View Full Version : "Music stranglers" in reference to NVA
I've just seen this post on PFM on a thread about NVA amplifiers from a chap called 'adieadie':
Richard is a bit sensitive about speaker pairing (and errr, most other things ) but says that a simple design of speaker, without notch filters or complex crossovers are crucial to not "strangle" the music.
He liked the look of the merlin's, and I think he also liked the look of the druid speakers along with Royd, Audio Note and said that Dynaudio are a safe'ish bet - all of which appear to use simple designs and quality parts.
He doesnt recommend ATC, Spendor, Harbeth, B&W... These are MUSIC STRANGLERS
LOL. What utter tosh!
I use Spendor SP100s and the last thing you could call them is "music stranglers". Any ATCs and Harbeths I've heard certainly do not come into this category either.
Apparently 'adieadie' is getting this nonsense from Richard. Care to comment, Richard?
Marco.
jandl100
19-03-2008, 09:01
Well, as an NVA owner (A80 monoblocks) and having tried a lot of the NVA kit (thanks Richard!) ... I guess I do maybe have a feel for where Richard's coming from with these alleged comments.
I guess Marco's a bit sensitive as he loves his Spendors, which is fine of course :) ..... but ..... well, a lot of the speakers cited in "Richard's Book Of Strangled Speakers" are in the classic BBC Monitor tradition. A neutral tonal response is 1st and foremost in the design criteria.* Which is fine, as all things are a compromise and you just have to pick your own personal list of priorities. But to achieve that flat frequency response, you do need a fancy cross-over and that can have a detrimental effect on the openness and transparency of things. I'd say that it does impede the release of the music and slow things down. Is that "strangling"? - well, in Richard's vocabulary, maybe.
But come on, folks - let's not get trapped in the cage of our own subjective preferences, and at least recognise that there is more than one way of designing a speaker - and that many (all?) of these ways have their own merits and de-merits.
As a wicked generalisation, my own view (based on a fairly extensive history of speaker ownership) is that the price paid for a realistic frequency response is a dilution of speed and transparency.
_______
I can imagine this thread degenerating into a slanging match - and that would be a shame as there are interesting points to be made here.
____________
* I've measured a pair of Rogers Export Monitors at home - and was truly flabbergasted to see a ruler flat frequency response. You really don't see that in other approaches to speaker design.
Hi Jerry,
I guess Marco's a bit sensitive as he loves his Spendors, which is fine of course :)
No, not at all; I'm not 'precious' about my hi-fi.
I just think that "Music stranglers" is a somewhat inappropriate (and IMO inaccurate) description of Spendor speakers given what I'm used to hearing.
I'm quite sure if you listened to my SP100s that's the last thing you'd say about them. I think anyone who's heard my system (such as Steve) would agree. They're incredibly open and detailed sounding, and communicate whatever music is played through them in all its glory. They're very 'neutral', yes, but 'strangling' the music - definitely not!
If the criticism had been that they're lacking in character, ruthlessly revealing, or even ugly (!) I would have accepted it because it's fair comment :)
Perhaps Richard has never heard a pair of SP100s? They have a very different balance to any other Spendor loudspeakers, and they most definitely don't sound like BC1s! Or the SP1/2s you had for sale recently ;)
Or perhaps NVA amplifiers require a speaker with a certain type of sonic signature in order to produce their designed sound?
If you've got a copy of this month's Hi-fi+ then check out the review of the SP100R by Chris Thomas; he's got a very good handle on how they sound.
Marco.
P.S This thread will definitely NOT turn into a ‘slagging’ match. I simply seek clarification from Richard on his comments and a degree of factual accuracy.
Er, aren't sp100's big ? and old ? and legacy kit ? and in museums ?
and if they do strangle, then disconnect the xovers and feed 'em active xover-tri amp. £2k should fix it.
LOL. No, they're current stock top-of-the range monitors:
http://www.spendoraudio.com/
Click on 'Classic 'R' Series' for the SP100.
Marco.
P.S They're rather lovely in Rosewood, too! Oh, and Ashley rates them highly, if that makes a difference ;)
Oh yeah, they look alright, if you feel you need a 12" willy, er, I mean driver.
I've not got much confidence in 3-way passive xovers, so I'd use electronic and six monobloks.
I'm doing that to a pair of spkrs at the moment.
I think Ash should make some like that but he says no-one in the UK buys large spkrs new.
oops, forgot the ;) again
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 10:37
I have heard those SP100's numerous times and driven with a variety of amplifiers, though never ones that I'd choose. The worst was a £30K Audionote Ongaku in Paris when they did sound utterly foul, however given any reasonable front end I'd say they are one of the best speakers made and I really like them.
