test for years so can not say if it is still true . A piano reordered on early digital at 0VU would be a bit overly bright yet dynamic . At - 20 db with a careful volume adjustment it would sound similar yet washed out ( like TV showing poor black levels ) . At - 40 dB it sounded like a kazoo . That suggests that early digital of true 16 bit spec only had at best a 20 db musical range . This contradicts many statements and measurements as it should be on paper superior to fully saturated analogue when at - 20 dB .
Digital recording at 0VU digital wasn't practical . - 6dB if brave . Many secretly used Dolby A analogue and transcribed it to digital later . These recordings were sold as DDD . That way multiple tests could be done and 0VU approached . This would give a analogue mastered digital recording a tipple advantage . 30 dB squeezed into 20 db window and 10 db critical recording bonus . This would be mostly inaudible , experienced listeners would note flutter . Also some softening as levels increased which is what we need . One could say it could add 30 dB for an unskilled engineer and 24 dB for even the best .
BBC 13 bit digital ( NICAM 1972 vesrion ) always sounded to me exactly like good analogue . How arrogant of Philips and Sony not to licence it . 16 Bit Nicam might have been truly wonderful . I am playing with the idea of making a Nicam recorder .
If digital is put onto analogue it will do the softening . To my ears no alchemy takes place . This is important as it might be analogue distortion that is preferred . Personally I would say it is not preferable .
45 dB was said by DGG to be a practical dynamic range . Noting my reservations I would say classic 16 bit 25 dB short of that . I would say a hi fi needs 100 dB ability to give 45 dB . Distortion will never be better than - 54 dB I suppose ( total ) ?
I haven't done this test for years so can not say if it is still true . A piano reordered on early digital at 0VU would be a bit overly bright yet dynamic . At - 20 db with a careful volume adjustment it would sound similar yet washed out ( like TV showing poor black levels ) . At - 40 dB it sounded like a kazoo . That suggests that early digital of true 16 bit spec only had at best a 20 db musical range . This contradicts many statements and measurements as it should be on paper superior to fully saturated analogue when at - 20 dB .
Digital recording at 0VU digital wasn't practical . - 6dB if brave . Many secretly used Dolby A analogue and transcribed it to digital later . These recordings were sold as DDD . That way multiple tests could be done and 0VU approached . This would give a analogue mastered digital recording a tipple advantage . 30 dB squeezed into 20 db window and 10 db critical recording bonus . This would be mostly inaudible , experienced listeners would note flutter . Also some softening as levels increased which is what we need . One could say it could add 30 dB for an unskilled engineer and 24 dB for even the best .
BBC 13 bit digital ( NICAM 1972 vesrion ) always sounded to me exactly like good analogue . How arrogant of Philips and Sony not to licence it . 16 Bit Nicam might have been truly wonderful . I am playing with the idea of making a Nicam recorder .
If digital is put onto analogue it will do the softening . To my ears no alchemy takes place . This is important as it might be analogue distortion that is preferred . Personally I would say it is not preferable .
45 dB was said by DGG to be a practical dynamic range . Noting my reservations I would say classic 16 bit 25 dB short of that . I would say a hi fi needs 100 dB ability to give 45 dB . Distortion will never be better than - 54 dB I suppose ( total ) ?
Right or wrong, I count myself as an audiophile and I realy don't know where this idea of audiophiles liking compressed music comes from.
All my life, I've loved Decca Phase 4 stereo recordings for exactly the opposite reason, for their most uncommon dynamic range coupled with low background noise. Even modest setups, such as the ones we had in 1970 (I was a high school graduate then and could not afford very expensive gear), made music sound very realistic with them.
The only significant leap forward I recollect from those days was the introduction of dBX encoded recordings, which were prescious few and expensive to boot, and I remember hearing them at a friend's place - he had a dBX setup. I remember I was stunned with the feeling of freedom, or if you prefer, almost complete lack of compression.
I think this compression thing comes mostly from those quarters which were pop/rock orientated - the sheer loudness of the original music made it very hard to record and play it back without compression, but, on the other hand, the in herent musical dynamics were generally rather low, it wasn't too much of a problem.
