Eye Opening Experience

[TubeHiFiNut]

"Less filling!"  😡

 

"Tastes great" 😡

 

Bottom line is that no one knows how they will react/connect with this wonderful stuff until they have listened to the component being considered for an extended period of time, in their room and with their associated gear.

 

Something that "wows" us initially might not wear well over time.

 

Just my opinion.

[jimjimbo]

8 hours ago, Deang said:

we’re just a bunch of idiots

Hey, speak for yourself O H I O boy......

[Deang]

Fine, I’m a bunch of idiots - pretty sure I can pull it off too!

[Delicious2]

4 hours ago, Max2 said:

I think that's the biggest kicker, the variables that go overlooked.  So many trying to make improvements without starting on a real foundation to reveal the differences.  

Yes, I can agree.  Now if we could just discuss and reach consensus on which variables are foundational or "macro" variables

 

• basic symmetrical setup of speakers in a room that can support a symmetrical sound field in relation to the primary listening position
• speaker radiation pattern control, 
• room treatment to minimize dominate bass mode excitation and provide even absorption and diffusion
• all components in the chain working together such that none are operating outside their design parameters (e.g. an amp that can't handle an impedance swing gracefully)
• other "macro" variables which we discuss and may agree are foundational such as eqing to flat response in room (at least as a starting point or home base)
  
  then we might discuss and reach consensus on what are more "micro" variables - those that make a difference but not nearly as much and wouldn't be considered foundational
  
  what I find myself wondering about from this discussion is :  Do our systems become closer and closer to the ideal of what is possible with reproduced sound in the home and so more alike to each other and changes in components make LESS of a difference?  OR do our systems become more and more transparent and so sensitive to smaller and smaller changes (better microscopes)?
  
  Maybe there is more than one ideal or a continuum what we're striving for?  A system that gets all the macro variables right may not be particularly "refined" may not be a very good "microscope" 
  Conversely a system that is very refined and excels in certain "audiophile" criteria may not sound particularly "live".  Then there's the whole thing already touched upon about the "wow" factor and whether a system is satisfying long term...

[Deang]

9 hours ago, ODS123 said:

 

No one is saying that.  Differences b/w speakers are audible.  Differences b/w amplifiers, cd players, DAC's, cables, etc...  not so much.  As I've said before, just how big and significant can differences b/w such components be if there is ANY debate at all about their existence???  Beginners should dwell on that and remember it when they read someone claiming that X amp totally blew away Y amp.

You’re saying it. Want me to go through the threads and find how many times you said just that. In fact, you deny it’s being said, and then immediately say it again in the very next sentence!

 

I do believe in diminishing returns. There might not be a hill of beans difference between a $2000 amp and a $20,000 amp - but on the bottom end of the spectrum, where corners have to be cut to meet price points - you can definitely hear it. 

 

How about the discrete analog outputs of something like the Oppo compared to HDMI out on a $50 player from Best Buy?

 

I can’t even begin to take most of your statements seriously. 

 

My advice to a beginner would be to ignore your gawdawful advice. 

[Delicious2]

8 hours ago, Tarheel TJ said:

 

   ...That is why my experience in front of the kilo-buck system was so interesting.  His system did not resemble my own, and it did not resemble the "top of the mountain" type systems you often see on here.  And yet, it was really, really good.  I have been doing some listening to my own system since, and it is also really, really good, although a little different in presentation.  However, I can't help but miss a little bit of sparkle and magic that his had.  Again, I think a lot of this was source related more than speaker related.

   I guess my main point in posting was to marvel at the excellent results this gentleman was able to achieve from such a drastically different approach.  His passive crossover, non-horn speaker, non DSP setup easily equaled my own in most areas, and far surpassed it in others.  Granted, he has some 40 or 50 times the investment that I do, so I suppose this shouldn't be too surprising.  It is just interesting to me that there appears to be more than one way to skin this cat.  I still definitely believe in the approach that I and others (like Chris A) have taken.  It absolutely appears to be the most effective way to achieve what we are all looking for..... but as I have learned, it is not the only way.

 

Thanks for reigning this in Tarheel.  I also have gone down the big horn, active, dsp route recently with gratifying results thanks to ChrisA.  Please say more about the "sparkle and magic".  And in terms of equaling yours in MOST areas, was there something that it didn't do as well?  I'm wondering if we're striving for somewhat different goals with these systems sound-wise.

[Deang]

I find most of what Chris has to say immensely interesting. My issue is that money isn’t what it used to be, and I don’t have the time. Between work and kids - it’s tough. With Chris, I’ve come to conclusion that if I feel like I’m disagreeing - it’s probably because I’m not fully understanding. 

[Chris A]

4 hours ago, Max2 said:

It seems drivers have changed a bit as well as the dome tweeters, but without amplifying with a horn, I still see a glorified Polk or a Norman tower.