All the measurements we've made of music (an £80 Maplin scope would do) shows a requirement for peaks of 300 - 400 Watts just to listen at normal levels although the continuous requirement is only fraction of a Watt, so I think Richard's Amps aren't powerful enough for modern recordings and this is why he's criticising an extremely good speaker. Modern drive units have more dynamic range than older ones and tend to reveal more obviously underpowered Amps - Instead of booming and spitting, they just spit.
Somewhere else I've commented on the problems of crossovers in three-way speakers so anyone interested can search it out.
One point I would make is this practice (mostly of old) of using the crossover to correct anomalies in the amplitude response of the drive units. It's not good and no longer necessary, most drive units sold now measure well, their usual problem being not enough bandwidth. We take the view that the drive voltages (the music) must be delivered to the drive units phase and amplitude perfect and that unless the drive units are good enough for you to do this, you shouldn't use them. You can't spoil the signal to improve the drive unit, that's what they did years ago because they didn't realise that most people find phase errors more unpleasant than amplitude irregularities, which they probably wouldn't even hear.
Steve Toy
19-03-2008, 10:44
Good post Ashley (at bloody last). I think Marco was thinking of going active with them by buying another 4 ECS monoblocks and an active crossover. At 200 Watts and a 1500 VA transformer per box they would have done the job. However, subjectivity took over and a more musical sound (including better dynamics) was derived from a 30 wpc Chinese valve amplifier costing buttons.
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 10:49
Going Active is a good idea if it's done by people who understand the requirement and who know how to design the electronics.
Going Active using proprietary bits won't have the desired result, there are loads of active speakers around that haven't convinced people of the benefits and it's with good reason.
I've just seen this post on PFM on a thread about NVA amplifiers from a chap called 'adieadie':
LOL. What utter tosh!
I use Spendor SP100s and the last thing you could call them is "music stranglers". Any ATCs and Harbeths I've heard certainly do not come into this category either.
Apparently 'adieadie' is getting this nonsense from Richard. Care to comment, Richard?
Marco.
This comes from 1992 interview with a Taiwanese Hi-Fi rag. The whole inteview is at www.nene-valley-audio.com
"The prominent point, the No 1 guideline for me is simplicity. After simplicity, I look at what is required for the amplifier to actually `live' in the real world. Now, living in the real world is having to drive a speaker, and an amplifier has to live with a loudspeaker as a partner, so I have to design an amplifier to drive loudspeakers. Now, I cannot, I am not responsible for what loudspeakers people design. If I were to design an amplifier that could drive any loudspeaker, then I would design an amplifier that was highly compensated and band-limited, etc. So again, you have a situation that this is not a universal amplifier. There are situations that will make this amplifier not necessarily be distressed or damaged, but will make the amplifier not sound as good as it should. Now, it normally works out OK if my No 1 principle has been applied, a loudspeaker should be simple because again, all forms of cabinets, all forms of crossovers, all forms of capacitors, all forms of drive units, or resistors, they are all filtering, all holding information, all doing things. My own mind tells me, if you can design the HF driver to work with simple 1st order low frequency roll off, if you can design a bass driver to work with no crossover network, if you can design a cabinet that will work properly without any form of damping, that is a good loudspeaker. So if you mix a simple speaker with a simple amplifier, you've got it. If you mix a complicated speaker with a multi component, multi order crossover network that is making phase changes all over the place, and highly damped cabinet, OK, maybe you will end up with the situation that the only thing you want to listen to is the human voice, the way BBC design their speakers, you get the voice sounding right. OK, if that is what you want, but it kills the music, it kills emotion, kills the surge, kills the separation. So, that is the load I want to drive"
What Jerry says is right, people try to do too much with loudspeakers. I call the process "in order not to do anything wrong, they kill the chance of doing anything right". Too much damping, not enough rigidity unless it sets off resonance (what the hell is a loudspeaker but controlled resonance), far too much crossover complexity - once you get past 3rd order filters you are making the amplifier drive current out of phase with voltage. If you have a voltage drive amp (valves) you have far less sonic reaction to this than with current drive circuits.
BTW you can add Kef to that list. For me it is a question of design principle. Speaker companies have a habit of designing in isolation as they are the last link in the chain. They design for what they want to see on charts mostly and if that make the amplifier complain, then "tuff sort your amps out as my speaker are right" - a form of arrogance. The opposite are people who deliberately "voice" speakers for their amps or their prefered amps. Linn and Naim are classic examples, in Naims case to the point that they turn some their speakers into a complete anathema. This voicing for amps used to go on with every speaker until the BBC type design came along which the (in my terms) guilty companies got off on "reproduction of spoken voice". Back in the golden days of Altec - Electro Voice etc they were voiced for very simple valve circuits, to the point that now if you use a modern solid state with them they sound *dirty*. This is used by many valve fanatics to show the inherent superiority of valve, not so!! it is just another form of voicing.