I agree with Nigel - althought even today, with the digital dynamic range available, one is still amazed at the dynamic range available from master or general open reel tapes, even if one realizes that amazing as they do sound, they are still at least a little compressed. To actually be able to become aware of it, one would have to have tried to record music live, even if only in the room, with no acoustic treatment - the tape of a friend playing a classical guitar in my room, taped via two very so-so Beyer-cum-Uher microphones, on my Philips N4520 open reel tape deck, albeit at 38 cm/s (15 ips), using IEC equalization, never fails to make me look around to see where he's sitting. Outstanding fidelity, zero processing, direct mic feed into the recorder's inbuilt two stereo input mixer.
I guess it's only fair to note that this particular machine had Philips' new electronics in 1981, with a claimed (and verified!) 60 dB dynamic range. That was patented, but as with many similar Philips gems, it appeared then and there and never again anywhere (as far as I know).
All my life, I've loved Decca Phase 4 stereo recordings for exactly the opposite reason, for their most uncommon dynamic range coupled with low background noise. Even modest setups, such as the ones we had in 1970 (I was a high school graduate then and could not afford very expensive gear), made music sound very realistic with them.
The only significant leap forward I recollect from those days was the introduction of dBX encoded recordings, which were prescious few and expensive to boot, and I remember hearing them at a friend's place - he had a dBX setup. I remember I was stunned with the feeling of freedom, or if you prefer, almost complete lack of compression.
I think this compression thing comes mostly from those quarters which were pop/rock orientated - the sheer loudness of the original music made it very hard to record and play it back without compression, but, on the other hand, the in herent musical dynamics were generally rather low, it wasn't too much of a problem.
I agree with Nigel - althought even today, with the digital dynamic range available, one is still amazed at the dynamic range available from master or general open reel tapes, even if one realizes that amazing as they do sound, they are still at least a little compressed. To actually be able to become aware of it, one would have to have tried to record music live, even if only in the room, with no acoustic treatment - the tape of a friend playing a classical guitar in my room, taped via two very so-so Beyer-cum-Uher microphones, on my Philips N4520 open reel tape deck, albeit at 38 cm/s (15 ips), using IEC equalization, never fails to make me look around to see where he's sitting. Outstanding fidelity, zero processing, direct mic feed into the recorder's inbuilt two stereo input mixer.
I guess it's only fair to note that this particular machine had Philips' new electronics in 1981, with a claimed (and verified!) 60 dB dynamic range. That was patented, but as with many similar Philips gems, it appeared then and there and never again anywhere (as far as I know).
I love compressed music: In my car, or for low level background. If I am listening to serious music, or seriously listening to music, I want dynamics closer to what the artists (musician and engineer) intended. What good is the opening bars of the 5th, without dynamics?
I enjoyed the little DBX 119 way back when, but the noise and distortion caused me to dump it. It might be fun to see a modern compander built. DSP I wold guess. What do the studios use?
I enjoyed the little DBX 119 way back when, but the noise and distortion caused me to dump it. It might be fun to see a modern compander built. DSP I wold guess. What do the studios use?
Just yesterday, I had an opportunity to compare compressed WMA and MP3 music with classic 16-bit Red Book CD and I have to say that even in a car, with its factory audio system (which is hardly something to write home about), it's really no contest, WMA/MP3 loses hands down. It's simply no contest.
Under the circumstances, WMA/MP3 is really quite all right for in-car entertainment, especially for me as the driver, but in absolute terms, no cigar. BTW, I have no idea what Chevrolet uses for factory installation, but I feel reasonably sure it's no big deal.
There is a joke not aimed at us lot that 75% of the time our serious classical station Radio 3 broadcasts nothing . I have to say it's no joke . Even with the modest dynamic range available Radio 3 was about the largest dynamic range ever offered ( some compression I suspect is used now ) . Sometimes at night I turn the volume up and sure enough there is music , usually very serious baroque stuff . At normal volumes it is hard to tell if anyone is home ! Also R3 has long pauses before announcements . The voices are almost priestly . Recently they broadcast Jazz , absolutely excellent I have to say .
Happy camper. A second HCA 1200 II arrived today. Woofers now happy again. Wife happy.
Nigel, complain about BBC all you want. Here in Washington DC we have one usable classical station. Old equipment, old recordings. They do try. Good enough for my commute to work as I find my tolerance for the DJ's on even the classic rock stations too much to bare. Decent Jazz on the radio? Not a chance. FIOS ( our fiber cable TV system) does at least have good programming. They refused to tell me what the specs were.