 

There are super linear drivers (particularly woofers) that have significantly lower AM distortion, i.e., very linear force factor with displacement, using design features such as overhung coils and low hysteresis magnetic circuit materials and geometries.  But these drivers usually cost 2-3X more than their garden variety drivers that you might buy at Parts Express, etc. I believe that the drivers in the Marten Coltrane 3s mentioned at the OPs opening post are custom made for the company.  This alone would push the cost of the drivers up by a factor of 3-10 over typical drivers of their size/displacement.  Additionally, if you look at the step response of the Coltrane (as measured by John Atkinson of Stereo Review):

This is pretty spectacular step response, and it is indicating that the crossovers used are all first-order filters with time alignment.  Although that long tail on the end of the step response is indication of the mass effects of the woofers--a tail that is at least 3x longer than Jubilees or MEHs, and about 2x longer than Cornwalls.

 

Other specifications include:

Crossover frequencies: 320Hz, 3.8kHz

Frequency response: 20Hz–60kHz

Sensitivity: 88dB/m at 2.83V

 

That low sensitivity value is an issue with regard to limiting dynamic range and driver/filter thermal stability when driven at concert levels--and also a problem when trying to drive the loudspeaker to SPL above 85-90 dB at 1m with audible modulation distortion and woofer mass effects predominating.  There is no plot that shows the measurement of the loudspeaker's overall phase vs. frequency, but the SPL vs. frequency chart is okay (but not spectacular for a direct radiating loudspeaker using passive crossovers...the red trace, below):

 

The excellent phase response of the loudspeaker, combined with good extended frequency response and relatively low modulation distortion (at lower SPL--relative to other direct radiating loudspeakers) will combine to provide a very good presentation, no doubt.  While the directivity vs. frequency of the Coltrane 3 is not known, it should be similar to other three-way direct radiating loudspeakers with wide coverage tweeters and midranges.

 

Chris

[thebes]

On 11/29/2018 at 9:50 AM, Chris A said:

Note that my posting that you quoted above was actually composed to the OP's comments so that he might see more clearly the physical reasons why he heard the differences that he did between the two systems.  I actually wasn't addressing you in my posting--rather the OP.  Apparently this wasn't clear in my response.  My apologies.  I'll try to be more specific next time. 

 

Having said that...

 

Marty, I'm not sure what's really motivating your response above. After rereading your entry to few times, I'm reasonably sure what's actually bothering you is not really in the words that you wrote. 

 

The argument quoted just above is quite familiar--and frankly overused in that it is always used to justify almost anything that anyone wants to make.  That argument is always used to justify the implied one says that "I don't want to use more information to understand the situation and make a better informed decision", because of some perceived threat. I suppose that threat might be may be "I don't want to take measurements, because I might change my mind..."  is the vaccime.  This is, of course, just a guess.

 

The information that I provided above to the OP has the added benefit of potentially saving a casual audiophile perhaps many thousands of dollars on devices of  type that cost the makers mere pennies on the dollar to produce (...like Bose for instance). 

 

Chris

Sorry Chris, didn't mean to imply that measurements have no impact in developing, or evaluating or improving a system.  Quite the contrary.I applaud the engineers and scientists that have crated  through their arcane deliberations, quantitative and qualitative improvements in the realm of sound reproduction. Indeed I offered you an invite to help me take those numerous test records I have to take measurements and post them. 

 

Hopefully you well know by know I respect you and would never deliberately offend you.

 

Part of what I was getting at, was that Tarheel was using his ears only, (and of course the mind and heart follows the ears where music is concerned), not objective data.

 

You are also correct in stating that digital carries more of the totality of the recording than analogue,  ie vinyl and tape. 

 

But we part at  what constitutes distortion. I love listening to every note and nuance digital playback can offer.  But in the end it's magic not a correct, distortion free , experience I'm after. I've said this before, and its hardly scientific, but my belly compliments my ears when it comes to distortion. Every year it grows larger and more discerning of distortion, and it can always tell digital from analogue.   I don't need the last shimmer of the snare, the missed note from the 3rd violinist, but the real magic that true analogue offers. When I drop that needle, I'm chasing a rainbow, not listening to tick tock of a metronome perched atop a piano.

 

Went to the DC Audio Show two weeks ago. Finest speakers in the land, even the outside speakers cost 3 grand. Listened to about twenty systems and most had turntables and cd players hooked up. Every single time, without looking I knew what they were using.

[mikebse2a3]

8 hours ago, Max2 said:

I don't see how in the heck you can get the kind of midrange involving creamy, dynamic, clear vocals from a 5 or 6 inch cone driver and a 1 inch dome tweeter when compared to a true performance oriented horn mid, but there are lots of others here to confirm this by experience I guess.  

 

 

 

 

When matched with a quality amplifier the LS50 has amazing realistic clarity and dynamic vocals.