Everything in music reproduction is compromise, and one mans good compromise is another mans anathema. I *do not* design and build for everyone. I design and build *for me* if others agree with me I sell product, if not too bad I will listen too them and do something else to make a living. I am not and these products are not ruled by marketing men :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Good post Ashley (at bloody last). I think Marco was thinking of going active with them by buying another 4 ECS monoblocks and an active crossover. At 200 Watts and a 1500 VA transformer per box they would have done the job. However, subjectivity took over and a more musical sound (including better dynamics) was derived from a 30 wpc Chinese valve amplifier costing buttons.
Indeed. Would you describe the SP100s as "music stranglers", Steve - especially the last time you heard them with the Yaqin and your Spectral preamp?
Marco.
Interesting post, Richard, and thanks for that :)
I won't challenge any of your technical observations because I'm not in a position to do so.
However the only thing I would stress is that this:
OK, maybe you will end up with the situation that the only thing you want to listen to is the human voice, the way BBC design their speakers, you get the voice sounding right. OK, if that is what you want, but it kills the music, it kills emotion, kills the surge, kills the separation. So, that is the load I want to drive"
is definitely not what I'm hearing with the SP100s in my system. If they sounded like that they'd be in the bin.
Can I ask if you've ever heard a current pair of Spendors such as the SP100s, or are you basing your opinion on old designs such as the BC1, LS35a, etc?
Incidentally, this isn't just a Spendor 'thing'. I wouldn't attribute the characteristics you describe to ATCs or Harbeths, either. I've heard ATC 50s and 100s, and Harbeth Compact 7s, and neither exhibited the traits you describe.
Maybe it would be better, and more accurate, to say something along the lines of "BBC designs aren't the most compatible with my amps" or "BBC designs aren't to my taste" than classifying all Spendor, Harbeth and ATC speakers as "Music stranglers"?
Just a thought!
Marco.
Of course what the industry needs is to move to high powered amps 200W min, better 1KW to give the head room needed. No way should manufactures try to design or even think of designing lighter and more efficient drive units that need less power to drive them because that would mean they wouldn't be able to use Class B bridged SS amp topologies with 35db or more of feedback to keep it all linear.
Interesting post, Richard, and thanks for that :)
I won't challenge any of your technical observations because I'm not in a position to do so.
However the only thing I would stress is that this:
is definitely not what I'm hearing with the SP100s in my system. If they sounded like that they'd be in the bin.
Can I ask if you've ever heard a current pair of Spendors such as the SP100s, or are you basing your opinion on old designs such as the BC1, LS35a, etc?
Incidentally, this isn't just a Spendor 'thing'. I wouldn't attribute the characteristics you describe to ATCs or Harbeths, either. I've heard ATC 50s and 100s, and Harbeth Compact 7s and neither exhibited the traits you describe.
Maybe it would be better, and more accurate, to say something along the lines of "BBC designs aren't the most compatible with my amps" or "BBC designs aren't to my taste" than classifying all Spendor, Harbeth and ATC speakers as "Music stranglers"?
Just a thought!
Marco.
Do you work for The Sun????
I never called anything a music strangler, I wrote what I wrote, adieadie read what he read and interpreted what he needed.
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 11:21
I agree with Richard that some loudspeakers are silly loads and as a result they force amplifier manufacturers to make much larger and more expensive ones to cope.
In an Active speaker where only a single drive unit per amp is being used, a pair of transistors, lots of volts, not many amps, not much heatsink and a moderate Toroid can be designed that will actually perform better than a stand alone alternative that needs lots of output devices, huge expensive heat sinks, massive power supplies and so on.
The British Hi Fi Industry has continued to make low powered amplifiers that don't have sufficient dynamic range for modern recordings and can't cope with awkward loads. Meanwhile transducer designers have increased the dynamic range of loudspeakers and these simply show the limitations of outdated amplifiers. In the old days, loudspeakers Boomed and Tizzed and didn't have much mid, you could get by on low powered amps. Now that Bass is better controlled, you can't, which is why Naim has become so controversial.
Modern low powered amplifiers realise loudspeaker problems and not only clip tidily, but also often have a "soft" clipping arrangement so can sound pleasant if lacking clarity and punch. They are not hi fi.
LOL @ the Sun!
Thanks for the clarification about "Music stranglers", Richard.
Have you ever heard a recent pair of Spendors, or in particular, the SP100s?
I'm sorry to 'go on' about this but I would just like it made absolutely clear in the public domain.
Once done, I will contact 'adieadie' and ask him to retract his comments about "Music stranglers" because you didn't say it, and the term is not representative of your opinion on the speakers he described. Factual accuracy is very important on forums (and I insist on it here), as false information can lead to all sorts of problems! ;)
Marco.
Of course what the industry needs is to move to high powered amps 200W min, better 1KW to give the head room needed. No way should manufactures try to design or even think of designing lighter and more efficient drive units that need less power to drive them because that would mean they wouldn't be able to use Class B bridged SS amp topologies with 35db or more of feedback to keep it all linear.