Nigel, complain about BBC all you want. Here in Washington DC we have one usable classical station. Old equipment, old recordings. They do try. Good enough for my commute to work as I find my tolerance for the DJ's on even the classic rock stations too much to bare. Decent Jazz on the radio? Not a chance. FIOS ( our fiber cable TV system) does at least have good programming. They refused to tell me what the specs were.
DVV, I would agree, if I was sitting in a Lincoln Town Car or Cadillac. But in my GTI with all the road noise ( and of course what I make when jumping on the turbo ) it does not matter much. I do remember, when I was looking for some small bookshelf speakers I would go listen in stores and then go get in my Mini Cooper and the sound was far better. So was my RSX, but then again, I did work over it just a bit. I find the standard VW stereo to be fully satisfactory for it's use.
Hmmm, wonder what stereo my buddy with a 80's Bentley has? He claims there is no better car for a retired racer than a turbo Bentley.
Hmmm, wonder what stereo my buddy with a 80's Bentley has? He claims there is no better car for a retired racer than a turbo Bentley.
In my view, the weakest part of any car sound system are those funny things they build in and call loudspeakers. They generally do bass more or less acceptably, but it's the treble range which suffers. My Chevy Cruze is no exception there.
When in the old Daewoo Nubira I took out the "loudspeakers", I was, to put it mildly, amazed - I never knew such junk even existed. The cones were - literally! - translucent pieces of paper.
Anyway, I stuck in some decent JBL bass/mid units and followed them up with a pair of rather hefty Pioneer dome tweeters, and man oh man, what a difference! Coaxial JBL bass/mid/tweeter units in the back, and that clinched it. Didn't play any louder, but the clarity difference was stupendous, I mean that letter by letter. If I had also changed the rather poor Sony radio/CD player, I think I would have had an even better sound, actually resembling a decent home setup. An Alpine unit would do the trick, they are still the best sounding units I have ever come across for less than silly money.
The whole kaboodle cost me like € 200, or about $ 280, which is still within the realm of reason, and I got more than my money's worth. I am not a headbanger, I don't need (or want) the whole street to hear me coming home, and for normal sound levels, that was really a good system. But there, the tweeters were located on the front two A bars, unlike the Cruze, which has additional air bags there, so I guess I'll have to look for coaxial units both front and back.
On the other hand, the Cruze has a nice gadget trick up its sleeve. You can program it to compensate for the added drive noise floor, in an attempt to keep the music level constant. The system really works, I must admit, and works fairly well. It's all automatic, so when you adjust for the music level while standing still, it will go louder when you start to drive, has some sliding adjustment capabilities, and will return to normal if you should stop. While not overwhelmed, I must admit I am pleased with how it all works.
When in the old Daewoo Nubira I took out the "loudspeakers", I was, to put it mildly, amazed - I never knew such junk even existed. The cones were - literally! - translucent pieces of paper.
Anyway, I stuck in some decent JBL bass/mid units and followed them up with a pair of rather hefty Pioneer dome tweeters, and man oh man, what a difference! Coaxial JBL bass/mid/tweeter units in the back, and that clinched it. Didn't play any louder, but the clarity difference was stupendous, I mean that letter by letter. If I had also changed the rather poor Sony radio/CD player, I think I would have had an even better sound, actually resembling a decent home setup. An Alpine unit would do the trick, they are still the best sounding units I have ever come across for less than silly money.
The whole kaboodle cost me like € 200, or about $ 280, which is still within the realm of reason, and I got more than my money's worth. I am not a headbanger, I don't need (or want) the whole street to hear me coming home, and for normal sound levels, that was really a good system. But there, the tweeters were located on the front two A bars, unlike the Cruze, which has additional air bags there, so I guess I'll have to look for coaxial units both front and back.
On the other hand, the Cruze has a nice gadget trick up its sleeve. You can program it to compensate for the added drive noise floor, in an attempt to keep the music level constant. The system really works, I must admit, and works fairly well. It's all automatic, so when you adjust for the music level while standing still, it will go louder when you start to drive, has some sliding adjustment capabilities, and will return to normal if you should stop. While not overwhelmed, I must admit I am pleased with how it all works.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.