KT88

Randy, perhaps I was unclear, I almost have the TAD4002 and the Yamaha DSP since 14 years. So I do not need to buy a DX38, the standard older K69 I have also since the UJ were new.

Somewhat delayed I am running my UJ since two months but still passive using a Faital HF200 driver with a third party xover, the bass section designed by Roy. Now I want to go active again using the TAD 4002. At first I will just connect it as is, trying the output conversion of the Yamaha SP2060 from XLR to RCA with and without connected „3“. We had this extended and to me very helpful discussion in this thread a year ago and with the kind help of babadono it came out that both solutions are a compromise regarding the professional Yamaha output stage. Therefore I will try the transformer solution and my gut feel says yes regarding SQ. So should I start directly with high quality or should I approach to this solution first taking the cheaper way? I ask because I have no clue concerning the amount of difference in SQ when comparing coils of cheap and expensive manufactures. I trust all who recommend Edcor and Jensen. And then there is Lundahl as a high quality firm and also Sowter from UK. BTW this Sowter input transformer was used in the professional Quad 520f amps. I do not know if it is „cheap“ or „expensive“ in SQ, The price seems somehow „medium“: https://www.sowter.co.uk/specs/3575.php This makes my decision not easier, because I like Quad gear very much in combination with horns. That means when I would find two used but sound Quad 520f the transformers were included anyway. (Right now I run consumer Quad amps without transformers). I have found a product, perhaps to use before I go for expensive high quality stuff (or find some Quad 520f). When I saw in the web what @Islander had recommended, the ART Clean box pro, I noticed that it is an active device altogether with additional volume pots and so on. Those volume pots can be helpful under some circumstances but in my case I want to keep a purer signal, plus I would like to avoid additional active circuits. On the other hand the Jensen ISO MAX, recommended by babadono, may have very good quality but all I could find is a product which reduces the signal from +4 dBu to consumer level. Only I need a device which does not reduce the voltage to feed my amps RCA input because the source, my preamp, also is on RCA voltage level. https://www.jensen-transformers.com/product/pc-2xr/ The Edcor transformers would be a nice solution after all what you guys here have mentioned, what I have seen I would DIY the connectors because I only can find the Edcor transformers without case and plugs which is no problem for me. Has anyone experiences the ART DTI which is a passive device and its SQ? I would think that the SQ could be better than going the active Cleansound route? In addition a galvanic separation could be safer than an active circuit re the Yamaha SP2060 requirements? I saw the ART DTI by chance when looking again at the ART Cleansound product. Or do you think I still spend too much money in buying too cheap because then I buy again soon? Link to ART DTI https://www.thomannmusic.com/art_dti.htm?reload=1 It's my hobby and like to spend the money on the right things when it comes to sound. I just wouldn't like to spend money on something if there was hardly any noticeable difference in sound.

That is probably the case that today's ESLs have more dynamics than the old Quad ESL57s. But one must not forget one thing. Very few of today's old quads have been properly restored. The few places that have done it right report almost unbelievable dynamics and excellent bass reproduction of the ESL57 after the restoration. In fact, today's Martin Logan have much more dynamics than most old unrestored or poorly restored ESL57s. But the few very well restored ESL57s show how good these speakers were in their younger days. Unlike normal speakers and horns, the bass of the ESL is also a dipole. The further away the Quad or other dipoles are from the wall, the fuller and more powerful the bass becomes. The Quad ESL57 produces a clean and powerful 40Hz when positioned away from the wall. Of course, the volume cannot be compared to a horn bass, but the bass is articulated with similar precision and can be felt as a pressure wave. http://loudspeaker-repair-service.reromanus.net/refurbish_quad57.htm

Absolutely. Not wanting to stop playing is the most important indicator for me if it is a good guitar.

Randy, I'm not so sure if a transistor amp makes less distortion at very low power output than at high power. The distortion of small signals has often been the Achilles heel of larger transistor amps. It is not a linear relationship with class AB amps. Hence the name "First Watt" by N. Pass....as a solution to this problem. Quad goes a different way to solve the problem, but it was recognised as an important source of distortion. Also many very hot running Class A sand amps are in this relationship with merit. The issue addresses not only quiet late evening listening on high efficiency loudspeakers. Rather, no matter how loud you listen, there are always those moments when a sound appears out of the silence, or when the sound disappears back into the silence. And that's where the effects of greater distortion always affect the listening experience.