Something like that, but your heavily veiled criticisms are rather out of date. Thats why I don't like most old kit.
Also you need to think more about the whole signal path and the relationship between gain and power.
In spite of the bad press the term got in the late sixties and seventies, and recently with toy computer stuff, what actually matters is the true "peak power" capability. The amount of "gain" required to achieve a desired spl is often relatively modest, and the modern tendency to use audio compression to make things seem louder disguises things even more, and causes many amps to distort far too easily.
The cleanest sound is provided by an amp with at least 300w peak capability and 30w jobs are awful, even though some may like the clipping and distortion which occurs.
I should have put this in "musings" really, but it would be out of context.
p.s. horns don't help they're crap too.
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 11:27
Of course what the industry needs is to move to high powered amps 200W min, better 1KW to give the head room needed. No way should manufactures try to design or even think of designing lighter and more efficient drive units that need less power to drive them because that would mean they wouldn't be able to use Class B bridged SS amp topologies with 35db or more of feedback to keep it all linear.
If music is to be reproduced accurately then this post is absolutely right and it mimics an April Fool Article in the Wireless World in 1970.
There is a common misconception that drive unit sensitivity can be increased so that bigger amps aren't needed. Quite apart from the break ups that aren't controllable in lighter diaphragms, there's the issue of bass extension. Sensitivity only increases in the Mid Band, the bass stays where it was, therefore the lower the sensitivity, the greater the bass extension. Modern drive units are what the majority consider an acceptable compromise of the two requirements and there isn't scope to change it.
Horns are not suitable and were ousted years ago because they were as good as the direct radiating speakers we use now.
My apologies for intruding on the discussion but may I direct your attention to Mark's reply regarding your comments yesterday about the TDA1541 S1 DAC chip:
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=4498#post4498
Your comments would be appreciated :)
Marco.
LOL @ the Sun!
Thanks for the clarification about "Music stranglers", Richard.
Have you ever heard a recent pair of Spendors, or in particular, the SP100s?
I'm sorry to 'go on' about this but I would just like it made absolutely clear in the public domain.
Once done, I will contact 'adieadie' and ask him to retract his comments about "Music stranglers" because you didn't say it, and the term is not representative of your opinion of the speakers described. Factual accuracy is very important on forums (and I insist on it here), as false information can lead to all sorts of problems! ;)
Marco.
Silly arse, you really are getting on your high horse - do you own shares in Spendor - is it a product of your loins, or perhaps you just w*** over them :eyebrows:
Music stranglers is a perfectly good interpretation of what I said, I just didn't say it in those words.
I don't go to shows or shops or buy product, so I don't listen in your terms anymore. Pointless if I did as they would all have to come home to judge. I stopped that pointless nonsense in 2000 and I have one reference - music, and how *I* want to hear it.
I really cannot remember if I have ever heard your speakers or not which is why I didn't answer. If designed since 2000 then definitely no. Please understand - you are speaking to a grumpy fossilised old git who should have been put out to audio pastures years ago. When you have been doing this for over 30 years a lot of things I have said can be called up. All is valid though because it refers to principle, not specifics. Spendor had a design principle (maybe not anymore) which I hated and dissagreed with.
LOL. All is crystal clear, Richard!
I simply like factual accuracy, that's all. Something either is something or it isn't.
Marco.
Richard, if sp100's are no good, what do you suggest ?
Richard, if sp100's are no good, what do you suggest ?
That you shut up and give the forum a chance to breathe!
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 12:18
I think Richard is killing this thread!
Steve Toy
19-03-2008, 17:03
Indeed. Would you describe the SP100s as "music stranglers", Steve - especially the last time you heard them with the Yaqin and your Spectral preamp?
In a word: no.
jandl100
19-03-2008, 17:27
Indeed. Would you describe the SP100s as "music stranglers", Steve - especially the last time you heard them with the Yaqin and your Spectral preamp?
Marco.
Fair enough - but I suspect you do have to go to the top of the Spendor line to escape the particular compromises evident in lesser Spendors. I can't be bothered to check, but I think it was £5k for the new S100R? Spend a lot less on a Spendor and you get curtailed (strangled) dynamics and transparency, imho. Don't get me wrong, you get lots of good things too - but it's all a compromise at less than cost-no-object prices, and to get a flat freq response something else has to give.
As you spotted, Marco, I had the Spendor SP1/2 and prior to that the Rogers Export Monitor - both very fine speakers in their way, but definitely on the strangled side, which for me was a compromise I didn't want to accept. I've currently got some JR149 and JR150 speakers - now they aren't strangled, but they have less bass weight and mid-range 'oomph' among their particular compromises. I prefer that sound, others wouldn't.
We'll see what my new Proac Future Point 5s sound like when they arrive soon (they were shipped from the dealer today! :)).
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 17:44
They are old fashioned and soft in the Bass, which results in the recessed mid I'd guess you're referring to.