 

Excellent attention to engineering and physcoacoustics research taken into account.  See pdf link

 

https://www.kefdirect.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/documents/ls50/ls50_white_paper.pdf

 

 

miketn 🙂

 

[Max2]

5 hours ago, Deang said:

I find most of what Chris has to say immensely interesting. My issue is that money isn’t what it used to be, and I don’t have the time. Between work and kids - it’s tough. With Chris, I’ve come to conclusion that if I feel like I’m disagreeing - it’s probably because I’m not fully understanding. 

Im there too.  Chris reads air better than anyone here IMO.  

 

I need him and his laptop for a couple hours in my room to show me in not even close to where I thought I was with my setup 😀

[Deang]

Ya, I heard that!

[Max2]

1 hour ago, mikebse2a3 said:

 

 

 

 

When matched with a quality amplifier the LS50 has amazing realistic clarity and dynamic vocals.

 

Excellent attention to engineering and physcoacoustics research taken into account.  See pdf link

 

https://www.kefdirect.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/documents/ls50/ls50_white_paper.pdf

 

 

miketn 🙂

 

 

Mike don't tell me all I needed was a pair of those 4 feet in the air and my sub to best what I have.   Im actually listening to a pair of these KEF LS's on youtube through my KG4's out in my shop. I must say they don't sound bad at all even through my KG's and from youtube no less   His mic may be dialed down, but would be better at a meter off at least.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marvel]

1 hour ago, mikebse2a3 said:

Excellent attention to engineering and physcoacoustics research taken into account.  

 

And only $1299.99 a pair (list).

[ClaudeJ1]

10 hours ago, Max2 said:

I don't see how in the heck you can get the kind of midrange involving creamy, dynamic, clear vocals from a 5 or 6 inch cone driver and a 1 inch dome tweeter when compared to a true performance oriented horn mid, but there are lots of others here to confirm this by experience I guess.    I gave up a few decades ago with the plethora of tower offerings such as the  Norman Lab movement.  It seems drivers have changed a bit as well as the dome tweeters, but without amplifying with a horn, I still see a glorified Polk or a Norman tower.

I agree with this notion, which is why I summarize all direct radiator speakers (the million and one "sameness") as "Air  Pushers." While calling horns "air squeezers." The transient response of live drums in a room are the ultimate test, which can reach well over 125 db on the transients.............all horns like Jubes or Danleys can reproduce that, but that's not how we all listen "safely all day," at 85 dbA SPL. This is why if I can't have horns, speakers like the latest Carvers, with a tall line of Planar Transducers have an impulse response rivaling horns, or the latest offerings in the CBT world from Don Keele. If you have to use "air pushers" then you need lots of motors and cones to get the transients and dynamics of horns, and even then, horns still win. An Open Baffle setup with lots of woofers (8 15" woofers per channel in Open Baffle) like my good friend has done with the best of electronics do put out a sound that is second to none and very dynamic with lots and lots of "motors" doing the work in a 3-way system that's flat to 20 Hz. without subs.

[MEH Synergy]

An Open Baffle setup with lots of woofers (8 15" woofers per channel in Open Baffle) like my good friend has done with the best of electronics do put out a sound that is second to none and very dynamic with lots and lots of "motors" doing the work in a 3-way system that's flat to 20 Hz. without subs.

 

This I wanna see 

[ClaudeJ1]

29 minutes ago, Marvel said:

 

And only $1299.99 a pair (list).

$999 on Amazon. Great price for I'm sure what is a very nice product. Reminds me of what Andrew Jones did for a German speakers company after he left KEF and TAD.

[ClaudeJ1]

1 hour ago, Westcoastdrums said:

An Open Baffle setup with lots of woofers (8 15" woofers per channel in Open Baffle) like my good friend has done with the best of electronics do put out a sound that is second to none and very dynamic with lots and lots of "motors" doing the work in a 3-way system that's flat to 20 Hz. without subs.

 

This I wanna see 

Here you go, here's AlphaSaurus Open Baffle (2nd place winners at Midwest Audio Fest 2 years ago) Tang Band 8's and Ribbon Tweeter. 8 Eminence Alpha 15's per cabinet (16 total) staggered array and slot loaded to front with open back...........got BASS??. They are now being modified to remove the Dapplito Mids and add a new front with  about 40 1" Neo tweeters and 30 midranges per side for OB line array. These have about $2,200 in drivers alone, maybe $1,000 for solid Cherrywood fronts and Baltic Birch Lumber, and who knows hom much for the passive parts, maybe $500 more...........

[ClaudeJ1]

Here are interim speakers for listening while working on the Line Array for the Alphasaurus above. 6 10" High Q closeout drivers, Bohlender Graebener Planar Magnetic Ribbon, Planar Tweeter mounted by the woofers, passive networks. They get down to 25 Hz. and are totally Holographic in their presentation..........you can hear 3D depth of piano key locations in the soundfield. Amazing. Driven by Audio Research class D and a $19,000 DAC thru Pass Labs Pre-Amp (choice electronics beyond scope of this text).

 

[parlophone1]

Remind me of big old Infinities