Marvel, what a nice little Martin you have got as a gift! Next time I am near a store I will try one just out of interest because for what I use the Baby Taylor its good to play. The Martin costs almost double in Germany, 350 - 400 vs 650 - 750 €. But never say never again😀

Thanks, babadono. First I had no clue about the meaning of the phrase🤓 www.dictionary.com/e/slang/winner-winner-chicken-dinner/

I had built our first horn system together with a buddy in 1979, which wasn't bad at all. First we had a backloaded bass horn. Then I discovered drawings for a Klipsch horn. It was higher than today's khorns and it was designed for a 12" bass driver. Maybe it really did exist as an early first series at PWK? Anyway, it was a lot of work and effort. I didn't have much money at 19 so we built it out of chipboard. At least the sound was very good. Since I had only built one khorn bass, it lay in the middle between the wooden midrange horns in exactly the way you describe. At that time, of course, it was analogue and controlled by the left and right amplifier via two coils. It was a very good and satisfying sound. The floor can simulate a strong "corner". In this sense and way Flevoman could try it out.

Comparing the Underground Jubilee bass with the 4x15" bassreflex cabinet, I would say that the speed and freshness, the light and airy yet massive attack of the Jubilee bass horn had a positive influence on the perception of the mids and highs. The same K402 in combination with the 4x15 cabinet made a slower and more boring impression also in the mids and highs. But I would also like to say that I think the difference in mids and highs is smaller when comparing different bass horns. It was almost irritating how big the difference is compared to conventional bass reflex speakers.

I have heard the K402 horn in Hope in 2009 with different bass speakers, UJ vs. a 4x15" bass reflex speaker and also other different basses. I don't have the impression that from 500Hz upwards the sound is the same. It is a very complex interaction between a different given bass and the same mid and treble horn. It sounds different overall. The bass of the K-horn has completely different sound characteristics than the bass of the LaScala. The K-horn goes deeper but the bass of the LaScala ties in very well with the K401. You have to try it out. The dispersion of the LaScala bass vs. the Khorn bass is also quite different, and that again at different frequencies. We hear holistically. Effects such as comb filter effects work as a whole and differently with the K-horn vs. the LaScala. The room also reacts differently to the K-horn than to the LaScala. It is not a simple mechanical exchange.

I was a stage hand in the 80s alongside my university training. I worked in a team that set up rock concerts in the biggest halls and football stadiums in North Rhine-Westphalia, Cologne, Dortmund, etc. I helped to build the stages for all the famous bands and musicians of that time. Even then I was very interested in audio and so I specialised to help setting up the sound system. At that time everything was still analogue but the sound was often impressively very good! I especially remember the sound of Lionel Ritchie, Prince, Deep Purple, U2 and many other artists. The sound was in its way more "real" and fuller than today's line arrays with their digital technology and their often more sterile sound. Maybe it's just nostalgia because I was young and life was good. But we never had as much compression as we have today. And it sounded like a "stadium" and not like a "hi-fi system". On the subject, what impressed me very much was that no matter which team set up the PA, it was mostly UK teams, only the stage equipment was at US artists US teams with 110 volt equipment, the PA teams always! really always had two songs as a test of the PA system, no matter from which brand the PA was and no matter in which venue. The good sounding PA systems were from Turbo Sound, Clair Brothers, Meyers and some more. The only digital device was a Sony discman to check the overall sound by playing music before the sound check started with the bands. The two songs were: "The happiest days of our life" by Pink Floyd from the album „The Wall“, with the helicopter and the loud staccato from the band. They were testing the dynamics, the pressure, the authority of the sound. The other song that was really always played as a reference was "IGY" by Donald Fagen. It showed the transparency of the sound, the different layers, the clarity of the mix and so on. It's still one of the best recorded songs and also good for checking hi-fi systems, I know it by heart. Today my references for classical music are Murray Perahia, the Bach keyboard concertos, because his right hand sounds breathtakingly powerful on the UJ, then Ann Sophie Mutter, Brahms violin concerto. For jazz still Art Farmer with Benny Golson "It Ain't necessarily so", from 1960. not a high end recording but I know it. I know the sound structure of many 1960s recordings. They sound better on heritage speakers than on modern hi-fi speakers anyway. For rock music, I like to use the studio recording of Deep Purple's "Smoke on the Water". Depending on the system, the drums can sound normal and unspectacular, but a really good system shows the rhythmic tension and the super timing of Ian Paice on the drums.

It depends on which aspect of electrostats you like. There is one thing they have in common with horns, and that is the large dispersion area compared to normal radial speakers.

sixspeed, thank you for your wonderful contribution. Regarding tubes, especially SET vs sand amps, after almost 30 years of tube listening I enjoy very much a self restored Quad 34/306 combo purchased for less than 600€ altogether with my 1977 LS and my 2008 UJ, currently with a passive xover, but I have two 306 now and I will try them with the UJ using my Yamaha SP2060 going active. Tubes are nice but as you say low power SET are limiting the kind of music I like regardless how efficient a speaker may be. My MC275 is comparable with the Quad 306 in terms of power but astonishing is how close they sound, so I go with the 306 since a year. The Quads have a special circuit, called current dumping, which lets them shine at the lowest power output as well as on full blast.