Big Amps make a big difference because they have lots of headroom and control the bass better. Most clipping on modern music is caused by kick drums or the electronic equivalent. If the amp doesn't have sufficient headroom, when it clips it puts a burst of DC in at about 60 Hz and the mid suffers.
They are old fashioned and soft in the Bass, which results in the recessed mid I'd guess you're referring to.
Big Amps make a big difference because they have lots of headroom and control the bass better. Most clipping on modern music is caused by kick drums or the electronic equivalent. If the amp doesn't have sufficient headroom, when it clips it puts a burst of DC in at about 60 Hz and the mid suffers.
Complete bollocks.
I really don't believe the complete crap that spouts from your mouth about amplifiers design and speaker interface. More fool anyone who listens or takes you seriously!
Please I would love to know - what have you ever designed apart from your ego???
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 18:05
Richard why don't you download a copy of Joan Armatrading's Me Myself I and buy an £80 Scope from Maplin. All you do is connect it to the speaker terminals having set it to an appropriate voltage (your amps peak volts) and play the track at slightly above normal listening levels. I suspect that you'll have a bit of a shock
12 years ago or more we designed and built a unit that connected to the loudspeaker terminals of an amplifier and displayed the continuous average power requirement, the instantaneous peak requirement and a red light flashed every time the Amp clipped. We took it to the Heathrow Show and demonstrated exactly how much power was needed to reproduce a broad cross section of recordings. As I recall, most of our illustrious hi fi Press turned out for it and appeared to understand what was going on. I think Anthony Michaelson popped in to.
Typically the continuous requirement is for a fraction of a Watt, but the peaks run into hundreds all the time and they aren't what you expect; Drums are obvious, but voices, French Horns, pianos and many other instruments that you don't expect to, need an awful lot of instantaneous power, much more than most amplifiers produce. It isn't obvious that they are clipping but if you change to a more powerful amplifier, the improvement in clarity is striking - Hence the success of our now discontinued Lab Series Integrated.
Richard why don't you download a copy of Joan Armatrading's Me Myself I and buy an £80 Scope from Maplin. All you do is connect it to the speaker terminals having set it to an appropriate voltage (your amps peak volts) and play the track at slightly above normal listening levels. I suspect that you'll have a bit of a shock
12 years ago or more we designed and built a unit that connected to the loudspeaker terminals of an amplifier and displayed the continuous average power requirement, the instantaneous peak requirement and a red light flashed every time the Amp clipped. We took it to the Heathrow Show and demonstrated exactly how much power was needed to reproduce a broad cross section of recordings. As I recall, most of our illustrious hi fi Press turned out for it and appeared to understand what was going on. I think Anthony Michaelson popped in to.
Typically the continuous requirement is for a fraction of a Watt, but the peaks run into hundreds all the time and they aren't what you expect; Drums are obvious, but voices, French Horns, pianos and many other instruments that you don't expect to, need an awful lot of instantaneous power, much more than most amplifiers produce. It isn't obvious that they are clipping but if you change to a more powerful amplifier, the improvement in clarity is striking - Hence the success of our now discontinued Lab Series Integrated.
Don't try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs, I have been using scopes since I built my first one with guv surplus radar tube. You really are a pretentious prat, I know *exactly* what a scope can tell me and what it can't, where as you obviously don't.
Once again I ask - what have you ever designed in order for you to spout with such authority on amplifier design and loudspeaker interface?
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 18:19
Richard I've got a choice of engineers to ask if I need to, but in this instance, all I had to do was look at two digital displays and a flashing red light. I rose to the challenge.
IMO it's a failure to grasp this fact that has done so much damage to the reputation of Hi Fi in this country. Big Amps do sound better.
Well... there is one answer that springs to mind here..
DO NOT LISTEN WITH A F***ING SCOPE!!! USE YOUR EARS INSTEAD!!!
Flashing red lights, aw come on!!!
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 19:35
We were listening! That how were able to tell amps sound better if they aren't clipping.
Measuring and listen go together. If you hear something then you try to isolate and measure it, then when you reduce it, the measurements will tell you by how much.
And if you're good at measuring, you can predict how something will sound before you listen and save time.
you can predict how something will sound before you listen and save time.
Oh!
Does that mean you can instantly write off anything 'old' or with a valve in it?
I doubt you have measured, or listened too, a great deal of the equipment that JC's Bum has stated (several times, in several treads) is crap/past it/fit only for the skip (or words to that effect) simply because they are not new?
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 19:53
Oh!
Does that mean you can instantly write off anything 'old' or with a valve in it?
I doubt you have measured, or listened too, a great deal of the equipment that JC's Bum has stated (several times, in several treads) is crap/past it/fit only for the skip (or words to that effect) simply because they are not new?
Not from me you haven't but JCBrum has had a go.
You have to remember that I'm a manufacturer who needs to do something to give himself an edge, I have to be bang up to date and I have to be able to sell sufficient quantities for it to be made on automatic machines in order to minimise the risk of failure when it reaches the customer.
Valved hi fi is a miniscule market, but Martin does have a collection of old radios going back to 1923 and he's a Radio Amateur who sometimes uses WWII gear to talk to people around the World. We have a respect for old or interesting and very well made equipment, but a loathing for overpriced bullshit and incompetent design of which there is a plentiful supply in hi fi.
As far as we are concerned Cambridge Audio has proved our comments are justified. It's bloody good sounding and real value for money. Rotel and Nad are good, honest products too and everyone thinking of buying loony tunes hi end should make sure it's better than these companies, because it often isn't.
Thanks Ashley,
I like that answer! :)
You clearly have the ability to be far more errr, 'diplomatic' than JC often is!
It's probably unfair of me to ask you to speak on his behalf. :sorry:
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 20:02
He loves a fight and means no harm!
I hate fights and prefer to take more careful aim if I have a beef.
We were listening! That how were able to tell amps sound better if they aren't clipping.
Measuring and listen go together. If you hear something then you try to isolate and measure it, then when you reduce it, the measurements will tell you by how much.
And if you're good at measuring, you can predict how something will sound before you listen and save time.
This is soooooo pathatic, you don't even know what clipping is or how an oscilloscope functions and yet you come on here and tell us what is what!!!!!!!!!!
Tell me little marketing man what clipping are you refering to - Current or voltage, which one is the sound killer and which one means your over exhuberant kick drums don't qiute kick so hard. To be honest to tell the difference between an electronically clipping kick drum and a physically clipping one because it is kicked too hard is very much a moot one.
You are talking arrant nonsense and you even look down on your tech-ies like all marketing men - "oh I have engineers to tell me that" if I was you engineer I know what I would tell you :lolsign:
And this notion that a couple of LED's strapped to the output stage of an amp tells you anything of any significance is bizzarre to say the least. Probably the marketing man asked the tech-ie for something to blind the punters with false science and impress them so he can talk about it for half an hour, 'cos that is the only purpose for it. The tech-ie was probably laughing all the way back to his bench.
Please go away or talk about marketing as you are making a fool of yourself.
....download a copy of Joan Armatrading's Me Myself I and buy an £80 Scope from Maplin. All you do is connect it to the speaker terminals having set it to an appropriate voltage (your amps peak volts) and play the track at slightly above normal listening levels. I suspect that you'll have a bit of a shock...
I will try this tomorrow...I'm intrigued...
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 21:38
When I was at ATC we had a spate of Bass driver failures, the cones were being snapped off the neck of the voice coil by the drum in this track. When we played at a continuous 600 milliwatts the drum required 600 Watts! It's a good drum sound but doesn't seem that loud.
On a PA rig, they were clipping a 350 watt amp into the Bass driver, part of it was obscured by the enclosure so that it rocked violently and broke the glue joint.
People used to think that Classical Music had a greater dynamic range because Pop has been heavily compressed for years, it is, but there are loads of recordings out there which have all sorts of unexpected peaks in them and they are usually greater than Classical Music.
I wanted to come back to this and report my findings.
Do you need 100 or even 200W to truly reproduce the dynamics in of a recording?
Following Ash’s recommendation I used the Joan Armatrading track ‘Me Myself I’, I have this track on CD so I ripped it to my music server in FLAC format.
Playing the track at my normal listening level I saw drum impacts hitting approx 12~14v Pk-Pk on my ‘scope, this had a sound pressure of about 82db C weighted at my listening position. This is with 88db @ 1W /1M ‘speakers, minimum impedance 6Ohm.
Turning the volume up until I was hitting approx 32v Pk-Pk on the drum impacts the sound was loud, loud enough to rattle some ornaments and the windows, this was uncomfortable but not too painful. Max. SPL at my listening position was just under 100db .
Working back the figures to the operating point of my amp it appeared to be just at the point of clipping, this was for a 15w RMS valve amplifier. I also had a 28W amplifier to hand but felt there was no need in proceeding further.
It occurred to me, this all depends on 3 things:
1) How efficient are the ‘speakers
2) How large is the room or space you are trying to fill
3) How loud do you want to listen
4) Oh! And how the amplifier clips…
For me the premise of needing 100 or even 200w of amplifier power to fully reproduce dynamics is folly. I have moderately efficient ‘speakers and a room size that is typical of the average British living room (12x16ft). I don’t need to listen at very high levels, at my normal levels there is more than enough head room available as admirably demonstrated by playing ‘Angel’ by Sarah Mclachlan.
I don’t feel the need to peruse or discuss this any further.
anthonyTD
20-03-2008, 22:28
I wanted to come back to this and report my findings.
Do you need 100 or even 200W to truly reproduce the dynamics in of a recording?