@Flevoman how are things going on? Do you now like your AL5?

Thanks for the very vivid explanation, Mike. It makes a lot of sense to see a speaker always as a vibration exciter, which organizes desired and undesired interactions with a room. Especially if you imagine that early reflections can't really be "fought" with e.g. an eaualizer or delay. As you say, it's the shadow ghosts of the loudspeaker that you have to deal with so that they don't become evil ghosts. An example where one must find a constructive solution by means of an arrangement with the room and we cannot fight against physical principles. Did you determine the optimal points of the distance of the speakers to each other and to the listener in your room experimentally, e.g. by moving the speaker and the listening position or with a calculation formula into which you enter all data of the room and whose answer shows the optimal points?

To be clear, Mike, these SBIR points are not general? It is not a standard distance of the speakers, but it is related to your specific room and its dimensions?

Ok, Melvin, I only mentioned it because you wrote: „The speakers are placed in the middle against the long wall. Currently, they are about 2.5 meters apart, measured from the outer edges of the speaker cabinets.“

I recall that Mike has described SIBR in your other thread. see below. BTW 2,50m from outer edge to outer edge is in my view too narrow placed. I would say as a rule of thumb the wider apart the more angle in.

One more thought, they are slightly used speakers, but technically everything is ok and without modifications, right? I understand everything possible but not really that they sound a bit dull without enough treble.

There is one more point. I belong to the camp of pre amp users, because of the impedance adjustment, etc.. For my taste it sounds rounder, fuller, more rhythmic, more energetic with a pre amp. But maybe that's just me, others may have reasons and good experience to skip the pre. I don't know the internal of the amps you use, Melvin, from personal experience. Maybe you can find out here in the forum if they are really integrated amps or actually just a power amp with a volume control. I had for fun my Bluesound Node connected directly to the power amp, it has volume control if you want. The output voltage is quite enough. But to my ears, the sound without pre amp was more colorless, less powerful and no longer really exciting and beautiful but flat and without much substance. A preamp with cathode follower at the output or a transistor pre with low output impedance brings from my point of view the music in the system.

I totally agree with you, Henry. I would add that in my non-essential experience it is not just the size of the horn that matters. I have the impression that a Tractrix horn, even a big one, allows a bit more (just a bit more, it also is demanding) forgiveness towards the source or anything upstream than an Exponential horn (regarding the mid band). The exponential horn like the K401 seems to be a bit more unforgiving in my experience, but when everything upstream is right, it can bring out all its glory. This is not to say that a tractrix horn has less qualities than an exponential horn. On the contrary, a tractrix can be quite outstanding and is the more modern approach. But perhaps it also means a certain period of adjustment for the ears from tractrix (CW4) „back“ to exponential (K400/401). But that a Lascala has too little clarity in the treble or too little energy in the treble, I can not confirm in my experience.

Which twin horn subs? DIY or a brand?

Why do we or most of us have to grow old or at least a little older to understand these wisdoms!

I sometimes really can not say whether new is better, so I do not mean new is worse. Old Klipsch are very good and new Klipsch are very good. It has evolved a bit technically. But also the music, the recording technology, the taste of the sound, the mix, the mastering have changed. Is a 60s Bluenote record worse than a brand new recording? No. Sometimes you hear new recordings today that even go back to the routes. Every decade has its sound. Very old Santana or Wishbone Ash recordings, old Steely Dan, Deep Purple, they have character and "their" sound. Some of it sounds better on vintage Klipsch. Some new classical recordings sound better on new Klipsch. It's not just Klipsch. Why are companies like Graham Audio or Harbeth successful? It's the BBC sound of the 70s. Going back is a bit like that to find the compass again. Some new developments are going to higher and higher resolution, but sometimes the music falls by the wayside. One more aspect comes to mind. In 1989 Art Blakey celebrated his 70th birthday with a concert in Germany. There were members of the Jazz Messengers in three formations from three decades. They played one after the other with Art. Four or five tunes each time. I can't remember all of them at once. But there were musicians like Freddy Hubbard or Art Farmer. They all played wonderfully. But the sound of the different generations was incredibly different. I don't mean what they played, but how the sound of a sextet was so different. Different instruments maybe, different wind technique, different feeling, very significantly different. I mean, that's where it starts. Only then comes the recording technique and the respective taste how a recording should sound. At the end comes the speaker, who is also a child of his time. There are two things to distinguish about speakers, one is that there has been technical progress, more high frequencies, less distortion and so on. On the other hand, the taste of the time. Where is the journey going? With sports cars, acceleration was impressive 10 years ago. Today, my tax advisor's Tesla accelerates faster than the fastest Porsche 10 years ago. But...it's boring. So other criteria will be found, for cars as for speakers. Horns like Klipsch always have an emotional advantage.

The photo is from an early Quad advertising brochure.