Following Ash’s recommendation I used the Joan Armatrading track ‘Me Myself I’, I have this track on CD so I ripped it to my music server in FLAC format.
Playing the track at my normal listening level I saw drum impacts hitting approx 12~14v Pk-Pk on my ‘scope, this had a sound pressure of about 82db C weighted at my listening position. This is with 88db @ 1W /1M ‘speakers, minimum impedance 6Ohm.
Turning the volume up until I was hitting approx 32v Pk-Pk on the drum impacts the sound was loud, loud enough to rattle some ornaments and the windows, this was uncomfortable but not too painful. Max. SPL at my listening position was just under 100db .
Working back the figures to the operating point of my amp it appeared to be just at the point of clipping, this was for a 15w RMS valve amplifier. I also had a 28W amplifier to hand but felt there was no need in proceeding further.
It occurred to me, this all depends on 3 things:
1) How efficient are the ‘speakers
2) How large is the room or space you are trying to fill
3) How loud do you want to listen
4) Oh! And how the amplifier clips…
For me the premise of needing 100 or even 200w of amplifier power to fully reproduce dynamics is folly. I have moderately efficient ‘speakers and a room size that is typical of the average British living room (12x16ft). I don’t need to listen at very high levels, at my normal levels there is more than enough head room available as admirably demonstrated by playing ‘Angel’ by Sarah Mclachlan.
I don’t feel the need to peruse or discuss this any further.
I agree with this account, as i suspect will many others on here, nice one!!!
Hi Jerry,
I've just noticed this post!
Fair enough - but I suspect you do have to go to the top of the Spendor line to escape the particular compromises evident in lesser Spendors.
Actually, I agree with that. I've either owned or heard most of the speakers in the Spendor range and none sound as 'complete' overall as the SP100s. Obviously at £5k there is considerably more scope for a manufacturer to use the best quality drive units and components available to get things right, and this shows in the SP100s.
The 'S' series range are voiced entirely differently to the 'Classic' series, and have a much more 'commercial' and forgiving if less 'accurate' balance that's likely to suit a broader range of tastes and systems, whereas each model in the 'Classic' series is a genuine monitor in the BBC tradition and reflects Spendors historical roots in loudspeaker design.
However it is only when you arrive at the SP100 that the compromises you outline in the speakers further down the range are fully rectified. If you examine the drive units alone used in the SP100s you will notice that they are entirely different to those employed in other models further down the range, not to mention a whole host of other aspects of the design that are less obvious at first glance but that are fundamentally important to their performance and the way the SP100s reproduce music so accurately and effortlessly.
I feel this episode highlights how much of a fallacy it is to categorise the signature of a manufacturer's loudspeakers without being in possession of all the necessary information - but I guess we're all human! :)
I hope that your Proac Future Point 5s deliver the goods :fingers:
Marco.
anthonyTD
20-03-2008, 23:08
I agree with this account, as i suspect will many others on here, nice one!!!
i cant resist, i have to make a few more observations when considering measurements with valve amps and solid state, a lot is down to the complicated feedback loops mainly found in solid state designs needed because some of the devices themselves without feedback have very non-linear characteristics, its also the amount of feedback used to linearise things thats the problem... thing is good valve amplifiers compared to most solid state designs dont need all this complication, maybe one over-all feedback loop, with maybe no more than around 10db of feedback, and thats it!!!
maybe what some people are seeing when measuring a solid state amplifier under test is not the output devices clipping because they dont have enough power, but the input devices, trying to drive, and over-come the choking affect of the feedback loops, thus the clipping affect being seen at the output, thus giving a misleading representation of whats really going on!!!
I like your style, Anthony. Quote yourself prompting a controversial subject for discussion and then reply to stir things up even further!! :lol:
Marco.
I like your style, Anthony. Quote yourself prompting a controversial subject for discussion and then reply to stir things up even further!! :lol:
Marco.
It is not controversial it is quite accepted part of *der knowledge*. A little simplistic perhaps, depends on + and - devices used some track each other better in class B circuits than others. Power Mosfets are the worse. Some sand designs have low feedback some have localised feedback, it is all compromise decisions. But non linearity is a problem faced by all designers bottle or sand, just different non linearities. The non linearity of a bad output transformer with bottles (even a good one interferes) is far more sonically interfering than feedback, as long as that is in relatively small doses.
Anthony, your opinion on OTL designs, have you ever made one.
anthonyTD
21-03-2008, 21:32
It is not controversial it is quite accepted part of *der knowledge*. A little simplistic perhaps, depends on + and - devices used some track each other better in class B circuits than others. Power Mosfets are the worse. Some sand designs have low feedback some have localised feedback, it is all compromise decisions. But non linearity is a problem faced by all designers bottle or sand, just different non linearities. The non linearity of a bad output transformer with bottles (even a good one interferes) is far more sonically interfering than feedback, as long as that is in relatively small doses.
Anthony, your opinion on OTL designs, have you ever made one.
hi richard,
i have looked at a few circuit topologies for OTL's over the years, but have never felt comfortable with the fact that your inherently using high inpedence devices [valves] in a way that they were never designed for, ok, your ultimately taking the output from the lowest impedence side of the valve in most OTL circuits [cathode/anode junction] but to get the impedence at this point low enough to drive a loud speaker direct, you either have to use many devices in parallel or use devices [usualy big transmitting triodes or the likes]that were never intended for use in audio, or a mixture of both! also, when these amps develope faults, especially an output valve failier, because unlike with a normal valve amplifier, where you have the output transformer to isolate the circuit from the speaker, in an OTL, you inherently have most of the circuits DC voltage straight across the speech coil of the speaker, which of course is not good! and yes there are ways of detecting this, but most designs dont react quick enough to prevent the premiture failier of high sensitive speakers.
anthony...
hi richard,
i have looked at a few circuit topologies for OTL's over the years, but have never felt comfortable with the fact that your inherently using high inpedence devices [valves] in a way that they were never designed for, ok, your ultimately taking the output from the lowest impedence side of the valve in most OTL circuits [cathode/anode junction] but to get the impedence at this point low enough to drive a loud speaker direct, you either have to use many devices in parallel or use devices [usualy big transmitting triodes or the likes]that were never intended for use in audio, or a mixture of both! also, when these amps develope faults, especially an output valve failier, because unlike with a normal valve amplifier, where you have the output transformer to isolate the circuit from the speaker, in an OTL, you inherently have most of the circuits DC voltage straight across the speech coil of the speaker, which of course is not good! and yes there are ways of detecting this, but most designs dont react quick enough to prevent the premiture failier of high sensitive speakers.
anthony...
I have always thought them bloody dangerous things.
If I was an insurance company I would put on the provisos for fire insurance "no OTL valve amplifiers".
However being the eternal muser about possibilty and probability in things audio. Methinks that tacking a pair of the latest high voltage power fets on the end may just give the impedence coupling and protection that is needed as the fets shut down if anything exceeds their expectations :)
An interesting hybrid :eyebrows:
Richard,
You want to hear some of Anthony's hand-built valve amplifiers - 'stunning' doesn't even begin to describe them... :wow:
Marco.
anthonyTD
21-03-2008, 22:35
I have always thought them bloody dangerous things.
If I was an insurance company I would put on the provisos for fire insurance "no OTL valve amplifiers".
However being the eternal muser about possibilty and probability in things audio. Methinks that tacking a pair of the latest high voltage power fets on the end may just give the impedence coupling and protection that is needed as the fets shut down if anything exceeds their expectations :)
An interesting hybrid :eyebrows:
hi richard,
i have used fets in a very similar configuration, and they work fine, and as you say, they are much safer!!!
Richard,
You want to hear some of Anthony's hand-built valve amplifiers - 'stunning' doesn't even begin to describe them... :wow:
Marco.
Oh chhrrrrist :lolsign: another j(esus)c(hrist)brum and this time a moderator, what chance do we stand.
Stop embarrassing Anthony, he doesn't need this, he stands and falls on his merit, and he seems a very sensible lad :eyebrows: to me.
AND what do you expect him to build them with, his bloody feet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:lol:
Oi merely weports on wot oi ears... :guitar:
Marco.
Oi merely weports on wot oi ears... :guitar:
Marco.
Thats the same thing JC said on the way to the cross (er I mean banning)
He's not banned, Richard, and neither is Ashley.
By the way, I'm am administrator not a moderator. Are those bi-focals getting a bit cloudy? :lolsign:
Marco.
He's not banned, Richard, and neither is Ashley.
By the way, I'm am administrator not a moderator. Are those bi-focals getting a bit cloudy? :lolsign:
Marco.
I always live in hope Marco.
Anyway take no notice I am in silly arse mood.
Can't *you* see, they have no glass in them.
Yes and you have no eyes, either. Poor sod!
Marco.
Yes and you have no eyes, either. Poor sod!
Marco.
I see with my ears :smoking:
And think with your arse!
:lol:
Marco.
And think with your arse!
:lol:
Marco.
Nope that has a completely different and vitally important function.
Lily Munster
22-03-2008, 00:44
That's interesting, Richard. I didn't know you were a rear gunner.
Lily x
That's interesting, Richard. I didn't know you were a rear gunner.
Lily x
Rear gunner :eyebrows: well that denotes an out function, and that is definitely how it function. In is not part of its repertoir.
I remember once attending the Frankfurter Messe and having heartburn and going to see the resident nurse, they always have one on duty at public functions in Germany, to see if she had a Rennie or such like. After amusing sign language and stilted German explanations she gave me a pill. As I tried to take it she exclaimed "nine, nine" and pointed at her bum. Well I put up with the heartburn :lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.